Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 21)
Message-ID: <487@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 15:48:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.487
Posted: Mon Jun  3 15:48:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 05:43:38 EDT
References: <366@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 60
Summary: 

In article <366@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>    C.  NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  LIFE  ARE  SO
>        COMPLEX  THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
>        IT.
>
>       33.  The simplest form of life consists of about 600  different
>            protein  molecules. The mathematical probability that JUST
>            ONE molecule could form by the chance arrangement  of  the
>            proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10**527. [a] (The
>            magnitude  of  the  number  10**527  can   begin   to   be
>            appreciated  by  realizing  that  the  visible universe is
>            about 10**28 inches in diameter.)
>
	This is the most bogus argument yet! Lets see how many
fallacies I can find here. First, the simplest *known* life form
consists of +/- 600 proteins(if this figure is correct), this does
*not*, i repeat *not*, mean that the original, ancestral life form
had that many.  The second(major) fallacy is that evolution is *not*
a chance process except at the very lowest level of analysis. Thus
these absurd probability figures mean nothing. The controlling factor
here is *selection*, which restricts the set of proteins being
operated on to those that have survival potential, thus the probability
figures are incorrect. 
	New research!! This argument has been around since long
*before* Darwin. In fact, it is one of the early objections to
evolution that Darwin's concept of natural selection invalidated,
thus making it a viable theory.
>
>       34.  There are many instances where quite  different  forms  of
>            life  are  completely  dependent upon each other. Examples
>            include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp [a,b], the  yucca
>            plant  and  the pronuba moth [c], many parasites and their
>            hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the  honeybee.   Even
>            the  members  of  the  honeybee  family, consisting of the
>            queen, workers, and drones,  are  interdependent.  If  one
>            member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as
>            the plant before the animal or one member of the  honeybee
>            family  before another), it could not have survived. Since
>            all members of the group  obviously  have  survived,  they
>            must  have  come  into  existence  at essentially the same
>            time.
>
	Another basic fallacy. Your last sentence is true, but
it is really just a restatement of the chicken and egg problem.
Of course these dependent forms originated "at the same time",
this is called co-evolution. The ancestors of these forms were
in one-another's environment and thus exerted selective pressure on
each other leading to mutual adaption for interaction which
eventually(via a number of intermediate forms) become obligatory.
Please remember, species are populations *not* individuals.
This is also a variant of the "how could a wing evolve" red herring,
a feature combination need not have *started* in its current form
in order to have evolved.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen