Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Don't get mad, now...
Message-ID: <612@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 22:30:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.612
Posted: Fri May 10 22:30:33 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 14-May-85 07:11:06 EDT
References: <1042@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 63

>Evolution says that things will change.  That is, they will get more
>complex.  Unless they don't.  They might get simpler, too, that's all
>right.  On the other hand, maybe they'll just stay the same.  Wouldn't
>want to rule that one out, either.
>
>If they do change, they'll do it gradually.  Unless they don't.  They
>might change quickly, after all.  How quickly?  Well, quickly enough
>not to leave any evidence.  Quickly enough that it appears to happen
>all of a sudden.  Not that it really happens all at once, though.
>......

>...But yet, you never know.  Maybe those old chromosomes'll play a trick
>on us and do something wierd, so that we have reproductive isolation
>and speciation as a result, not a cause, of evolutionary change.
>Those wily species, they're tricky, you know.  They might not come
>about *through* natural selection.  They're just contrary and ornery
>enough to be the *raw material of* selection.  We'll keep both ways of
>looking at it.  They might come in handy some day.
>
>Well...I suppose I've angered some of you by my satiric tone.  I offer
>my apologies.  But the above, stripped of its derisory manner, is
>certainly a better definition of what current evolutionary theory is
>about than anything most of YOU have come up with...
>
>Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--

Actually, I was rather amused by this one.  I have no problems with any
of this.  These are all signs of HEALTHY scientific thought (though
somewhat caricatured).  Note that these are examples of areas where
scientists may disagree on the methods of evolution.  Creationists
are not allowed to disagree, as they are connected to authoritarian 
religious organizations that tell them what they think.  In fact,
Paul is the only non-evolutionist on this net that seems to think
at all for himself.  In fact, I am inclined to think that if he thinks a 
little more he will cease to be anti-evolutionist.  Actually, I have 
learned a lot of things I didn't know about evolution and the nature of
science while researching in response to some of Pauls comments.  But, I 
am beginning to wonder where it all goes from here:

for (;;) {
C: creation is science!

E: no it's not!

C: well then, evolution isn't science either!

E: yes it is, there's all kinds of evidence!

C: well, there's evidence for creation too!

E: ok, what?

C: well, evolution has this and that problem, and besides, things
   look like they were created!

E: that's not evidence!

C: yes it is!
}

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd