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: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 6)
Message-ID: <957@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 17:34:38 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.957
Posted: Fri Apr 19 17:34:38 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 02:07:26 EST
References: <335@iham1.UUCP> <796@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 49

> > I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
> >     A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
> > 
> >        10.  All  species  appear   perfectly   developed,   not   half
> >             developed.  They show design [a]. There are no examples of
> >             half-developed feathers, eyes [b],
> 
>     No half-developed eyes?  Numerous single-cell animals have
> half-developed eyes.  Some multi-cellular animals have *very*
> simple eyes.

Some references for your "half-developed" eyes, please.

And what makes you think "simple" = "half-developed"?

> >             skin, tubes  (arteries,
> >             veins,  intestines,  etc.),  or  any of thousands of other
> >             vital organs. For example, if a limb were to evolve into a
> >             wing,  it  would become a bad limb long before it became a
> >             good wing.
> 
>     Try telling that to flying squirrels and see how far it gets you.  

Try asking them to really fly and see how far it gets you.  What, do
you think they have "wings"?

> > 
> >        11.  No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind  has
> >             ever been observed.
>     But what does that have to do with the evolution/creation debate?
> > 
> >        12.  If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the
> >             simplest.  
>      Here we have the commonly pointed out but never corrected creationist
> fallacy that evolution must progress from the simple to the complex.  Also,
> another point that has nothing to do with evolution.

It must have SOMETHING to do with it, since we see all sorts of very
complex organisms living today, and you guys keep telling us how simple
organisms were when they first developed.  If it's a fallacy, lots of
evolutionists share it.  Saunders and Ho view increase in complexity
as the PARAMETER of evolution.  Read what your own side has to say about
things before you spout off so quickly.

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"Danger signs, a creeping independence"                             |