beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (07/10/85)
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich), Message-ID: <350@scgvaxd.UUCP>: > Mutation has been shown to be a poor mechanism for Evolution. Transmutation > has never been observed and most all mutations have proven harmful. The > variations within species are predicted by the creation model. ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ "PREDICTED BY"???? "PREDICTED BY"!!!! Tell me how the variation in color of moths according to the level of pollution in their environment was "predicted by" the creation model. Try "worked into". I might even let you get away with "described by". But "PREDICTED BY"?!?!? No chance. > It has been stated that N.S. predicts everything, therefore it predicts > nothing. Tell me *anything* the creation model *truly* predicts (i.e. we don't already know it's true, but could go out and verify). > Evolution really has more problems than you are willing to believe. > > Dan Can you at least predict what I'm going to say to THIS??? -- --JB All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/15/85)
>> [Dan Bsokovich] >> Mutation has been shown to be a poor mechanism for Evolution. Transmutation >> has never been observed and most all mutations have proven harmful. The >> variations within species are predicted by the creation model. > ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ > [Beth Christy] > "PREDICTED BY"???? "PREDICTED BY"!!!! Tell me how the variation in color > of moths according to the level of pollution in their environment was > "predicted by" the creation model. Try "worked into". I might even let you > get away with "described by". But "PREDICTED BY"?!?!? No chance. Richard Carnes, any comment here on the meaning of "prediction"? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/24/85)
>> [Dan Bsokovich] >> Mutation has been shown to be a poor mechanism for Evolution. Transmutation >> has never been observed and most all mutations have proven harmful. The >> variations within species are predicted by the creation model. > ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ > [Beth Christy] > "PREDICTED BY"???? "PREDICTED BY"!!!! Tell me how the variation in color > of moths according to the level of pollution in their environment was > "predicted by" the creation model. Try "worked into". I might even let you > get away with "described by". But "PREDICTED BY"?!?!? No chance. The same way that variation of human species was predicted according to their environment. Studies in genetics have made it reasonable to conclude that all human traits could have come from an original set of genes. This includes dark skin, light skin, eye shape, accentuated facial features, height, etc. Your facts are a little misleading about the moths. The variation of color was not DUE to the pollution of the environment. The issue was that one color of moth went from being the minority to the majority as the environ- ment changed. The variation in color already exsisted prior to the introduction of pollution into the environment. What is the difference between "described by" and "predicted by"? If the model "describes" a certain set of observable circumstances, wouldn't this also constitute "predicted by"? Dan