Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 4)
Message-ID: <750@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 15:53:51 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.750
Posted: Thu Apr 11 15:53:51 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 03:15:48 EST
References: <331@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 52

>             THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
> 
>        I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.

      This has already been pointed out several times, but once again: 
EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION IS NOT THE SAME AS EVIDENCE FOR CREATION.  The
fact that Ron continues to assert that it is, seems to indicate that he
has a total lack of understanding as to just what constitutes evidence for
or against a scientific theory.  
> 
>            A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
> 
      Wow!  And we've been looking for it now and then for most of a century
now!  That's almost one millionth of the time evolution has been going on,
and we haven't seen any major changes yet.  Guess what?

             Z.  CREATION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.

      Well, I guess that takes care of both of those theories.  Either that, 
or 'X has never been observed' is a pretty poor way to invalidate a theory.
Even if you type it in capital letters very often, it just doesn't help.
> 
>                7.  Over seventy years [a] of fruit-fly experiments, involving
>                    2700 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for
>                    believing that any natural or artificial process can cause
>                    an  increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic
>                    improvement  has  ever  been  observed  despite  the  many
>                    unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates [b-f].

        2700 generations over 70 years?  And probably hundreds, maybe even 
thousands of fruit flies?  Please compare that to 1 million years and many    
billions of fruit flies.  Big difference, isn't there?  
        A viable, improved  mutation is obviously highly unlikely.  It is
therefore to be expected that any experiment which uses a small number of
individuals and a small number of generations (compared to the number which
is used by nature) is unlikely to produce a viable mutation.
        Imagine shuffling a deck of cards and dealing out several hands.  
If you did that 10 times and found no royal flushes, would you conclude
that a royal flush is impossible to get?
> 
>           II.  (Astronomical Sciences):
> 
>                                       TO BE CONTINUED
> 
>          III.  (Earth Sciences):
> 

	Can't wait till they finally get to these ones.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "Pulled a muscle in my ear!"-Penfold