Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 2) Message-ID: <391@psivax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 13:00:07 EST Article-I.D.: psivax.391 Posted: Thu Apr 11 13:00:07 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 02:32:25 EST References: <329@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 108 Summary: In article <329@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes: > > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > 3. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited [a]. > What does this have to do with anything?? > 4. Natural selection cannot produce NEW genes; it only > SELECTS among preexisting characteristics. > > 5. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new > genetic material becomes available for evolution [a,b]. > Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism > in its natural environment. In addition, almost all > (perhaps all) observable mutations are harmful [c]; many > are lethal [d-i]. Agreed, these are basic premises of evolutionary theory. > > c) ''Mutations are more than just sudden changes in > heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best > of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.'' > [C. P. Martin, (McGill University) ''A Non-Geneticist > Looks at Evolution,'' AMERICAN SCIENTIST, January > 1953, p. 102.] > d) ''[although mutations have produced some desirable > breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to > be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, > impair the fertility and viability of the affected > organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of > known mutant types one can be found which is superior > to the wild type in its normal environment, only very > few can be named which are superior to the wild type > in a strange environment.'' [C. P. Martin, p. 100.] > ''Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the > mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known > mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few > remaining ones are highly suspect.'' [C. P. Martin, p. > 103.] Ther has been a lot of water under the bridge since 1953, why not try a more recent up-to-date analysis of mutation. > e) ''The process of mutation is the only source of the > raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of > evolution.... The mutants which arise are, with rare > exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in > the environments which the species normally > encounters.'' [Theodosius Dobzhansky, ''On Methods of > Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,'' AMERICAN > SCIENTIST, Winter, December 1957, p. 385.] Please note *in the environment ... normally encounters* Many of the best evolutionary theorists consider that most evolution takes place in marginal environments where advantages and disavantages can easily be switched around(see Mayr or Stebbins). This observation is *one* of the reasons for the "puncuated equilibrium" concept, which states in part that established species are genetically *stable*. > f) ''If we say that it is only by chance that they > [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too > leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, > or lethal.'' [W. R. Thompson, ''Introduction to the > ORIGIN OF SPECIES,'' by Charles Darwin; Everyman No. > 811 Library (New York: E.P. Dutton & Sons, 1956 > reprint of 1928 edition), p. 10.] Good night, this is *really* old, more of historical than scientific interest! > i) In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a > new organ, Koestler says that ''Each mutation > occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be > combined with the others. They are all interdependent. > The doctrine that their coming together was due to a > series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to > common sense but to the basic principles of scientific > explanation.'' [Arthur Koestler, THE GHOST IN THE > MACHINE (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p. 129]. > This is a straw-man, it has *nothing* to do with serious evolutionary theory as accepted by respected scientists. A new organ is *not* considered to form from a 'series of bllind coincidences' as this quote suggests. So you are still debunking evolution rather than supporting creationism. There is *nothing* here which makes creationism any more acceptible as a *scientific* theory. Also your concept of evolutionary theory seems to be about 40 years out of date. No serious scientist today would accept a theory of the form you are debunking, they realized such a theory was inadequate 40 years ago and have been changing it to eliminate the inadequacies. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen