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 7)
Message-ID: <416@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 12:11:37 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.416
Posted: Wed Apr 24 12:11:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 06:33:13 EST
References: <338@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 56
Summary: 

In article <338@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.
>
>    B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
>        WISHFUL THINKING.
>
>       14.  It is illogical  to  maintain  that  similarities  between
>            different  species  imply a genealogical relationship [a];
>            they may imply a common Designer.
>
	The problem with this is that the similarities are *not* the
sort one would expect from a designer, since they involve inefficiencies,
the use of similar or identicle parts for vastly different purposes,
and in general a tendency toward "makeshift" type solutions to problems.
Also the "argument from design" is also invalid, thus before we can
accept a designer as a *scientific* fact we must have better *for*
his existance. Design is a very subjective concept, and thus cannot
be used as a basis for his existance.
>
>       15.  The existence of human organs whose  function  is  unknown
>            does  not  imply that they are vestiges of organs from our
>            evolutionary ancestors.  In fact, as medical knowledge has
>            increased,  the functions of all of these organs have been
>            discovered [a]. The widespread absence of vestigial organs
>            implies that evolution never happened.
>
	Oh, really? I have never of any function for the appendix!
Besides, there are clear vestigial organs in many other organisms,
including such absurd things as legs completely included within the
torso. It is the existance of anatomically identical organs with
vastly *different* function that is the evidence for evolution,
vestigiality is merely an extreme case of functional difference.
Rating: incorrect *and* irrelevent.
>
>       16.  There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no
>            forms  of  animal  life  with  2,  3,..., or even 20 cells
>            [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of  life
>            should   exist   in   great   abundance.    None  do.  The
>            evolutionary tree has no trunk [c].
>

	Completely invalid logic, you are assuming that multicellular
life must develope by simple accretion of single cells. This is not
so, it may also have originated via colonialism, which then became
obligate. Ther *are* intermediates appropriate to this concept of
the origin of multicellularity, try Volvox, sponges, Choanoflagelates,
and various other forms with colonies that show cellular specialization
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

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