dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (05/21/85)
[] I first posted this note about ten days ago. So far, I have not received any responses, and there have only been two or three new notes by creationists on the topic of isolated species, all by Dan Boskovich. I will respond to these in my next note, but will say here that I don't think they offer a reasonable creationist explanation. Therefore, I have decided to keep posting this note at roughly ten day intervals, until I either do get a response which offers a reasonable creationist explanation of isolated species, or I get written statements from no fewer than 13 (thirteen) creationists promising never again to either claim explicitly or imply that there is no positive evidence for evolution. Isaac Dimitrovsky ---------------------note follows------------------------------------------- Lately, there has been a strange silence on the topic of isolation and unique species as evidence for evolution. And the evolutionists seem to have had the last word too! I am sure that the creationists only allowed this to happen through oversight :-), so once everyone's memory has been refreshed about where we were, they should have more to say on the subject. Karl Dahlke began the whole thing with his note which unfortunately is not around on our system anymore as it was well worth quoting. Anyway, Karl mentioned the fact that many isolated regions have species which live nowhere else. Also, the variety of these species in a region seems to correspond to the amount of time the region has been isolated. Karl also mentioned the following creationist explanation (admittedly a possible straw man), in order to refute it. > "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique > species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. > When we got to the islands,we found some previously inaccessible species. > A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." We then went off on a long winding sidetrack, as follows. Paul Dubois said: >Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? >If so, where? If not...be quiet. Yours truly replied: > OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this? > I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that > you have a different one in mind. Paul Dubois responded: > No, I don't. I meant what I said, viz. "what creationist actually > uses this argument?" No acrimony implied. To which Jeff Sonntag said: > So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily > explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? To which Paul Dubois replied: > Maybe. Or maybe someone could actually come up with the creationists > who make this argument. Or maybe someone could just admit that it's > a straw man, and quit circling around the question. while doing a fair amount of circling about the question himself, as noted by Jeff Sonntag, who repeated the question in question: > This phenomena exists: Isolated habitats often support a large > variety of species which are found nowhere else. There is a correlation > between the number of unique species in an isolated habitat and the length > of time that habit has been isolated. Obviously, this phenomena is > easily explained with the use of evolution. Can creationists explain it? > If so, how? No strawmen here, Paul. Finally, in the person of Dan Boskovich, there appeared a creationist ready to try and discuss this topic. He made the following comments: > This is really not a very big problem for creationists. Animals have > been known to migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", > L.H. Mathews. > As a creationist who believes in catastrophist geology (The Flood), I would > suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into different > parts of the world into places that were better suited for them > to live. Or, many animals may have migrated because of an over abundance > in one particular area. Jeff Sonntag then got the last word: > I see. And all of the species which are found in isolated habitats and > nowhere else just got off the ark, traveled halfway around the world or so, > directly to their isolated habitats (building boats if need be), leaving no > offspring anywhere else, and established themselves where they were supposed > to be. Sounds real likely to me. Which seems like a pretty strong argument against Dan's explanation, at least to me. I mean, what are the odds of all those different species of migrating en masse from wherever they were created to their island, without some of them also ending up on other, faraway islands, and without leaving any trace on the mainland? And, if Dan's explanation is true, why should the amount of time isolated have any correlation with the number of unique species? (If you are a recent creationist and so don't believe that the islands were isolated long ago, change that question to : why should the amount of time isolated, as estimated using evidence which you may or may not believe but which in any case is independent of biology, have any correlation with the number of unique species). So what do the other creationists on the net have to say about this? I look forward to hearing from you, Isaac Dimitrovsky
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/25/85)
While you're all arguing about whether various species of animals could have migrated from Ararat to locations like Australia, everybody seems to be missing something... A lot of the isolated species are *plants*. Can either plants or their seeds survive several months immersion in water? Can eucalyptus trees migrate? -- David Canzi "The Indians got revenge on the white man. They gave him tobacco."
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (05/27/85)
> [] > I first posted this note about ten days ago. So far, I have not received > any responses, and there have only been two or three new notes by > creationists on the topic of isolated species, all by Dan Boskovich. > I will respond to these in my next note, but will say here that I don't > think they offer a reasonable creationist explanation. > > Therefore, I have decided to keep posting this note at roughly ten day > intervals, until I either do get a response which offers a reasonable > creationist explanation of isolated species, or I get written statements > from no fewer than 13 (thirteen) creationists promising never again to > either claim explicitly or imply that there is no positive evidence for > evolution. My thanks to Isaac for carrying the ball on this one, as I (the originator of the discussion) have been rather busy lately. Creationists might question the methods used to determine the islands' ages, or the number of niches on the islands, or whatever; but a lot of things would have to be wrong for creationism to be right. You might question geology, plate techtonics, evolution, natural selection, etc, but you still have the task of explaining why they all independently support evolution, while refuting a "sudden emergence of species on earth", the cornerstone of creationism. A month before the "isolated species" discussion began, I posted more evidence for evolution: biochemical similarities among related species. Again, you may question the concept of "related", as determined by morphology, or fossil records, or whatever, but it is a clear case of independent corroborating evidence supporting evolution and refuting creationism. Furthermore, the biochemical similarities are predictive and testable. Take a pair of untested species and use fossil evidence to ascertain the time of separation. Then examine functionally equivalent proteans, and observe the differences. The correlation is quite strong. As with isolated species, the creationists were not able to produce a valid refutation. Perhaps I, like Isacc, should post this article every 10 days, until a creationist explains the correlation between biochemical structures and species separation, or until they admit that strong evolutionary evidence exists. This is, of course, the battering ram strategy, and I hope it makes a dent before my arms get tired. Beware Isaac, the typical defense does not make the walls stronger, since that is impossible. Instead, there are always distractions: Become indignant about strawman creationist arguments, bring up Noah's ark (which makes the isolation problem worse, not better), question each piece of evidence individually without explaining why all this independent evidence supports evolution, explain away any annoying evidence with a miracle, use the Bible as a refutation, discuss the metaphysical nature of science, bring up examples of unethical scientific practices, quote Darwin (or other brilliant evolutionists) making an error due to insufficient data or knowledge, point out inadequacies in existing evolutionary mechanisms and don't stop until the mechanisms explain the vibrations of each atom in an evolving species, throw in cosmology, discuss entropy (if only you understood it), enumerate the various degrees held by well known creationists, ... Beware Isacc, the bag of tricks is enormous. actually, it might be interesting to compile a list, as the one above is surely not exhaustive. It is difficult to keep a subject on track long enough to discuss it properly. -- Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad