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!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Simple Forms
Message-ID: <641@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 22:08:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.641
Posted: Thu May 30 22:08:15 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 00:07:20 EDT
References: <1138@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 27

>>>			 They show design [a]. There are no examples of
>>>            half-developed feathers, eyes [b], skin, tubes  (arteries,
>>>            veins,  intestines,  etc.),  or  any of thousands of other
>>>            vital organs. 
>
>> [Keith Doyle]
>> Not true.  There are ranges of eyes and ears from the very simple to the
>> complex.
>
>There are ranges of houses from the very simple to the complex.  But
>there is no phylogeny.  Do you have one for eyes and ears?
>
>It's not hard to postulate *anything*.  The difficulty lies in showing
>that the postulates are reasonable.  I simply cannot understand how you
>expect anyone who is not already convinced by this line of reasoning to
>be persuaded by such vague and speculative statements.
>
>This argument boils down to:  they "could" evolve, and this is
>evidence for evolution.  It is not possible that you expect the
>creationist to take this seriously. [DuBois]

I'm not saying that the complexity of eyes etc. is particularly good evidence
for evolution, just that it is not particularly good evidence of 'design'.

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