Ron Rayborne Accepts Hovind's Challenge

Ron Rayborne approached Hovind's $250,000 Challenge using the polar bear to illustrate beneficial mutations and change beyond 'kind' barriers.  In other words, meeting Hovind's own definition of macroevolution.

Note that I am not Ron Rayborne.  I am hosting this exchange to illustrate yet again the methods under which Kent Hovind runs his "Challenge".  While polar bears are interesting, it is Hovind's responses which are the main attraction.

---

January 2001

Dear Mr. Hovind,

Hello. You may or may not remember me. My name is Ron Rayborne. Some years ago I responded to your evolution challenge, that challenge being that if someone could provide convincing evidence for evolution you would pay he/she $10,000. You rejected my evidence then, however I have updated some and would like again to submit it in hopes of winning the big prize. You may be aware that some people claim that you are not being honest about your offer and intend never to pay up no matter the evidence, however I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

In the challenge on your web site, you say the following, "I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution". You also say in your "answers to commonly asked questions" about the offer in point #3, "evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species .... The key is that no new genetic information has been added" (emphasis mine).

THE SCIENCE

The evidence I offer is from the polar bear, Ursus (formerly Thalarctos) maritimus.

To begin, probably the most obvious advantage for this bear is its thick coat of white color (which only appears white - the individual hairs are transparent) which is an aid in camouflage. Certainly this feature alone would give the polar bear quite an edge over both the brown and black bears had they to survive in the same environment. Thor Larsen of the Norwegian Polar Institute, and a founding member of the IUCN Polar bear specialist group, tells of one method this carnivore uses to acquire its main prey, seals:

Polar bears may also take seals by surprise, and sneak upon them while they sleep or sunbathe on the ice close to their holes. During such periods the seals are very alert and wake up and look around at short intervals. The bear may crawl close, very carefully trying to hide behind ice blocks and other natural objects .... between ices blocks and irregularities on the ice. (The World of the Polar Bear p36)

 

A couple of other qualities, which the hair of the polar bear incorporates, are water repellency, and as the individual hairs are hollow, the whole is an aid in buoyancy. It is classified as a marine mammal, maritimus - meaning "of the sea") since it, unlike other bears, spends so much of its life in the sea. "Apart from their build", says Dr. David Macdonald in The Encyclopedia of Mammals, referring to their streamlinedness (their necks are more elongated than other bears which makes it easier to keep their heads above water while swimming, and their heads are narrower), "the water repellent coat and feet that are partially 'webbed' are also adaptations to swimming" (92). And in fact "polar bears are excellent divers and swimmers" and "have been seen swimming strongly 200 miles from land  [!]." (Dr. Maurice Burton The New International Wildlife Encyclopedia  p1808), though the usual figure is about 60 miles. It is reported that they can stay under water for 2 minutes at a time down to a depth of 10 to 15 feet and, while swimming, they are able to close their nostrils and flatten their ears.

Other features which aid the polar bear in this frigid environment include "a thick subcutaneous layer of fat [4 inches] which provides extra insulation" (Larsen 26) and, says Endangered Wildlife of the World, "Polar bear paws are heavily matted, tufted with short, stiff hairs that protect the bottoms of their feet from the intense cold and provide traction on ice and snow" (94). Further "the soles of the feet have small papillae and vacuoles like suction cups to make them less likely to slip on the ice." http://www.bearbiology.com/pbdesc.html  The front feet are over sized and effectively act as paddles in the water. Also "to protect he eyes from possible sun blindness" says Joseph Lucas and Susan Hayes in The Living Earth: Polar Life (part of The Living Earth series), "the eyelids apparently act as sunglasses" (53). Additionally, like other polar animals, a polar bear's ears are smaller than those of its warmer climate cousins to reduce the loss of heat. However, unlike other bears, a polar bear's teeth reflect its almost all meat diet in a land mainly lacking vegetation.

All of these features can sometimes be overwhelming. Stirling and Guravich say in Polar Bears

"The normal body temperature of a resting polar bear is about 98.6 F, the same as that of humans and comparable to that of other mammals. A bear's fur, tough hide and blubber layer ... provide such excellent insulation that the bear does not have to change its metabolic rate (in other words, burn extra energy) very often to maintain a stable body temperature, even when the ambient temperature drops as low as -34F .... The negative aspect of being so well insulated is that the bear overheats quickly." (37)

 

Scientists also learned that spotting and photographing polar bears from the air was not an easy proposition. White against white didn't show up too well. So they switched to infrared thinking to locate them by way of their body heat. They discovered something about the polar bear in so doing because the polar bear still didn't show up, due apparently to the fact that the polar bear loses very little heat. The problem was solved when they switched again, this time to UV film, Science News 3/8/86 "Solar Bear Technology"; Scientific American 3/88 "Solar Polar Bears". It worked because while "snow reflects 90% of UV light, the polar bear fur absorbs it. The contrast is visible on film." It has been observed, in fact, that Eskimos who have hunted and skinned polar bears always lay it pelt side down on the snow when drying as the skin side will melt the ice then freeze to it in sections.  It was once believed that the individual hairs each act like a fiber optic cable in transferring UV light and heat directly to the skin however there is dispute about this point  http://it.stlawu.edu/~koon/polar.html   But it is interesting that the skin of the polar bear IS entirely a heat absorbing black color!

If that isn't enough, its ability to conserve, recycle and rebuild vital life sustaining stores is yet another astounding adaptation to life in the frozen north where food is often hard to come by, "Many mammals, including humans, can conserve nitrogen and rebuild protein during short fasting periods. But the polar bear's ability to do so for months at a time is outstanding" say ecologist Malcolm Ramsay and physiologist Ralph A. Nelson in an article in Bioscience.

Female polar bears can fast up to nine months [!]....During fasts, they maintain near normal body temperature, protect body protein, recycle nitrogenous wastes, give birth, and feed their young, with an efficiency unmatched by other mammals .... when most mammals fast, both urea and creatinine levels increase [leading to a breakdown in muscle tissue and eventually death] says Ramsay. But in polar bears, urea levels drop, and creatinine levels go up, indicating urea is being recycled .... Ramsay and Nelson recently found that fasting polar bears studied at different seasons of the year often had U/C ratios below 10, the lowest ration yet reported in mammals. They say the ratios were clearly correlated with feeding opportunities" (“Polar Bears Preserve Protein” Sept. 91:537).

 

Additionally except for pregnant females and/or during especially stormy weather, polar bears do not hibernate. While several other bear species not as adapted to cold weather do need to hibernate, some for up to seven months out of the year, the polar's many adaptations to cold and the fact that it doesn't depend on seasons for the availability of food have, for the most part, done away with this feature. "While other bears hibernate when it's cold, in Churchill [Manitoba] [polar] bears may dig summer dens to help them keep cool! They simply dig through the tundra to the frozen permafrost beneath. Some of these 'refrigerators' appear to have been used for hundreds of years"  http://www.geobop.com/Mammals/Carnivora/Ursidae/Ursus_maritimus/5.htm   It is interesting to note, by the way, that four other bear species also do not hibernate. They are the sun bear, the panda bear, the spectacled bear and the sloth bear (and as a side point, the panda and spectacled bears have adapted to an almost completely vegetarian diet). They don't hibernate for the same reason as the polar bear - they don't need to. But not because they live in the same environment. Quite the opposite. There are a couple of reasons for this: first because while there is plenty of food around it is not of the high energy type that would be necessary to see these bears through a long hibernation, and second because it just doesn't get cold enough in the tropical and near tropical environments in which these bears live for them to have needed such adaptations. Just what one would expect from evolution.

To get more information on polar bears check out this site:  http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmnh/bear-po2.htm

Now the clincher is that it is known that the polar bear is positively related to the brown bear (though they are a separate species), and this we know because it can still breed with them (though only in captivity, they no longer do so in the wild being limited by Dobzhansky's "isolating mechanisms"). What's more, it can still produce fertile offspring (Larsen, p 26) (not the "sterile hybrid" you disqualify). What does this prove? Just this: that some time in its past (the usual calculation being around 100,000 yrs ago http://www.nps.gov/bela/html/polar.htm) a split took place and the polar bear (or pre-polar bear - a strain of the ancestral brown bear) began to acquire new characteristics - characteristics which allowed it to adapt to a changing environment.  Yet not the hodgepodge of frivolous "variations" creationists would predict, but positive changes which in combination and in their complexity, uniquely among bears, enabled the polar bear to not only survive in the polar wastes, but to thrive there. It is obvious that it is related to the brown bear and yet it has also obviously acquired substantial qualitative differences. And these changes were neither useless nor deleterious (neither, I think you would agree, are they "minor").  This signals an increase in positive genetic information (not neutral "back mutations" mind you) that was not there before.

RELIGIOUS ASPECTS

Now of course one could simply claim that the polar bear is just a strained-out specialization of some "super bear kind" from just a few thousand years ago (which is not falsifiable for how could one scientifically prove that the pre-polar bear was not pre-packaged with all the genes that later went into making up all the many bear species that have inhabited this planet?)   http://www.il-st-acad-sci.org/mammals/mami005a.html  How could one prove that we weren't put here by a race of German speaking space aliens from a planet made up of green cheese? And how does this jive with the Bible at Jeremiah 13:23 which implies that animals can't change? And if God incorporated the ability to change in response to changing environmental conditions in the genes with the intention that all his creation survive, why is it then that so many millions of species have been allowed to go extinct (for example, though I am aware that you believe that dinosaurs are still around, I've not seen any T Rexes stalking about, Brontosaurs stomping or Pterosaurs flying around lately, nor any saber tooth cats, Glyptodonts, Arsinoitheriums, Indricotheriums, or Paleocastors either). Would this pre-packaged gene idea be an honest response with valid scientific backing or just a way to try to squirm away from, what to any other reasonable person, seems obvious? A demonstration of the "moving of the goal posts" that some people accuse creationists of doing whenever cornered?

You could also say that "the polar bear is, after all, STILL A BEAR, so it doesn't count". Or that there hasn't been enough change. The problem with that is that if it were much more changed, there is every reason to believe that it would no longer be able to breed with the brown bear or that the offspring of such a union would be sterile (see Nicholas Hotton's The Evidence of Evolution p 39). Also it would probably no longer look as similar (do you believe that the individual member groups within a "kind" must always look similar no matter how much variation takes place, Marsh Variation and Fixity in Nature pp 122, 133, that no amount of small changes can ever add up to a big change?) which could then raise doubts in the creationist mind about relationship, especially given the totality of changes that will by that time have taken place. At this point a creationist might then conceivably claim that the two are not and never were related! [See for example AIG's response to pandas in the Addendum below] This scenario could be construed as evidence that creationists are trying to design the rules so as to make it impossible for science to "prove" evolution. And, by the way, if subjective looks are all we really have to go by to indicate what a "kind" is, why could not the dog and bear, or even the human and chimp be related?

So how do you explain the polar bear, and what are your scientific evidences for such? Is it really honest to claim that it is "just another breed of bear"?

Now consider the creationist's stand on the world climate into which all animal life was supposedly originally created and in which they were intended to live (presumably forever: Genesis 1:31). We read in Henry Morris' The Genesis Record (60, 142-144) that the earth was a "global greenhouse" before the flood, with, "a uniformly mild warm climate everywhere all year long" and in Whitcomb's The World that Perished (p 34) we read:

there were no great variations in the climate in different parts of the earth because of the greenhouse effect of the vapor canopy. Not until after these waters fell to the earth are we told of great winds (8:1) which would imply significant temperature differences between equatorial and polar regions for the first time. In these polar regions, where tropical plants and animals once lived in abundance, huge masses of snow and ice suddenly began to accumulate.

 

The question that occurs to me when I read this is: why then did God create animals that were much more comfortable and better adapted to life after the flood than before it. What did they do in the meantime (compare Marsh in Variation and Fixity in Nature 113)? Keep in mind that according to Young Earth chronology there was only a 1,600 yr time span between the creation and the flood. Then when you realize that the polar bear is not one specialization but actually possesses a panoply of specializations, if you will, it seems to me that the chance of them all coincidentally ending up in the polar bear due to some random "horizontal variation" and in such a short period of time, really, I have to be frank, strains credulity. Now if one says that "we've updated and now believe that there has always been some areas of frozenness" to accommodate the polar bear and other polar animals like the emperor penguin http://www.seaworld.org/Penguins/adaptations.html (and let's not forget the deserts which also hosts a variety of similarly adapted life such as the Arabian camel, see Audubon 1/91 p 41-42), then that leaves even less time for the polar bear to have diverged. Even if one claims that they diverged after the flood then gradually somehow ended up in the Arctic Circle that still leaves precious little time to have acquired all these characteristics. Or, if one were to say that the polar bear's features were the result of the change of the world from perfection to imperfection after the fall of Adam, then I have to ask: are the polar bear's adaptations the kinds one would expect to result from a curse (like the "thorns and thistles" mentioned in Genesis 3:18)? And, by the way, just how much modification after the creation was supposedly over would reasonably constitute creating (Gen. 2:1-4, also Hebrews 4:3-4)?

Do I need to prove how it happened to know that it did indeed happen? Does one need to know how anything happens to know that anything happens? Did you need to know exactly how your dinner last night came to be there in order to believe that it was there, that it must have been made and in a way consistent with the laws of nature? How about a full grown tree, or an airplane, or gravity, or a nebula, or an auto accident or a murder etc.? Is there any reason to seek out supernatural explanations when a natural one exists? I think you can see the fallacy in this sort of reasoning.

So I guess the fairer question would be: given the fact that we can observe microevolution happening (though no one that I know of has ever lived long enough to actually observe macroevolution happening), which makes more sense and is more consistent with the known data, evolution or anything but evolution? And what level of certainty is reasonable before one finally accepts the facts, even if tentatively? Can one be considered evil for accepting the validity of evolution if that is where the evidence honestly leads one?

As to atheism, evolution theory, as you know, does not have a position on whether or not God or some other higher power might have been what set the whole thing in motion. The concept of God is a different subject and, to my mind, one which cannot be ruled out. There are many evolutionists, also as you know, who believe in God. They are not mutually exclusive concepts despite rigorous assertions that they are. I agree with creationists that there are those who use the mistaken idea that evolution cancels out a higher being as an excuse to be total jerks. But let's not forget that history is filled with examples of Bible believers who were also total jerks, to say the least. If someone wants to be a jerk, he's going to be a jerk no matter what his beliefs.

I hope that you will give my submittal an honest evaluation. Please feel free to notify by e-mail. As you stated in your challenge, I do not wish to get into a protracted debate over semantics either.

Sincerely,

Ron Rayborne

5 Feb. 2001

Hovind's complete reply was;

You need to read the offer.  What you show here is just a variety of bear.  I will send this to the committee if you wish but I feel they will just laugh.  KH

LIE!  Hovind does not send the material to the committee, as we shall see below.

(5-7 Feb. 2001)

Ron Rayborne sent a revised copy of the his presentation (only minor changes)  to which Hovind replied;

"You need to re-read my offer!  Your own re-search [sic] should have convinced you by now that there is a God and that His Creation is pretty amazing.  What you have submitted is tremendous evidence for creation, but has nothing to do with evolution.  Feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this."

7 Feb. 2001

To which Rayborne replied;

Dear Mr. Hovind,

 1. Setting aside the Christian Apologetics, I trust that you have sent my paper onto your committee as promised and that I will receive back from them in a timely manner either a check or a scientifically supported point by point refutation, and demonstration of how the polar bear is, in the words of your first reply "just variety of bear" and yet also how, in your words here it "a tremendous evidence for creation, but has nothing to do with evolution", and not simply "just laugh"?

  2. I have read your offer, particularly the part where you say "I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any emprical [sic] evidence (scientific proof) for evolution".  To what specifically do you refer?

  3. Don't you think that, in all honesty, that it would be fairer to at least reveal who these judges are so that all may feel satisfied that they (the judges) are neutral and non-partisan?

Ron

9 February 2001

Hovind replies;

They are still bear! [sic]  This hardly proves bears came from a rock!  I will send the evidence to the committee is [sic] you like but I fear they will laugh. KH

LIE!  Hovind says for the second time he will send the material to the committee.

9 February 2001

Dear Mr. Hovind,

Thank you for sending on my paper.

If you don't mind I'd like to explore your statement that "they are still bear" a bit further.  This implies that you are confident that you can distinguish between "kinds". So then, could you tell me what it is exactly that makes a bear a bear?  And what makes a "kind" a "kind"?  Is there some certain, precise, easy to understand definition and easy to see dividing line past which, if an animal could (theoretically of course) change it would no longer be a bear? Where would such a line be?  How much change would have to take place for you to agree that such a point had been reached (whether or not you actually believe it could ever happen)?

What about the giant panda?  Let me ask you, is the giant panda a member of the bear kind?  It certainly has not been all that clear to the researchers [at least in the past] where it belongs:

"Giant pandas are classed as bears by most scientists.  Until recently, giant pandas were grouped with raccoons and lesser pandas (I.e., the Procyonidae (raccoon) family).  This decision was based primarily on physiological evidence.  In the late 1980's, DNA/serological studies clearly established that giant pandas are    clearly more bear than raccoon.  Some scientists want to place giant pandas in their own grouping but for most bear researchers, this does not seem warranted." and this, "while members of the order Carnivora, giant pandas have evolved almost exclusively into vegetarians with accompanying changes in their dental  structure  and, also, to a lesser degree, their digestive tract.  Their short intestine is still not sufficiently developed  to remove all of the available nutrients from the fibrous bamboo on which they feed."   http://www.nature-net.com/bears/panda.html

 

What about red (lesser) pandas?  Is it a member of the bear kind?

 

"The red panda is taxonomically difficult to classify. It was originally placed in the family Procyonidae because of similarities in teeth, round skull, ringed tail, and other morphological characteristics. It has since  been placed in the family Ursidae because of similarities in DNA. However, unlike other members of these two families, Ailurus fulgens has an Asiatic origin and has never migrated to the new world. It has been proposed   that the red panda be given its own family, the Ailuridae. (Morris 1965, Glatston 1994, Wilson and Reeder 1993)" http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/ailurus/a._fulgens$narrative.html#natural_history

 

Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Mammals  (Sybil P. Parker, editor (Vol 3 p.469)) says this about the red panda:

 

"Much in the same way as the giant panda, the lesser panda has a false 'thumb' that facilitates the handling of bamboo leaves and poles." and yet, "because the lesser panda has the digestive system of a carnivore it cannot digest wood fiber.  It therefore has to eat large amounts of bamboo everyday in order to survive". (1)

 

Interesting that both "bears" appear to be changing, "intermediates", between the bears and something yet to come (as a side point, it doesn't seem quite fair that God would make these two animals have to struggle so just to survive does it?).  So, again, where is the dividing line?  If you don't know what a "kind" is, how can you say with confidence, for example, that the dog and bear or the striped hyena and aardwolf are not related?

I do not have to prove that "bears came from a rock" as you say. Your challenge page   http://216.248.142.66/Articles/Article1.jsp   (to which you refer interested parties, " The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly here on my web site"  http://www.drdino.com/articles/FAQ250000.jsp  ) makes no mention of such a, if you don't mind my saying so, ridiculous clause.  But it does say, as I've quoted before, "I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution".  If you would like a more thorough treatment might I suggest a book by Mayr perhaps?  I really like Edward O. Wilson and would like to recommend his The Diversity of Life

You have mentioned twice that you fear that the committee will "just laugh".   Yet you say in your faq page
 http://www.drdino.com/articles/FAQ250000.jsp about the challenge, "Any legitimate evidence will be forwarded to them.  At that time they may identify themselves if they choose .... Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time".  Can I infer from that that since you have agreed to send my paper on your committee that you feel that my evidences are legitimate and are not minor?  Why then should they laugh? I hope that I can receive a more professional (and fair) response than that.

Thanks again,

sincerely,
 

Ron Rayborne

Footnote

(1)    Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Mammals  (Sybil P. Parker, editor (Vol 3))

“The giant panda specializes in one type of food, bamboo.... Based on its anatomy, however, the giant panda is a carnivore: its  simple stomach and short intestine are adapted to meat, but not to coarsely fibrous plants, whose cellulose the animal cannot  digest. Comparatively, a typical herbivore, such as a cow or deer, can dissolve cellulose into nutrients and digest up to 80 percent  of its food. How, then, does the giant panda survive if it exclusively feeds on bamboo? Since the animal gains only a few nutrients  from each bite it takes, it has to ingest enormous quantities each day, namely about 33lb (15kg) of leaves and stems in order to  cover its energy requirements.... For the giant panda to process bamboo in such great quantities and to keep its stomach full, it has  to spend 16 to 24 hours of the day in feeding.” ( 472) “Does the giant panda belong to the family procyonids or that of the true  bears? The latest biochemical studies suggest a close relationship between giant pandas and bears. At first glance, the giant panda  is in fact similar to a bear. But its odor marking behavior, several of its higher pitched vocalizations, as well as some special  reproduction features and certain morphological features indicate that it is not a true bear. In my opinion the species should be  placed either in its own family, Ailuropodidae, or possibly in one family together with the lesser panda, with which it has various features in common.” (476)
 

14 February, 2001

Thanks for reminding me about not sending minor changes to the committee.  This would be a waste of time for everyone involved.  If you ever get any evidence that does support evolution please send it to me.  KH

14 February, 2001

Dear Mr. Hovind,

Does this mean that you are going back on your word, the two promises you made, to send my letter on to your committee?  Do I need to also remind you of what the Bible says about lying (Prov. 12:13-22; Jer. 9:2-8; Hos.4:1-2; Zech. 8:16; John 8:44; Eph. 4:25; 1 John 2:3-6,21)?  I'd think that if I were the Bible believer that you CLAIM to be, I would not be quite so cavalier about telling the truth ...

If you feel that these evidences are so minor, then why not refute them and then tell me how YOU would explain the polar bear?

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.  Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you from being priest for me."  - Hosea 4:6

Thank you,

Ron Rayborne

No response from Hovind

---

1 March, 2001

Dear Mr. Hovind,

I've not heard back from you lately.  Does this mean that you have decided to drop out of our discussion?

I would like to ask you further about your new statement that the adaptations of the polar bear are only minor and therefore do not require an examination by your committee.  Let me direct your attention to an article published by a David J. Taylor of the Creation Research Society that seems to indicate otherwise.  Feel free to go directly to the site for context:

 http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9709.html

"Polar Bears are significantly heavier (300-600 kg) and are covered in heavy fur. The ears are short and fur-covered. The Polar Bear's fur is very interesting, as there are two layers. The undercoat is made up of fine white hairs, and there is an outer coat of long guard hairs. The guard hairs are specialised, in that they are noticeably hollow; this helps promote buoyancy in swimming. Other adaptations include a very long neck and partial webbing between the toes, to help in swimming. Fur-covered feet pads provide for better traction on ice. The Polar Bear is almost exclusively a meat eater, with appropriate dentition. The carnassial teeth are sharp, for shearing off meat, and the canine teeth are longer, sharper and more widely spaced than are those of the Brown Bear. There is a very large stomach capacity, to enable opportunistic feeding...." 

"Most of the variation noted here could be regarded as uncontroversial among creationists: there are variations in body weight, claw length, ear morphology, and fur characteristics. These are adaptations which can be interpreted as "fine-tuning" without significant novelty. The Polar Bear, however, provides evidence for more dramatic change, and it is worthy of note that it used to be classified as a species within its own genus (Thalarctos maritimus). As previously mentioned, the fur has specialised hollow guard hairs; there is partial webbing between the toes; the feet pads are fur-covered; the dentition is that of a predatory carnivore, and the very large stomach capacity is of particular value to this animal in its normal environment. These morphological changes seem to me to go beyond the small, microevolutionary changes which are widely cited in creationist literature, and they all suggest the idea of design. At the very least, a study of these members of the Ursus group suggests that creationists need to be more positive about larger-scale adaptations (with the appearance of design) than generally appears to outside observers."

If you read his article you will find similar statements about other bear species such as the sloth bear.

Of course Mr Taylor finds other possible explanations for these changes but there is no evidence offered.  However please again note that he says that "The Polar Bear, however, provides evidence for more dramatic change" and that these changes "go beyond the small, microevolutionary changes which are widely cited in creationist literature."   Should not this require a retraction by you that these changes are minor, whether or not you believe that they were designed by God or by Evolution?  And therefore, should not you keep your original word and send them on to your committee or at the very least try to explain the polar bear from you perspective but also with scientific references?

Is it possible, from your perspective that the many species of bear may be separate creations, the possibility of which Mr. Taylor seems to leave open?

1. "For the purposes of this article, the term "Basic Type" is used to refer to the different kinds of plants and animals as they appeared from the hand of the Creator."
2. "However, if the Ursidae derive from the same created Basic Type, then the Panda's thumb is indeed an adaptation, along with its specialised head, esophagus , and reproductive system. So also is the Sloth Bear's "vacuum cleaner" device for consuming termites, and the Polar Bear's carnivorous dentition and digestive tract."
3. "This article does not conclude that all the members of the Ursidae belong to the same Basic Type..."

 

It is nice to know that at least some Bible believers can also accept the evolution of bears:  http://www.giantpandabear.com/index.html

Looking forward to your reply,

Ron

6 March, 2001

Can you not see the forest because the trees block your view?  They are still bears!  KH

 

---