Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 1)
Message-ID: <453@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 12:17:55 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.453
Posted: Mon Apr  8 12:17:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 00:09:35 EST
References: <328@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 80

Oh boy.  Another dreary "evolution is wrong, so creationism is right"
fallacy.  I'll rebut the individual points.

In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
> 1.  Spontaneous generation (the emergence of  life  from  non-
>     living  matter)  has never been observed. All observations
>     have  shown  that  life  only  comes   from   life.   This
>     observation  is so consistent that it is called the Law of
>     Biogenesis. The theory of evolution  conflicts  with  this
>     law by claiming that life came from non-living matter.

This is a funny criticism to hear from a creationist,  considering that
creation of "kinds" has never been observed, and contradicts the "Law
of Biogenesis".

Biogenesis was a rebuttal to the popular notion (supported by the Biblical
plagues of Egypt and other foolishness) that organisms such as toads,
flies (and their maggots) and other animals and plants could just appear
spontaneously from the carcases, the earth, or other sources.  Studies of
life cycles and Pasteur's experiments rebutted that idea.

Abiogenesis, the modern idea of life evolving from chemicals, differs in
several respects fropm the old notion.  First, in that first life (if in
fact we would care to declare some stage to be first life) was much simpler
than current living organisms.  Second, that it took a long time for
this early life to develop to stages similar to todays living organisms,
rather than a few days or hours for the old notion.

> 2.  Mendel's laws  of  genetics  explain  almost  all  of  the
>     physical variations that are observed within life, such as
>     in the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and
>     their  modern  day refinements is that there are LIMITS to
>     such  variation  [a,b].  Breeding  experiments  have  also
>     confirmed that these boundaries exist [c-e].

There is much more known of genetics nowadays than Mendel's laws.  Such as
mutation.  There is no evidence of long-term limits.

>     a)  Monroe W. Strickberger,  GENETICS,  2nd  edition  (New
>         York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.
>     c)  Francis Hitching,  THE  NECK  OF  THE  GIRAFFE:  WHERE
>         DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and
>         Fields, 1982), p. 55.

Citation without quotations are worthless.  Anybody can cite random pages
of random books.  Only if you quote what's on the page can it be construed
as an argument.

>     b)  ''On the general relation of Mendelism to evolution  I
>         have  come to a very definite conclusion; that is that
>         it is  really  antagonistic  to  evolution.''  [Alfred
>         Russell  Wallace,  MY  LIFE,  Vol.1 (Chapman and Hall,
>         1905).]

Wallace's objections have long since been met.  The results were called
the New Synthesis (of genetics and evolution.)  Care to quote his
objections to contradict me?

>     d)  ''All competent  biologists  acknowledge  the  limited
>         nature of the variation breeders can produce, although
>         they do not like to discuss it much when grinding  the
>         evolutionary  ax.'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE PEDDLERS
>         (New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 184-185.]

"Everyone who disagrees with me is incompetant", huh?  Let's be accurate:
biologists will acknowledge the limited RATE at which breeders can
produce variation.  There are no known limits to the variation that could
be produced.

>     e)  ''A rule that all breeders recognize,  is  that  there
>         are  fixed  limits to the amount of change that can be
>         produced.'' [Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, THE
>         NATURAL  LIMITS  TO  BIOLOGICAL  CHANGE (Grand Rapids:
>         Zondervan, 1984), p. 96.]

What evidence does this creationist text (note the publisher) supply,
other than his bare assertion?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh