Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Ahhhhh.  thank you Padraig Houlahan!!
Message-ID: <33@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Apr-85 13:31:56 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.33
Posted: Sun Apr 21 13:31:56 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 01:27:26 EST
References: <1732@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 45

> 
> You got my message!!!
> 
> YOU replied:  "By your own admission it's Bunk. (cutting off rat's tails
> producing changes)  Evolution can't be induced by severing limbs, since 
> such gross actions will not alter the GENETIC (italics mine) make-up of the
> creature.  Evolution requires a change in genetic structure."
> 
> BUT you see, Padraig, that is indeed MY point, BUT that is not the point of
> the Evolutionists I quoted in the posting (Jay Gould among them).  THEY
> see behavior as a MAJOR (99%) factor in the anatomical evolution of the
> human form!!!!!!  
> 
> Now we religionists indeed have our burdens to carry in the form of claims
> made and beliefs cherished by our coreligionists, BUT the point of my little
> "lame" satire was that perhaps evolutionists also labor under this little
> problem????  What do you think?
> 
> Warm Regards,
> 
> Ken Arndt

Well, since you ask...

I don't understand what all the excitement is about. I said that evolution
can't be induced in the rats by cutting off their tails. You agree with that.
The behaviour aspect would arise if a mutatant, without a tail appeared
and was allowed to breed with the rat population. In the lab the
tail-less rats would come to dominate the population. In this context
behaviour means something like "increased adaptability to the environment".

I have just finished reading Gould's "Ever Since Darwin", and Montague's
"Science and Creationism" and see no conflict between what I have said,
and what Gould has said. I don't doubt that some people have said
that behaviour is important. At a glance, it sounds plausible. 

I fail to see the relevence of the rat scenario to anything that you are
claiming. There are two separate issues here: 1) Inducing mutations
in laboratory rats, and 2) What happens after a mutation occurs?
Your attempt at satire was based on the first. You are drawing
conclusions on the second.

Maybe I'm overlooking something, if so, let me know.

Padraig Houlahan.