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 6)
Message-ID: <803@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 10:46:35 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.803
Posted: Tue Apr 23 10:46:35 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 03:23:38 EST
References: <335@iham1.UUCP> <796@mhuxt.UUCP> <957@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 22

> > >        12.  If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the
> > >             simplest.  
> >      Here we have the commonly pointed out but never corrected creationist
> > fallacy that evolution must progress from the simple to the complex.  Also,
> > another point that has nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> It must have SOMETHING to do with it, since we see all sorts of very
> complex organisms living today, and you guys keep telling us how simple
> organisms were when they first developed. 

     I have trouble believing that Paul is *really* as dense as he is pretending
here.  Whether languages evolved, were taught to us by aliens, gods, or by 42
cases of walkmen mysteriously transfered back into time has NOTHING to do with
the theory of evolution, which is a mechanism to explain the origin of
*species*, not languages.  Got it, Paul?  
     And the other point: Yes, the first organisms must have been very simple.
Now there are organisms which are much more complex.  That doesn't mean that
this progression was monotonic.  
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "This statement is true."