News-Record.com

Having just worked 42 hours in the past 3 days, I'm too tired too type much. I only wish I could sleep.

First off, the guy is correct, there have been several bogus attempts - some on purpose, some as accidents - to "prove" evolution.

Second, the guy is a bonehead, as are all creationists. I'd like him to discuss the original bogus attempt to explain creationism, which was that Maggots spontaniously generated on cow plop. As an young farm boy, I saw that happening many times, coincidentally at the same my High School Biology was teaching how this phenom' had been misunderstood for, or I don't know, maybe 3,000,000 years.

Finaly, if you want to really understand evolution, today enjoy the sun through the clouds - cause that's where it all begins, and frankly that's the hardest part. A quick summary:

Fusion is two atoms of hydrogen combining to make an atom of helium. It happens in the extremely rare event that a few hundred million individual H2 atoms randomly bounce to the same spot within a near billionth of a second. Rare - but there are so many, it happens. In the process some of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy as in: e = mc^2. If you don't believe that, then turn off your electricity 'cause 20% of that energy comes from reversing this reaction.

Later on, more fusion occurs as two atoms of helium combine together to make the next atom, all the way to the top of the period table.

Here's a good one - where does that helium com from that floats your party balloons. Think a factory makes it? Guess again.

All this takes place - repeatedly - over billions of years in suns - with huge quantities of energy released in the process. A few billion years later, stars consume themselves and collapes - only to blow up spewing dust all over the cosmos.

A billion years later, simple molecules are made, using energy form lightining and heat from planet centers (which are clouds of dust from the exploding stars slowly integrated into a single matter - via theory of gravity.

Much much later on, simply ammonia molecules are made, along with a few billion other compounds.
Much much later on, some of these more complex molecules are transformed by chance into amino acids.

All this is evolution.

OR - You can assume things like this are too complicated for anything but GOD to create. You also do not know how your computer works or why your car runs with gasoline and a spark.

This is another of those emotionally charged debates I refuse to enter into because neither side seems willing to give an inch toward any type of common agreement.

My opinion is simple, if evolution is truly the driving force behind all existence I hope with all my heart that Micheal Jackson and Paris Hilton are genetic anomalies and not a glimpse into the future development of mankind.

This letter makes several claims and explains none of them. I can accept that there is a word limit, but come on! For example, the assertion the LTE writer made about the Peppered Moth study is clear cut deception.

In 1998, Dr. Micheal Majerus from the Department of Genetics at Cambridge University re-examined Kettlewell's study. He concluded that the basic premise, that the moth's survival was greatly impacted by their ability to camouflage themselves, was correct. They also noted a marked decline in dark peppered moths once environmental laws impacted industrial areas of England.

Ernest Haeckel's Recapitulation theory has been generally discredited. However, it is considered to be partially accurate. The consensus seems to be that Haeckel was exaggerating his findings a bit. The writer wants you to think that all evolutionists espouse and believe the same things. In the world of the anti-evolutionist, anything a scientist gets wrong is a bold faced lie.

This is also true with the Nebraska man. It was not a hoax but a mistake. The disingenuous letter writer said "Pig's tooth" to make it sound like a hoax. The tooth probably belonged to a peccary which is often confused with pigs. They are not even from the same continent

Piltdown Man was a hoax. But, no credible scientists have used this example since the 50’s. In fact, I remember being taught in Biology that Piltdown was a hoax. I was taught this by a Harvard educated hippie who sold homemade honey on the side. Not by an indignant Christian out to call all scientists liars, based on the lies of some.

The National Geographic story was definitely an embarrassment for National Geographic editor Bill Allen. But like any reputable source, they admitted it was a hoax. I guess the enormous volume of evidence that supports evolution is not what the writer is interested in. In true creationist form, the writer cherry picks examples of questionable science and then labels all the science involved as being “fake” or “lies”.

Evolution is both factual and theoretical. The idea that organisms evolve is a fact. The theoretical part comes in when you deal with the fossil record and what it means. This is the part where there will be mistakes and yes, even hoaxes. The theory of creationism just relies on you taking the word of one writer. I think I’ll stick with science. My faith in God will not be shaken one bit.

Some of the evidence of evolution is wrong or fraudulent.

Then discount that evidence, by all means.

Some people are murderes. Doesn't make all humans murderes.

I'm not going to argue either side here. I have my beliefs and, quite frankly, don't really like the idea of trying to convince everyone else that I am right and they should follow me lock-step. I really don't like the idea of others doing it either. Thats how these letters come across to me.

"I'm right, your wrong. And you're an idiot. This is what is wrong with public schools today they either (1. have pictures of Jesus in them, or 2. are too liberal)."

Like someone else posted above, there are literally hundreds of things in my ordinary life I do not fully understand, such as my computer. But I can trust that SOMEONE knows much more about them than I do, evidenced by the fact that I have a computer.

" I take personal offense at his assertion that Holocaust deniers are like believers in creation. A large number of my father's family died in the prison camps, and I am a creationist."

Fer cryin' out loud! You would think that the other writer had said "creationists ARE holocaust deniers"!

"The history of "proving" evolution is fraught with lies, fraud, charlatans and bad science. Here are several of the hundreds of examples"

I would find this interesting only if current teaching of the theory used these examples. They don't. All this shows is that science is self-correcting, which is fundamentally different from religion, where errors are self-sustaining for centuries or even milleniea.

"Evolution is based on greater and more lies than creation."

Evolution is based on facts. Creationism is based in 3000 year old myths. It's too bad that Liebert will never learn this distinction, but it's his loss.

"Fer cryin' out loud! You would think that the other writer had said "creationists ARE holocaust deniers"!"

No doubt Nemo! I once got a pamphlet stuck in my car at Wal-Mart. It was a creationist pamphlet. In there it referred to Charles Darwin as "vile". Murderers are vile. Rapists are vile. A man who made some brilliant observations about bird's beaks would hardly qualify as vile in my book. If creationists are so sure of themselves, why the anger?

If so many of these "Creationists" are angered by evolution, then why?

Is THEIR God so small and ignorant to NOT have evolution in the quiver?

Is THEIR God "incapable" of using the evolutionary process to advance the universe?

The Creationists are the very ones "dumbing down" their own deity in this argument, not those of us who subscribe to the Darwinian Theory. Their own ignorance and simplistic thinking have doomed their entire argument.

We should all pray for the "Creationists" to catch up with those who have already "evolved".

The LTE writer is this guy
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/

You may have seen him on cable access TV.

You probably have better things to do on Labor Day than argue science with a guy who writes: "The dinosaurs lived on the Earth with man before the Flood..."

I think creationists do a lot of damage to the cause of spreading the Gospel.

What if evolution is God's way of splashing paint on a canvas? Masterpieces evolve from a beginning.

My refusal to accept that the Earth is 6,000 years old in no way jeapordizes my salvation and it makes me cringe when I hear a Pastor publicly make that claim in the process of preaching the Gospel.

Faith in God is a mighty step for one to take. Having to choke on man's opinion of an interpretation of creation at the same time is a turn off that has kept many people from accepting Christ.

"I'm right, your wrong. And you're an idiot. 'Too liberal' is what's wrong with public schools today: They are not 'underGod' as proved by the lack of pictures of Jesus next to the red-and-white stripped hanging cloth."

Is that you, Neo .. ?

(Sorry, could not contain myself).

Mr. Liebert---I'm surprised that you read the whole letter and then felt the need to reply. The
Holocaust is not questioned by anyone except those who either have an axe to grind or are from a different domain. So why waste your time.

Regarding evolution, it has nothing to do with the Holocaust--so why waste your time trying to debunk something (a theory) that has some firm foundation to it.

I didn't read the article, but I tell you that after the first two or three lines, I would have put it down.

Relax, we are on your side about the historical accuracy of the Holocaust

Ed Cone:
Thanks for your enlightening link!

JDR,
Thanks for making me laugh! Your comments were so right on that I can still laugh just thinking about them....and neo's brainless posts!

Hugh,
Glad to know your myopia is only with your political picks! Heard someone today say that the GOP is rolling out the negative ads early, and I had to laugh---Vernon's been well ahead of that curve!

Oh, and I am ecstatic you have finally gotten the PARTY OPERATIVES to endorse Vernon's campaign! I'm sure Virginia Foxx has her tongue planted firmly in cheek! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!

I have enjoyed all the related posts. I agree with most of you, great information and insight. Agree with you, Hugh.

DD, will you get off the unrelated, silly comments? You are too smart for this, I hope.

While I truly regret the deaths of Mr Liebert’s relatives during the Holocaust, if the remainder of his letter reflects his considered opinion on evolution, he simply proves my point.
Mr Liebert offers some examples of what he considers dishonesty and fraud in the “history of ‘proving’ evolution,” beginning with the English peppered moth.
I have a book published in the 1970s that shows a still older photo of the two varieties of peppered moth on the surface of a soot darkened tree. The moths are in a rather unnatural pose, not that it isn’t unnatural enough that they would have alighted side by side in the first place and would have sat there politely waiting for the photographer to set up his equipment, and, most tellingly, their abdomens are obviously desiccated. In short, they are quite dead and glued in place. While it may come as news to Mr Liebert, most folks should be able to recognize that my book’s moths are an illustration and nothing more.
The photos Mr Liebert complains about were never the evidence for natural selection. That evidence came from field counts of actual moth populations. The photos have nothing to do with those counts other than to illustrate what the two varieties of moths look like.
Mr Liebert might be encouraged to know that some legitimate scientists have questioned the methodology of experimenters who placed living moths on trees in locations they might not have alighted on naturally to see which moths birds would locate and eat, but since Mr Liebert doesn’t mention that, I presume it’s not of importance to him. I don’t think any real science is.
Without using his name, Mr Liebert mentions the drawings of embryos made by Ernst Haeckel. Mr Liebert perhaps does not know that Darwin was only vaguely aware of Haeckel’s work and that those drawings played no part in the evidence Darwin presented in On the Origin of Species. Embryology on general did play a major role in the evidence for evolution, however, because evolution explained observations about embryology that biologist had been collecting since the mid 1700s.
It would be interesting to know if Mr Liebert can clearly state right now, without searching through his creationist tracts, what the errors were in Haeckel’s drawings and what those errors have to do with evolution. I doubt he can do either, but I will answer the second for him. Nothing. As with the moths, the drawings have never been the evidence; they are only illustrations. The evidence resides in detailed anatomical and morphological studies. Because that information was generally known when Haeckel made and published his drawings n Germany, the errors were almost immediately detected by his fellow German scientists.
It is indeed most unfortunate that some scientists were not aware of the errors, mostly English-speakers (we are notoriously ignorant of other languages, even German which was the most important scientific language during the late 1800s and until the mid 1900s), and several publishers (who run businesses, not research facilities) have prolonged the errors. But to restate, the drawings are not, were never, the evidence.
Evidence from embryological development continues to be at the cutting edge of evolutionary biology, especially now that scientists have begun to gain insight into the regulatory genes that determine how those genes have modified development during evolutionary changes.
Mr Liebert should know that the “inconveniently” lost Java Man fossils were entrusted to US Marines when they went missing. I have no questions about the Marines honor or intent. Java Man was a variety of Homo erectus, and several other finds in this century have given us even more evidence about H. erectus than those initial finds.
It is enough to say about the Piltdown hoax that some British scientists so badly wanted modern man to have a good English origin that they were willing to take the flimsiest of evidence as proof of a step along that path. Creationists often quote Piltdown’s prime supporter - out of context - as being opposed to evolution!
Many non-British scientists doubted Piltdown’s validity or withheld judgment from the start. What I find interesting is that the evidences that prove Piltdown Man a hoax are the very kinds of evidence that creationists reject when they show the genuine state of hominid fossils: radiometric dating and chemical tests on the fossil material and its discovery site.
While National Geographic did rush a composite, fake, fossil into print, convinced by the urging of two illustrators who were not competent paleontologists, NG has explained in detail what happened, offered their apologies in print, and published many more photos of genuine fossils that do show the evolutionary connection between one family of dinosaurs and birds. This relationship did not hinge on that one fossil. Coulter has some amazingly brash lies to tell about dinosaurs and birds in her book.

What really needs clear explanation is that all of these errors, hoaxes, frauds, call them what you will, were exposed by legitimate scientists doing real science. None of Mr Liebert’s claimed errors and frauds were uncovered by “creation scientists” or “intelligent designists.”Creationists do almost no field work, they conduct few experiments and almost never submit papers for publication about those they claim to have done.
There is but one creationist who is competent to examine fossils, and he spends a great deal of his time denying the errors other creationists make and avoiding the creationist “discoveries” that would be absolute embarrassments were he to examine them.Other creationists examine no fossils, they don’t do radiometric dating, and they either don’t know how to take usable samples or intentionally fudge samples to give false dates.
Creationists become instant experts on a variety of topics they have no direct knowledge about by reading and misrepresenting the work of legitimate scientists. They quote legitimate scientists out of context, fashion quotations from disparate fragments, and create quotations out of whole cloth. They promote petitions with misleading premises, or simply change the petition's premise after it is signed, as evidence that there is a disagreement among scientists were no disagreement in fact exists, they get “expert” opinions from physicists about biology, which is like getting an HVAC man to opine about your car’s electronic fuel injection, and they proclaim that scientists who do have the direct knowledge creationists avoid are fools and liars.
If you object to my use of “legitimate,” you only need read creationist Dr Michael Behe’s testimony from the Dover trial to see that even he cannot pretend that creationism is real science.
Mr Liebert mentions “Nebraska Man” as an issue for evolutionists, even though the only fossil evidence was a “pig’s tooth” (actually a peccary tooth, but that’s close enough for creationists). What’s the truth?
A badly preserved fossil tooth was found by Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist, in 1917. In 1922 he sent the tooth to noted paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn at the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn thought the tooth might belong to an ape which he named after Cook. Some peccary teeth do look quite a bit like human teeth, and this fossil tooth was not well preserved. Osborn wrote,
“I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ...
“Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae.”

When George McCurdy summarized what was known about human evolution in 1924, he wrote,
“Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted.”

An illustrator named Amedee Forestier made a drawing of a bestially human couple for the Illustrated London News, a popular magazine, not a scientific publication, to accompany an article by Dr Grafton Elliot Smith. Appearing both within the text and as a caption for the illustration was Smith’s opinion of the illustration:
“Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.”

Osborn responded to the article and illustration by writing,
“such a drawing or ‘reconstruction’ would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate.”

Dr. Smith wrote in his summary of human evolution in 1927,
“The suggestion that the Nebraska tooth (Hesperopithecus) may possibly indicate the existence of Mankind in Early Pliocene times is, as I have explained..., still wholly tentative. The claim that real men were in existence in Pliocene and Miocene times must be regarded as a mere hypothesis unsupported as yet by any adequate evidence.”

Which scientist claimed that Nebraska Man was a human? Which scientist lied about the tooth? Who got fooled by whom?

Creationists claim that scientists tried to cover up Osborn’s mistake. When the tooth was determined not to be human that same year of 1927, the NYT ran a front page article, and the London Times ran an interior article. In the scientific literature, the American journal Science ran a one and a half page article, and the British journal Nature ran a 16-line notice. Contrary to some other creationist claims, Nebraska Man played no part as evidence for evolution at the 1925 Scopes Trial.

Maybe Mr Liebert can explain how the Nebraska Man incident disproves any evidence for evolution, but I don’t see it. I do see how professional creationists are eager to fashion lies at every opportunity and feed them to people who are “willingly and willfully ignorant.”
Best wishes,
CTew

N&R Resident Troll, Deamon Deacon is at it again.

Strange how those who describe themselves as open minded and tolerant of other's beliefs are in reality the most closed minded and intolerant when it comes to this subject.

Well, maybe not so strange after all...

I am not a religious person, but I have respect for their beliefs.

My objection is the constant and pervasive lies creationists use to support their "higher morality." They have the right to hold beliefs based on this malarky, but I see no obligation on my part to respect the lies.
Since they have no research of their own, they create lies from the work of legitimate scientists. Let them get off their intellectual duffs, get their hands dirty in a lab or the field, and present evidence of their own, not distortions and fabrications. Then they'll earn what respect they deserve.
The Dover trial showed that, after five decades of "creation science" and over a decade of "intelligent design" which are in reality the same thing, they still have no evidence of their own that is worth diddly squat. Their best man was shown to be a fool and a liar on the witness stand, and their next best wouldn't even testify.
Liebert wants to slip his lies in the easy way, but those old dogs won't hunt.

It’s strange how those who describe themselves as conservatives decry political correctness. That is, until they perceive themselves or their allies as being victims of intolerance.

"Strange how those who describe themselves as open minded and tolerant of other's beliefs are in reality the most closed minded and intolerant when it comes to this subject."

If you're talking about me, I confess to being closed minded about somethings: Newtonion gravity, Fermi fission, Bethe Fusion, Ohl's silicon P-N junctions ... well yea, I'm pretty closed minded about that certainty.

Here's a little thought since it's Monday Night. Ever notice, that football players keep getting bigger (pre-steriods)? Are you taller than your grand parents? Ever see genuine Medieval armor, and notice how small were those giants of Camelot? Hello - that's evolution - seems pretty much a sure thing too.

That said - there's a critical difference between "Knowledge" - of which we have some, and "Certainty" - which is by definition unobtainable.

Now you wanna talk Religion? I too have respect for the beliefs of others, but when they get within range of "Certainty", I have knowledge they are full of crap.

I read this letter this morning and thought, wow, now the debate is settled, the evidence is in, and all evolutionists will have to accept that their theory is fraudulent. And then I log on and 20-something posts! Most of which refuse to acknowledge the QED quality of this letter!

I mean, how much clearer can this Leibert fellow be? Do you really want to base your beliefs regarding the origin of the world on glued peppered moths?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040902090552.htm

JDR,

Your statement about medieval knight’s armor and Neo's last link seem to be related. In fairness, it was an interesting article. However, I suspect both sides may be seeing evolution as something it is not. I’m not sure this is where either of you are coming from, but let me include this.

Evolution is not really a process of improvement. It is a random process of change. This is a common misconception. For example, human females have a harder time with childbirth as a result of walking upright than do other primates. Their pelvis has changed over time and this adaptation (mutation) has created some real problems.

Just food for thought…

Is anyone here disputing evolution other than the LTE writer? If so, then I am with JDR on the subject. I can tolerate the opinion of "creationists" but don't pee in my face and tell me it's raining!

Hugh,
Guess you just can't stand the flame when it gets close to you. Your "Troll" comments are indeed indicative of one who hates being exposed.

I believe in evolution and creationism.

I believe God created everything for his purpose. I believe he understands exactly how man got to where he is today.

I believe the world and creatures that reside on it do evolve. Life is not stagnant.

I think the hangup is that there are too many 'evolutionists' who want to use the concept of evolution to disprove the existence of God. On the other side, there are too many 'creationist' who feel that any existence of evolution may threaten their belief in God.

I'm neither and am perfectly satisfied in my beliefs.

As far as the dinosaurs go, it would be interesting to see how a great flood might explain their deaths. Either way, with or without that knowledge, I can still wake up and get my flavored coffee at Sheetz each morning for 89 cents.

I'm with you Nit. I think God created us. Don't know when, don't know how, don't care.

If you believe in God, don't you necessary believe that he created the universe? It hardly makes sense to think of God as evolving naturally, like a star or a moth.

brian444,

There are some topics that are just beyond my comprehension and discussion. I won't even to attempt to discuss the physical make-up of God.