Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Hyere's Buford's response tah yourn
Message-ID: <1248@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 00:54:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1248
Posted: Sat Sep 14 00:54:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 17:28:46 EDT
References: <2648@vax4.fluke.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 33

> [Buford whatsisname]
> So, hyere's Buford Wanttruth's cornclusion on this admittedly narrow
> aspect of origins: If'n Ah were a judge of the court case at this
> moment, Ah'd rule this'n hyere tah those dog-gone Creationers.  Altho
> both models kin 'splain the data, it looks like the Creationer one
> doesn't has tah make any secondary adjusments tah account fer the lack
> of LIVING inbetweeners (since them folks says they tweren't any).  On
> th'other hand, visiting aliens from another planet--what had heard
> about evolution on earth--right likely would expect tah see lots of
> LIVING in-betweeners when they landed hyere.  However, they would be
> told that they just happened tah arrived at a poor moment in his'try
> when "they all died off"--and would now have tah make a secondary
> adjustment tah their theory tah 'splain why none's on hand.
> 
> But what do y'all folks thank, have Ah called this'n fair?  Jus lookin
> at the evidence (i.e., no LIVING in-betweeners), should the Creationers
> git a point, or should the Evolutioners?
------
No points for creationers.  Why did you pick apes to compare with
men?  Because you believe in creationism, you pick the most similar
living creatures to man and say (surprise) that there is nothing living
in between.  Why did you not pick lemurs instead of apes?  Or amoebas,
for that matter.
By the way, what do you make of the fossil skeletons of Neanderthal
man, Java man, etc. etc.  Someone must of gone to a lot of trouble
to fool us into thinking that there were in-betweeners.
Also, the extinction of living species is NOT an assumption.
It's still happening today.
And please don't tell me that what I said does not prove evolution.
I'm not trying to prove the correctness theory of evolution here.
I'm just doing a much easier job, debunking your particular argument.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan