°Û                       °Û
                          ÞÜ  ±Û                       °Û    °Û
           ÜÛÛ ÛÜ ±Û  ²Û°ÛÛÛÛß°Û ÜÜÜ  ±Û ÜÜ ÜÛÛÛÜ°ÛßßßÛ°Û  °Û
          ÛÛ  ° ÛÛ±Û  ±Û  ÛÛ  ±ÛÛßßßÛܱÛÛßß°ÛÜÜÜß    °Û°ÛÛÛ
          ÛÛ °  ÛÛ±Û  ±Û  ÛÛ  ±Û    °Û±Û   °ÛÜ   °ÜÛßßÛ°Û  °Û
           ßÛ ÛÛß  °ÛÛÛ   ßÛÛÜ°ÛßÛÛÛÛß±Û    °ÛÛÛß°ÛÜÜÛ²°Û    °Û
               Outbreak Magazine Issue #8 - Article 9 of 14
           '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

* This letter is in reply to EvilRyan's article in Outbreak #3 
"Disproving Evolution." Thanks to Troy from speaking his side.



	I was reading your article in outbreak and I found it so absurd I 
simply had to correct you. I know you will probably ignore every word I say 
but I would be a hypocrite not to send it in the first place. Creationism 
only survives by ignoring all evidence to the contrary so for you to make 
such an ignorant an ill formed claim against legitimate science is 
laughable. calling evolution a theory was a correct assumption but I fear 
you meant it in the casual as apposed to the scientific usage of the word, 
which in  fact means a proven and generally accepted concept.     Your next 
claim is that evolution makes many unfounded claims, this is absurd, crack 
open a legitimate scientific journal or go to a museum, its all there ready 
for review, meanwhile creationism provides no legitimate evidence,check the 
bibliography of on e of the creationist books, they reference mostly 
woefully out of date information, generally dating 30 to even several 
hundred years old. They often quote legitimate sounding, but completely 
absurd publications, such as the Uks science magazine, which is ruf fly the 
equivalent of the inquirer, indeed gish is well known for once referencing 
the weekly world news. By the way gish is also well known for admitting 
 something as false then reusing it again in other debates.     As far as 
observed instances of speciation perhaps you should wander over to the 
talkorigins website, amongst its archives there is a list of observed 
instances of speciation in everything from insects to single celled 
organisms. a perfect example is the London subway mosquito, after the 
London subways were built a local species of mosquito took advantage of the 
new resource, now its well adapted to its man-made environment and is 
 sterile with its parent species. as far as your tree statements its a 
little ab surd, the organisms which made up the first life simply are not 
likely to be preserved, we can only know them by experimenting with various 
abiogenic compounds and see if they fit the geological and biological 
records, the "branches" are only incomplete becau se not all life is 
preserved, so again we can only deduce them by studying other evidences.     
your third paragraph is barely understandable, but I would take point with 
your claim that a species must some how be better then its ancestors. In 
 fact many species live side by side with their ancestors (the 
aforementioned subway mosquito) and some spec ies leave more than one 
descendent, for instance we share a common ancestor with orangutans, we 
aren't descended from them, a little further down the line we split with 
gorillas, even further we and chimps part ways, one group remaining 
superficially more sim ilar than the other. As for reproduction its 
necessary irregardless, if a species cannot reproduce its extinct plain and 
simple, until I see a rock form into a goat I will assume reproduction is 
absolutely necessary.     As for paragraph four I'm curious why you felt 
that 600 proteins were absolutely necessary, and the simplest life form 
imaginable is an ambiogenic compound, which is simply a chemical that 
reproduces.     As for your claim that there is no evidence of change over 
time this is absurd and due to ignorance of the evidence. The fact is that 
there is a fairly complete fossil record from prosimmian to monkey, to ape, 
to greater ape, to australopithecine to homin id to you and me. There are 
several rebuttals of your absurd claim at talk origins as well as a 
dinosaur specific rebuttal at dinosauria.


> I hope that this shows you all that you should always get
> the facts from both sides before you make any decisions
> about what you are going to spend your entire life believing.

    Maybe you should take your own advice, on a final note science isn't 
believed it is understood, and revised when false, creationism on the other 
hand requires faith and belief, because it cant survive on its own.

> If you have any questions or comments please feel free to
> contact me.

And here we are.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.dinosauria.com/
http://www.atheists.org/  <------------Look for zindlers articles in 
particular, he shows the "creation scientists" in all their absurdity.

-Troy