Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hp-pcd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!ajs
From: ajs@hpfcla.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: pesticide evolution - (nf)
Message-ID: <2347@hp-pcd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6-Nov-83 03:39:25 EST
Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.2347
Posted: Sun Nov  6 03:39:25 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Nov-83 08:17:24 EST
Sender: notes_gateway@hp-pcd.UUCP
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 40

#R:drux3:-85700:hpfcla:21300001:000:1979
hpfcla!ajs    Nov  4 16:05:00 1983

Sigh...  The theory of  evolution  requires  HYPOTHESIS,  not FAITH.  In
this case the latest (best)  hypothesis is that evolution is punctuated,
so the odds of finding "smooth-slope" transition fossils are very small.

As Richard  Dawkins says, "The universe is populated by stable  things."
That goes for  species,  too.  If you look  around, you can find lots of
"isolated"  species  as well as  "similar"  species.  Either  way, it is
precisely  their  (stable)  differences  that lets us recognize  them as
different species.

I see creationists  creating a non-existent problem out of thin air:  If
a species  exists, it can't be  transitional,  since it is separate  (by
definition).  So, they  then ask,  where are the  transitional  fossils?
They are  guilty  of  splitting  hairs.  You can find a nice  series  of
transitional  horse fossils (each a separate species) from small mammals
to current  forms.  You can also find a very nice  series  from  apelike
creatures to modern man, if you don't ignore the  evidence, or insist on
too fine a resolution.

Dramatic,  successful  mutations -- those which have survival  value and
fork new,  distinguishable  species -- are probably quite rare, and when
they  do  appear,  they  obviously  spread  lightning-fast  compared  to
geologic  time.  The average  nature of the world is extreme  stability,
with distinguishable species that change little over human times.

-->  FLAME  ON:  Creationists  seem to know  what  they  WANT  and  will
rationalize  to any  lengths to support  their  world-view.  Scientists,
however, tend to generalize  from the observable  evidence,  even if the
conclusions  are painful (e.g., humans are very small drops of space and
time in a vast cosmos).  In my opinion,  creationists are blind to their
own wishful thinking and to the true scope of time and space.

Always willing to help my memes in the battle for survival,
Alan Silverstein

(meme: see "The Mind's I", article by Dawkins)