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: <960@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 09:57:37 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.960
Posted: Sat Apr 20 09:57:37 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 06:54:29 EST
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 37

>>> 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.
> 
> [Me]
> Some references for your "half-developed" eyes, please.
> 
> And what makes you think "simple" = "half-developed"?

One more comment.  What I'd really like to see you do is demonstrate
some sort of line evolutionary development of visual function, e.g.,
a phylogeny.  Failing that, show us why we should give any credence to
your comments.

After all, guys, "one has to give some postive evidence for one's claims
that stands by itself".  Facile claims like the above don't cut it.

I guess I'll keep raving a bit, as long as I'm here.

I try to give references for my claims.  Evolutionists keep asking for
documentation of claims, and that's entirely reasonable, so I try to do
it.

When are the evolutionists going to do the same?

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