Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <-99200@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 21:24:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.-99200 Posted: Sat Apr 27 21:24:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 06:50:51 EDT References: <811@mhuxt.UUCP> Lines: 35 Nf-ID: #R:mhuxt:-81100:uwmacc:-99200:177600:1525 Nf-From: uwmacc!dubois Apr 27 23:24:00 1985 >>>>>How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? >>> . . . >>> >>>>> "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique >>>>> species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. >>>>> When we got to the islands,we found some previously inaccessible species. >>>>> A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." >>>> [Paul DuBois] >>>>Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? >>>>If so, where? If not...be quiet. >>> [Isaac Dimitrovsky] >>> OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this? >>> I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that >>> you have a different one in mind. >> [Paul DuBois] >> No, I don't. I meant what I said, viz. "what creationist actually >> uses this argument?" No acrimony implied. > [Jeff Sonntag] > So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily > explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? Maybe. Or maybe someone could actually come up with the creationists who make this argument. Or maybe someone could just admit that it's a straw man, and quit circling around the question. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |