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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 1)
Message-ID: <385@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 12:39:47 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.385
Posted: Tue Apr  9 12:39:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 04:22:14 EST
References: <328@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 103
Summary: 

In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>
>       Several of you have asked for specific evidences that support creation
>       and oppose evolution. There are many. We will list 116. Evidences 1-36
>       come  from  the  life  sciences,  37-87  come   generally   from   the
>       astronomical  sciences,  and  88-116  relate to the earth sciences. An
>       outline format will be used. One or more of these 116 evidences, along
>       with appropriate references will be given every day or so.
>
>            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.
	Not true, biologists have found a number of species which
simply did not exist 300 yrs ago. They have also observed significant
adaptive change in some species as a result of industrial polution in
Britain, that is some animals have adapted to polution!! And
scientists were there to watch.
>
>               1.  Spontaneous generation (the emergence of  life  from  non-
>                   living  matter)  has never been observed. All observations
>                   have  shown  that  life  only  comes   from   life.   This
>                   observation  is so consistent that it is called the Law of
>                   Biogenesis. The theory of evolution  conflicts  with  this
>                   law by claiming that life came from non-living matter.
>
	This is  amisunderstanding of the nature of the "law" of
Biogenesis, which is nothing more than an *observation* that under
current conditions life is not *seen* to appear without a living
precurser. It is *not* an absolute statement of the impossibility
of such origin(there are *no* absolutes in science).  Furthermore,
the current theories on the origin of life are *not* spontaneous
generation theories of the sort which this "law" was formulated to
reject.

>               2.  Mendel's laws  of  genetics  explain  almost  all  of  the
>                   physical variations that are observed within life, such as
>                   in the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and
>                   their  modern  day refinements is that there are LIMITS to
>                   such  variation  [a,b].  Breeding  experiments  have  also
>                   confirmed that these boundaries exist [c-e].
>
		A list of citations follows here.

	The problem with this argument is that evolution and breeding
occur in entirely *different* time-frames. This is where mutation
comes into evolutionary theory - it provides the extra variation
which removes the limitation on short-term breeding. Even breeding
has from time to time exceeded these basic limits, when there has been
sufficient time for genetic reorganisation; I am talking about the
vast number of dog breeds, many of which fall entirely outside of
the normal range of variation for a wild Canis(called "wolves").
Or how about the man-made species Zea mays(common corn); so different
from its wild ancesters that they are almost unrecognizable.
The argument above also ignores population effects, breeding
experiments are always done with *small* populations of limited
genetic variability, most successful wild spp have *enormous*
populations with a large amount of regional variation.

>                                             ...
>       __________
>
>         * By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial
>           change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. When
>           referring to the evolution of life, this increasing
>           complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form
>           of life had a different, improved, and reproducible set
>           of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is
>           sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man
>           theory, or MACROevolution. MICROevolution, on the other
>           hand, involves only changes in shapes, colors, sizes, or
>           minor chemical alterations--changes that both
>           creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively
>           trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then,
>           which requires increasing complexity, that is being so
>           hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by
>           the term evolution.
>
>
	Nice definition :-)  I don't know of any reputable biologist
who would accept it as it stands. Increased complexity a *defining*
characteristic of evolution??? What about structural reduction in
parasites??(like tapeworms).  Evolution *only* talks about increased
*adaption* *not* improvement!!


	Now the real objection to this whole thing.  So you have
debunked evolutionary theory(again), where is the evidence *for*
creationism? Even if evolutionary theory as it stands is
incomplete, there is *no* reason to accept creationism. It just
means that biologists must continue looking for a viable theory.
In order for creation science to be acceptible as an alternative
there must be shown to be *positive* evidence for it, and
observational justification for the *assumption* of a creator.
This is simply *not* what was asked for in terms of evidence.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

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