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: I'm a Lone Cowhand Message-ID: <997@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 28-Apr-85 03:00:53 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.997 Posted: Sun Apr 28 03:00:53 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Apr-85 07:22:48 EDT Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 75 >> A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. >> > [Jeff Sonntag] > Wow! And we've been looking for it now and then for most of a century > now! That's almost one millionth of the time evolution has been going on, > and we haven't seen any major changes yet. Guess what? > > Z. CREATION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > Well, I guess that takes care of both of those theories. Either that, > or 'X has never been observed' is a pretty poor way to invalidate a theory. > Even if you type it in capital letters very often, it just doesn't help. There is a difference. All creationist models that I am aware of propose one period of (or at most a very proscribed number of) periods of creation. No formulation which I have encountered includes the proposition that creation will occur again, or that it is a continuous process. (Though I am not sure on what basis this can ruled out.) The basic event has occurred and is past. One would not therefore expect to observe it. However, evolution is (according to all formulations that I am aware of) a continual process, as much with us today as it has been since the origin(s) of life and even for some period of time before that. It proposes that the basic processes are still in operation. These processes have produced the historical events that we find today. Since such models propose that evolutionary change still occurs, it is not unreasonable to expect that observations of the process should be made sometime, and it is up to proponents of such models to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. You do not. This does not help your case. You say that 'X has never been observed' is a poor way to invalidate a theory. Needless to say, it is an even poorer way to *validate* a theory that says that X does in fact occur. It is also interesting that you say evolution has been looked for "now and then". Quite an understatement; the search has been intensive. Obviously someone expected to observe it. >> 7. Over seventy years [a] of fruit-fly experiments, involving >> 2700 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for >> believing that any natural or artificial process can cause >> an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic >> improvement has ever been observed despite the many >> unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates [b-f]. > 2700 generations over 70 years? And probably hundreds, maybe even > thousands of fruit flies? Please compare that to 1 million years and many > billions of fruit flies. Big difference, isn't there? "Maybe even thousands"? Another understatement. "Big difference"? I guess so. But "Absolutely no basis" doesn't extrapolate very well to anything but "Absolutely no basis." We might expect SOMETHING to occur. Clearly *somebody* expected something to occur or a lot of research that has been done wouldn't have been done. > A viable, improved mutation is obviously highly unlikely. It is > therefore to be expected that any experiment which uses a small number of > individuals and a small number of generations (compared to the number which > is used by nature) is unlikely to produce a viable mutation. > Imagine shuffling a deck of cards and dealing out several hands. > If you did that 10 times and found no royal flushes, would you conclude > that a royal flush is impossible to get? No. I might reconsider after 2700 generations of several hands each, however. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |