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!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 2) Message-ID: <527@cadovax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 22:32:06 EST Article-I.D.: cadovax.527 Posted: Tue Apr 9 22:32:06 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 03:08:12 EST References: <329@iham1.UUCP> Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA Lines: 125 [...............] > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > Come ON you guys, this is NOT evidence for creation. At BEST all you have accomplished here is to touch on some areas where evolutionary theory needs to be clarified or modified. For the most part, all you have done is to touch on areas where evolutionary theory has ALREADY been clarified or modified, which demonstrates your lack of understanding of evolution. > > > 3. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited [a]. > > a) N. Heribert Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE > ARTBILDUNG (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. > 1144-1147. > > 4. Natural selection cannot produce NEW genes; it only > SELECTS among preexisting characteristics. > > 5. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new > genetic material becomes available for evolution [a,b]. > Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism > in its natural environment. In addition, almost all > (perhaps all) observable mutations are harmful [c]; many > are lethal [d-i]. > > a) ''Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to > mutation.'' [Ernst Mayr, as contained in Paul S. > Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, editors, MATHEMATICAL > CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF > EVOLUTION, Proceedings of a symposium held at the > Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and > 26, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, > 1967), p. 50.] > b) ''Although mutation is the ultimate source of all > genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, > ....'' [Francisco J. Ayala, ''The Mechanism of > Evolution,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September 1978, p. > 63.] > c) ''Mutations are more than just sudden changes in > heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best > of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.'' > [C. P. Martin, (McGill University) ''A Non-Geneticist > Looks at Evolution,'' AMERICAN SCIENTIST, January > 1953, p. 102.] > d) ''[although mutations have produced some desirable > breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to > be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, > impair the fertility and viability of the affected > organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of > known mutant types one can be found which is superior > to the wild type in its normal environment, only very > few can be named which are superior to the wild type > in a strange environment.'' [C. P. Martin, p. 100.] > ''Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the > mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known > mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few > remaining ones are highly suspect.'' [C. P. Martin, p. > 103.] > e) ''The process of mutation is the only source of the > raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of > evolution.... The mutants which arise are, with rare > exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in > the environments which the species normally > encounters.'' [Theodosius Dobzhansky, ''On Methods of > Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,'' AMERICAN > SCIENTIST, Winter, December 1957, p. 385.] > f) ''If we say that it is only by chance that they > [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too > leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, > or lethal.'' [W. R. Thompson, ''Introduction to the > ORIGIN OF SPECIES,'' by Charles Darwin; Everyman No. > 811 Library (New York: E.P. Dutton & Sons, 1956 > reprint of 1928 edition), p. 10.] > g) ''...we could still be quite sure on theoretical > grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For > a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, > reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random > change in the highly integrated system of chemical > processes which constitute life is almost certain to > impair it--just as a random interchange of connections > in a television set is not likely to improve the > picture.'' [James F. Crow, (Professor of Genetics, > University of Wisconsin) ''Genetic Effects of > Radiation,'' BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, > Vol.14, 1958, pp. 19-20.] > h) ''The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a > tendency towards degeneration.'' [Dr. Sewall Wright, > THE NEW SYSTEMATICS (Clarendon Press), p. 174.] > i) In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a > new organ, Koestler says that ''Each mutation > occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be > combined with the others. They are all interdependent. > The doctrine that their coming together was due to a > series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to > common sense but to the basic principles of scientific > explanation.'' [Arthur Koestler, THE GHOST IN THE > MACHINE (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p. 129]. > Again, evolution does not state the METHOD, (mutation or otherwise) that causes speciation. Evolution postulates that it DOES occur, because of observed evidence, not particularly HOW. All this concentration on mutation is so far away from creationist evidence it's not funny anymore. Actually this is all just as good evidence that chucko the clown created the universe last week. > > > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): > > TO BE CONTINUED > > III. (Earth Sciences): > > I can hardly wait :-) Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "Pieces of Eight, Pieces of Eight"