Rebuttal #1 for Creation
- Fred Williams, 3/11/2000

I would first like to wrap up my rebuttal to the last part of Budikka=s opening argument, then move on to Budikka's recent rebuttal post.

Budikka=s comments on the Flight series

Budikka protests that it is "dishonest" of me to pretend the evidence for the evolution of flight is either nonexistent or in disarray. Well, let's examine his "evidence" and see if his claim holds up.

His first defense of evolution is the flying squirrel. Here=s his logic in a nutshell: evolution is true, we have flying squirrels, so it must have evolved! This is obviously a circular argument, and therefore not evidence for evolution. Next, Budikka implies that its not such a stretch to believe that the flying squirrel=s parachute-like membranes evolved from some squirrel ancestor. Well, let=s see how much of a stretch it is. Consider that it took NASA scientists years doing extensive wind tunnel tests to develop an aerodynamic system that turned out to be remarkably similar to that of the flying squirrel=s!1 What took many years and engineering man-hours to develop, evolutionists expect us to believe happened to the flying squirrel via years of chance mutations! Remember that NeoDarwinism, the current evolutionary paradigm, absolutely requires the mutations be random! This truly is a fairy tale!

Budikka doesn=t disappoint in next bringing in the poster fossil for evolutionists, Archaeopteryx. Evolutionists have long pushed this mosaic bird as a transitional between dinosaurs and birds, citing what they perceived as the many shared reptile and bird-like characteristics of the animal. However, in recent years new research has shown that most of the characteristics of this mosaic that were thought to be reptile-like are actually much more bird-like2. Consider the words of Dr. Alan Feduccia, an evolutionist and widely recognized authority on birds:

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound feathered dinosaur. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that".3

There are many vast differences between birds and reptiles that require wild imagination (aka fairy tale) to bridge the gap. Turning scales to feathers is one such fairy tale, and another is turning the vastly different breathing mechanism of reptiles into the one employed by birds. I documented some of this in the footnotes of my Flight series (also see the article 'Turning Dinosaur Theory on Its Paleobiological Tail'). Note this comment by evolutionist Dr. Larry Martin, another critic of the dino-bird link:

"They're really cast in stone. Despite this new evidence, it's going to be very hard for them to change their minds now."

Let me translate: "Don't bother them with evidence, they have already made up their minds!"

The Turkey Scandal

Next Budikka lauds evolutionists for exposing the "Turkeysaur" scandal, where it is likely that an alleged feathered dinosaur heralded by National Geographic (and subsequently the national media), was really a fraudulent combination of a dinosaur tail with the body of a bird. This is an important event to consider, because it exposes the dogma and mindset of many evolutionists and their accomplices in the pro-evolution biased media, by the way they sensationalize certain evidences as "fact" or "proof" of evolution. The writer of the National Geographic article boldly asserted:

"...we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we can say that humans are mammals."4

Is that so? After this was exposed as a fraud, Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian, wrote this about this latest evolutionist folly:

"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promoted by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age-the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion."5

Finally, if the origins of birds is not in disarray as Buddika claims, why are there so many evolutionists at each others throats over the issue? In review of this evidence I must ask if Buddika still believes I am "downright dishonest to pretend, ...that evidence for the evolution of flight is non-existent or in disarray." Does Budikka believe the evolutionist scientists I cited above, such as Feduccia, Martin, and Olson, are also "downright dishonest"?

The Evolutionist Fossil illusion exposed

I would next like to address Budikka cite of Kathleen Hunt's infamous transitional FAQ at Talk.Origins, one of the greatest evolutionist illusions going. There are several important facts to be aware of before you go through Hunt's list that will help dissolve the illusion the FAQ seeks to create of plentiful "transitionals". Here's the primary string behind the illusion, one I alluded to in my opening argument: the list consists of vertebrate fossils only. Why is this important? Vertebrate fossils constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and 95% of these constitute less that a bone! So why are the evolutionists burying their heads in such a small corner of the record that is so fragmentary? There are several reasons. First, vertebrate fossils allow more fanciful imagination and wild conjecture, such that a tooth can be made into a man (see my Nebraska Man series). Second, it is far, far, more prestigious and lucrative to find a vertebrate fossil than an invertebrate one (particularly human fossils). Finally, and most importantly, is because the other 99.98% of the fossil record is far more complete and shows absolutely no sign of evolution whatsoever. The complex invertebrates, which make up over 95% of the fossil record, appear fully-formed, without a single trace of an ancestor in earlier strata. Not one. We have thousands of cataloged invertebrate species, yet not a single fossil linking any of these together. Consider that the trilobite has one of the most complex eyes in the world. Why no ancestor with a less developed eye? We find tons of these fossils, we should therefore find tons of ancestors in older strata. There is absolutely no excuse why we should not find ancestors to these remarkably complex creatures. Evolutionists can only give just-so stories as to why they are not found. The fossil record severely contradicts their theory, and this fact alone should end the evolution fairy tale once and for all.

I cannot emphasize enough the reality of this fossil fact that is devastating to evolution. Many evolutionists I debate are either unaware of this evidence or are honestly in denial. There are some evolutionist scientists who acknowledge this evidence, but they prop up just-so stories to explain it away (particularly the wild notion of "punctuated equilibrium"6). I recently purchased the book Rare Earth written by evolutionists Dr. Peter Ward (geological sciences) and Dr. Donald Brownlee (Astronomy). Note what they have to say in the chapter titled 'The Enigma of the Cambrian Explosion':

"Undoubted fossils of metazoan [multicellular] animals have never been found in 600-million-year-old sedimentary strata, no matter where on Earth we go. Yet the fossils of such animals are both diverse and abundant in 500-million-year-old rocks, and they include representatives of most of the animal phyla still found on Earth."7 [emphasis mine]

"...This observation suggests that animals of staggering complexity appeared on Earth without evolutionary precursors. It is as though an orchestra began playing without sounding a single tone to tune up"8

"For all of the animal phyla to appear in one single, short burst of diversification is not an obviously predicable outcome of evolution"9 [emphasis mine]

And to this the creationist says, "there's a reason!". Complex life appears suddenly in the fossil record without a trace of ancestors, because life was created suddenly!

Budikka=s response to invertebrate fossil problem

His "answer" is for me to go to talk.origins, post my question there, then listen to all their worldly wisdom. Well, I've been there, done that. The only "example" I was ever shown was a clam turning into, you guessed it, a clam! (It was another case of evolutionists trying to sell small-scale change, ie microevolution, as large-scale, macroevolution).

Budikka's other answer was just as spurious, by posting references to books and a link to an evolution class without providing any information from them, as if the reader should just trust his opinion on this. The onus is on Budikka to do the research himself and post his evidence here in this forum. But I suspect Budikka knows as well as I do that these books provide no tangible evidence of pre-Cambrian invertebrate transitionals, they simply do not exist.

Budikka also claims that the fossil record "shows the most primitive organisms at the start, becoming more and more complex and diverse over time."

If this is true, why is it so easy to find evolutionists who disagree with him? For example,

"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence."10

Budikka's great, great, ...great grandaddy an ape?

Earlier in this rebuttal I pointed out the highly subjective and whimsical nature we have become accustomed to regarding the interpretation of the mammalian fossils. The fact that this very fragmentary group constitutes less than .01% of the entire fossil record, most of which consist of less than a bone, coupled with the inescapable fact that literally millions of fully-formed fossils in the remaining lion's share of the fossil record show no sign of evolution whatsoever, should end the debate once and for all. Nevertheless I will quickly address some of Budikka's monkey-man claims to expose how subjective and misleading these fossils truly are.

Neanderthal Man

Ever since these fossils were discovered, they have slowly moved from monkey-man to virtually full human status. In fact, they are now classified as Homo sapiens. To get a good picture of how evolutionists "evolved" this human from Ooop to Bob (demonstrating their propensity for wild conjecture), I cite a page right out of my opponents own source, his beloved talk.origins site, titled Images of Neanderthals.

Some evolutionists still desperately hold out hope that Neanderthal is still some time of sub-human, but the evidence has never been their ally. When these fossils were first discovered last century, the famous pathologist Rudolph Virchow described them as fully human suffering from nutritional deficiencies, an observation that is now shared by even some evolutionists (though it took them 100 years to do so). As mentioned earlier, most evolutionists now lump them in the species Homo sapiens, albeit as a "subspecies"11.   This is contrary to the position of other evolutionists, including my opponent, who try to lump them on a separate branch, such as Homo heidelbergensis. Again this shows just how subjective the interpretation of these fossils truly are.

Ramapithecus

Budikka claimed an unfamiliarity with the debacle of Ramapithecus. Well, between 1960 and 1976, Ramapithecus was heralded in textbooks and fancifully displayed in museums as man's ape-like ancestor. This wild conjecture was based on jaw fragments that were pieced together improperly12. In 1976 the entire jaw was found - it was an orangutan!

Bible Monkeys

Budikka asks, "Why is there no mention of these intelligent apes in the Bible or in any other historical literature?"

This is classic circular reasoning. He might as well have asked "Why doesn't the Bible mention that we evolved from apes?" Let me offer my help. The reason the Bible doesn't mention ape-men is because they never existed! Incidentally, apes and monkeys are mentioned: From I Kings 10:22 "Once every three years the merchant ships came bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and monkeys."

Budikka and high mutation rates

"I ask MO to prove his claim that 39 out of 40 births have deleterious mutations."

That was not my claim, it was the essentially the claim of the evolutionist in the Nature article! To recap, Dr James Crow in a Nature article13 suggested a rate of 3 harmful mutations per individual per generation, based on a study in the same issue14 (the study claimed an overly conservative rate of 1.6, which Crow adjusted higher). When you run the numbers, you get 40 births required to produce one defect free offspring (see footnote 12 in my opening argument for the math). If you use the highly conservative figures of the Keightley, Eyre-Walker study, you still get B = 10 births!

Here's the big problem for Budikka - since the surprisingly high mutation rate is the claim of the evolutionist authors and not mine, that means either the authors gathered their data improperly, the rate was much lower in the past, or their core assumption is wrong. What's the core assumption that their study is based on? That man and ape share a common ancestor! Perhaps for a moment I can agree with Budikka that the author's determined rate is too high. Now we need to find the culprit of this dubious data. Perhaps I can convince him the culprit is the faulty assumption that man and ape share a common ancestry! Perhaps if the authors removed this assumption, a new study would not yield such a startling result!

Incidentally, a rate of 3 per generation is probably not too high for a young creation of 6000 years. Using a simple model, half of these mutations will be filtered out through sexual reproduction. We can also estimate half will be recessive, and seldom express themselves. Since the authors have already considered the filtering affect of natural selection (creationists have advocated this conservation property of natural selection all along), we can roughly estimate that fixed harmful substitutions will accumulate at a rate of .75 each generation. Using the standard population genetics assumption of 20 years per generation, this gives us 300 generations. If we assume very little inbreeding, we roughly get 225 fixed deleterious substitutions in 6000 years. This shouldn't be severe considering the size of the active genome (estimates range from 120 mil to 1 billion base-pairs of coding DNA15). However, if we use the evolutionist's estimated time since the split between ape and man of 5 million years, we get 187,500 bad mutations!16 Oops! We would more look like a snail, not a human!

(it should probably come as no surprise that some evolutionists actually posit that apes evolved from humans! Solly Lord Zuckerman, renowned anatomist and an evolutionist himself, said it well when he wrote the following regarding the search for man's ancestry in the fossil record: "the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time."17 He followed later with "...it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all."18)

Mitochondrial-DNA rates tell the same story

Here's some confirming evidence from Science magazine, and more bad news for Budikka:

"Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events. ...Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."19 [emphasis mine]

Well that date looks familiar! The author immediately follows this with "No one thinks that's the case...". Let me interpret this: "we've already made up our minds, so please do not bother us with facts!".

Evolution and failed predictions

Budikka defends evolution as scientific by claiming many of its predictions have come true. I think we have already seen many "predictions" that have not come true, such as 1) ancestors and gradual lineage in the fossil record, 2) Lamarckism (inheriting acquired characteristics), 3) recapitulation in embryology, 4) vestigial organs, and 5) molecular phylogenies. Moreover, a good theory should not only be explanatory of our observations, it should also establish things we should not observe (such as convergence, when similar structures "evolve" down totally separate paths). Evolution has become so plastic it accommodates any observation, which makes it untestable and hence unscientific. Walter Remine in The Biotic Message likens it to a theory that "adapts to data like a fog adapts to landscape"20.

Junk-DNA

"I challenge MO to explain how a perfect creator can make human 95% of DNA junk."

Budikka is a little behind the scientific times. Its turning out this "junk" is not junk after all. For example, mutations in non-coding DNA is now suspected of causing various cancers, and possibly Lou Gehrig's Disease21. I also found this in Britannicca:

"The role of the introns is not firmly established, but some evidence points to their possible involvement in regulating gene action. For example, researchers have shown that several forms of thalassemia (a common disease of hemoglobin) stem from intron mutations that interfere with the splicing action." 22

Here's a well referenced online article refuting junk DNA.

Redefinition of Evolution

Once again we have Budikka trying to redefine evolution as "nothing more than a change in allele frequency in a population." Since creationists obviously agree that allele frequency change occurs, Budikka somehow thinks this is the end-all to the debate!

Budikka is simply aiding my point that evolutionists employ all kinds of illusionary gimmicks to defend their pet theory. Unfortunately, Budikka is not the only one who does this, as you will also hear this argument from leading evolutionist professors. It serves as a commentary to the desperate nature of evolutionists, to redefine evolution to make it something that is universally accepted as true.

This tactic is no different than Budikka and I arguing the existence of aliens and Budikka shifting the definition of "alien":

Me: "There is no evidence of alien life"
Budikka: "We observe UFOs, that is a fact"
Me: "Yes, but there is no evidence of alien life"
Budikka: "Ha! Since "alien" really means "anything foreign and unexplained", and since it is a fact we have witnessed some unidentified flying objects, then the existence of aliens is a fact!"

As I mentioned in my opening argument, it is wild conjecture to suggest "allele frequency change" can lead to complex new organs and features such that a molecule can turn into a man. There certainly is no evidence to support this, and that is why evolutionists attempt to redefine evolution.

I have a question for my opponent. Was evolution always defined this way, or is it just recently (last 20 years or so) that this definition was established? If so, why was the definition changed?

Scientific "kinds"

"1. What is the scientific definition of "kind" quoted in Genesis?"

A "kind", or baramin, refers to a group of organisms that either reproduce among themselves, or are linked by common ancestry. For example, there are several species of jack rabbits that can no longer interbreed, but share an ancestry with a previous jack rabbit population that could interbreed. Migration of groups from the main population (a speciation event) resulted in groups with changed mating habits. The same can be said for wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs, who share some common ancestor that had the genetic information to produce a wide variety of the dog "kind".

Much as evolutionists cannot agree or settle on clear classification boundaries, creationists also don't know enough to define absolute boundaries of a "kind". It is fairly certain that a "kind" would fall anywhere between the Linnaean classification of species to family.

Organism barriers

"2. What is the biological or genetic mechanism which can permit huge "variation" within a "kind" yet stop dead magically at the "kind" barrier, preventing one "kind" from evolving into another "kind"? "

Each original created kind contained some amount of information. Through the years, information is slowly lost as mutations occur and as groups migrate. Therefore, the animal cannot adapt beyond the original maximum potential programmed into its DNA.

There is overwhelming evidence of organism barriers. The simple farmer understands this quite well: "I've been breeding cows for years, and by golly I always get cows!" Better yet, organisms with short reproductive cycles should be our best gauge of barriers. So when evolutionists do tests on rapidly reproducing organisms such as fruit flies, and all they ever get are flies, overwhelmingly confirming organism barriers. Pierre-Paul Grassé, in Evolution of Living Organisms, stated:

"The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times."23

Information theory in fact substantially supports organism barriers, and conversely refutes NeoDarwinism. You cannot produce new information by a blind selection process (natural selection) working on random mutations. It is impossible. Information can only be lost from randomness acting on the genome. You would think with the countless experiments we have done on bacteria and fruit flies, we would have at least one observed example of information increase at the molecular level. We have none24.

Out-of-place fossils

Budikka asks why fossils appear "sorted". It makes perfect sense for fossils to be sorted based on ecological zones. The odds of mammals being buried in a flood with trilobites and clams in the same strata is highly unlikely for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, there are out-of-place fossils that evolutionists conveniently ignore. The Laetoli footprints and Kanopi elbow (fully human, yet found in strata dating around 4.4 mil) immediately come to mind25. Also, pine resin is found in pre-Cambrian strata at the Grand Canyon, with absolutely no signs of getting there by contamination26.

Budikka's criticism of "design"

"Special creation of individual kinds ought to show no unifying patterns whatsoever. To claim otherwise is to claim an unimaginative, inept, and incompetent designer."

As a engineer, I can attest that this is ludicrous beyond words. If there were no unifying pattern, life would look exactly like it was either 1) not created, ie evolved via a naturalistic process, or 2) was created by multiple, independent designers.

Budikka=s Christian creationist claim

"creationists are a tiny minority out of 2 billion Christians worldwide."

Funny, polls show 90% of Americans are creationists in one form or another. In fact, all Christians are inherently "creationists", since the only alternative to creation is atheistic origins. Perhaps you mean "young earth" creationists. Did you know polls consistently show that almost half the general public believes in a recent creation, regardless of whether or not they are Christian?

Budikka's story about left-handed amino-acids

In an attempt to explain why amino acids in organisms are left-handed, Budikka cites this just-so story: "John R. Cronin...has demonstrated a slight surplus of left-handedness in several amino acids extracted from two different meteorites."

A "slight surplus"? Budikka thus concludes "Left-handed building blocks of life are coming in on meteorites!"

So, Budikka=s "slight surplus" based on just TWO meteorites somehow led to universal amino left-handedness in life?! What happens if the next meteorite shows a "slight surplus" of right-handed acids? Will this falsify evolution for him? Of course not. It will be explained away as "scientists doing a good job".

Budikka=s Asomething from nothing@

"If MO understood anything at all about quantum mechanics, he would know that it happens literally all the time."

This is the epitome of story-telling. I don=t know dit about quantum mechanics, and I think it is a safe bet that Budikka doesn't either. The field is laced with so many mysteries that even scientists in the field don=t "understand" it very well, and in fact some scientists reject quantum mechanics entirely. But if Budikka does "understand" quantum mechanics, perhaps he can pull a rabbit out of his hat and demonstrate to us that "something can be created out of nothing".

Finally, to suggest that something can come from nothing, is a clear contradiction of the 1st law of Thermodynamics, which states that mass-energy can neither be created or destroyed (it is constant). This law has long been recognized as one of the most fundamental laws in science. In response to this, Budikka charged "I challenge you to prove your argument or withdraw it." Perhaps Budikka would like to explain to us how something cam come from nothing without the creation of mass-energy.

Budikka=s Information response, Genetic Algorithms

Budikka points us to a website he claims demonstrates how "undirected processes can lead to new information."

I particularly welcome this challenge since it is something I am qualified to address, having designed communication systems for 17+ years. The website ultimately leads to what are called genetic algorithms (GAs). In the future I plan on writing an article refuting the various claims of those who promote GAs as allegoric to random-driven evolution, which is fanciful fairytale at its finest. But for the sake of this debate I will briefly try to summarize the illusion behind this sham.

GAs are really no more than computer controlled trial&error experiments. These experiments require an intelligent "selector" to prune the information from the GA to some desired target. If there is a pre-selected goal or target, then an "information giver" is needed up front to get the information! This is why evolutionists try to deny the existence of a target in GAs, but we shall soon see they are mistaken. For example, let=s look at the apparent use of a GA at Lockheed Martin that yielded a more efficient spacecraft movement (this sounds similar to other uses of GAs regarding robotics that I have read in IEEE journals). Engineers would have had to monitor the program until it achieved some goal, and indeed the web site proclaims "It achieves the goal within 2% of the theoretical minimum time". Now remove the engineer and see if this GA ever achieves its goal. It can=t if no one is there to detect it! The program will run to infinity producing useless gibberish of many meaningless manifestations. Only in the presence of intelligence, that is, an "information giver" can the GA provide any use. Otherwise, GAs will always produce meaningless noise, like snow on your TV set. Note that if the engineer programs the GA to stop on "the best solution", then the information is already present since the GA is guaranteed to succeed in some way (information is the reduction of uncertainty).

Now try to imagine this mechanism at work "creating" biological systems. Darwinists would have us believe that natural selection, a blind, unintelligent process, acts as the "information giver" ordained to "pick" the best solution from random mutations. But natural selection, unlike GAs, cannot have a target or goal in mind that once achieved, can "stop" the selection process and prevent subsequent corruption from random changes. Also, natural selection cannot prevent an organism from going extinct from too many random mutations. GAs, unlike natural selection, always restart upon extinction. This restart is programmed, and it comes from intelligence (information), something natural selection does not possess.

Information theory tells us you cannot, under any circumstances, build information via random processes without the presence of already existing information, ie an Information Giver. Randomness unmonitored by intelligence will strip away information, always, no exceptions.

Sour Grapes

Unfortunately, much of Budikka's second post was laced with sour grapes. On several occasions I am accused of "vitriolic" and "virulent" attacks, strong words that convey a bitterness on my part that does not exist. I acknowledge that internet debates are impersonal by nature and can sometimes leave a wrong impression, but I hold no animosity against Budikka. I simply seek to expose the evolutionist illusions and motivations behind the biggest scientific blunder ever! So I ask Budikka to recognize the difference between spirited discourse and "virulent" attack.

I also ask Budikka to recognize the difference between lie and opinion. I found it particularly disappointing that Budikka would refer to a link referring to Kent Hovind's "300 lies". The title alone exposes the dogma of the site's author, and close inspection indeed reveals the unscholarly and juvenile nature of the site (for example, a typo with the word "inverse" (misspelt as invert) is listed as one of the lies!) Like Hovind I truly believe the evidence suggests a young earth, on the order of 6-10K years. Does that make me a liar? Maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm ignorant, but I am not a liar any more than Hovind is. I think Reagan was a great President. Should Democrats think I am a liar, or mistaken? I sincerely find it strains credibility to repeatedly associate lie with opinion.

Challenges to Budikka

I need to wrap up this rebuttal as I have encroached on our agreed limit, so I would like to issue the following challenges to Budikka:

1) Cite what you believe are the three best evidences for molecules-to-man evolution.

2) Explain why you believe the assumption that humans and apes share a common ancestor is true, in light of the study that, using this same assumption to determine mutation rates, arrived at a mutation rate that is obviously too high given the alleged 5 million year split from the alleged common ancestor. Also explain Haldane's Dilemma, which showed, under extremely favorable assumptions, that only 1667 beneficial substitutions could occur in 10 million years (this is only .00004% of the entire genome!)

3) Search the internet for any site that provides evidence of evolution of any complex invertebrate in pre-Cambrian strata. No sites with just-so stories. Find a credible source, preferably with pictures, so we can examine them for ourselves to determine if we see evolution at work leading to even just one complex invertebrate.

4) Given that many evolutionists acknowledge that there is no evidence of evolution among the invertebrates, which again make up 95% of all fossils, explain why you are right and they are wrong, and why an objective person should think the fossils show gradual evolution when plenty of evolutionists admit that it does not.

Budikka Post #3: Rebuttal & Closing Argument

Return to Debate Table of Contents


1 - BBC News, Sci/Tech, May 1998

2 - Duane Gish, The Fossils STILL Say NO!, p. 133, 134

3 - Cited in J. Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, p 58, from Science, 259(5096), p 764-65.

4 - C.P. Sloan, Feathers for T.rex? New birdlike fossils are missing links in dinosaur evolution, National Geographic 196, Nov 99, p 102

5 - Cited from ICR Impact 321.

6 - See my footnote on the last page of the Flight Series

7 - Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Copernicus Books, Feb 2000, p. 125-26. These authors believe it is highly unlikely that even simple animal life could exist anywhere else in the universe, something creationists have been saying for years. The thrust of the author=s argument regarding the Cambrian explosion is that it was the result of such a rare combination of events that it is yet another unlikely scenario to occur on other worlds. The authors reconcile their faith in evolution by accepting the unscientific, just-so story of punctuated equilibrium to explain away this severe problem for evolution. They also strangely claim Darwin was somewhat vindicated by the discovery of pre-Cambrian Aancestors@ called the Ediacarans, but then a few pages later acknowledge the strong evidence that these complex and dissimilar fossils are likely not precursors to Cambrian fossils at all! (p. 135)

8 - Rare Earth, p. 128

9 - Rare Earth, p. 150.

10 - N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet

11 - "human evolution" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

12 - Allen L. Hammond, Tales of an Elusive Ancestor, Science 83, November 1983, pp 37, 43.

13 - James F. Crow; Nature Volume 397 Number 6717 Page 293 - 294 (1999)

14 - Peter D. Keightley; Adam Eyre-Walker; Nature, Volume 397 Number 6717 Page 344 - 347 (1999) [abstract]

15 - This range is based on 3% typically cited on the internet to 27%, Maynard Smith's estimated upper limit [M. Smith, Evolutionary Genetics, 1989, p 204]

16 - Years since split = 5 mil, generation time = 20 years, mutation rate = .75 per generation, giving 5x10^6/20 * .75 = 187,500

17 - Lord Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, 1970, p. 19.

18 - Ibid., p 64

19 - A. Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 - 29.

20 - Walter Remine, The Biotic Message, p. 350

21 - Gene-Reading Problem Linked To Lou Gehrig's Disease, Science Daily Online

22 - "heredity" Encyclopædia Britannica Online

23 - Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 130

24 - Lee Spetner, Not By Chance!, 1998, p 138

25 - Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, 1992, pp. 52-58, pp. 173-175

26 - George F. Howe et al., A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly , Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173-182.

 

Home | The Show | Articles | Debates | Guestbook | Forum | Bio | Speaking | Links