Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 9)
Message-ID: <361@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 18:54:26 EST
Article-I.D.: sphinx.361
Posted: Tue Apr 23 18:54:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 22:07:32 EST
References: <340@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 42


>      THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
> I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
>
>     A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
>
>     B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
>         WISHFUL THINKING.
>
>        18.  ....
>                                  The  discoverer  of  Java  man  later
>             acknowledged that Java man was similar to a  large  gibbon
>             [h,i]  and  that  he  had withheld evidence to that effect
>             [j-m]. 
>
>            ....
>
>             h)  ''Pithecanthropus [Java man] was  not  a  man,  but  a
>                 gigantic  genus  allied  to the Gibbons,....  ''...[it
>                 had]  a  close  affinity  with  the  gibbon  group  of
>                 anthropoid   apes.   ''...This  comparison  more  than
>                 confirms the opinion of  Marcellin  Boule,  pronounced
>                 fifteen  years ago, that Pithecanthropus may have been
>                 a large gibbonoid species,....'' [Eugene Dubois,  ''On
>                 the  Fossil  Human  Skulls Recently Discovered in Java
>                 and Pithecanthropus Erectus,'' MAN, January 1937,  pp.
>                 1-7.]
>
> 					Ron Kukuk
> 					Walt Brown

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this argument saying that Java Man
isn't valid evidence for evolution because it's genetically related to
gibbons and not to man?  (Note that it had *"a close affinity with the
gibbon group"*, not that it *was* a gibbon.)  The particular group it's
related seems of less importance than the fact that it's genetically
related to *somebody*.  I think it's still good evidence for evolution.

--JB  (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)