Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Addition to Isolated Species note
Message-ID: <334@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 21:10:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.334
Posted: Thu May 30 21:10:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 02:32:24 EDT
References: <3570029@csd2.UUCP>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 42
Summary: 

In article <3570029@csd2.UUCP> dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) writes:
>[]
>
>As promised, I will now review the creationist notes on isolated
>species that have come in since the first time I posted my
>"isolated species again" note. After combing through my files I
>find two such notes, both by Dan Boskovich. The first reads as
>follows (for a summary of the discussion which preceded this,
>see my previous note - I also quote Jeff Sonntag's last note,
>which Dan responds to):
>
>
>which essentially repeats the explanation Dan gave before (see the next
>to last quote in my previous note). But this completely misses the point
>the objection that Jeff and I raised to this explanation, so I'll
>repeat it. What are the odds of all those isolated species migrating
>from the ark (or, if you are a creationist who doesn't believe the ark
>existed, from wherever they were created) to "their" islands without
>leaving any trace on the mainland, and without some members of the
>species also winding up on other, faraway islands. Also, why should
>the amount of time isolated have any correlation with the number of
>unique species? Or, if you are a recent creationist, as Dan is, why
>should the amount of time isolated, estimated using evidence you
>dispute but which is independent of biology, have any correlation
>with the number of unique species?
>

  This is a dead-end question! The amount of time that has transpired
  after the flood is not enough time to account for the development
  of unique species. Unless one assumes an old age for the earth, there
  is no correlation to speak of.

  As far as the odds argument, let me first state that I never use the
  odds argument against the formation of life. As a certain evolutionist
  pointed out, odds are relative. The example was that if you tossed
  10 million dice simultaneously, the result would be one of amazing odds.
  If calculated beforehand it would be considered impossible. The odds
  of animals migrating and leaving behind no offspring in particular places,
  becomes irrelevant if in fact they did so!


					Dan