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: Polka Dots Message-ID: <1011@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-May-85 13:34:30 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1011 Posted: Wed May 1 13:34:30 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 20:10:10 EDT Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 168 > In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > > > Several of you have asked for specific evidences that support creation > > and oppose evolution. There are many. We will list 116. Evidences 1-36 > > come from the life sciences, 37-87 come generally from the > > astronomical sciences, and 88-116 relate to the earth sciences. An > > outline format will be used. One or more of these 116 evidences, along > > with appropriate references will be given every day or so. > > > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > > > A. EVOLUTION* HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > [Stanley Friesen] > Not true, biologists have found a number of species which > simply did not exist 300 yrs ago. I'm sure this is true. I'm equally confident that you will list some of them for us, and that you will tell us where we can go read about them for ourselves. > They have also observed significant > adaptive change in some species as a result of industrial polution in > Britain, that is some animals have adapted to polution!! And > scientists were there to watch. I assume you refer to _Biston betularia_ and other species of moths. So what kind of evolution is this? Now they are changing back as the pollution comes under control. This is an unconvincing example because it does not demonstrate anything but a horizontal change within a gene pool. Only a shift of allelic frequency within a population. Nothing new, which is what evolution requires. Or does it require that? I guess not. Not a priori. But post hoc it is seen to be a necessary part of a theory that's supposed to explain *what happened*. This example doesn't touch it. > > > > 1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from non- > > living matter) has never been observed. All observations > > have shown that life only comes from life. This > > observation is so consistent that it is called the Law of > > Biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this > > law by claiming that life came from non-living matter. > This is amisunderstanding of the nature of the "law" of > Biogenesis, which is nothing more than an *observation* that under > current conditions life is not *seen* to appear without a living > precurser. It is *not* an absolute statement of the impossibility > of such origin(there are *no* absolutes in science). Except no creator! :-) > > 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]. > A list of citations follows here. > The problem with this argument is that evolution and breeding > occur in entirely *different* time-frames. The difficulty with this defense is that it allows one to avoid bringing up any kind of proof that the time frame makes any difference. > This is where mutation > comes into evolutionary theory - it provides the extra variation > which removes the limitation on short-term breeding. Then you'll tell us about these mutations that give rise to new things. > Even breeding > has from time to time exceeded these basic limits, when there has been > sufficient time for genetic reorganisation; I am talking about the > vast number of dog breeds, many of which fall entirely outside of > the normal range of variation for a wild Canis(called "wolves"). What limits were exceeded? All dogs fall within a single species. They're all interfertile. What genetic reorganization are you referring to? The *normal* range occurs in nature and evolution involves natural selection. So how does a limit exceeded by *artificial* selection prove anything about natural selection - except that natural selection is not going to produce as extreme a variation? Even given for the sake of argument that it might, what does the dog example show? That a lot of change can be produced within a single species... > Or how about the man-made species Zea mays(common corn); so different > from its wild ancesters that they are almost unrecognizable. Going back to the dog example, we observe the extreme morphological variability that can be formed *within* a single species. The phrase "almost unrecognizable" in relation to ancestors therefore doesn't mean much by itself. But perhaps you mean more than morphological difference. I'm sure you must - please amplify. > > * 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. > Nice definition :-) I don't know of any reputable biologist > who would accept it as it stands. Increased complexity a *defining* > characteristic of evolution??? What about structural reduction in > parasites??(like tapeworms). Evolution *only* talks about increased > *adaption* *not* improvement!! That's right, complexity as a defining characteristic. Ho and Saunders, for instance. Of course, your following sentence (the one about parasites) puts the finger on one phenomenon that gives fits to their ideas. --- The following comments are not directed specifically to Mr. Friesen. But I have noticed that several people now have chafed at the suggestion that increasing complexity is an aspect of evolutionary theory. Evolution *has* to have increased complexity *sometime*, to get from simple organisms to the complex organisms we see today. If not, then you have to say the most complex organism *began* that complex. Not likely. It is true that an increase in complexity need not be an A PRIORI requirement of an evolutionary theory. (Indeed, how could it be?) But is it not maintained that evolution arose in a *data-driven* manner? Is it not maintained that evolution was derived from, and accepted on the basis of, *observations*? Do these observations not form what is commonly called the *fact* of evolution? Does not this *fact* of evolution, derived from *observation*, show *increasing* complexity? Is not *increasing* complexity therefore a characteristic of the evolutionary record and the evolutionary process? Are the evolutionary record and the evolutionary process which the record is supposed to show not the very things to be explained via the mechanisms postulated by evolutionary *theory*? DOES NOT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THEREFORE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR INCREASING COMPLEXITY? DOES IT NOT? Maybe you can't explain the increase in complexity (now). Fine. It cannot be required that one be able to answer all questions at the present moment. But if you say that you don't even *have* to explain it, then I think one might reasonably object. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "The presence of weeds in the garden is not explained by | saying that the gardener has not pulled them yet."