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!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 6)
Message-ID: <414@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 20:23:21 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.414
Posted: Tue Apr 23 20:23:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 05:32:03 EST
References: <335@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 80
Summary: 

In article <335@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) 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.
>
>
>       10.  All  species  appear   perfectly   developed,   not   half
>            developed.  They show design [a]. There are no examples of
>            half-developed feathers, eyes [b], skin, tubes  (arteries,
>            veins,  intestines,  etc.),  or  any of thousands of other
>            vital organs. For example, if a limb were to evolve into a
>            wing,  it  would become a bad limb long before it became a
>            good wing.

	This is incorrect, there are many examples of organisms, both
living and fossil with intermediate developement of specialized
organs. In my last posting I mentioned Amphioxis with its simple eyes.
Then there is the Russian fossil Archosaur, Longisquama, which appears
to have incipient feathers. Or the series of fossils showing the
transition from fish scales of the shark sort to teeth. Or the series
of Synapsid fossils showing a transition from a reptilian to a
mamalian jaw articulation, with gradual reduction of the extra bones
to the small bones of the ear. These all show *clear* intermediate
morphology, which is evolution explains as actual intermediates.
>
>       11.  No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind  has
>            ever been observed.

	Irrelevant, we have not even found any extra-solar terrestrial
planets yet! This has nothing to do with a theory based on the
observation of life on Earth.
>
>       12.  If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the
>            simplest.   On  the contrary, language studies reveal that
>            the more ancient the language  (for  example,  Latin,  200
>            B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B. C., the
>	    more complex it is with respect to syntax, cases, genders,
>	    moods,  voices, tenses, and verb forms.  The best evidence
>	    indicates that languages DEvolve [a-c].
>
	The problem is these languages are only the oldest *attested*
languages, since writing was only invented about 1500 BC. Homo sapiens
is generally held to have been around at least half a million years,
thus these languages would have a *long* history of prior developement.
Furthermore, individual languages do not evelve in the *biological*
sense, they are all full expressions of the human capacity for language.
Thus, this is irrelevant to evolutionary theory, since huamans are
not evolving *biologically* with respect to language ability.
Also, I think you will find that most linguists would disagree about
the existance of a general tendency for "devolution" in languages,
all your examples are from the restricted set called Indo-European
languages which share a common heritage, and thus do not form an
independant sample. A wider sample shows much less of a uniform
tendency.
>
>       13.  Studies of the thirty-six documented cases of children who
>            were  raised  without  contact  with  other  humans (feral
>            children) show that human speech  appears  to  be  learned
>            only  from  other humans. Humans apparently have no inborn
>            ability to speak. Therefore, the first  humans  must  have
>            been endowed with a speaking ability; there is no evidence
>            that language has evolved [a].
>
	You are confusing *capacity* and ability. Humans have a
natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other
animal has ever been demonstrated to have. Humans only actual learn
to speak if they have the motivation, that is other humans to which
to speak must be present. The *real* test of the inborn nature of
language would be to raise a group of children *together* from
infancy, but without *any* contact with adults, and then see if they
invent a language for use among themselves.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen