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: Isolation and Unique Species
Message-ID: <811@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 10:55:43 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.811
Posted: Thu Apr 25 10:55:43 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 07:15:11 EST
References: <217@ihnet.UUCP> <3570013@csd2.UUCP> <964@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 26

> > >>How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve?
> >    . . . <the following is advanced by Karl as a creationist explanation>
> > 
> > >> "There is a simple explanation.  Gawd created unique
> > >> species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed.
> > >> When we got to the islands,we found some previously inaccessible species.
> > >> A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything."
> > >
> > >Hang on a second.  Have you ever actually seen this argument used?
> > >If so, where?  If not...be quiet.
> > 
> > OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this?
> > I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that
> > you have a different one in mind.
> > Isaac Dimitrovsky
> 
> No, I don't.  I meant what I said, viz. "what creationist actually
> uses this argument?"  No acrimony implied.
> Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--

    So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily
explained by evolution and ignored by creationists?
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "This statement is true."