Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Where the Deer and the Cantaloupe Play
Message-ID: <1500@hao.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 09:09:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.1500
Posted: Tue Apr 30 09:09:36 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 06:41:03 EDT
References: <999@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 18

> Also, it would appear that a mutation such as the example given is not
> really a serious entry for consideration.  If it was really more
> greatly viable, natural selection would result in it being found in
> wild form, right?  (Otherwise natural selection doesn't work.)  Is it
> found?  I suppose it might be, but since you talk about "standard lab
> conditions", I am led to think otherwise...

We seem to be changing the rules here.  Now it is not only neccessary
to observe evolution happening, but we must observe the exact
changes that already occured in nature?  

An evolutionary change is an evolutionary change.  The conditions
created in a laboratory are not likely to generate a change that
would be found in nature.  The expense involved in setting up
a natural environment, then ensuring that populations remained
pure, would be enormous.  I doubt that anyone would go to the
trouble, just to satisfy a few people whose religion would prevent
them from accepting the evidence anyhow.