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: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 7)
Message-ID: <494@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 14:27:56 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.494
Posted: Tue Apr 23 14:27:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 05:20:29 EST
References: <338@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 75
Summary: 

In article <338@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>14.  It is illogical  to  maintain  that  similarities  between
>     different  species  imply a genealogical relationship [a];
>     they may imply a common Designer.
>
>     a)  ''. . . it is unscientific to maintain that morphology
>         may  be  used  to prove relationships and evolution of
>         the higher categories of units, . . . .'' [N. Heribert
>         Nilsson,  (Lund  University),  SYNTHETISCHE ARTBILDUNG
>         (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1186.]

Science makes use of Occam's Razor.  Occam's razor supports the geneology
before it supports a designer.

And what is the justification of the author of this artfully excised
quotation?

>15.  The existence of human organs whose  function  is  unknown
>     does  not  imply that they are vestiges of organs from our
>     evolutionary ancestors.  In fact, as medical knowledge has
>     increased,  the functions of all of these organs have been
>     discovered [a]. The widespread absence of vestigial organs
>     implies that evolution never happened.
>     a)  Jerry Bergman, ''Vestigial Organs:  Putative  Evidence
>         for   Evolution   of   Homo   Sapiens''   (Unpublished
>         Manuscript, 1306 North Orleans  Ave.,  Bowling  Green,
>         Ohio 43402: 137 pages, 1984).

A vestigial organ is one that is reduced from a previous state (induced
by comparison with homologous organs in other taxa.)  What permits
natural selection to favor the reduction?  The reduction in types or
quantity of function.  The amount of that reduction of function determines
how much reduction of organ is adaptive.

Thus, there is no shortage of vestigial organs.  Such as the muscles
that move our ears.  Such as the wings of flightless birds.  Etc.

>16.  There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no
>     forms  of  animal  life  with  2,  3,..., or even 20 cells
>     [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of  life
>     should   exist   in   great   abundance.    None  do.  The
>     evolutionary tree has no trunk [c].

The first sentence is accurate.  The second sentence is wrong for three
reasons.  1) They need not exist now, just as trilobites and dinosaurs
don't.  2) They may have existed and not yet have been found as fossils
or extant.  3) It's quite possible that multicellular animals with
differentiated organs developed from colonial (or clonal) animals.

>     c)  Actually, the form of life that has just over 20 cells
>         is  a very simple PARASITE called the mesozoa. It must
>         have a complex animal as a host in order to provide it
>         with  such functions as digestion and respiration. The
>         mesozoa could not be the evolutionary predecessors  of
>         any  so  called  higher  animals  since  it requires a
>         higher animal as its  host.  Sponges,  the  next  most
>         complex  form  of multicellular life, are so different
>         from higher forms of life that even  evolutionists  do
>         not  consider  them  as  ancestral  to  anything. (For
>         example see Cockrum, above, p. 167.)

The fact that an animal today is an obligate parasite in no way requires
its distant ancestors to have been obligate parasites.  There are endless
examples (I'll list some on request.)  Mesozoa are not really considered
likely ancestors anyhow.

Ancestors of today's multicellular animals are still hypothetical.
There are no good extant candidates, and fossil candidates will be
extremely hard to find (because of size, lack of preservable structures,
and difficulties in distinguishing cellular-level distinctions from
other organisms.)  After all, how many fossil invertebrate embryos
are known?  (They show comparable problems in fossilization.)
-- 

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