bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (03/12/84)
Finally, Ray Miller remarks: > But to put creationism to the test even more: creation, unlike evolution, > says that some things won't happen (and thus opens itself to falsification). > Creationists claim that there are limits in variability to viable organisms. > Thus to falsify the claim, simply demonstrate said transitions in the past > (through fossils) or in the present. If you don't know the difference between > "horizontal" and "vertical" evolution then you don't know enough about the > creation model to intelligently criticize it. Presenting evidence of future evolution is not within the guidelines I suggested, which specified *present day* techniques, and by implication at least would require the experiment to be completed within a reasonable amount of time. Ray knows as well as anyone that evolutionists (even punctuated ones :-)) believe that speciation takes times which are very long by human standards, even though they may be short geologically. As for past evolution, evolutionists have presented many examples. Creationists, however, always object that the examples are not examples of evolution of one "kind" to another, but only of variations within one "kind". Unfortunately, creationists have not provided objective critera by which it is possible to distinguish one "kind" from another. Even in the Arkansas case they were unable to do so, although under oath. So, Ray, if you can provide a satisfactory set of criteria by which anyone can objectively determine whether two species belong to the same "kind", then we can consider the above test further. Until then, I will have to say that it fails to satisfy my ground rule that an objective judge would be able to evaluate the data to determine whether the criteria have been met. > If you don't know why creation- > ists generally agree with evolutionists on the *order* of fossils in the local > geological columns then you don't know enough about the creation model to > intelligently criticize it. I am familiar with creationist theories for "explaining" the order of the fossils. In my opinion they are among the more bizarre of the creationist ideas. If Ray wants to discuss them, let him present them (as I do not want to be accused of setting up a "straw man"). However, as Tynor and Mooney pointed out in an earlier article, this theory poses serious difficulties for creationist interpretation of the Paluxy data that Ray likes so much. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)
flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn) (03/13/84)
... Bill Jefferys comments: >>Ray [Miller] knows as well as anyone that evolutionists (even >>punctuated ones :-)) believe that speciation takes times which are very >>long by human standards, even though they may be short geologically. Actually, artificial selection can produce spectacular evolution in short times, e.g., breeding pigeons or other animals with short life spans. The whole first part of Darwin's "Origin of Species" deals with artificial selection, and it is clear that Darwin regarded this as powerful evidence for his theory that the same type of selection could take place in nature over longer times. Have any of the creationists ever *read* the Origin of Species? Most of their objections were thoroughly discussed by Darwin, who devoted a good portion of the book to seriously considering arguments against his theory of evolution by natural selection, and countering them as best he could. His main difficulty was Kelvin's calculation that the Earth couldn't be as old as it would have to be for evolution to account for the evidence, but the contribution of radioactive decay to the Earth's heat budget wasn't known at that time. Some of the sillier objections, such as the incorrect argument based on the second law of thermodynamics, hadn't been thought up then, either.
wmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/14/84)
In all the years of genetic experimentation with fruit flies and suchlike, have any NEW species been developed? If so, that proves the possibility (at least) of evolution. If not, the question is still open... (I'm assuming here that the creationist tenet is that any SPECIES must have been divinely created, because even they must accept that VARIETIES (sub-species) can be bred and have been during recorded history (dog varieties, for example).) Will
gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP (03/14/84)
Just a quick comment about speciation in fruit flies. In a book called
*Darwinism Defended*, an historian of science makes a quick reference to
an experiment in adaptation for a colony of fruit flies. A biologist
tried raising fruit flies using alcohol as their primary food. Not only did
the fruit flies adapt to the new food over several generations, but they
also began to develop structures that would have made mating with their
parent or originating fly population impossible (due to physical constraints,
not genetic). The experiment was not continued to see how long a complete
speciation would require for this fruit fly colony.
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!ihuxm!gjphw