ps418

Remember the short little critique I wrote of the EvolutionDeceit.com website: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ed.htm" target="_blank">Lies on the Evolution Deceit Website,</a> which I sent to the webmaster on 8/11/01? Well, this morning I recieved the following email from the webmaster:

Dear Sir,

You have a page titled as ?Lies of Evolution Deceit? and includes some
criticisms against the book Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya. We have read
your criticisms and accordingly, in agreement with the author, revised the
text of the book in all internet versions. (The revised version will also be
in print, next time the book is printed.)

Thus, I think it would wise to revise the comments on your page at
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ed.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ed.htm</a>

Actually, the mistakes you have criticized were not ?lies? (deliberate
misrepresentations) but just some quotes unknowingly out of context or out
of date. Anyhow, thank you for letting us know. Any further criticisms or
suggestions will be welcome.

Sincerely,


S. Celikler
EvolutionDeceit.com Webmaster

Didnt see that coming!

Coragyps

Wow! I can imagine you didn't expect that! I've been on their Yahoo forum for months, and we have only in the last week or so gotten "brian2001" to admit that maybe, once or twice in all biological history, there might have been a "beneficial mutation." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Hard work, but it feels so good when you stop..

Pantera

Wow! Well done Patrick. Now if you could just get them to retract the rest of the site as well...

Dr Rick

The ED web-book has this statement and again provides the 13 year-old reference:

...there is no evidence of transitional forms that were supposed to link amphibians with reptiles. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet."

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

wehappyfew

Patrick,

Did thy actually remove the offending misquotes and outdated references, or just promise to. As rbochnermd pointed out, they're still there.

Your page says:
"On 1/11/02, I recieved an email from the EvolutionDeceit.com webmaster informing me that these errors have now been corrected in the internet edition"

In fact, it sounds like they claim to have corrected the site, but DIDN'T.

Do you think they might be DECEIVING you?

ps418

Actually, the Carroll quote I disputed with ED was about the fish-amphibian transition, not the amphibian-reptile transition, as in the quote rbochnermd gave.

To be perfectly honest, I did not check the ED site to verify that the errors had in fact been corrected.

I think I'll look through Carroll's more recent work and see if the 13-year old quote is still acceptable. I doubt that it is.

Patrick

ps418

Of course, the really damning fact here is that, first, they claimed there were no morhological intermediates between fish grade and amphibian grade, but when I pointed out that several have been found, they do not admit up front that they were wrong and change the page to reflect these relevant discoveries -- they just drop that part of the discussion altogether, because it cant be made to look like support for the point they're trying to make.

ps418

Alright I checked out the page. These guys seriously need to get a clue, fast. Here is what the page now says. Tell me if you can spot the problem:

There is not even a single fossil verifying that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed. Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionary palaeontologist and authority on vertebrate palaeontology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in his classic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that "The early reptiles were very different from amphibians and their ancestors have not been found yet."

First, the claim that "There is not even a single fossil verifying that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed," is false, as Carroll himself points out.

Second, the Carroll quote there now is talking about early reptiles, not early amphibians! Maybe they could hire a proof-reader for crying out loud!

There other quote says:

In his newer book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, puslished in 1997, he admits that "The origin of the modern amphibian orders, (and) the transition between early tetrapods" are "still poorly known" along with the origins of many other major groups. 39

Why do I have the feeling that they dont understand what Carroll is saying?

Indeed, transitions between some of the orders are still poorly known. Nevertheless, there are numerous genera showing a mosaic of fish and tetrapod features, all occurring only in the late Devonion, immediately preceding the first true amphibians. Which directly contradicts the topic sentence of the paragraph in question.