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!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 4)
Message-ID: <399@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 15:23:54 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.399
Posted: Mon Apr 15 15:23:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 04:43:21 EST
References: <331@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 25
Summary: 

In article <331@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>
>            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.
>
>               7.  Over seventy years [a] of fruit-fly experiments, involving
>                   2700 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for
>                   believing that any natural or artificial process can cause
>                   an  increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic
>                   improvement  has  ever  been  observed  despite  the  many
>                   unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates [b-f].
>
	This posting doesn't even contain any new arguments, it is
just a rehash of the same old stuff from previous postings under a new
number(i.e. 7).
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

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