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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Not Surprising, Twice
Message-ID: <982@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 16:33:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.982
Posted: Thu Apr 25 16:33:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Apr-85 05:53:06 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 58



>> [Dan Boskovich]
>> For example, concerning the fossil record, the creation  model  would
>> predict  a  sudden  and  abrupt appearance of highly complex forms of
>> life without evidence of ancestral or transitional forms according to
>> the evolutionary model.
>>
>> Since this is what the  fossil  record  has produced, this  would  be
>> scientific evidence of creation.

> [Byron C. Howes]
> Note the failure to discuss spermata theory (the technical name for
> "little green men"-type theories) and the assertion (incorrect) that
> there are no ancestral or transitional forms in the fossil record.
> (Read other articles in this newsgroup to see how creationists insist
> that in order to be defined as a transitional form a fossil must
> have precisely the features they expect it to have...)

It may have been better to say the "the fossil records produces
evidence *consistent with* the prediction".  Sometimes evidence fits
into the framework of more than one theory (hence does not provide a
crucial test).  Be that as it may, evidence consistent with a theory
*is* support for it.  It certainly is not evidence *against* it, even
if another theory also is consistent with the same evidence.

As far as definitions go, for anything to fit any definition the
object must have the features expected on the basis of the definition.
This is hardly startling, or profound.  There is not point to or value
in definitions otherwise.  You might not like the definition.  That is
another question, however.

>> Now, Mr.  Keebler, I challenge you to offer me any clear, sound,  and
>> cut  and  dried  proof  of  Evolution!  Tell  me  the  mechanism  for
>> Evolution?  Give me some examples  of  upward  mutations  which  have
>> resulted   in   transmutation.   Produce   some  fossil  evidence  of
>> transitional forms or even ancestors of current species.  Just as you
>> evolutionsts  like  to  say,  I  have  never  seen  any  REAL, SOUND,
>> scientific evidence of Evolution, just pseudo-scientific debunking of
>> religious items that have no bearing at all on the real issues!

> Now, unless G-d is a trickster (which I doubt) the overwhelming pre-
> ponderance of the evidence indicates the existance of evolutionary
> processes.  Creationists dust of their comparatively small compendium
> of erroneous and (apparantly) anomalous data in terms of evolutionary
> predictions wave it about and assert that it somehow "proves" a creation.
> As no scientific theory is ultimately proveable (or ultimately refutable)
> reasonability leads me to go with the weight of the evidence rather
> than hanging around waiting for some "cut and dried" proof on any side.

A song and dance; an assertion of a large amount of evidence coupled
with a failure to give any.

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