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!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!zehntel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Mutations
Message-ID: <32@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Apr-85 12:56:46 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.32
Posted: Sun Apr 21 12:56:46 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 00:14:17 EST
References: <942@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 68

Paul DuBois [ > ], Me (Padraig) [ >> ]

> I'm very glad that we are communicating with each other!  I hope the
> channels stay open.  I have comment on only one statement of the rest
> of your article.  The statement was:
> 
> > Your analogy was not good to begin with. (The one thing that evolutionists
> > are in agreement on is the mechanism i.e. mutants arising in a population
> > that can take advantage of some resource that the rest of the population
> > is unable to tap into, causing the mutants to thrive and perhaps come
> > to dominate the population. There is no trepidation amongst evolutionists
> > on this issue that I am aware of).
> 
> Keeping in mind that mutations are undoubtedly widely accepted, I am
> unable to agree that there is no trepidation about them.  I will try
> to illustrate this with some passages from evolutionary writers.
> [Some of you will notice a certain amount of overlap with the "Case
> for Creation" articles (though I wrote this before those began
> appearing).  Keep in mind that my aim is different.]
> 

I am also pleased to see that we are communicating with each other,
therefore I must point out that I am thoroughly confused over this
article. You say that you cannot agree that there is no "trepidation",
and include 4 extensive quotes to support your point. The only
problem is that the word "trepidation" means "a state of fear or
anxiety, nervous agitation" according to the Oxford Am. Dictionary,
which was the interpretation that I had intended. None
of your quotes support that interpretation. I suspect that you are confusing
"hesitancy" with "trepidation", as is indicated by the following selected
quotes and comments in your article:

> Note:  I know that Dobzhansky does in fact think that mutations are
> the source of evolutionary variability - but he does express at least
> a bit of hesitancy here.
> 
> C P Martin, "A non-geneticist looks at evolution".  American Scientist,
> 41, 1953, 100-106.
> 
> "Certainly I, and most of my fellow recusants, unreservedly accept
> every established fact in genetics.  But we feel that none of these
> facts, nor all of them together, establishes the mutation-selection
> theory beyond all doubt."  [p100]

> "In natural populations endless millions of small and genic differences
> exist, but there is no evidence that they arose by mutation." Admits
> that the temptation is to think so, but "even with this admission, it
> would be wishful thinking to pretend that the mutation-selection theory
> rests on a firm foundation of definitely ascertained facts." [p101]
> 
>... 
> None of this shows that mutations actually are insufficient to produce
> evolution, of course, and that is not what I am trying to show.  It
> only indicates that the agreement on mutations as the source of
> evolutionary variability is not something to be taken for granted.
> 

Finally you make the comment:

> Which also shows, perhaps, that if you want to discover whether
> evolutionists agree with each other on a particular issue, the expert
> you seek will often be a creationist.  This is a great tragedy, in more
> than one way...

Judging by your article with its confusion, it's clear to me where
the tragedy lies.

Padraig Houlahan.