Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The News & Observer of Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina. It’s titled Assumptions and faith. The newspaper has a comments section, but there aren’t any yet.
Because the letter-writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Carlton. We’ll give you some excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
After saying that he’s responding to an earlier letter (which isn’t relevant to anything he says in his letter), the fun begins:
Where is the reproductive process that creates new genetic material?
We assume Carlton knows about the process of reproduction. He seems to be asking about the source of new biological features. Ah yes, his next sentence clarifies it:
Simple rearrangement of existing genetic material, which is observable, is not verification that over time a chemical reaction became modern man.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! “Simple rearrangement” results in mutations, some of which can be demonstrated to enhance an organism’s abilities. But Carlton doesn’t recognize that. Let’s read on:
Where are the thousands of transitional life forms in the fossil record necessary to evolve life that extracts its oxygen only from water to a life form that extracts oxygen only from air?
We don’t need fossils for that, although they exist. We have Lungfish. Carlton continues:
Yes, tadpoles become frogs. Still for reproduction, their eggs are hatched back in the water. Where is the fossil record of thousands of life forms over millions of years that shows somewhere along the way some frogs decided to reproduce without going into the water?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Frogs didn’t have a meeting at which they made that decision. Carlton may not know it, but he’s asking about the Evolution of reptiles from amphibians, which is well understood. Here’s more:
Since evolutionary theory sees similarity of body structure as a process, can you show that this conclusion is a logical necessity?
Similar body structure is certainly an indicator of biological relationship, but who claims it’s a process? Where did that come from? We’re given a clue about what’s on Carlton’s mind in his next sentence:
Certainly there are many other explanations for the similarities.
Oh — we get it. Carlton is desperately looking around for something to show that he ain’t no kin to no monkey. He wants no part of that “process.” Anyway, now we come to the end:
How do the myriad assumptions necessary to the evolution construct differ from “faith”?
The “evolution construct.” BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a letter! How would you like to debate with Carlton?
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.