Is This For Real?

I got the following in my e-mail box this morning (and have already forwarded it to some of you). Rarely do I reprint e-mails verbatim, but this was just too good. I thought about replying, asking if the senders of this e-mail were serious, but then I thought better of it. There is a part of me that simply cannot believe it's a real newsletter - it's almost a parody of creationists...

Darwinism-Watch.com
11 July 2006

A report titled “Here’s looking at you, chimp” was published in the 24 December, 2005, issue of New Scientist magazine. The report carried details regarding the studies to decipher the chimpanzee genome. New Scientist, which has adopted as a dogma the scenario of humans and chimpanzees separating from a common ancestor 6 million years ago, suggested that comparative analyses of the genomes of these two life forms would illuminate the details of the fictitious evolutionary process.

However, the idea that humans and chimpanzees separated from a common ancestor is a myth maintained solely as a result of blind devotion to the theory of evolution. The supposedly scientific statements issued in support of this myth consist of prejudiced interpretations based on various similarities between the two, and a very widely dispersed and insufficient fossil record. >>>

SUPPORT FOR THE SUPPOSED EVIDENCE OF FICTITIOUS EVOLUTION FROM VATAN NEWSPAPER

The Turkish newspaper Vatan carried a report titled “The Fossil That Has Confused the World,” taken from the 7 April 2006 issue of the journal Nature. The article claimed that a fossil discovered in Arctic Canada was “the missing link in the chain of life from water to land.”

This report ignored a great many scientific facts, and was obviously prepared with the aim of spreading classic “evolutionary propaganda.” As they have done so many thousands of times before, evolutionist paleontologists again rely on a few bone fragments and engage in totally imaginary interpretations, completely devoid of any scientific foundation. Furthermore, this is now being attempted to be passed off as “a significant discovery in the name of evolution.” >>>

THE EVOLUTIONIST CLAIM OF A TRANSITION FROM WATER TO LAND IS A LIE TIKTAALIK ROSEAE: ANOTHER MISSING LINK MYTH

Darwinist media organizations have embarked upon a new wave of propaganda aimed at portraying a fossil recently described in the journal Nature as a missing link. The fossil in question is that of a fish, discovered in Arctic Canada by the paleontologists Neil H. Shubin and Edward B. Daeschler in 2004. Given the scientific name Tiktaalik roseae, the fossil is estimated to be 385 million years old. Evolutionists looking for possible candidates for their tales of a transition from water to land are putting the fossil forward as an intermediate form by distorting its “mosaic” features.

However, the claim of a transition from water to land is no more than a dream, because the physiological gulfs between terrestrial animals and fish cannot be overcome by any of the fictitious mechanisms of the theory of evolution. The latest attempt to make Tiktaalik roseae fit this scenario, which is supported out of blind devotion to the theory of evolution and rests on no scientific evidence whatsoever, is based on preconceptions and intentional misinterpretation. The facts the Darwinist media have concealed in their Tiktaalik roseae propaganda are set out below. >>>

EVOLUTIONARY DISTORTIONS FROM CBT

The Turkish magazine Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik (Cumhuriyet Science and Technology) carried a report titled “The 10 Most Important Scientific Events” in its 7 January, 2006, edition. The article listed the advances described as the most important scientific developments of the year by the American magazine Science. The CBT sub-caption read “Important findings have been obtained regarding the way that populations diverge in order to establish new species,” and the section regarding the theory of evolution appeared under the heading “Evolutionary mechanism discovered.”

These statements by CBT are completely unrealistic. When one examines the text under the heading one sees that no concrete facts are provided at all, and that the claim made in it is utterly groundless. >>>

DAN NEIL’S ERROR: RECONCILING DARWINISM WITH RELIGION

On 27 November, 2005, Los Angeles Times carried an article by Dan Neil. Titled “In God and Darwin We Trust,” (God is beyond all this), the article considered the evolution/creation debate in terms of the situation in Chile, and sought to construct common ground between Darwinism and belief in God. Neil maintained that evolution is a scientific theory and that for the religious believers in Patagonia see no reason to oppose Darwinism. However, he ignored a number of very important facts.

The main error of those who seek common ground between Darwinism and belief in God is that they make do with only the superficial aspects of what is expressed by means of the theory of evolution and fail to properly appreciate God’s might. In their view, evolution means nothing more than biological change in nature, and they think that there is no religious reason not to regard this as God’s form of creation. Indeed, the words “I don’t care if I’m descended from a monkey or a mouse.” in the article are a reflection of the superficial nature of this approach. >>>

----

Just so's you know I'm not buying into this, I'm offering the following cladogram. It's from the American Museum of Natural History - since I was a boy, they've redone their exhibits on evolution to more clearly show the evolutionary process can be charted:

And I've gotten an e-mail back from one of the folks I sent the newsletter to. He's one of the best scientists I know, and wanted to offer the following by way of perspective:

"'Everything in the universe exists through a combination of chance and necessity.' This paraphrased statement was made by Jacques Monad in his book "Chance and Necessity,"... Monad is a Nobelist in medicine."

Always nice to have a bit of fun on a Tuesday morning.

- Andrew Langer