Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Hyere's Buford's response tah yourn
Message-ID: <751@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 11:05:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.751
Posted: Mon Sep 16 11:05:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 06:48:15 EDT
References: <2648@vax4.fluke.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 57

In article <2648@vax4.fluke.UUCP> hopeful@fluke.UUCP (Buford Wanttruth) writes:
> How come is it that they's nothin' ALIVE today between Apes an men.?
> That's mah real question.

I'd say you make a fine counterexample.  :-)  The answer is the same as for
why specific dinosaurs aren't alive today: we don't know why they died out.
However, we do have a fine example "between" monkeys and men: the apes.

> Jus cuz yew kin line up a
> bunch of critters and say one comed after th'other, don't seem real
> convincin tah me.  Ah kin do that with a collection of lectronic
> instruments, like we have hyere at Fluke: they was all de-signed
> separately, but Ah could line em up (smaller tah bigger, less complex
> tah more complex) and say, "These hyere evolved this way and
> unfortunately, all of the 'most convincin' in-betweeners jus ain't in
> stock any more.  Logic Analyzers is closer to PCs than Oscilloscopes.
> O-scopes is closer to PCs than more primitive instruments, such as
> juke-boxes and null-meters.  Anythane with a CRT is closer ta a PC than
> other instruments.  As long as they's a finite number of extant
> instruments, some other gadget must be closest ta PCs, with none
> in-between.  Git the point, boy?  Ah hope so."

If your bucolic accent is any hint, you may have observed (while on the
farm) how new animals come about.  You also may have aboserved (at Fluke)
how new instruments come about.  Thus, your analogy just doesn't apply.
Git the point, boy?  Ah hope so.

> Ah guess if'n Ah could git into a time machine an drop in on any moment
> in (evolutionary) hist'ry, Ah could find a time when they was lot's of
> in-betweeners alive, right? (in-betweeners of primerates and hewmens
> and inbetweeners of all other critters as well).  We jus happen tah
> live at a time when Natur'l See-lection has nicely sorted out all the
> critters intah such convenient categories (convenient for the
> Creationers).  Not so convenient for the Evolutioners, Ah would say, in
> that all the in-betweeners is died off leaving thanes lookin good fer
> those rascals, the Creationers.

You couldn't tell an "in betweener" if it bit you.  The vast majority of
known vertebrate species has died off; we have bones to prove they existed.
Including bones of probable human ancestors.

> 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).

Does that mean that if your parents are both dead, you were manufactured
at Fluke?

> "Any story sounds good--'til you hear th'other side of it"

Depends how ignorant and gullable you are, doesn't it?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com