Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 7)
Message-ID: <553@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 22:41:42 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.553
Posted: Mon Apr 22 22:41:42 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 08:26:37 EST
References: <338@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 85

[..................]
>     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. (See 1-13.)
>
>    B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
>        WISHFUL THINKING.
>
>       14.  It is illogical  to  maintain  that  similarities  between
>            different  species  imply a genealogical relationship [a];
>            they may imply a common Designer.

Sez you.

>
>            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.]
>
>       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.
>
The boa constrictor has rudiments of hind legs and pelvis, several birds are
flightless, the mole and cave salamander have a lens and a retina that serves
no function, our wisdom teeth may exist because our ancestors had a larger
jaw that could accomodate them.  Despite the fact that Haeckel's Law of 
Biogenisis may be completely bogus, many humans are born with vestigal
tails.  There is actually no shortage at all of examples of vestigal organs.
What widespread absence?  Obviously a MANUFACTURED widespread absence 
designed to snow the general public who may not be educated enough to
investigate these empty claims.  In addition, this reference looks highly
suspect, 'Unpublished Manuscript'?  Grasping at straws you guys.

>            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).
>
>       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].
>
If this is true, and I don't know offhand if it is, there could be a lot 
of reasons for this.   Single celled organisms may have a tendency to
grow larger than 20 cells once they obtain the ability to grow to 
multiple cells.  I would give this one much further study before I would
write it off to 'God Magic'.

>            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.)
>
This is an excellent example of the twisted nature of creationist
propoganda.  Anyone remotely familiar with current evolutionary thought
would know that noone expects that this 20 celled organism has been
around unchanged since the days when all life was less than 20 or so cells.
Clearly such a parasite would have evolved its parasitic nature after some
life had evolved that it could be parasite to!  Yet this is still presented
as evidence.  Note how the creationists seem to like to forget that once
a new organism evolves it dosen't always stabilize forever.  Organisms
continue to evolve, and not all primitive forms are directly in the 
evolutionary path of higher forms.

 
Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd