wolit@rabbit.UUCP (10/27/83)
[This discussion has clearly grown beyond the bounds of net.physics. Maybe it should be continued in net.philosophy or something.] For anyone looking for an observable demonstration of REAL evolution, there is much evidence readily at hand: the appearance of drug-resistant strains of bacteria (which evolved from susceptible strains when penicillin opened up a new niche), the development of dark-colored moths (from white ancestors) in (sooty) industrial England during the last century (the better to hide from their predators on sooty trees by), etc. The combination of such easily available observations, evidence for the existence of a mechanism to implement such changes, laboratory experiments, the fossil record, and Occam's razor (i.e., the simplicity of the theory tying it all together) makes a compelling case for Evolution. It is the overwhelming unlikelihood that all of these factors are simply coincidental, and not any act of faith (or lack thereof), that forces a rejection of Creationism as bunk. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter) (10/28/83)
The problem with these examples is that they are convincing only to those who already are convince. I remember talking to a "evolution sceptic" many years (>10) ago, before the current furor about "creation science". He also asked for "examples", and I gave some of the above. His answer was "yes, but that's not REALLY evolution. There aren't any examples of new species." Even more: "I want to see a cat evolve into a dog". To look at the latter first: Considering how far apart cats and dogs are, this isn't a reasonable example. But it's an example of the kind of thinking involved in the "new species". People THINK they know what a "species" is; they have all sorts of intuitive ideas about when animals are "the same" or "different". In fact, most of these ideas are simply, demonstrably false. In the biological definition, two animals are of different species unless they can inter-breed and produce fertile offspring. (Obviously, for bacteria etc. one must make different definitions.) Even this, however, is way too subtle for most people to accept when "they can see the evidence in front of their eyes". It might do them some good to do some gardening, and find that broccoli, kale, and califlower [sp? on all 3] - or is is asparagus instead of broccoli? - are all products of different "versions" of the same plant, which can still inter-fertilize, and were separated out by human selection for maximal devel- opment of different features. You might also get into the question of why it is "obvious" that a chow and a greyhound are both dogs, considering the "obvious" differences. -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (11/07/83)
First, let me point out that I have no use for creationism at all-- perhaps less than that. However, I would like to see an answer to the actual questions that they pose. None that I have heard have denied evolution @i[within a species] (emphasis theirs)--in fact, some have explicitly said that they do accept that much. My question: What is the best accepted evidence for speciation actually occurring? Has it been observed in the laboratory? In the field? In the fossil record? Where, when, etc. Citations to the literature would be appreciated. Not only would I like to know for my own curiosity, I would like to refer creationist friends to something more concrete than anything I've seen so far. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal