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: Miniature Golf Message-ID: <1006@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 16:52:27 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1006 Posted: Mon Apr 29 16:52:27 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 05:55:17 EDT Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 79 >> 2. Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the >> physical variations that are observed within life, such as >> in the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and >> their modern day refinements is that there are LIMITS to >> such variation [a,b]. Breeding experiments have also >> confirmed that these boundaries exist [c-e]. > [Keith Doyle] > This is simply more of #1. Kind of the attitude 'if you can't see it, > it isn't there'. Hardly convincing. We certainly do not normally conclude that because we *don't* see something, that it *is* there. > Variations that have occured indicate > reasonable probability that there are no such 'limits' to such variations. > Such variations would not happen often, (millions of years etc.) so you don't You mean "quickly" not "often" (I think), else there wouldn't be very many species alive today. > expect to see an animal give birth to a new species. Even if you did, you > would be hard pressed to be able to prove that the new animal was actually > sired by the other animal, rather than a new independent species. Ahem. Haven't you just admitted that you've no evidence? And no hope of any? >> >> __________ >> >> * By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial >> change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. When >> referring to the evolution of life, this increasing >> complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form >> of life had a different, improved, and reproducible set >> of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is >> sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man >> theory, or MACROevolution. MICROevolution, on the other >> hand, involves only changes in shapes, colors, sizes, or >> minor chemical alterations--changes that both >> creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively >> trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, >> which requires increasing complexity, that is being so >> hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by >> the term evolution. > This is an interesting definition of evolution. Now see how the creationists > keep modifying their theory to fit observed evidence as they learn more about > reality? (macro vs microevolution) Modifying a theory to fit observed evidence? What a scurrilous strategem!! Next they'll be doing research of their own!!!! :-) > I think a few terms differ somewhat > from the more mainstream evolutionist view. 'Benificial change', 'Increasing > complexity' are not given to evolution by mainstream scientific views, > but seems to be a purely creationist ploy, leading up to the 'entropy' > arguments. Also note, from the references, that breeders experience > with animals is hardly an effective argument, breeding in general has > probably not been done long enough to ever have experienced any effects > of 'speciation'. If in fact it could ever be produced in that particular > manner at all. "Mainstream" doesn't mean much to me. "Lots of dispute characterizes good science" &c, &c. I don't care very much about whether a view is mainstream as much as whether it is right. Besides, most majority viewpoints were held by a minority sometime. But your claim that 'beneficial change' isn't mainstream is erroneous. What is an "adaptation" if it is not "beneficial"? If it is not beneficial, it is simply change. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |