Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!ihnp1!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <940@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 10:13:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.940
Posted: Mon Aug  5 10:13:13 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 09:42:20 EDT
References: <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <14600028@hpfcrs.UUCP>, <365@phri.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 27


		    [This line intentionally left blank]

>Do these "vestigal" organs show "pregression" or "regression".  In otherwords
>can these mean that at one time whales could walk, but due to some mutation,
>the legs became useless?  I would call this "regression".  On the other hand,
>does this mean whales never could walk, but may in the future as the legs
>further develop?  I would call this "progression".
>
>As a creationist I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of
>species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all wet, but
>I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of
>evolution.

Do you believe that at the time the legs were useful to "whales", they
also had fully developed tails and other swimming apparatus?  I sure
doubt it.  (If it's true, they must've been d*mn long legs!!  :-) As
the legs "regressed", the tail and related stuff "progressed".  Is
"progression" also not good evidence of evolution?

	        [This blank line, however, was an accident]
-- 

--JB       (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)

                   All we learn from history is that
                     we learn nothing from history.