Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Vestigal Organs
Message-ID: <890@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 19:14:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.890
Posted: Wed Jul 17 19:14:36 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 16:14:20 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 27

In article <1289@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
>Seems to me that a number of creationists have mentioned degeneration
>as a component of "creation models".  How is your example supposed to be
>inconsistent with that?

Are you suggesting that these insect species were Created (as a separate
species of course; not evolved from others) with wings, but the wings
later "degenerated"?  Gee, funny how the wings only "degenerated" in
certain species -- species in which wings are a *liability* for survival
and reproduction.  Maybe God designed them wrong; gave them wings by
mistake?

>Thanks, also, for the counterexample to this recent statement.
>
>> [Gordon Davisson]
>> Harmful mutations have no lasting bad influence on a population because
>> their carriars tend not to have many decendants.  Thus, after a while, the
>> mutation dissapears from the population.  Beneficial mutations, on the
>> other hand, cause their carriers to tend to have more decendants [...]
>
>Never heard of genetic load, I guess...

If you're implying that "degenerate" wings are a harmful mutation that
survived, you're wrong.  The species involved are typically parasites,
who live a life where wings are unnecessary, even harmful (a flea with
wings would be easier for a dog to scratch out of its fur, since there
would be more surfaces to catch).