Correspondence with the FLUNKSTER

A recent correspondence with Lenny Flank, anti-Creation Scientist, has revealed the enormous lame involved within the arguments of Evolutionists. You can read all about this poseur below as you read through our correspondence:

Lenny Flank wrote:

IS THERE A REAL DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE?
Next time you see a creation "scientist", ask him where he got his degree.
--"Dr" Richard Bliss, who develops curriculum materials for the Institute for Creation Research, has a doctorate in education from the University of Sarisota in Florida, an unaccredited diploma mill that is located in a hotel.
--"Dr" Kelly Segraves, a co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, claims to have an MA and DSc degree. The doctorate is supposed to be an honorary degree from "Christian University", but no such place exists in the United States. Segraves dropped the "Dr" from his name in 1981. His Masters is supposed to come from "Sequoia University", but this doesn't exist either. There is a Sequoia College in California, but it has no record of a student named Segraves.
--"Dr" Harold Slusher, a co-founder of the Creation Research Society, claims to have an earned PhD from Columbia Pacific University and an honorary DSc from Indiana Christian University. Indiana Christian is a Bible college, while Columbia Pacific is an unaccredited diploma mill.
--"Dr" Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his doctorate from the University of Physical Sciences in Arizona, which consists of a post office box at an unaccredited institute in Phoenix.
--"Dr" Carl Baugh, of the Creation Evidences Museum near Glen Rose, Texas, has a PhD in anthropology from the College of Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. He has another PhD from the California Graduate School of Theology, an unaccredited college in California.

My response:
I see you managed to touch on all of the Pseudo Creation Scientists. You might as well add "Dr." Kent Hovind to your list. However, what to say for Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Walt Brown and their likes.

Even better, what about:

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."
"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.
Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

http://www.creationists.org/switch.html
Do they count as real Scientists?

I mean, if poisoning the well fallacies is the way you want to go with this argument, by all means, keep what cha got.

Casey Powell
The Flunkster replies:

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)



Remarkably, not a single one of your big long
cut-and-pasted list of people (many of whom thought
creationism is a crock of crap, and some of whom were
*dead* for decades before Darwin was even born) have
ever published any scientific theory of creation in
any peer-reviewed science journal, nor have a single
one of these ever published any scientific data or
evdience against evolution in any peer-reviewed
scientific journal.

Why is that, I wonder . . . . . ?

If THAT is the best you can do, it's no WONDER nobody
takes creation 'science' seriously anymore. (shrug)

I respond here: Casey Powell wrote: You sir are far from educated (and proof that they thought Creationism was a crock please?) Heres evidence they didn't. http://www.creationists.org/switch.html

Did you happen to catch this quote?
Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?"


Or from Gary Parker:
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."
"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged."



A.E. Wilder Smith has a ton of peer reviewed published writings. If you had done your homework, you would have easily found this on googlescholar.com! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1258663 - This is one of very many. Not dead before Darwin was born.

DUHHHH!

Jonathan Sarfati also has peer reviewed published writings: http://www.theapologiaproject.org/Origin%20of%20life.pdf - this has been published.

Also - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/dino_bird.asp

Not dead before Darwin was born.

John Rendle Short has peer reviewed writings. Look no further than here: http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/567. Also not dead before Darwin was born.

Gary Parker is here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=392458

We can also find Dr. Russell Humphreys works here: http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf (peer reviewed publication, in a Scientific journal, published against Evolution! Yes this counts :)).

Both also not dead before Darwin was born.

Do I need to go further? Please educate yourself on the current situation before writing back with something as ludicrous, and you may find yourself in less of a jam against someone who actually knows a little something about the current debate between Evolution and Creation Scientists :).

AH, just to add fuel to the flame....here are Creation Scientists (just a few) who have actually made some incredible recent contributions to SCIENCE:

Dr Raymond V. Damadian - Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. See http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_MRI.asp.

>Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)
U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory. Also see Scientists Who Believe: An Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner, and Probing the Earth's Deep Places.

Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.

Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)
This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones.

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.


Good try, better luck next time. The reason that people don't take Creation Science seriously, is that they are extremely uneducated on what Creation Science has offered Science over the years (much more, I'd say than the Piltdown Man hoax, Archaeoraptor, and many other hoaxes that Evolution has contributed to Science). Lest we forget the real founder of Natural Selection, Speciation and Variation...Edward Blythe as well? http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar10.html Also....we should point out, he was a Creation Scientist as well.

DOPE!

Casey Powell

Final e-mail:

I also went ahead and checked out your credentials. Lo and behold, a big shocker. You don't have any! Did you graduate college,...high school?

Yes, another day, another loser. Why do I waste my time with these fool? I am tempted to wonder sometimes........

Does it get better? Wishfully thinking it did. Lets see how the Flunkster did later, as he responds here:

--- Casey Powell wrote:

> I also went ahead and checked out your credentials.
> Lo and behold, a big shocker. You don't have any!
> Did you graduate college,...high school?



Nope, I was homeschooled.

(snicker) (giggle)

A nice little ad hominem attack against homeschooled children. However:

My response: Great...my degree is from Christopher Newport University :). Not a homeschool.

Lenny Flank wrote:

--- Casey Powell wrote:

> You sir are far from educated



That's pretty funny, coming from someone who thinks
the earth is only 6,000 years old. (snicker) (giggle)


Stop wasting my time. Creation-crap is so silly that
even the courts laugh at it.

To which I respond: Perhaps, this is because 90% of the dating methods have demonstrated a Young Earth? The other 10% have not demonstrated an older earth as well. At maximum, the salinity in oceans demonstrates a 62 million year old Earth. When we deduce through other methods of dating the actual age, we may actually get to the 10,000 years old, and this corresponds quite nicely with the creation of Saturn's rings (also only 10,000 years old), the age of the Earth as dating methods demonstrate when used correctly to be 10,000 years old, and the beginning of recorded history (also going back only 10,000 years). We're 3 for 3 here, what evidences might you have?

I'm wasting YOUR time? Or are you wasting your readers' times by writing the nonsense you're trying to feed them here?

Casey Powell

Oh I might add....my friend also has one of those thingies..what do you call them from the public universities? Oh yeah thats right PHDs. His happens to be in Pharmacology, and his undergraduate, just..lo and behold happens to be in Biology. He...coincidently (funny story here), just happens to be a Young Earth Creation Scientist.

Casey Powell

So, instead of facing the facts that he's a Creation Scientist, what does the great Flunkster do? When you've run out of arguments, resort to Ad Hominem attacks:

Then he's an idiot. (shrug)

I cleverly respond: See in mirror. Theres an idiot, a man who thinks he knows everything without credentials!

Flunkster replies: (yawn)

Tell it to the judge.

Oh, wait, you guys already DID. Lots of times.

How'd that, uh, go for you?

(snicker) (giggle)

To which...I reply - Biased judges help your case?

The Flunkster then states - --- Casey Powell wrote:

> Great...my degree is from Christopher Newport
> University :). Not a homeschool.


Great. Do you have a scientific theory of creation to
tell anyone about? None of your big long list did.


Tis a fair question, and I gave a fair response - Which one do you want? www.creationontheweb.org, www.trueorigin.org . All discusses THE ONE AND ONLY CREATION SCIENCE that is accurate around. Its almost like, take your pick there are so many around.

Also try www.creationists.org, http://s8int.com/sophis1.html ....just to name a few. Look no further than Genesis 1 for the Creation theory, the Science underlying it may be found at the sources listed above.



Lenny Flank wrote:
--- Casey Powell wrote:

> Do you happen to be a broken record? You seem to
> use the same old stupid objections used by the
> a-typical skeptic. Its quite a bore sir.
>


Says the guy who is using the same crap that creation
"scientists" have been putting out since 1965 . . . .



Me: Casey Powell

Being that Edward Blythe existed in the 1830s, you're WRONG!

The Flunkster replies - --- Casey Powell wrote:

> Which one do you want? www.creationontheweb.org,
> www.trueorigin.org . All discusses THE ONE AND ONLY
> CREATION SCIENCE that is accurate around.


BWA HA HA HA AHA HA AHA HA HAA HA HA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No WONDER nobody takes creationuts seriously anymore.

(snicker) (giggle)


Here, junior -- take you, your PhD, and your wonderful
creation 'science' here:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/

and tell them all about it. That next Nobel Prize
will be yours.


(snicker) (giggle)

This I believe is the 5 year old little girl Kindergarten practice of debating (snicker giggle) or something, not quite sure here. However, my response - Who cares about the National Academies of Science already refuted by the great Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Refuting Evolution pts. 1 and 2). Why would a secular humanistic organization in full support of Evolution award an award for something that they completely disagree with (Creation Science?).

And....last but not least, his completely run out tank of arguments can be finally demonstrated here - --- Casey Powell wrote:

> Who cares son about the National Academies of
> Science already refuted by the great Dr. Jonathan
> Sarfati




BWA HA HA AH AHA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AH AHA
HA HA HA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HAA AHA HA HA HA HA HAA H
AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH AH AH AH AH AH HA
HA HA AH AHHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To which I responded - Read Refuting Evolution 1 and 2 and then come back and see who's laughing son. Educate yourself, before talking about someone smarter than yourself.

Tricks are for kids. And this trick needs to get out of the Science debate until he learns a little something about it.

A Second Appearance at CreationontheWeb

I have just had a second correspondence published on CMI this month. This is very informative stuff regarding the Piltdown Man Hoax, and the alleged 500 PHDs that were written on Piltdown Man, as well as O. Gigas and O. Lamarkian information and why the O. Gigas to O. Lamarkian conversion had nothing to do with Evolution. Enjoy:

Evolution by fiat and faith

We received another enquiry from Casey P of Virginia, USA, whose previous enquiry we featured in More or less information. This time Casey asks about an alleged example of evolution , and also about the claim that 500 doctorates were written on Piltdown Man. Andrew Lamb replies.
Mr. Lamb,
I have a couple of other questions if you don’t mind answering them.
First of all, is the example of O Gigas/O. Lamarckian an example of Evolution or Speciation?
Secondly, I was wondering about the 500 Doctoral Dissertations written on Piltdown man. Do we have any copies of these 500 doctoral dissertations?
Thanks again sir,
Casey P
Speciation Observed? Was this Evolution?
Dear Casey,
Thank you for your email of 6 March.
Oenothera lamarckiana is an old, invalid synonym for the plant species Oenothera glazioviana, which has the common name ‘large-flower evening primrose’.1
Oenothera gigas (gigas means ‘giant’ in Greek) was the name used a century ago for tetraploid2 mutants of various Oenothera species, including tetraploids of Oenothera lamarckiana. Both these names were bestowed by Dutch evolutionist botanist Hugo de Vries, O. gigas in 19013 and O. lamarckiana a short time earlier4.
However, both these names are now defunct.
Polyploidy
Most multicellular organisms are ‘diploid’, having two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, but sometimes organisms can have extra sets of chromosomes—this is called polyploidy.
Polyploidy is common in plants, especially in cultivated plants. Different species of coffee plant have 88, 66, 44, and 22 chromosomes. Note that they are all still called coffee. Some strawberries are octoploid, having eight sets of chromosomes rather than the original two sets, but they are still strawberries (they have very large leaves and fruit compared to normal strawberries).
A polyploid plant will usually not be able to breed with the parent species, and can consistently produce offspring with the same number of chromosome sets as itself. This can then be considered a new species. Note that there is no new genetic information involved, just repetition of existing information. By analogy, if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, there would be no new information, just repetitious doubling of the existing information.
The species that de Vries named O. lamarckiana had already been called Oenothera glazioviana by others5. Thus the name O. lamarckiana was invalid and largely lapsed out of use. This sort of thing is common with formal names of organisms.
With respect to O. gigas, today there are well over a hundred recognised species of Oenothera, but Oenothera gigas is not one of them.
people have a spiritual hunger for evidences to support their faith
De Vries had assumed that tetraploid Oenethera plants would ‘breed true’, forming a distinct species. However, the tetraploid specimens of Oenothera that de Vries and other botanists cultivated did not form their own self-perpetuating populations, requiring constant special care and consistently generating a range of chromosome sets (diploid, triploid, tetraploid, etc.) in their offspring. In his zeal to provide evidence for evolution, de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, including from his own breeding efforts. The idea that these plants constituted an example of speciation is wrong, and this was realized at least as long ago as 1943, more than six decades ago.
That O. gigas is still presented as an evidence for evolution reflects very poorly on evolutionists. The situation is similar with many other evolution evidences, such as Haeckel’s notorious embryo diagrams, which continue to be used as evidences for evolution generations after they have been discredited.
It is a matter of pride, honour and status for a scientist to identify and name a new species. This results in the situation where some species have been named and renamed multiple times by different scientists. In the same way that many anthropologists are inordinately keen to declare any ape or human bones they find to be the bones of a new transitional species so too there is a strong temptation for botanists to identify varieties as new species, even when the evidence is equivocal.
Also, people have a spiritual hunger for evidences to support their faith. Even though there are glaring problems with all proposed evolutionary mechanisms, phylogenies, and transitional forms, evolutionists are loath to acknowledge these problems until they have another ‘comfort blanket’ evidence to replace their current hole-ridden one. In this case it seems that an intense desire to produce evidence for his evolutionary faith apparently influenced de Vries to ignore conflicting data.
Photo taken by DanielCD
A pink evening primrose flower Note that all this has nothing to do with evolution of the microbes-to-man sort. Evolution requires the coming into existence of encyclopedic amounts of new information, coding for new types of organs, new kinds of appendages, etc. Change of this sort, from one kind of organism into a different kind, has not been observed. Observed speciation involves only the elimination, duplication, reshuffling or degradation of existing genetic information. The various mutant varieties of evening primrose are all still evening primroses. If a self-sustaining reproductively-isolated population (i.e. a new ‘species’) of tetraploid Oenothera plants had developed, this would not constitute an example of evolution of the microbes-to-man sort. The same genes are present in the tetraploid, just twice as many of them. The information is merely duplicated in the tetraploid.
Creationists do not deny that variation occurs, including speciation. In fact rapid speciation (within a few generations) is consistent with the Genesis account of origins and history—see the articles in the ‘Speciation’ section in our Frequently Asked Questions index, especially A new weed species—does it prove Creation wrong?
500 Piltdown Doctorates?
With respect to Piltdown dissertations, there is company called Proquest that publishes a Dissertations and Theses database which includes entries for theses from universities around the world, dating from at least as far back as the mid 1800s, many decades before the Piltdown fragments were publicised in 1912. Proquest records only two theses involving Piltdown man and both these theses were written long after Piltdown Man was confirmed as a hoax, which was in 1953.
The idea that over 500 doctoral theses were done on the Piltdown man is incorrect, and probably derives from the second paragraph of a 1954 Nature article which said ‘More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man.
Catholic scholar and former atheist Malcolm Muggeridge may have been the source of the 500 Piltdown doctorates claim, which he makes on page 59 of his book The End of Christendom, published in 1980. Muggeridge was a satirist and journalist, and these are occupations notorious for hyperbole.
Andrew LambCMI–Australia

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5036