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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Horsefeathers
Message-ID: <429@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 11:43:32 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.429
Posted: Tue Mar 26 11:43:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Mar-85 03:14:30 EST
References: <827@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 63
Summary: 

In article <827@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
> I was not concerned to demonstrate the validity or invalidity of the
> idea that when species evolve the parent species must die.  I was
> concerned to demonstrate that the idea did not originate with
> creationists, so it is an evolutionist FALLACY to imply that it did.
> Really, for all the times that we hear in this newsgroup that
> creationists attact a mistaken notion of what evolutionists believe,
> I sometimes wonder if even evolutionists know what evolutionists
> believe.

Nobody knows what any large group really believes.  Look at the controversy
in net.religion.christian over what a christian is.

Yes, there are fallacies about evolutionary theory, some of them constructed
by all-too-human evolutionary scientists.  However, when creationists bring
up generally discredited fallacies as straw men, they are misrepresenting
current evolutionary thought.

Should I quote past fallacies of Christianity, such as flat-earthism, cite
distinguished theologians and some modern supporters, claim it is
representative of modern Christian belief, and claim it as support that
belief in god is an error?  No.

But the flat-earth example is analogous to creationist arguments based
on erroneous ideas about evolution like non-contemporaneity of parent and
offspring species.

> > Archaeopteryx may or may not have been
> > the link between reptiles and birds, but the fact that Archaeopteryx hadn't
> > died out before birds developed HELPS TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT ARCHAEOPTERYX
> > was the parent specie.
> 
> That fact alone has nothing to do with support for your contention.

Paul is correct here.  Dates of occurrence in the fossil record tell little
about individual ancestry questions because the fossil record is so incomplete.

> > You want maybe some sort of useless
> > half-feather?  Why would something like that be selected for?  Why would
> > you expect a specie with useless features to survive long enough to leave
> > any kind of fossil record?
> 
> Like the Irish Elk?

What useless features do you think the Irish Elk had, Paul?  Why do you think
they were useless?

> I assume from what you say that we *wouldn't* expect intermediate
> features, that we must go from one developed structure to another
> - no incipient features.  Would we, then, expect instantaneous
> appearance of fully developed feathers? Anything less would not be
> selected for?  Or what?

You assume incorrectly.  Intermediate features may be useful and selected
for.  Anyone who has worked with insects has seen numerous groups of insects
showing full ranges of development from rather generalized species to
highly specialized species with tremendous anatomical modifications.
The incredible number of insect species provides clearer examples than the
small number of large animal species most people are familiar with.  Specific
groups to look at include ants and treehoppers.
-- 

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