Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uvaee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!tet
From: tet@uvaee.UUCP (Thomas E. Tkacik)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Addition to Isolated Species note
Message-ID: <336@uvaee.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 11:19:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: uvaee.336
Posted: Thu Jun  6 11:19:59 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 06:13:16 EDT
References: <3570029@csd2.UUCP> <334@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: tet@uvaee.UUCP (Thomas E. Tkacik)
Organization: EE Dept., U of Virginia, Charlottesville
Lines: 28
Summary: 

>  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

Close, but not quite.  The problem with the odds argument is that there
are many combinations that are possible, not just one.  As used here,
this argument would have to be argueing that the chances of all of these
animals appearing where they are now is very low.  Actually this is just
one of many possibilities, and one of them had to occur.

This is different from questioning where there offspring are.  If the
offspring appeared somewhere, then it could be argued that this is just
one of many possibilities for them to be located.
BUT THEY SHOULD BE SOMEWHERE.  Where are they?
                Tom Tkacik
                ...!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!tet