[net.origins] Why ain't life homogenized today?

hopeful@fluke.UUCP (Buford Wanttruth) (09/13/85)

Hi, y'all, its me, Buford, again.  Ain't Ah pro-lific all of a sudden!  Ever   
since Ah was knee-high ta mah dear Pappy, Ah allers liked ta axe questions.
This'n hyere ya might say is a corrollary ta ma last one.  Hits taken from
Wysong's THE CREATION/EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY (pp. 278, 279).  Ah'm givin lots of
context so's Beel Jefferys won't beat up on me like he did on mah fren, Jake
(jus funnin with ya, Beel).


"I recently had occasion to view a film designed to document the fact of evolu-
tion through the mechinism of neo-Darwinism (mutations and natural selection).
The late Julian Huxley introduced the film by stating: 'All biologists accept the fact of evolution just as all astronomers and physicists accept the idea that
the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa'.  Well, with this said,   the film proceeded for the next fifteen minutes to show: (1) how melanic moths
can adapt by changing color; (2) how mosquitoes can produce offspring resistant to the action of DDT; (3) how mimulus plants can adapt to altitudes.
This evidence is taken as proof that the mechanism of mutations and natural 
selection can work.  Given this, given time, evolution in the broader sense
should occur.

Creationists do not see the evidence cited here as by any means sobering proof
of the fact of evolution.  Does this documentation of evolution through the 
transformation of moths into moths, mimulus into mimulus and mosquito into
mosquito force the belief in evloution (from 'amoeba to man') as decisively as
astronomical evidence forces the belief in a heliocentric universe?

The fossil record shows a remarkable absence of transitional forms between the 
various fauna and flora. (See Fig. 75) WHY IS LIFE NOT HOMOGENOUS TODAY WITH
MYRIADS OF INTERGRADING FORMS MAKING CLASSIFICATION IMPOSSIBLE?  (This is a 
point which Darwin himself could not understand: ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Chap. 6)
Furthermore, why was life not homogenous in the past?  Should not life abound
with partially formed organs: 20% feather, 80% scale; 75% wing, 25% leg; 60%
foot, 40% fin; 12% flower, 88% spore; 17% hoof, 83% toes; etc.  If life today
is experiencing evolution in action, where are the new nascent organs?"

  
Mah question is the one in capitals above.  What do y'all (Evolutioners and 
Creationers) thank?  Please feel free ta respond ta any of this hyere quote.



Truthfully yours,


Buford

tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/14/85)

> [Buford]
> WHY IS LIFE NOT HOMOGENOUS TODAY WITH
> MYRIADS OF INTERGRADING FORMS MAKING CLASSIFICATION IMPOSSIBLE?
-------
Ok, Buford, if classification is so easy, are Euglena plants or
animals?  After all, if you can't pick the right KINGDOM, forget
about finer distinctions.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/16/85)

In article <2649@vax4.fluke.UUCP> hopeful@fluke.UUCP (Buford Wanttruth) writes:
> "WHY IS LIFE NOT HOMOGENOUS TODAY WITH
> MYRIADS OF INTERGRADING FORMS MAKING CLASSIFICATION IMPOSSIBLE?

Good question.  There's a good answer too.

Let's assume for the moment that you miscegenated with a sheep, and the
ewe gave birth to your firstborn son, the smartest offspring a sheep ever
had, and the wooliest offspring of any human ever.  This new creature grows
up into a fine example of thinghood, but has some problems.  It can't
compete well with either humans or sheep.  The rams butt him away from the
ewes, and he can't fight back because he hasn't big horns or enough brains
to use tools.  Human females laugh at him because he is too hairy and stupid.
Your offspring will likely have less success at reproduction than if you had
bred with something human.  And thus you will have fewer grandchildren than
if you had bred with something human.

This is a general phenomenon, due to specialization.  Offspring between two
different specialists are not likely to be able to compete well with either
parent species in parental habitats.  Thus, it is beneficial to specializing
organisms to stick to their own kind, and not waste their reproductive
energies on mates that will produce inferior children.

This is the driving evolutionary force producing barriers to reproduction
between species.  Assume for a moment that somehow two species have come
about, and meet in a zone where hybridization takes place.  Natural selection
will favor individuals in both species which do not miscegenate, no matter
what the reason (wrong smell, whatever.)  These characteristics will be
selected for, and spread throughout the populations, eventually forming
the barriers to reproduction that we know today.

This process is visible between quite a number of sibling species, such
as the leopard frogs, various grasshoppers, white-footed and deer mice,
voles, etc.  Individuals from where the species overlap will not miscegenate.
Individuals from where the species don't overlap will miscegenate.
-- 

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