dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/24/85)
>> 16. There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no >> forms of animal life with 2, 3,..., or even 20 cells >> [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of life >> should exist in great abundance. None do. The >> evolutionary tree has no trunk [c]. >> > [Keith Doyle] > If this is true, and I don't know offhand if it is, there could be a lot > of reasons for this. Single celled organisms may have a tendency to > grow larger than 20 cells once they obtain the ability to grow to > multiple cells. I would give this one much further study before I would > write it off to 'God Magic'. God Magic! Mmm... Your "I don't know if this is true, but if so it *may* be because..." falls in the magic class, too, don't you think? >> c) Actually, the form of life that has just over 20 cells >> is a very simple PARASITE called the mesozoa. It must >> have a complex animal as a host in order to provide it >> with such functions as digestion and respiration. The >> mesozoa could not be the evolutionary predecessors of >> any so called higher animals since it requires a >> higher animal as its host. Sponges, the next most >> complex form of multicellular life, are so different >> from higher forms of life that even evolutionists do >> not consider them as ancestral to anything. (For >> example see Cockrum, above, p. 167.) > This is an excellent example of the twisted nature of creationist > propoganda. Anyone remotely familiar with current evolutionary thought > would know that noone expects that this 20 celled organism has been > around unchanged since the days when all life was less than 20 or so cells. That's true. Just ask any bacteria. Or any algae. I wonder what you mean by "expect"? Is ther a genuine "expectation" involved here, or simply observation? > Clearly such a parasite would have evolved its parasitic nature after some > life had evolved that it could be parasite to! Clearly. Since evolution is a fact, and since parasites exist ... what other conclusion is possible? (when the question of evolution is begged, that is.) > Yet this is still presented > as evidence. Note how the creationists seem to like to forget that once > a new organism evolves it dosen't always stabilize forever. Organisms > continue to evolve, and not all primitive forms are directly in the > evolutionary path of higher forms. More question begging. --- By the way, just to avoid confusion here, I see your main point, i.e., that it is possible that parasites are degenerate forms of what were once non-parasitic organisms. But the arguments you use to support that contention are not very convincing. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/31/85)
>>> c) Actually, the form of life that has just over 20 cells >>> is a very simple PARASITE called the mesozoa. It must >>> have a complex animal as a host in order to provide it >>> with such functions as digestion and respiration. The >>> mesozoa could not be the evolutionary predecessors of >>> any so called higher animals since it requires a >>> higher animal as its host. Sponges, the next most >>> complex form of multicellular life, are so different >>> from higher forms of life that even evolutionists do >>> not consider them as ancestral to anything. (For >>> example see Cockrum, above, p. 167.) > >> This is an excellent example of the twisted nature of creationist >> propoganda. Anyone remotely familiar with current evolutionary thought >> would know that noone expects that this 20 celled organism has been >> around unchanged since the days when all life was less than 20 or so cells. > >That's true. Just ask any bacteria. Or any algae. > >I wonder what you mean by "expect"? Is ther a genuine "expectation" >involved here, or simply observation? Come on, is it that hard to understand the point I'm trying to make? The above comment on the parasite would indicate that because some primitive life form has no ancestors that ALL primitive life forms have no ancestors so a parasite that lives on a more advanced life form is in contradiction to evolution. The fallacy here is the assumtion that all primitive life forms have no known ancestry like sponges, a basic fallacy that the whole rest of the statement is based upon. Where did this assumption come from? It is suspect since it did NOT come from evolutionary theory as it is purported to have, and without it, the entire statement is meaningless. If creationists had hard evidence that this parasitic animal had no ancestors, corroborated evidence, this could very well falsify evolution. But, since no such hard evidence exists, creationists INVENT evidence by trying to slip the absurd assumption that all primitive life forms have no ancestors. >By the way, just to avoid confusion here, I see your main point, i.e., >that it is possible that parasites are degenerate forms of what were >once non-parasitic organisms. But the arguments you use to support >that contention are not very convincing. >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- Neither are these creationist statements that appear to deliberately misrepresent evolution in attempts to falsify it. I use the term 'appear to' because when you've seen it enough times, and in fact when it seems to develop a consistent pattern, it gets hard to excuse it with 'ignorance'. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd