Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 1)
Message-ID: <871@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 10:49:40 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.871
Posted: Tue Apr  9 10:49:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 04:36:18 EST
References: <328@iham1.UUCP> <453@cybvax0.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 42

> Citation without quotations are worthless.  Anybody can cite random pages
> of random books.  Only if you quote what's on the page can it be construed
> as an argument.

I agree.  Note, however, that very few people in this newgroup do
actually give any references, WHATEVER their position.  Bill Jefferys
regularly does so.  Most of the rest give assertions + zero backup,
effectively preventing anyone from looking up the source of the
assertions.

> >     d)  ''All competent  biologists  acknowledge  the  limited
> >         nature of the variation breeders can produce, although
> >         they do not like to discuss it much when grinding  the
> >         evolutionary  ax.'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE PEDDLERS
> >         (New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 184-185.]
> 
> "Everyone who disagrees with me is incompetant", huh?  Let's be accurate:
> biologists will acknowledge the limited RATE at which breeders can
> produce variation.  There are no known limits to the variation that could
> be produced.

And there are no demonstrated lack of limits, either.  Let's be accurate?

> >     e)  ''A rule that all breeders recognize,  is  that  there
> >         are  fixed  limits to the amount of change that can be
> >         produced.'' [Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, THE
> >         NATURAL  LIMITS  TO  BIOLOGICAL  CHANGE (Grand Rapids:
> >         Zondervan, 1984), p. 96.]
> 
> What evidence does this creationist text (note the publisher) supply,
> other than his bare assertion?

Poison the well, Mike.  A creationist text, therefore wrong.  Yes,
some additional corroborative material would have been useful.  But
have you got something other than a bare assertion that the statement
is incorrect?

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
Science is Dead.                                                    |