It's been a long time since I posted in one of these threads. I think 1LT, back in the day, killed my enthusiasm for these debates.
Anyway, a few points I want to make very clear in this thread.
1. The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a distinct concept from that of ABIOGENESIS. The former concerns itself with explaining how the process works that all living organisms are at the mercy of; whereas the latter seeks the answer to the origin of life as it might have been, formed out of essentially non-living things. They are two totally separate fields of study, and discoveries in one do not affect the other. No matter /how/ life originated, evolution happens, through whatever mechanisms are available.
2. The theory of evolution has come a long way from the time of Charles Darwin, who was merely a naturalist, yet made remarkable observations given the lack of a concept of genetics (among other things) at the time of his discoveries. Attacking Charles Darwin personally, or Darwin's original blueprint for evolution, is a moot point and will only earn you the title of laughing stock of the scientific community. Simply for the fact that there have been thousands of scientists since Darwin's time that have made new discoveries, refutations, and modified the theory of evolution as time progressed, in order to update it, as new information was revealed. Note that the essential principles of evolution have remained the same; insofar as the idea that the /process/ of evolution is unquestionable; that life on Earth has clearly diverged over time, and that all species share common ancestors somewhere along the line. Which brings me to my next point. . .
3. EVOLUTION is both FACT and THEORY. As I was alluding to in the previous paragraph, there is no debate in the mainstream scientific community that evolution /does/ happen. The fossil record speaks to us with layers upon layers of organisms, all grouped with their evolutionary contemporaries, laid out in patterns that suggest no coincidence. The more complex of an organism you discover, the higher up in the fossil record it rests. Under laboratory conditions, evolution has been experimentally verified time and time again. In almost every university campus across the world with a proper biology department, you will find students conducting experiments on organisms such as bacteria and fruit flies that verify the elusive process of evolution.
The /real/ debate amongst biologists is as to precisely /how/ evolution happens. The mechanisms through which evolution occur (such as natural selection) are what is theory, and the simple fact is we don't know /exactly/ how it happens. Although we have some pretty darn good ideas.
4. NEBRASKA MAN, PILTDOWN MAN, ETC. There is nothing like someone who is so depressively uninformed on the subject to dig deep into the past to try and discredit modern science.
Nebraska Man, for example, was never officially considered by mainstream science to be either man or ape, in fact the specimen had been so worn that proper identification of the tooth was extremely difficult. If you've seen the illustration of Nebraska Man, it was an artist's rendition based on their own imagination, not a sketch taken from a scientist's description. The Nebraska Man meant very little to science at the time, and most ignored the discovery since it was much too ambiguous, but creationists have rebirthed it as they desperately grasp for whatever straw is within reach -- even if it's as far back as circa 1920.
It is true that the tooth was originally proposed as, perhaps, some sort of primate, even a new species of ape, but even this claim was skeptical due to the aforementioned state of the specimen. Moreover, the molars from swine or peccaries are quite similar to our own. Misidentification is as easy as, say, confusing the Scarlet King Snake for the venomous coral snake or vice versa.
Java Man was no hoax, but somehow creationists seem to think the discovery is invalidated because of . . . well, your guess is as good as mine. But there have been many fossils, which include not just skullcaps but partial skeletons, that indicate the Java Man skullcap clearly belongs to a hominid, possibly /Homo erectus/. See this comparison between the Java Man specimen and the Turkana Boy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java15000.html
The Piltdown Man was such an obvious fraud, but the circumstances surrounding the discovery of Piltdown and later Piltdown II lead most in Britain to accept the specimen without serious scrutiny. Charles Dawson was well-qualified in the field of archeology, so hardly anyone in the British circle had questioned his find. But Piltdown was not without controversy even then, as there were many scientists, particularly Western scientists, who were critical of Piltdown and did not find the evidence very compelling. Many papers and books published since Piltdown simply fail to mention it because hardly anybody could reconcile the Piltdown man with later discoveries of known hominids. At the time, however, Piltdown met the expectations of theory -- of this perfect mix between man and ape -- and this was, in part, what had made it so popular then.
It is no mark in favor of science that it took some 40 odd years to expose the hoax for what it was, but if you look at it this way, Piltdown man is no longer cited as evidence for anything anymore. The hoax has been dead for decades, and it's hardly worth mentioning except as an example of how science can admit it is wrong, and that it does correct itself in the light of contrary evidence. One example is hardly the downfall of archeology and paleontology as legitimate disciplines.
Nobody talks about Piltdown anymore, at least not as evidence for evolution. The creationists still do, unfortunately, and it's extremely tiring having to sit them down and explain how they are beating dead horses.
Ok, I think that is all I wanted to say. I may be slow in replying since I am on a very time constraining schedule right now, but if and when I see your reply, I will make an effort to respond in kind.
Caution Wake Turbulence
