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 5)
Message-ID: <410@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 12:06:47 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.410
Posted: Tue Apr 23 12:06:47 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 05:33:25 EST
References: <332@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 122
Summary: 

In article <332@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.
>
>
>               8.  There is no reason to believe that  mutations  could  ever
>                   produce  any  new organs such as the eye [a], the ear [b],
>                   or the brain [c].  Just the human heart, a ten ounce  pump
>                   that  will  operate without maintenance or lubrication for
>                   about 75 years, is an engineering marvel [d].

	This is irrelevent to evolutionary theory as it is *really*
held by serious scientists. Noone seriously believes that such organs
appeared complete and functional by direct mutation from a previous
state. This is where selection and *lots* of time come in, especially
selection. Compare the eye of a primitive chordate, such as
Amphioxis(sp?) to the advanced vertebrate eye. The Amphioxis eye
is *much* simpler, and yet it is similar in embryonic origin and
overall structure. This is how something like the human eye is really
held to have originated. (The same for the other organs mentioned,
you must look at the simpler ancestral form before declaring it
implossible).
>
>                   a)  ''It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  it   is   a
>                       considerable  strain on one's credulity to assume that
>                       finely balanced systems such as certain  sense  organs
>                       (the  eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could
>                       be improved by random mutations.  This  is  even  more
>                       true  for  some  of the ecological chain relationships
>                       (the famous Yucca moth case, and so  forth).  However,
>                       the  objectors  to  random  mutations have so far been
>                       unable to advance any alternative explanation that was
>                       supported  by  substantial  evidence.''  [Ernst  Mayr,
>                       SYSTEMATICS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES (New York: Dover
>                       Publications, 1942), p. 296.]

	This is out of context, I have read much of E. Mayr's writing,
and he is in fact one of the originators of the basic concepts of
modern evolutionary theory, including much of what is now called
punctuated equilibrium theory. He is most certainly *not* trying to
cast doubt on evolutionary theory.


	Two more outdated, long since answered dificulties(See below).

>                   b) [Sir Isaac Newton, OPTICKS New York, 1952, pp. 369-370.]
>                   c) [Dr. Wernher von Braun,
>                       (probably the one rocket  scientist  most  responsible
>                       for  the United States placing men on the moon)
>                   d)  Marlyn  E.  Clark,  OUR  AMAZING  CIRCULATORY  SYSTEM,
>                       Technical  Monograph  No.5  (San  Diego: Creation-Life
>                       Publishers, 1976).
>
>               9.  There is no  direct  evidence  that  any  major  group  of
>                   animals or plants arose from any other major group [a-c].

	Just what sort of evidence do you want? The origin of *major*
groups takes considerable time, it could not possibly be observed
directly. But there is considerable evidence from comparative anatomy
and paleontology which strongly supports such origins. Occam's razor,
the *pattern* of diversity is best explained by common origins.
>
>                   a)  ''There is not the slightest evidence that any of  the
>                       major groups arose from any other.'' [Dr. Austin Clark
>                       F.R.G.S., QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, December 28, p.
	What year was this published?? This has changed quite a bit recently.
>                       539.]
>                   b) [Charles Darwin, THE LIFE  AND
>		       LETTERS  OF CHARLES  DARWIN, edited by Francis Darwin,
>		       (London: John Murray, 1887), Vol.1, p. 210.]
>                   c)  ''To a very large extent, the formation of  a  species
>                       is  a  phenomenon  which  has occurred in the past, so
>                       that the recognition of  the  events  surrounding  the
>                       actual  division  of  an  ancient  gene pool cannot be
>                       directly observed. In all but a very small  number  of
>                       cases  the  biologist  must  become historian and deal
>                       with evidence for the past role  of  processes  rather
>                       than   deal   with   these   processes  in  action  in
>                       contemporary  populations.   The  search   for   truly
>                       incipient   species  has  been  difficult  and,  to  a
>                       considerable degree, frustrating.  [Hampton L. Carson,
>                       (Department   of   Genetics,  University  of  Hawaii),
>                       ''Chromosomes  and  Species  Formation,''   EVOLUTION,
>                       Vol.32, No.4, 1978, pp. 925-927.]
>
	I must to some extent disagree with this man(if you have not
taken the quote out of context). There are examples of species in
every stage of transition from a uniform population to pairs of
similar but distinct species. This is strong evidence for the validity
of the speciation model used in evolutionary theory. There are also
many example of what appear to be new species, try reading "The Tempo
and Mode of Evolution"(at least I think thats the title) for more
detail. (I will check the title and author this weekend).

	This repeats the same two primary errors of the previous
postings, it is primarily an attack on evolution not a support
of creationism, and it uses outdated data from the literature.
	Even *if* you should come up with evidence that invalidates
evolutionary theory, this does *not* mean I must accept creationism.
In fact as things stand now I would have to say that other than
evolutionary theory there is *no* valid, scientifically acceptable
theory of the pattern of diversity in life, and without it I would
simply say "It is not known". It is perfectly acceptible for a
scientist to hold *no* theory at all if there is no adequate one
available.
	The reason that old articles are not meaningful in debunking
evolution is because science has not remained static for the past 30
years, and most of the work that old has been superceded several times
over by more recent work, usually answering any problems mentioned in
them. In particular, most old statements of the form "there is no
evidence that ..." are no longer true, we have found much of the
evidence that was missing 30 years ago.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

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