Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 1)
Message-ID: <459@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 11:54:45 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.459
Posted: Thu Apr 11 11:54:45 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 03:19:45 EST
References: <328@iham1.UUCP> <453@cybvax0.UUCP> <871@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 66
Summary: 

In article <871@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
> > 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.

I'm glad you agree with something. :-)  It's hard to argue about no statement.

I rarely give references because I rarely have them near me.  Generally,
I restrict my arguments to those founded on understanding of general
principles of evolution, logic, and argument (which can be found in
innumerable texts on the appropriate subjects.)  If you want references
on those, you need only ask.  My arguments are phrased from my own thoughts,
rather than quotations of others.  Shall I cite myself?

> > >     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?

And there is no demonstrated lack of undemonstrated lacks....    :-)

Very simply, creationists postulate limits to variation over a long
period of time.  There is no evidence for such a postulate.  Therefore,
Occam's razor says "chuck it".  Throw away Occam's razor and you are throwing
away a part of the scientific method.

> > >     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?

Therefore suspect.  If I wanted declare him wrong because he is a creationist,
I would do so.  It's very impolite for you to imply otherwise.

But (once again) the only thing breeders can talk about is the RATE at which
change can be produced.

> Science is Dead.

God is Dead.  (There, I've pulled your tail to get even.  Happy?)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh