hopeful@fluke.UUCP (Buford Wanttruth) (09/13/85)
Buford Wanttruth: > Hyere it is: Sposin evolution's true. Ah hear tell that we hewmens an da > GOrillas (da apes) come fum da same ancestry. Now let's call dis dude, the > po' boy fum which Chita an us come, let's call him A-0. Lets call us, A-N. Nowif'n Ah got da picture right, they's a bunch a characters in between ol A-0 an > us A-N types. How many of these in-betweeners (call 'em "n") is they, Ah don't > know. Ah also hear tell that they's two camps--the gradualists (Ah'll call um > Grads) an da Punctuated Equilibrium types (Ah'll call um Puncs). > > Well, whether da Grads or da Puncs is right only means how many "n's" they is, > right? Now Ah also heared that, as Stanley Friesen once said (April 9th), > "Evolution *only* talks about increased *adaptation* and *not* improvement". Soif'n that means that each "n" between A-0 an A-N was more adapted, now hyere's > mah question: How come there ain't any of these dudes ALIVE today? We got apes an we got hewmens still alive an well today. How come they (apparently) ain't > nothin in between LIVING? --------------------- Bill Tanenbaum (Brother Christmastree): >Suppose such an in-between creature were living today. Lets call it an xxx. >Would that convince you? No! You would ask "How come there is no creature >alive intermediate between a man and an xxx?" Suppose there were an even >closer creature, a yyy, between man and an xxx. Would that convince you? >No. You would ask "How come there is no creature alive intermediate between >man and a yyy?" Get the point????? Apes are closer to man than monkeys. >Monkeys are closer to man than more primitive primates, such as tarsiers >and lemurs. Primates are closer to man than other mammals, etc. etc. etc. >As long as there are a finite number of living species, some other species >must be closest to man, with none in between. Got the point now? I hope >so. Creationists are such slow learners! This hyere note is mah return tah Bill Tanenbaum's and other's returns tah mah first note. Thanks tah y'all who ansewered mah question (Dave Long, Brian Peterson, and Beth Christy). Brother Christmastree, your note hepped me to see that Ah did'nt axe what Ah actually wanted tah axe. Please pardon me, y'all, fer bein' somewhat igorant on these matters. Ah really wanted tah axe what happened tah all the in-betweeners from, say, GO-rillas tah hewmens. How come is it that they's nothin' ALIVE today between Apes an men.? That's mah real question. The folks what wrote tah me have hepped me tah see that the story is sposed tah be somethin like one o the followin: GO-rillas Hewmens | | .....+.......+....A0........A-1...A-2..A-3.............................A-N { N O M A N 'S L A N D } or GO-rillas | ..............................A0.......................................... + + +.......................................A-N Hewmens { N O M A N 'S L A N D } Basically, ever one who responded tah mah question, despite mah axen the wrong question, purdy well answered tah what Ah meant tah axe. As mah local Evolutioner sayed: "They all died off". All the net.origins folks jus tried tah give a reason for such interestin catigories of critters. Now, brother Christmastree, Yew seem tah thank that it's obvious that hewmens come fum tha primerates jus cause they's some similarities. But it ain't obvious tah me, tah be honest. 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." 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. 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? Truthfully yours, Buford "Any story sounds good--'til you hear th'other side of it"
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/14/85)
> [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
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/16/85)
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
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (09/17/85)
> Buford Wanttruth: > > > mah question: How come there ain't any of these dudes ALIVE today? We got apes an we got hewmens still alive an well today. How come they (apparently) ain't > > nothin in between LIVING? > --------------------- > Not to worry, while intermediate forms are RARE they are not unknown. For instance the case a Buford Wanttruth comes to mind. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"