Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Dead Parents
Message-ID: <892@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 14:47:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.892
Posted: Tue May 28 14:47:09 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 01:46:30 EDT
References: <1150@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 62

> Taking the horse again, for example, it is usually the
> case that Hyracotherium is presented as occurring in early strata and
> as having died out shortly after it arose (it is pictured only at the
> bottom of such illustrations).  Its occurrence in more recent strata
> with modern horses is inconsistent with this and is not mentioned.  It
> may be (and is) said that this does not contradict the proposed
> ancestral relationships.  Perhaps not.

   Why only perhaps?  

> It certainly does not
> strengthen them, however.  And if it is positive evidence of anything,
> it is evidence of persistence, not evolution.  The most the
> evolutionist can say is that such things are not inconsistent with
> evolutionary theory, which I at least find weak.

    Why do you find it weak?  

> The creationist says,
> given phenomena such as these and the abrupt nature of the appearance
> of the "stages" in horse evolution, that they are not stages at all.
> (That is, this seems to be the canonical creationist position.  As
> usual, I don't know if I can agree with it or not.)
> -- 
> Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--

     The creationist says that they are not stages at all, but different
'kinds'.  How does he explain the abrupt nature of the appearance of the
different "stages"?  Remember - the same dating methods which are used to
show that the appearances are 'abrupt' (btw, anyone have any info on the
accuracy of these methods?  When we say 'abrupt' in the fossil record do
we mean less than a million years, less than 100K years, less than 10K years,
less than 1K years or what?) show that the "stages" appeared at different
times.  It seems that there are more than one possible position for
creationists to take here, namely:
	1.) Creation actually occurred on a geological timescale, not
	    'days', and new species were created in different geological
	    eras.
	2.) Everything was created at the same time, but modern horses
 	    avoided dying in places where they would leave fossils for
	    many millions of years.
	3.) The dating techniques used to date fossils are all incorrect.
	4.) Everything was created at the same time, ~10-20K years ago,
	    and God set the fossil record up to give the illusion of
	    evolution.
     I'm sure there are more possibilities that I've missed, but let me
deal with just these for the moment.  2.) and 3.) seem pretty unlikely,
although 3.) is just a subset of 4.), I guess.  4.) looks like a strawman
an evolutionist would set up, so I guess none of you would subscribe to
that one.  1.) contradicts no well established facts that I know of, but
I guess it would seem pretty unsatisfying to creationists.
     *PLEASE*, *PLEASE*, please, please, please, would the creationists on
the net let me know (by mail or net, I don't care) which of these positions
or what other positions they take?  How can we have a meaningful discussion
when you won't even tell us what your theory says?  *You* can each go out
and get volumes and volumes on evolution in order to research our position.
*I*, on the other hand, can't even find out which of the mutually 
contradictory hypotheses expressed above is most commonly held by creationists.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "You can be in my dream if I can be in yours." - Dylan