Re: News on fossil man

Kevin O'Brien (
Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:04:57 -0700

>The Bible would deny that the creation days were long periods of time....

Actually, that's not true. The Hebrew word for day can mean age or epoch;
the correct meaning is determined by translators using context. The use of
evening and morning in Genesis 1 might be misconstrued to indicate that the
word should be translated as day, but considering the overall poetic tone of
the chapter, a more likely explanation is that evening and morning are being
used metaphorically, much as we are being metaphorical when we refer to the
the "Dawn of the Bronze Age" or something similar. We do not literally mean
that there was a single morning that we can pinpoint when the Bronze Age
began all over the world; instead we mean the approximate time when most
cultures started using bronze in place of copper for metalworking.
Similarly, the use of evening and morning with that Hebrew word is probably
simply a poetic way of saying one age ended and another began.

>Studies of DNA passed only female-to-female and male-to-male show this DNA
>to essentially be the same DNA all around the globe, or nationality.

Same in what way? The same identical nucleotides, the same identical
biochemical apparatus? Obviously true. The same identical sequences, even
the same identical genes? Obviously false. Human DNA shows the same kind
of diversification pattern that we see when we sequence the same gene from
different species, the kind of pattern predicted by evolution.

>fact is almost synonymous with a common ancestor -- something not all
>predicted or expected by Evolutionist theory.

On the contrary; Darwin described evolution as the descent with modification
of all modern lifeforms from previous lifeforms. This predicts that some,
if not most, species should share a common ancestor. These common ancestors
have been found in the fossil record, plus we can reproduce the descent of
new organisms from a single common organism in the laboratory, so the
prediction has been verified.

>Another long-standing challenge for Evolutionists: Identify any prediction
>of Evolution. To all your reasoning impaired Evolutionists, that's
>Darwin's origin of species, not different colors of peppered moths.

On the contrary; Darwin himself stated that descent with modification would
involve changes in observable morphological traits as a result of
environmental changes (which is exactly what we see in the peppered moth).
This qualifies as a prediction, which has been verified over and over again
both in the field and in the laboratory, so evolution itself has been

Another prediction: descent with modification should produce transitional
forms. These forms have been found, so the prediction has been verified.

>Much like Creation, that's something scientists aren't allowed to consider.
>You better keep it hush hush. No doubt 30 years from now, Evolutionists
>will deny that they ever even considered the possibility that African's and
>non-Africans don't share common ancestry among modern men.

If evolutionists censored that information, how was Glenn able to read about
it in a scientific journal? Besides, the report does not say that African's
and non-Africans do not share common ancestry with modern man, but that both
isolated groups developed into anatomically modern humans independently. In
other words, rather than share an anatomically modern human group as their
common ancestors, Africans and non-africans share as a common ancestor a
human species that was not anatomically modern but was phylogenetically
human; they then evolved into anatomically modern humans independently
rather than being offshoots of a single migratory group.

Kevin L. O'Brien