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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: The Keebler Chronicles (6 of 7) Message-ID: <940@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 16:08:41 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.940 Posted: Fri Apr 19 16:08:41 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 01:27:40 EST Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 197 >>> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] >> { from: Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois } >>> { from: Jeff Sonntag } >>> Paul Dubois, writing on the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie >>> evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out: > Indeed, quite a GROSS ERROR. Yep. It comes from the Principle of Competitive Exclusion. Your side thought it up. Sorry. >>>> Evolutionists developed the idea. Some evolutionists realize this, some >>>> (as, apparantly, Bill) do not. Some creationists realize this, some do >>>> not. Some creationists realize that it is not necessary to evolutionary >>>> theory, some do not. >>>> But whether the idea is true or not, it *is* the case that a number of >>>> proposed intermediates have been rejected as such (by evolutionists) on >>>> the basis of EXACTLY the above reasoning: a form is not transitional to >>>> another form if it exists contemporaneously with it. Lungfish, for >>>> example. My beloved coelecanth, for another. Archaeopteryx is under >>>> the same pressure since the discovery of other fossils which are clearly >>>> birds contemporary to it. > Since you make the original claim, why don't you give us the actual inter- > mediates that were rejected. And for some comparison (just so we are not > misled by possibly rhetorical statements), why don't you give us the num- > ber of proposed intermediates that WERE accepted. Examples that were rejected? Uh, "Lungfish, for example. My beloved coelecanth, for another." (i.e., see last paragraph) Let's see, examples that were ACCEPTED on the basis of the above reasoning? I don't know of any. The reasoning functions to reject them... >>> It really doesn't matter *who* has accepted the idea that a form >>> is not transitional to another form if they exist contemporaneously. >>> The idea simply doesn't stand up to examination. >> Fine. >> I was not concerned to demonstrate the validity or invalidity of the >> idea that when species evolve the parent species must die. I was >> concerned to demonstrate that the idea did not originate with >> creationists, so it is an evolutionist FALLACY to imply that it did. > So what does this do for creationism? Exactly as much as I said it did: nothing. However, it doesn't do much for an evolutionary position (or any position, for that matter) to argue fallacies. > (Gee, this question seem so > familiar; it's because creationists seem to try to do anything to > make evolution look bad, no matter how ridiculously illegitimate > the examples they dig up.) Wrong. My example was directed (as they often are) at a fallacy of argument, not at evolution itself. There's a difference. >> Really, for all the times that we hear in this newsgroup that >> creationists attack a mistaken notion of what evolutionists believe, >> I sometimes wonder if even evolutionists know what evolutionists >> believe. > This is not substantiated, since you are suggesting that we follow > exactly same ideas and concepts as those who made the errors. Since > we know better, our conceptions must differ. I'm not suggesting that YOU follow that same ideas and concepts. Indeed, I have no idea if YOU follow them or not, since you've never indicated what you believe (beyond that you believe in evolution, that is; you've never aligned yourself with any view of mechanism - say, what DO you believe? You're almost as hard to pin down as me!!) What I'm suggesting (correctly) is that it's very strange for evolutionists to toss at creationists an argument against a concept that evolutionists made up! It really doesn't make sense. The concept was formulated, vaguely, by Darwin himself, in _The Origin_. It is given more explicit formulation as the Competitive Exclusion Principle by, e.g., Garrett Hardin (in _Nature and Man's Fate_, Rinehart, New York, 1959, pp viii, 83-85, 262, 308, 339). >>> Archaeopteryx may or may not have been >>> the link between reptiles and birds, but the fact that Archaeopteryx >>> hadn't died out before birds developed HELPS TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT >>> ARCHAEOPTERYX was the parent specie. >> >> That fact alone has nothing to do with support for your contention. >> It must be bolstered by additional assumptions. > Is that what you use to support your assertions? ASSUMPTIONS? There > are not too many assumptions that you can legitimately use in science. > I think the words "facts" and "evidences" are more appropriate here. I was referring to assumptions on Jeff's part, not mine. Your argument is with him. >> Other possibilities, >> equally plausible from the sequence in the rocks, are that both >> descended from common ancestors, or that Archaeopteryx descended from >> more well-developed birds (e.g., McGowan thinks the Ostrich degenerated >> from more well-developed birds) or that Archaeopteryx and other birds >> have no common ancestor. Which of these are inconsistent with the >> fossils, or less consistent with the idea you claim they support? > Well ... gee ... we could always guess that (this is equally possible > given the fossil record only) that there was some creator who made a > few primitive things, allow them to proliferate, destroy them or let > them die out, create some more stuff, let them proliferate, destroy > them or let them die out, and repeat again and again with increasingly > higher-level constructions. This creator decided to overlap some of > the time-spans of the creatures out of his own whim. He also made > the fossils look like they were old when they were really very young; > and to top things off, he made the configuration of the heavens like > it was billions and billions of years old. Gee ... equally plausible > ... wouldn't you say? After all, such an omnipotent creator could do > anything he pleases, couldn't he? If you really believe a history > similiar to the one I just describe, let me remind you that we are in > the scientific realm (sorry, no hocus-pocus here!). If you see the > scenario as ridiculous, go back to your last comment, and read them > again. The degeneration suggestion still makes the Archaeopteryx an > intermediate, perhaps making some of its seeming ancestors its descen- > dents. Fine. This still invalidates Jeff's argument. Which was my point: other alternatives are equally as plausible as the one he suggested, unless additional assumptions are made. Thanks for the help. >>> Birds could hardly have developed from Archaeopteryx if Archaeopteryx >>> had died out before birds developed. It's almost a tautology. Yet >>> Paul tries to get us to deny the possibility of Archaeopteryx's inter- >>> mediate status (not solely) on the basis of it's contemporaneousness >>> with birds, a fact which actually *lends support to* its intermedi- >>> ate status! >> >> I did no such thing. I stated that the line of reasoning has been >> used by *evolutionists* as evidence against certain forms being >> transitional. > Like I said, your reasoning is bunk since it does not apply to us. Whether the reasoning applies to you or not is irrelevant. My statements are true without regard to whether any PARTICULAR evolutionist (such as yourself) accepts them because evolutionists HAVE used the line of reasoning against certain forms being transitional. I'm perfectly aware that not all of them agree. You're one of them. But since that statement doesn't apply to you, what does? Say, what DO you believe? You're almost as hard to pin down as me! > Remember, scientists do not claim to be absolutely correct. Scientists > have assumed for a long time that the earth was flat. I suppose you > want to criticize us for THAT too?! No. Scientists criticize creationists for it already. I'd rather stay out of that one for the time being. >>> Just what would you require of an intermediate specie between >>> birds and reptiles, Paul? You criticized Archaeopteryx's feathers >>> as being almost identical with modern bird feathers. >> >> I didn't "criticize" the feathers. It's simply a fact. What do you >> want me to say about them? That they're NOT identical with modern >> bird feathers? > The existence of feathers on the Archaeopteryxdoes not make it a bird. > It gives it bird-like characteristics. Since monkeys have hair, aren't > dogs really monkeys because they have hair, too?! (Not exactly sound > reasoning, is it?!) No, it isn't. That's why I didn't argue that way. Look: all I did was make a statement of fact about the feathers. If you want to disagree, cut out this line about monkeys and dogs and show that the feathers aren't identical with modern bird feathers. That was the point. You toss around this stuff about 'sidetracking' pretty freely. Would you care to recognize that that is exactly what you're doing here? >>> You want maybe some sort of useless >>> half-feather? Why would something like that be selected for? Why would >>> you expect a specie with useless features to survive long enough to leave >>> any kind of fossil record? > I would not agree with this question by Jeff. Seemingly useless features > does not necessarily mean that the features will evolve away or evolve into > something useful. Ooh! Disagreement between evolutionists! I'd better call a press conference and trump this up into some story about the demise of confidence in the theory of evolution! (just kidding, just kidding...) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |