flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/16/85)
In article <323@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >..., and I might add, extremely good evidence for evolution, >is the rear leg bones of the whales. Even though they serve no purpose, >and cannot be seen from the outside, WHALES HAVE LEGS!!! Indeed, many insect species have "vestigal" wings, which are small non-functional organs sitting right where the wings were/are on the closest related species. If there's a God who created all species from scratch, He must be trying awful hard to trick us into believing in evolution!
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/17/85)
> [Paul Torek] > Indeed, many insect species have "vestigal" wings, which are small > non-functional organs sitting right where the wings were/are on the > closest related species. If there's a God who created all species > from scratch, He must be trying awful hard to trick us into believing > in evolution! No, just trying to see how many people can look at degeneration and say "evolution!" Break comma give me a. Seems to me that a number of creationists have mentioned degeneration as a component of "creation models". How is your example supposed to be inconsistent with that? Or are you trying, in a roundabout way, to support creationists? Thanks, also, for the counterexample to this recent statement. > [Gordon Davisson] > Harmful mutations have no lasting bad influence on a population because > their carriars tend not to have many decendants. Thus, after a while, the > mutation dissapears from the population. Beneficial mutations, on the > other hand, cause their carriers to tend to have more decendants than > the non-carriers, so after a while, most of the population carries the > mutation, and the population has taken a step to the right (so to speak). Never heard of genetic load, I guess... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/17/85)
In article <1289@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > > [Paul Torek] > > Indeed, many insect species have "vestigal" wings, which are small > > non-functional organs sitting right where the wings were/are on the > > closest related species. If there's a God who created all species > > from scratch, He must be trying awful hard to trick us into believing > > in evolution! > > No, just trying to see how many people can look at degeneration > and say "evolution!" Break comma give me a. > > Seems to me that a number of creationists have mentioned degeneration > as a component of "creation models". How is your example supposed to be > inconsistent with that? Or are you trying, in a roundabout way, to > support creationists? Right. We all know that animals are degenerating because they too have Original Sin. :-) The fact is that evolution can provide testable explanations of why and when such "degeneration" occurs, whereas creationists can only say things like "Gawds curse". This reminds me of "Snouters", a very tongue in cheek work of biological fiction. It was a monograph on a newly discovered but (alas) now extinct (due to atomic testing) order of mammals, the Rhinogrades. One of the most fascinating sections was on the derivation of a worm from a snouter, by the successive reduction of all parts of the body except the nose. What's the point of this diversion? That if creationists want to postulate devolution (or degeneration) as a force shaping the fauna, then they open a whole can of worms. Perhaps worms, one celled animals, etc, are all descendents of Cain? :-( If not, then what limits this degeneration? The only escape for creationists is their notion of "kinds". They would claim that degeneration is recent, that animals haven't yet been able to change much from their "kinds", and that there is some unspecified limit to the amount of change possible. All well and good except: WHAT IS A KIND? They can give a theological definition: what a creator made. But they have had a singular lack of success (or attempts) at trying to pin this down to something physical, like enumerating the specific kinds and their member species. What criteria would they use? The fact is that "kinds" are a rhetorical device pretending to be a scientific concept. I say pretending because there is no body of literature pertaining to the real world about kinds. The sole source of "kinds" is a couple of lines in the bible. of -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/18/85)
> > > [Paul Torek] > > Indeed, many insect species have "vestigal" wings, which are small > > non-functional organs sitting right where the wings were/are on the > > closest related species. If there's a God who created all species > > from scratch, He must be trying awful hard to trick us into believing > > in evolution! > > No, just trying to see how many people can look at degeneration > and say "evolution!" Break comma give me a. > > Seems to me that a number of creationists have mentioned degeneration > as a component of "creation models". How is your example supposed to be > inconsistent with that? Or are you trying, in a roundabout way, to > support creationists? > The earlier example mentioned the vestigial leg bones of whales. Do you really mean to agree with evolutionists that these are *indeed* vestigial leg bones, and that whales *did indeed* evolve (sorry, degenerate) from land animals, just as we have been saying all this time? If so, you will be the first Creationist I am aware of who does so! -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/18/85)
In article <1289@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >Seems to me that a number of creationists have mentioned degeneration >as a component of "creation models". How is your example supposed to be >inconsistent with that? Are you suggesting that these insect species were Created (as a separate species of course; not evolved from others) with wings, but the wings later "degenerated"? Gee, funny how the wings only "degenerated" in certain species -- species in which wings are a *liability* for survival and reproduction. Maybe God designed them wrong; gave them wings by mistake? >Thanks, also, for the counterexample to this recent statement. > >> [Gordon Davisson] >> Harmful mutations have no lasting bad influence on a population because >> their carriars tend not to have many decendants. Thus, after a while, the >> mutation dissapears from the population. Beneficial mutations, on the >> other hand, cause their carriers to tend to have more decendants [...] > >Never heard of genetic load, I guess... If you're implying that "degenerate" wings are a harmful mutation that survived, you're wrong. The species involved are typically parasites, who live a life where wings are unnecessary, even harmful (a flea with wings would be easier for a dog to scratch out of its fur, since there would be more surfaces to catch).
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/18/85)
> [Bill Jefferys] > The earlier example mentioned the vestigial leg bones of whales. Do you > really mean to agree with evolutionists that these are *indeed* vestigial > leg bones, and that whales *did indeed* evolve (sorry, degenerate) from > land animals, just as we have been saying all this time? If so, you will > be the first Creationist I am aware of who does so! I guess you'll have to keep looking. But I will cheerfully admit that I haven't the slightest idea what to make of the leg bones! I certainly don't think the evidence compels me to believe they came from land animals. Note, however, that I did not propose degeneration in the case of the whales. You are putting words in my mouth. (Unintentionally, I would guess.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/22/85)
>> [Paul Torek] >> Indeed, many insect species have "vestigal" wings, which are small >> non-functional organs sitting right where the wings were/are on the >> closest related species. If there's a God who created all species >> from scratch, He must be trying awful hard to trick us into believing >> in evolution! >[Paul DuBois] >No, just trying to see how many people can look at degeneration >and say "evolution!" Break comma give me a. > >Seems to me that a number of creationists have mentioned degeneration >as a component of "creation models". How is your example supposed to be >inconsistent with that? It's not inconsistent with degeneration, but it's inconsistent with degeneration and logic. How is this degeration supposed to occur, what with working against natural selection and all? The chance that a disadvantageous mutation will spread to most of a population is miniscule. Even the 'given enough time, anything will happen' argument won't work here, because even if the mutation happens to spread to the entire population, a countermutation can occur and reverse the degeneration. >Thanks, also, for the counterexample to this recent statement. >> [Gordon Davisson] >> Harmful mutations have no lasting bad influence on a population because >> their carriars tend not to have many decendants. Thus, after a while, the >> mutation dissapears from the population. Beneficial mutations, on the >> other hand, cause their carriers to tend to have more decendants than >> the non-carriers, so after a while, most of the population carries the >> mutation, and the population has taken a step to the right (so to speak). >Never heard of genetic load, I guess... The genetic load is the result of a large number of harmful mutations. Although the impact of each individual mutation is small (as I said above), they are very common (on the order of one per individual), so their total impact is noticable. -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/24/85)
> > [Bill Jefferys] > > The earlier example mentioned the vestigial leg bones of whales. Do you > > really mean to agree with evolutionists that these are *indeed* vestigial > > leg bones, and that whales *did indeed* evolve (sorry, degenerate) from > > land animals, just as we have been saying all this time? If so, you will > > be the first Creationist I am aware of who does so! > [Paul Dubois] > I guess you'll have to keep looking. But I will cheerfully admit that > I haven't the slightest idea what to make of the leg bones! I > certainly don't think the evidence compels me to believe they came from > land animals. > Come on Paul, lets get real. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/26/85)
In article <342@phri.UUCP> lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) writes: >> > [Bill Jefferys] >> > The earlier example mentioned the vestigial leg bones of whales. Do you >> > really mean to agree with evolutionists that these are *indeed* vestigial >> > leg bones, and that whales *did indeed* evolve (sorry, degenerate) from >> > land animals, just as we have been saying all this time? If so, you will >> > be the first Creationist I am aware of who does so! > >> [Paul Dubois] >> I guess you'll have to keep looking. But I will cheerfully admit that >> I haven't the slightest idea what to make of the leg bones! I >> certainly don't think the evidence compels me to believe they came from >> land animals. >> >Come on Paul, lets get real. Is it possible that the whale once lived in relatively shallow habitats and came out to walk on the land at times. After thousands of years of living in deeper waters its legs could have suffered degeneration. Just a thought! Dan
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/28/85)
> > Is it possible that the whale once lived in relatively shallow habitats > and came out to walk on the land at times. After thousands of years of > living in deeper waters its legs could have suffered degeneration. > > Just a thought! > > Dan This is, of course, exactly right! In fact, we have a sequence of fossils showing the evolution of modern cetaceans from Mesonychid land animals that lived 50 million years ago. There is no gap in the sequence. See F. Edwords (Creation/Evolution, Issue X, p. 6 - Fall 1982). Glad to see you joining the evolutionist cause, Dan !-) -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (07/28/85)
In article <1295@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >> [Bill Jefferys] >> The earlier example mentioned the vestigial leg bones of whales. Do you >> really mean to agree with evolutionists that these are *indeed* vestigial >> leg bones, and that whales *did indeed* evolve (sorry, degenerate) from >> land animals, just as we have been saying all this time? If so, you will >> be the first Creationist I am aware of who does so! > > I guess you'll have to keep looking. But I will cheerfully admit that > I haven't the slightest idea what to make of the leg bones! I > certainly don't think the evidence compels me to believe they came from > land animals. > > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- If the leg bones are not the vestiges of a land-dwelling creatures then at the very least the creationist must admit that the whale's skeletal structure implies an evolutionary and natural origin... not one of design. Would the creator hardwire such things into his creation to deceive us? I don't think so. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "There is not a single McDonald's in Garrett County"
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/28/85)
> Is it possible that the whale once lived in relatively shallow habitats > and came out to walk on the land at times. After thousands of years of > living in deeper waters its legs could have suffered degeneration. > > Just a thought! > > Dan I neglected to point out that the only way that Dan's proposal differs from the evolutionary explanation is that while the fossil record shows the evolution from land mammals to whales to have taken about 50 million years, Dan would have us believe that it happened in only ten thousand years. Thus, Dan is proposing an evolutionary rate that is *5000 times as great* as those proposed by evolutionists! Which, coming from a Creationist who says that evolution doesn't happen at all, is strange, to say the least. Dan is not alone among Creationists in proposing fantastically accelerated rates of evolution. Since a simple calculation shows that only a small fraction of current species could have been accomodated on Noah's Ark (the dimensions of which are given in Genesis), not to mention the much larger number of extinct species whose fossils give mute testimony of their former presence on Earth, they propose that the present-day species arose from a very much smaller number of "basic kinds". The rate of speciation that they propose is far in excess of the wildest dreams of evolutionists. One can't get out of this by saying that the whales "devolved" rather than "evolved". Vestigialization of an existing organ is as much evolution as is the production of a new organ, and takes place at a comparable rate. In the first place, as much alteration of the genotype is required to vestigialize a formerly existing organ as to produce a previously nonexistent one. And in the second place, simplicity of phenotype is not correlated with simplicity of genotype. One way that an organ can be vestigialized is through mutations that *add additional enzymes* that repress the formation of the organ. In this case, simplification of the phenotype accompanys an *increased* complexity of the genotype. By the way, the fossil record shows that as the limbs of the former land animals lost their function in the development of whales, their nostrils moved from the normal position in land animals to the current position in the middle of the head. Take a look in the April, 1979 issue of *National Geographic* for some interesting pictures. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/30/85)
> Is it possible that the whale once lived in relatively shallow habitats > and came out to walk on the land at times. After thousands of years of > living in deeper waters its legs could have suffered degeneration. > > Just a thought! > Dan Not a very good one. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Why are you standing on one leg?" | "I'm trying to see if I'm a stork."
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (08/03/85)
In article <14600028@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: >>Indeed, many insect species have "vestigal" wings, which are small >>non-functional organs sitting right where the wings were/are on the >>closest related species. If there's a God who created all species >>from scratch, He must be trying awful hard to trick us into believing >>in evolution! [Paul Torek] > >As a creationist, I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of >species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all wet, but >I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of >evolution. [Lief Sorensen] Vestigal organs, like a parasitic insect's ultra-shrunken wings, are PROGRESSION NOT REGRESSION because they HELP the insect to survive and reproduce, given its parasitic lifestyle! A parasitic insect with defunct wings wastes less energy maintaining a useless body part, and is less visible and less easily removed by the host. On the other hand, a vestigal wing is not quite as good as no wing at all, but there has not been enough time for evolution to go that far. So the facts here are consistent with evolution theory. But they are not consistent with the species-by-species Creation hypothesis (unless God is trying to fool us!), because by that hypothesis God wouldn't have bothered with the vestigal organs. Of course, this doesn't necessarily refute the "kind"-by-"kind" Creation hypothesis -- it depends what a "kind" is. But then, there has never been more to the notion of a "kind" than blatantly subjective classifications. --Paul V Torek, iconoclast for all seasons