rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (04/06/85)
Several of you have asked for specific evidences that support creation
and oppose evolution. There are many. We will list 116. Evidences 1-36
come from the life sciences, 37-87 come generally from the
astronomical sciences, and 88-116 relate to the earth sciences. An
outline format will be used. One or more of these 116 evidences, along
with appropriate references will be given every day or so.
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION* HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from non-
living matter) has never been observed. All observations
have shown that life only comes from life. This
observation is so consistent that it is called the Law of
Biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this
law by claiming that life came from non-living matter.
2. Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the
physical variations that are observed within life, such as
in the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and
their modern day refinements is that there are LIMITS to
such variation [a,b]. Breeding experiments have also
confirmed that these boundaries exist [c-e].
a) Monroe W. Strickberger, GENETICS, 2nd edition (New
York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.
b) ''On the general relation of Mendelism to evolution I
have come to a very definite conclusion; that is that
__________
* By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial
change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. When
referring to the evolution of life, this increasing
complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form
of life had a different, improved, and reproducible set
of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is
sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man
theory, or MACROevolution. MICROevolution, on the other
hand, involves only changes in shapes, colors, sizes, or
minor chemical alterations--changes that both
creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively
trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then,
which requires increasing complexity, that is being so
hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by
the term evolution.
it is really antagonistic to evolution.'' [Alfred
Russell Wallace, MY LIFE, Vol.1 (Chapman and Hall,
1905).]
c) Francis Hitching, THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE
DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and
Fields, 1982), p. 55.
d) ''All competent biologists acknowledge the limited
nature of the variation breeders can produce, although
they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the
evolutionary ax.'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE PEDDLERS
(New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 184-185.]
e) ''A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there
are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be
produced.'' [Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, THE
NATURAL LIMITS TO BIOLOGICAL CHANGE (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984), p. 96.]
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/06/85)
When I read the title of this article, I became excited: perhaps someone was finally going to give me some evidence for creation, so I might be able to judge the merits of the theory for myself! Unfortunately, all I saw was arguments against evolution. As usual, these are of the form: "It didn't happen here, it didn't happen there, so it didn't happen anywhere!" ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST EVOLUTION ARE IRRELEVANT TO ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST CREATION! I am still waiting for someone to post an argument for creation.
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (04/08/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
...
3. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited [a].
a) N. Heribert Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE
ARTBILDUNG (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p.
1144-1147.
4. Natural selection cannot produce NEW genes; it only
SELECTS among preexisting characteristics.
5. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new
genetic material becomes available for evolution [a,b].
Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism
in its natural environment. In addition, almost all
(perhaps all) observable mutations are harmful [c]; many
are lethal [d-i].
a) ''Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to
mutation.'' [Ernst Mayr, as contained in Paul S.
Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, editors, MATHEMATICAL
CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF
EVOLUTION, Proceedings of a symposium held at the
Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and
26, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press,
1967), p. 50.]
b) ''Although mutation is the ultimate source of all
genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event,
....'' [Francisco J. Ayala, ''The Mechanism of
Evolution,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September 1978, p.
63.]
c) ''Mutations are more than just sudden changes in
heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best
of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.''
[C. P. Martin, (McGill University) ''A Non-Geneticist
Looks at Evolution,'' AMERICAN SCIENTIST, January
1953, p. 102.]
d) ''[although mutations have produced some desirable
breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to
be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent,
impair the fertility and viability of the affected
organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of
known mutant types one can be found which is superior
to the wild type in its normal environment, only very
few can be named which are superior to the wild type
in a strange environment.'' [C. P. Martin, p. 100.]
''Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the
mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known
mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few
remaining ones are highly suspect.'' [C. P. Martin, p.
103.]
e) ''The process of mutation is the only source of the
raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of
evolution.... The mutants which arise are, with rare
exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in
the environments which the species normally
encounters.'' [Theodosius Dobzhansky, ''On Methods of
Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,'' AMERICAN
SCIENTIST, Winter, December 1957, p. 385.]
f) ''If we say that it is only by chance that they
[mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too
leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental,
or lethal.'' [W. R. Thompson, ''Introduction to the
ORIGIN OF SPECIES,'' by Charles Darwin; Everyman No.
811 Library (New York: E.P. Dutton & Sons, 1956
reprint of 1928 edition), p. 10.]
g) ''...we could still be quite sure on theoretical
grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For
a mutation is a random change of a highly organized,
reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random
change in the highly integrated system of chemical
processes which constitute life is almost certain to
impair it--just as a random interchange of connections
in a television set is not likely to improve the
picture.'' [James F. Crow, (Professor of Genetics,
University of Wisconsin) ''Genetic Effects of
Radiation,'' BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS,
Vol.14, 1958, pp. 19-20.]
h) ''The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a
tendency towards degeneration.'' [Dr. Sewall Wright,
THE NEW SYSTEMATICS (Clarendon Press), p. 174.]
i) In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a
new organ, Koestler says that ''Each mutation
occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be
combined with the others. They are all interdependent.
The doctrine that their coming together was due to a
series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to
common sense but to the basic principles of scientific
explanation.'' [Arthur Koestler, THE GHOST IN THE
MACHINE (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p. 129].
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/08/85)
Oh boy. Another dreary "evolution is wrong, so creationism is right" fallacy. I'll rebut the individual points. In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > 1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from non- > living matter) has never been observed. All observations > have shown that life only comes from life. This > observation is so consistent that it is called the Law of > Biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this > law by claiming that life came from non-living matter. This is a funny criticism to hear from a creationist, considering that creation of "kinds" has never been observed, and contradicts the "Law of Biogenesis". Biogenesis was a rebuttal to the popular notion (supported by the Biblical plagues of Egypt and other foolishness) that organisms such as toads, flies (and their maggots) and other animals and plants could just appear spontaneously from the carcases, the earth, or other sources. Studies of life cycles and Pasteur's experiments rebutted that idea. Abiogenesis, the modern idea of life evolving from chemicals, differs in several respects fropm the old notion. First, in that first life (if in fact we would care to declare some stage to be first life) was much simpler than current living organisms. Second, that it took a long time for this early life to develop to stages similar to todays living organisms, rather than a few days or hours for the old notion. > 2. Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the > physical variations that are observed within life, such as > in the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and > their modern day refinements is that there are LIMITS to > such variation [a,b]. Breeding experiments have also > confirmed that these boundaries exist [c-e]. There is much more known of genetics nowadays than Mendel's laws. Such as mutation. There is no evidence of long-term limits. > a) Monroe W. Strickberger, GENETICS, 2nd edition (New > York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812. > c) Francis Hitching, THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE > DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and > Fields, 1982), p. 55. Citation without quotations are worthless. Anybody can cite random pages of random books. Only if you quote what's on the page can it be construed as an argument. > b) ''On the general relation of Mendelism to evolution I > have come to a very definite conclusion; that is that > it is really antagonistic to evolution.'' [Alfred > Russell Wallace, MY LIFE, Vol.1 (Chapman and Hall, > 1905).] Wallace's objections have long since been met. The results were called the New Synthesis (of genetics and evolution.) Care to quote his objections to contradict me? > d) ''All competent biologists acknowledge the limited > nature of the variation breeders can produce, although > they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the > evolutionary ax.'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE PEDDLERS > (New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 184-185.] "Everyone who disagrees with me is incompetant", huh? Let's be accurate: biologists will acknowledge the limited RATE at which breeders can produce variation. There are no known limits to the variation that could be produced. > e) ''A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there > are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be > produced.'' [Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, THE > NATURAL LIMITS TO BIOLOGICAL CHANGE (Grand Rapids: > Zondervan, 1984), p. 96.] What evidence does this creationist text (note the publisher) supply, other than his bare assertion? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/09/85)
> Citation without quotations are worthless. Anybody can cite random pages > of random books. Only if you quote what's on the page can it be construed > as an argument. I agree. Note, however, that very few people in this newgroup do actually give any references, WHATEVER their position. Bill Jefferys regularly does so. Most of the rest give assertions + zero backup, effectively preventing anyone from looking up the source of the assertions. > > d) ''All competent biologists acknowledge the limited > > nature of the variation breeders can produce, although > > they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the > > evolutionary ax.'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE PEDDLERS > > (New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 184-185.] > > "Everyone who disagrees with me is incompetant", huh? Let's be accurate: > biologists will acknowledge the limited RATE at which breeders can > produce variation. There are no known limits to the variation that could > be produced. And there are no demonstrated lack of limits, either. Let's be accurate? > > e) ''A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there > > are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be > > produced.'' [Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, THE > > NATURAL LIMITS TO BIOLOGICAL CHANGE (Grand Rapids: > > Zondervan, 1984), p. 96.] > > What evidence does this creationist text (note the publisher) supply, > other than his bare assertion? Poison the well, Mike. A creationist text, therefore wrong. Yes, some additional corroborative material would have been useful. But have you got something other than a bare assertion that the statement is incorrect? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/09/85)
In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > > Several of you have asked for specific evidences that support creation > and oppose evolution. There are many. We will list 116. Evidences 1-36 > come from the life sciences, 37-87 come generally from the > astronomical sciences, and 88-116 relate to the earth sciences. An > outline format will be used. One or more of these 116 evidences, along > with appropriate references will be given every day or so. > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION* HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. Not true, biologists have found a number of species which simply did not exist 300 yrs ago. They have also observed significant adaptive change in some species as a result of industrial polution in Britain, that is some animals have adapted to polution!! And scientists were there to watch. > > 1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from non- > living matter) has never been observed. All observations > have shown that life only comes from life. This > observation is so consistent that it is called the Law of > Biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this > law by claiming that life came from non-living matter. > This is amisunderstanding of the nature of the "law" of Biogenesis, which is nothing more than an *observation* that under current conditions life is not *seen* to appear without a living precurser. It is *not* an absolute statement of the impossibility of such origin(there are *no* absolutes in science). Furthermore, the current theories on the origin of life are *not* spontaneous generation theories of the sort which this "law" was formulated to reject. > 2. Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the > physical variations that are observed within life, such as > in the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and > their modern day refinements is that there are LIMITS to > such variation [a,b]. Breeding experiments have also > confirmed that these boundaries exist [c-e]. > A list of citations follows here. The problem with this argument is that evolution and breeding occur in entirely *different* time-frames. This is where mutation comes into evolutionary theory - it provides the extra variation which removes the limitation on short-term breeding. Even breeding has from time to time exceeded these basic limits, when there has been sufficient time for genetic reorganisation; I am talking about the vast number of dog breeds, many of which fall entirely outside of the normal range of variation for a wild Canis(called "wolves"). Or how about the man-made species Zea mays(common corn); so different from its wild ancesters that they are almost unrecognizable. The argument above also ignores population effects, breeding experiments are always done with *small* populations of limited genetic variability, most successful wild spp have *enormous* populations with a large amount of regional variation. > ... > __________ > > * By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial > change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. When > referring to the evolution of life, this increasing > complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form > of life had a different, improved, and reproducible set > of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is > sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man > theory, or MACROevolution. MICROevolution, on the other > hand, involves only changes in shapes, colors, sizes, or > minor chemical alterations--changes that both > creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively > trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, > which requires increasing complexity, that is being so > hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by > the term evolution. > > Nice definition :-) I don't know of any reputable biologist who would accept it as it stands. Increased complexity a *defining* characteristic of evolution??? What about structural reduction in parasites??(like tapeworms). Evolution *only* talks about increased *adaption* *not* improvement!! Now the real objection to this whole thing. So you have debunked evolutionary theory(again), where is the evidence *for* creationism? Even if evolutionary theory as it stands is incomplete, there is *no* reason to accept creationism. It just means that biologists must continue looking for a viable theory. In order for creation science to be acceptible as an alternative there must be shown to be *positive* evidence for it, and observational justification for the *assumption* of a creator. This is simply *not* what was asked for in terms of evidence. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (04/09/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
...
6. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having
both greater complexity and greater viability [a,b] than
any of its ancestors [c-f].
a) ''Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the
business of producing new structures for selection to
work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed
emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form
is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be
visible today, occurring in organisms at various
stages up to integration of a functional new system,
but we don't see them: there is no sign at all of this
kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor
controlled experiment has shown natural selection
manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene,
hormone, enzyme system or organ.'' [Michael Pitman,
ADAM AND EVOLUTION (London: Rider, 1984), pp. 67-68.]
b) ''There is no single instance where it can be
maintained that any of the mutants studied has a
higher vitality than the mother species.'' [N.
Heribert Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE
ARTBILDUNG (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p.
1212.]
c) Pierre-Paul Grasse, EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS (New
York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.
d) ''It is good to keep in mind...that nobody has ever
succeeded in producing even one new species by the
accumulation of micromutations.'' [Richard
Goldschmidt, THE MATERIAL BASIS OF EVOLUTION (Yale
University Press). ]
e) ''If one allows the unquestionable largest
experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear
and incontrovertible answer to the question about the
significance of mutations for the formation of species
and evolution. They disappear under the competitive
conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst
in a breeze.'' [N. Heribert Nilsson, p. 174.]
f) ''If life really depends on each gene being as unique
as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come
into being by chance mutations.'' [Frank B. Salisbury,
(Plant Science Department, Utah State University),
''Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,''
NATURE, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.]
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/09/85)
> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. Neat title, but when are we going to start seeing some of these 116 categories of evidence for creation? So far all you've posted are old, discredited arguments against evolution, which is hardly the same thing. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "You're from Joisey? I'm from Joisey!" "Which exit?"
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/10/85)
[.............] > Several of you have asked for specific evidences that support creation > and oppose evolution. There are many. We will list 116. Evidences 1-36 > come from the life sciences, 37-87 come generally from the > astronomical sciences, and 88-116 relate to the earth sciences. An > outline format will be used. One or more of these 116 evidences, along > with appropriate references will be given every day or so. > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION* HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > 1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from non- > living matter) has never been observed. All observations > have shown that life only comes from life. This > observation is so consistent that it is called the Law of > Biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this > law by claiming that life came from non-living matter. Sigh. This is not evidence for creation, and is not even evidence against evolution, as such observations to not constitute any kind of proof, or 'laws'. Again we see little more than parroting of the old claims. Where did you copy this from? > > 2. Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the > physical variations that are observed within life, such as > in the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and > their modern day refinements is that there are LIMITS to > such variation [a,b]. Breeding experiments have also > confirmed that these boundaries exist [c-e]. > > a) Monroe W. Strickberger, GENETICS, 2nd edition (New > York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812. > b) ''On the general relation of Mendelism to evolution I > have come to a very definite conclusion; that is that > This is simply more of #1. Kind of the attitude 'if you can't see it, it isn't there'. Hardly convincing. Variations that have occured indicate reasonable probability that there are no such 'limits' to such variations. Such variations would not happen often, (millions of years etc.) so you don't expect to see an animal give birth to a new species. Even if you did, you would be hard pressed to be able to prove that the new animal was actually sired by the other animal, rather than a new independent species. And again, this is not 'creationist' evidence but 'anti-evolutionary' evidence. Just as good evidence for 'creationism' as it is for any other 'magic-wandism'. > > __________ > > * By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial > change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. When > referring to the evolution of life, this increasing > complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form > of life had a different, improved, and reproducible set > of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is > sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man > theory, or MACROevolution. MICROevolution, on the other > hand, involves only changes in shapes, colors, sizes, or > minor chemical alterations--changes that both > creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively > trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, > which requires increasing complexity, that is being so > hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by > the term evolution. > This is an interesting definition of evolution. Now see how the creationists keep modifying their theory to fit observed evidence as they learn more about reality? (macro vs microevolution) I think a few terms differ somewhat from the more mainstream evolutionist view. 'Benificial change', 'Increasing complexity' are not given to evolution by mainstream scientific views, but seems to be a purely creationist ploy, leading up to the 'entropy' arguments. Also note, from the references, that breeders experience with animals is hardly an effective argument, breeding in general has probably not been done long enough to ever have experienced any effects of 'speciation'. If in fact it could ever be produced in that particular manner at all. > > it is really antagonistic to evolution.'' [Alfred > Russell Wallace, MY LIFE, Vol.1 (Chapman and Hall, > 1905).] > c) Francis Hitching, THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE > DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and > Fields, 1982), p. 55. > d) ''All competent biologists acknowledge the limited > nature of the variation breeders can produce, although > they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the > evolutionary ax.'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE PEDDLERS > (New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 184-185.] > e) ''A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there > are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be > produced.'' [Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, THE > NATURAL LIMITS TO BIOLOGICAL CHANGE (Grand Rapids: > Zondervan, 1984), p. 96.] > > > TO BE CONTINUED > Polly want a cracker? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/10/85)
[...............] > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > Come ON you guys, this is NOT evidence for creation. At BEST all you have accomplished here is to touch on some areas where evolutionary theory needs to be clarified or modified. For the most part, all you have done is to touch on areas where evolutionary theory has ALREADY been clarified or modified, which demonstrates your lack of understanding of evolution. > > > 3. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited [a]. > > a) N. Heribert Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE > ARTBILDUNG (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. > 1144-1147. > > 4. Natural selection cannot produce NEW genes; it only > SELECTS among preexisting characteristics. > > 5. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new > genetic material becomes available for evolution [a,b]. > Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism > in its natural environment. In addition, almost all > (perhaps all) observable mutations are harmful [c]; many > are lethal [d-i]. > > a) ''Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to > mutation.'' [Ernst Mayr, as contained in Paul S. > Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, editors, MATHEMATICAL > CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF > EVOLUTION, Proceedings of a symposium held at the > Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and > 26, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, > 1967), p. 50.] > b) ''Although mutation is the ultimate source of all > genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, > ....'' [Francisco J. Ayala, ''The Mechanism of > Evolution,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September 1978, p. > 63.] > c) ''Mutations are more than just sudden changes in > heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best > of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.'' > [C. P. Martin, (McGill University) ''A Non-Geneticist > Looks at Evolution,'' AMERICAN SCIENTIST, January > 1953, p. 102.] > d) ''[although mutations have produced some desirable > breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to > be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, > impair the fertility and viability of the affected > organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of > known mutant types one can be found which is superior > to the wild type in its normal environment, only very > few can be named which are superior to the wild type > in a strange environment.'' [C. P. Martin, p. 100.] > ''Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the > mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known > mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few > remaining ones are highly suspect.'' [C. P. Martin, p. > 103.] > e) ''The process of mutation is the only source of the > raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of > evolution.... The mutants which arise are, with rare > exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in > the environments which the species normally > encounters.'' [Theodosius Dobzhansky, ''On Methods of > Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,'' AMERICAN > SCIENTIST, Winter, December 1957, p. 385.] > f) ''If we say that it is only by chance that they > [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too > leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, > or lethal.'' [W. R. Thompson, ''Introduction to the > ORIGIN OF SPECIES,'' by Charles Darwin; Everyman No. > 811 Library (New York: E.P. Dutton & Sons, 1956 > reprint of 1928 edition), p. 10.] > g) ''...we could still be quite sure on theoretical > grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For > a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, > reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random > change in the highly integrated system of chemical > processes which constitute life is almost certain to > impair it--just as a random interchange of connections > in a television set is not likely to improve the > picture.'' [James F. Crow, (Professor of Genetics, > University of Wisconsin) ''Genetic Effects of > Radiation,'' BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, > Vol.14, 1958, pp. 19-20.] > h) ''The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a > tendency towards degeneration.'' [Dr. Sewall Wright, > THE NEW SYSTEMATICS (Clarendon Press), p. 174.] > i) In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a > new organ, Koestler says that ''Each mutation > occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be > combined with the others. They are all interdependent. > The doctrine that their coming together was due to a > series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to > common sense but to the basic principles of scientific > explanation.'' [Arthur Koestler, THE GHOST IN THE > MACHINE (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p. 129]. > Again, evolution does not state the METHOD, (mutation or otherwise) that causes speciation. Evolution postulates that it DOES occur, because of observed evidence, not particularly HOW. All this concentration on mutation is so far away from creationist evidence it's not funny anymore. Actually this is all just as good evidence that chucko the clown created the universe last week. > > > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): > > TO BE CONTINUED > > III. (Earth Sciences): > > I can hardly wait :-) Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "Pieces of Eight, Pieces of Eight"
kmo@ptsfa.UUCP (ken olsen) (04/10/85)
In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION* HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > etc . . . Just out of curiosity - has CREATION ever been observed? I mean OBSERVED - not postulated from "faith" in a god or gods!
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/10/85)
[...............] > 1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from non- > living matter) has never been observed. All observations > have shown that life only comes from life. This > observation is so consistent that it is called the Law of > Biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this > law by claiming that life came from non-living matter. BY THE WAY, Ernest Haeckel postulated the 'Law of Biogenisis' which states effectively, 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'. In effect, this means that an embryo during its early stages of development, traces its evolutionary history. That is, a human embryo has a fish-like stage, a reptile-like stage etc. Modern scientists take this one with a LARGE grain of salt. Odd that creationists should miss-state this one and try to use it in their arguments. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"
dross@rocky2.UUCP (David Ross) (04/11/85)
In article <329@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP gives several citations (mostly outdated references from the 1950's) purporting to show that mutations cannot occur at a sufficient rate to create new species, and that most mutations are deletorious. If creationists have to restrict scientific knowledge to the state it was in thirty years ago to prove their case, they've got a long way to go. The specific problems with the "evidence" presented are as follows: > 3. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited [a]. > > a) N. Heribert Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE > ARTBILDUNG (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. > 1144-1147. Agreed. But current evolutionary theory already says this, (and has for a long time), so how does this contradict evolution? > 4. Natural selection cannot produce NEW genes; it only > SELECTS among preexisting characteristics. This is not quite accurate. Natural selection selects genes, not characteristics (although in some instances it may act on more than one gene.) Secondly, gene frequencies in a population can be influenced by migration pressure as well as by natural selection. > 5. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new > genetic material becomes available for evolution [a,b]. > Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism > in its natural environment. In addition, almost all > (perhaps all) observable mutations are harmful [c]; many > are lethal [d-i]. This just is not true! Mutation is a major mechanism by which genetic variability is produced, but it is *not* the only one. Other proposed mechanisms include: 1) Genome rearrangements - This has been demonstrated convincingly in the case of immunoglobulins. 2) Transposable elements - Agents such as Tn elements and phage mu have been long known to produce genotypic and phenotypic changes in bacteria by transposing from one site to another. It's been known for almost forty years that transposable elements are active in higher organisms. Barbara McClintock was the first to show this, using corn as a model system; it's now thought that the repetitive sequences found in all eukaryotic DNA may represent transposable elements. 3) Viral transduction - It was shown several years ago that retroviruses have picked up cellular DNA; this represents an obvious mechanism for introducing new genes into an organism.Again, there are solid precedents for this in bacteria. 4) The existence of intervening sequences in eukaryotic DNA has led to the suggestion that one mechanism of evolutionary change may be shuffling of coding sequences for protein domains to produce new proteins Finally, the argument that all mutations must be deletorious is not and cannot be a priori true. Bacterial and viral mutations, for example, often are advantageous. (Cf. drug resistance). Mutations can be advantageous, neutral or disadvantageous. (See Genetics, 2nd. ed. Ursula Goodenough, [New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston], 1978, p. 757.) In addition, genes do not exist in isolation to produce an organism, but rather cooperate with the environment to produce a phenotype. A gene that was previously deletorious may prove beneficial if the environment should change. The best example of this in humans is the gene for hemoglobin S, found in sickle cell trait and sickle cell anemia. In the presence of malaria, individuals carrying one (and only one) copy of the gene have a selective advantage. In the absence of malaria, the gene is deletorious. > a) ''Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to > mutation.'' [Ernst Mayr, as contained in Paul S. > Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, editors, MATHEMATICAL > CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF > EVOLUTION, Proceedings of a symposium held at the > Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and > 26, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, > 1967), p. 50.] > b) ''Although mutation is the ultimate source of all > genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, > ....'' [Francisco J. Ayala, ''The Mechanism of > Evolution,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September 1978, p. > 63.] > c) ''Mutations are more than just sudden changes in > heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best > of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.'' > [C. P. Martin, (McGill University) ''A Non-Geneticist > Looks at Evolution,'' AMERICAN SCIENTIST, January > 1953, p. 102.] > d) ''[although mutations have produced some desirable > breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to > be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, > impair the fertility and viability of the affected > organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of > known mutant types one can be found which is superior > to the wild type in its normal environment, only very > few can be named which are superior to the wild type > in a strange environment.'' [C. P. Martin, p. 100.] > ''Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the > mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known > mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few > remaining ones are highly suspect.'' [C. P. Martin, p. > 103.] > e) ''The process of mutation is the only source of the > raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of > evolution.... The mutants which arise are, with rare > exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in > the environments which the species normally > encounters.'' [Theodosius Dobzhansky, ''On Methods of > Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,'' AMERICAN > SCIENTIST, Winter, December 1957, p. 385.] > f) ''If we say that it is only by chance that they > [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too > leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, > or lethal.'' [W. R. Thompson, ''Introduction to the > ORIGIN OF SPECIES,'' by Charles Darwin; Everyman No. > 811 Library (New York: E.P. Dutton & Sons, 1956 > reprint of 1928 edition), p. 10.] > g) ''...we could still be quite sure on theoretical > grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For > a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, > reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random > change in the highly integrated system of chemical > processes which constitute life is almost certain to > impair it--just as a random interchange of connections > in a television set is not likely to improve the > picture.'' [James F. Crow, (Professor of Genetics, > University of Wisconsin) ''Genetic Effects of > Radiation,'' BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, > Vol.14, 1958, pp. 19-20.] > h) ''The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a > tendency towards degeneration.'' [Dr. Sewall Wright, > THE NEW SYSTEMATICS (Clarendon Press), p. 174.] > i) In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a > new organ, Koestler says that ''Each mutation > occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be > combined with the others. They are all interdependent. > The doctrine that their coming together was due to a > series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to > common sense but to the basic principles of scientific > explanation.'' [Arthur Koestler, THE GHOST IN THE > MACHINE (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p. 129]. What I find amazing is quoting references like these, some of them more than fifty years out of date, in a feeble effort to try and build up creationism by knocking down evolution. It doesn't work like that. You use the most recent evidence to support your case, not the oldest. David Ross @NYU Medical Center {allegra, seismo, ihnp4}!cmcl2!rocky2
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/11/85)
In article <871@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > Citation without quotations are worthless. Anybody can cite random pages > > of random books. Only if you quote what's on the page can it be construed > > as an argument. > > I agree. Note, however, that very few people in this newgroup do > actually give any references, WHATEVER their position. Bill Jefferys > regularly does so. Most of the rest give assertions + zero backup, > effectively preventing anyone from looking up the source of the > assertions. I'm glad you agree with something. :-) It's hard to argue about no statement. I rarely give references because I rarely have them near me. Generally, I restrict my arguments to those founded on understanding of general principles of evolution, logic, and argument (which can be found in innumerable texts on the appropriate subjects.) If you want references on those, you need only ask. My arguments are phrased from my own thoughts, rather than quotations of others. Shall I cite myself? > > > d) ''All competent biologists acknowledge the limited > > > nature of the variation breeders can produce, although > > > they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the > > > evolutionary ax.'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE PEDDLERS > > > (New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 184-185.] > > > > "Everyone who disagrees with me is incompetant", huh? Let's be accurate: > > biologists will acknowledge the limited RATE at which breeders can > > produce variation. There are no known limits to the variation that could > > be produced. > > And there are no demonstrated lack of limits, either. Let's be accurate? And there is no demonstrated lack of undemonstrated lacks.... :-) Very simply, creationists postulate limits to variation over a long period of time. There is no evidence for such a postulate. Therefore, Occam's razor says "chuck it". Throw away Occam's razor and you are throwing away a part of the scientific method. > > > e) ''A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there > > > are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be > > > produced.'' [Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, THE > > > NATURAL LIMITS TO BIOLOGICAL CHANGE (Grand Rapids: > > > Zondervan, 1984), p. 96.] > > > > What evidence does this creationist text (note the publisher) supply, > > other than his bare assertion? > > Poison the well, Mike. A creationist text, therefore wrong. Yes, > some additional corroborative material would have been useful. But > have you got something other than a bare assertion that the statement > is incorrect? Therefore suspect. If I wanted declare him wrong because he is a creationist, I would do so. It's very impolite for you to imply otherwise. But (once again) the only thing breeders can talk about is the RATE at which change can be produced. > Science is Dead. God is Dead. (There, I've pulled your tail to get even. Happy?) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/11/85)
In article <329@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes: > > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > 3. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited [a]. > What does this have to do with anything?? > 4. Natural selection cannot produce NEW genes; it only > SELECTS among preexisting characteristics. > > 5. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new > genetic material becomes available for evolution [a,b]. > Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism > in its natural environment. In addition, almost all > (perhaps all) observable mutations are harmful [c]; many > are lethal [d-i]. Agreed, these are basic premises of evolutionary theory. > > c) ''Mutations are more than just sudden changes in > heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best > of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.'' > [C. P. Martin, (McGill University) ''A Non-Geneticist > Looks at Evolution,'' AMERICAN SCIENTIST, January > 1953, p. 102.] > d) ''[although mutations have produced some desirable > breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to > be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, > impair the fertility and viability of the affected > organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of > known mutant types one can be found which is superior > to the wild type in its normal environment, only very > few can be named which are superior to the wild type > in a strange environment.'' [C. P. Martin, p. 100.] > ''Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the > mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known > mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few > remaining ones are highly suspect.'' [C. P. Martin, p. > 103.] Ther has been a lot of water under the bridge since 1953, why not try a more recent up-to-date analysis of mutation. > e) ''The process of mutation is the only source of the > raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of > evolution.... The mutants which arise are, with rare > exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in > the environments which the species normally > encounters.'' [Theodosius Dobzhansky, ''On Methods of > Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,'' AMERICAN > SCIENTIST, Winter, December 1957, p. 385.] Please note *in the environment ... normally encounters* Many of the best evolutionary theorists consider that most evolution takes place in marginal environments where advantages and disavantages can easily be switched around(see Mayr or Stebbins). This observation is *one* of the reasons for the "puncuated equilibrium" concept, which states in part that established species are genetically *stable*. > f) ''If we say that it is only by chance that they > [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too > leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, > or lethal.'' [W. R. Thompson, ''Introduction to the > ORIGIN OF SPECIES,'' by Charles Darwin; Everyman No. > 811 Library (New York: E.P. Dutton & Sons, 1956 > reprint of 1928 edition), p. 10.] Good night, this is *really* old, more of historical than scientific interest! > i) In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a > new organ, Koestler says that ''Each mutation > occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be > combined with the others. They are all interdependent. > The doctrine that their coming together was due to a > series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to > common sense but to the basic principles of scientific > explanation.'' [Arthur Koestler, THE GHOST IN THE > MACHINE (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p. 129]. > This is a straw-man, it has *nothing* to do with serious evolutionary theory as accepted by respected scientists. A new organ is *not* considered to form from a 'series of bllind coincidences' as this quote suggests. So you are still debunking evolution rather than supporting creationism. There is *nothing* here which makes creationism any more acceptible as a *scientific* theory. Also your concept of evolutionary theory seems to be about 40 years out of date. No serious scientist today would accept a theory of the form you are debunking, they realized such a theory was inadequate 40 years ago and have been changing it to eliminate the inadequacies. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (04/11/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
...
7. Over seventy years [a] of fruit-fly experiments, involving
2700 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for
believing that any natural or artificial process can cause
an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic
improvement has ever been observed despite the many
unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates [b-f].
a) Strickberger, p. 44.
b) ''Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or
less disadvantageous to their possessors. The
classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit
fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or
disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which
diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the
eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes,
bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to
their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly
in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a
major improvement of the normal organization in the
normal environments are unknown.'' [Theodosius
Dobzhansky, EVOLUTION, GENETICS, AND MAN (New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.]
c) ''A review of known facts about their [fruit fly
mutants] ability to survive has led to no other
conclusion than that they are always constitutionally
weaker than their parent form or species, and in a
population with free competition they are eliminated.
Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a
single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila
mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only
in the favourable environment of the experimental
field or laboratory....'' [N. Heribert Nilsson, (Lund
University), SYNTHETISCHE ARTBILDUNG (Lund Sweden:
Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1186.]
d) ''It is equally true that nobody has produced even a
species by the selection of micromutations. In the
best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable
mutants are known. If we were to combine a thousand or
more of such mutants in a single individual, this
still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type
known as a species in nature.'' [Richard B.
Goldschmidt, ''Evolution, As Viewed by One
Geneticist,'' AMERICAN SCIENTIST, Vol.40, January
1952, p. 94.]
e) ''It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that,
though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for
sixty years or more in labs all round the world--flies
which produce a new generation every eleven days--they
have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or
even a new enzyme.'' [Gordon Rattray Taylor, THE GREAT
EVOLUTION MYSTERY (New York: Harper and Row, 1983), p.
48.]
f) ''Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit
flies under any circumstances yet devised.'' [Francis
Hitching, THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE DARWIN WENT
WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields,
1982), p. 61.]
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownmrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/11/85)
In article <330@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes: > 6. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having > both greater complexity and greater viability [a,b] than > any of its ancestors [c-f]. Single mutations seldom would cause a new species to develop. However... Autopolyploidy in plants is a standard trick of plant breeders to develop more vigorous plants by doubling or tripling their chromosome numbers. Several species of plants are believed to have arisen naturally by this method. I'd say that more chromosomes satisfies the greater complexity clause. The greater viability clause is meaningless: how can you determine which of two naturally occurring species is more "viable"? Each is able to outcompete the other in its natural habitat. > a) ''Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the > business of producing new structures for selection to > work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed > emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form > is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be > visible today, occurring in organisms at various > stages up to integration of a functional new system, > but we don't see them: there is no sign at all of this > kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor > controlled experiment has shown natural selection > manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, > hormone, enzyme system or organ.'' [Michael Pitman, > ADAM AND EVOLUTION (London: Rider, 1984), pp. 67-68.] Duplicated chromosomes would count as new structures, since each copy is then free to mutate in different directions. There are quite a few candidates for nascent organs (assuming you are referring to things we can see today, rather than "evolution in one year right under my nose".) Two examples I'm well familiar with are the development of claws in the family Dryinidae (some wasps parasitic on Homoptera) from the first tarsal segment, and the development of claws from a spur of the femur of mites parasitic in the gills of Hermit Crabs (Ewingidae, recently placed in the family Glycyphagidae.) > b) ''There is no single instance where it can be > maintained that any of the mutants studied has a > higher vitality than the mother species.'' [N. > Heribert Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE > ARTBILDUNG (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. > 1212.] And how would you measure this vitality? Autopolyploidy often produces plants that are described as more vigorous under some growing conditions. > c) Pierre-Paul Grasse, EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS (New > York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88. What did he say? > d) ''It is good to keep in mind...that nobody has ever > succeeded in producing even one new species by the > accumulation of micromutations.'' [Richard > Goldschmidt, THE MATERIAL BASIS OF EVOLUTION (Yale > University Press). ] Actually, this is not in the least true if you use standards of reproductive isolation. New "species" of Drosophila have been produced which are incapable of interbreeding with the old. I've read reports of species changing similarly in the wild. We may be observing evolution in action there. > e) ''If one allows the unquestionable largest > experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear > and incontrovertible answer to the question about the > significance of mutations for the formation of species > and evolution. They disappear under the competitive > conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst > in a breeze.'' [N. Heribert Nilsson, p. 174.] On what basis does Nilsson generalize from "many" to "all"? > f) ''If life really depends on each gene being as unique > as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come > into being by chance mutations.'' [Frank B. Salisbury, > (Plant Science Department, Utah State University), > ''Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,'' > NATURE, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.] I think I'll check this one out tonight in the library. This might be a creationist letter to the editor, or it might be out of context. I'll let you know. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/11/85)
> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. This has already been pointed out several times, but once again: EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION IS NOT THE SAME AS EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. The fact that Ron continues to assert that it is, seems to indicate that he has a total lack of understanding as to just what constitutes evidence for or against a scientific theory. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > Wow! And we've been looking for it now and then for most of a century now! That's almost one millionth of the time evolution has been going on, and we haven't seen any major changes yet. Guess what? Z. CREATION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. Well, I guess that takes care of both of those theories. Either that, or 'X has never been observed' is a pretty poor way to invalidate a theory. Even if you type it in capital letters very often, it just doesn't help. > > 7. Over seventy years [a] of fruit-fly experiments, involving > 2700 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for > believing that any natural or artificial process can cause > an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic > improvement has ever been observed despite the many > unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates [b-f]. 2700 generations over 70 years? And probably hundreds, maybe even thousands of fruit flies? Please compare that to 1 million years and many billions of fruit flies. Big difference, isn't there? A viable, improved mutation is obviously highly unlikely. It is therefore to be expected that any experiment which uses a small number of individuals and a small number of generations (compared to the number which is used by nature) is unlikely to produce a viable mutation. Imagine shuffling a deck of cards and dealing out several hands. If you did that 10 times and found no royal flushes, would you conclude that a royal flush is impossible to get? > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): > > TO BE CONTINUED > > III. (Earth Sciences): > Can't wait till they finally get to these ones. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Pulled a muscle in my ear!"-Penfold
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/12/85)
In article <330@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes: >f) ''If life really depends on each gene being as unique > as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come > into being by chance mutations.'' [Frank B. Salisbury, > (Plant Science Department, Utah State University), > ''Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,'' > NATURE, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.] As promised, I stopped at the Museum of Comparative Zoology library last night to look up this citation. And its rebuttals. As expected, this is a quotation out of context. The argument the author is constructing is much more complicated than is indicated by this one sentence. The author is examining the "given enough time, and chemicals, life will arise" argument, and is trying to fit numbers to it. His major assumption is that enzymes are needed, so he examines the probabilities of their forming at random. He takes into account that there can be quite a bit of variability of enzymes that will still work, but admits failure to bring his computed probabilities to a reasonable level. The purpose of the quoted sentence is to invite others to look at his assumptions, rather than to deny that life could have arisen spontaneously. A quick search of the Science Citations Index provided several articles responding to his. The most telling criticisms were: 1) That he selected a modern enzyme with an extremely high specificity as his model. Early life would not have needed such high specificity in enzymes, and so would have a much larger number of possible enzymes to start from. 2) That early enzyme formation was a random phenomenon. There might well have been chemical evolution before life really began. It is amusing to note that he actually mentioned (towards the end) that special creation would explain the origin of enzymes. But he added that it provides little guidance in formulating scientific experiments. Does anyone know why he threw this in? Did Utah practice creationist Lysenkoism at the time, or was Salisbury a creationist? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/12/85)
In article <331@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. As has been pointed out repeatedly, evidence that something else is wrong is not evidence that your theory is correct. You are using the fallacy of argument called the false dilemma. Another fallacy you are employing is the selection of samples where support for evolution has not been found, and rejection of examples where support for evolution has been found. It's analogous to saying "there are no dogs, because I looked at the hydrant and by my fireplace and there weren't any dogs there." -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/13/85)
Would it be too much trouble to set the top, bottom and left margins on your formatter to zero so that we don't get all this empty space in these articles? Thank you. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/15/85)
In article <330@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes: > > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > 6. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having > both greater complexity and greater viability [a,b] than > any of its ancestors [c-f]. Incorrect, mainly because increased viability is a function of envitonment. A mutant that is disadvantagous in one enviromnment may be advantageous or even necessary in another. For instance the vestigial-wing mutant in fruit flies. This form cannot fly, and under standard lab conditions it does not breed well, since "normal" fruit flies prefer to mate with other "normal" flies. *But*, when a styeady, high wind is present "normal" flies are blown away by the wind; the vestigial-wing, flightless flies are *not*, thus they are the *only* ones to breed. This is *clearly* greater viability in this environment. > What follows is a set of the typical long-outdated scientific references and pseudo-science from creationist writers with no standing in the scientific community. Only one is worthy of any comment. > d) ''It is good to keep in mind...that nobody has ever > succeeded in producing even one new species by the > accumulation of micromutations.'' [Richard > Goldschmidt, THE MATERIAL BASIS OF EVOLUTION (Yale > University Press). ] Wrong again, two counter examples: Zea mays(common corn), and Canis familiaris(the domestic dog). Neither of these *ever* existed in the wild, and they are *distinct* from *any* wild species. They were bred by humans over a few thousand years. By the way this is also a counter to your "limits of breeding" argument from the last posting. Given *enough* breeding time, artificial selection *can* exceed these supposed limits. Come on, what we want is references to *modern* scientific work, from accepted journals, *not* taken out of context, which not only debunks evolutionary theory, but *also* gives reason why creationism is a *real* *scientific* alternative. P.S: Could you get rid of all those blank lines and leaders, they just eat up net resources without contributing anything! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/15/85)
> [Stanley Friesen] > ... > Ther has been a lot of water under the bridge since 1953, > why not try a more recent up-to-date analysis of mutation. > ... > Good night, this is *really* old, more of historical than > scientific interest! > ... > Also your concept of evolutionary theory seems to be about > 40 years out of date. No serious scientist today would accept a theory > of the form you are debunking, they realized such a theory was > inadequate 40 years ago and have been changing it to eliminate the > inadequacies. Simply saying something is old is unconvincing. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/15/85)
[...............] > What I find amazing is quoting references like these, some of them > more than fifty years out of date, in a feeble effort to try and build up > creationism by knocking down evolution. It doesn't work like that. You use > the most recent evidence to support your case, not the oldest. > > David Ross @NYU Medical Center > > {allegra, seismo, ihnp4}!cmcl2!rocky2 > I expect those were the most recent.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/15/85)
In article <331@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > 7. Over seventy years [a] of fruit-fly experiments, involving > 2700 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for > believing that any natural or artificial process can cause > an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic > improvement has ever been observed despite the many > unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates [b-f]. > This posting doesn't even contain any new arguments, it is just a rehash of the same old stuff from previous postings under a new number(i.e. 7). -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/16/85)
> Simply saying something is old is unconvincing.
In many, if not all, scientific disciplines progress is being made so rapidly
that say that something is old is the same as saying that it
is at least suspect. In the biological sciences ten year old
theories are really ancient history. In this field, saying it's
old should be a convincing argument to disregard it.johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (04/16/85)
> In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > > > A. EVOLUTION* HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > > > etc . . . > > Just out of curiosity - has CREATION ever been observed? > I mean OBSERVED - not postulated from "faith" in a god or gods! Has evolution? and I don't mean natural selection. Mike Johnston
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/17/85)
> > Simply saying something is old is unconvincing. > > In many, if not all, scientific disciplines progress is being made so rapidly > that say that something is old is the same as saying that it > is at least suspect. In the biological sciences ten year old > theories are really ancient history. In this field, saying it's > old should be a convincing argument to disregard it. Wrong. One must say WHAT is wrong with it. Otherwise, anyone can say anything is wrong by asserting its age. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (04/19/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > { From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) } > > > [Stanley Friesen] > > ... > > Ther has been a lot of water under the bridge since 1953, > > why not try a more recent up-to-date analysis of mutation. > > ... > > Good night, this is *really* old, more of historical than > > scientific interest! > > ... > > Also your concept of evolutionary theory seems to be about > > 40 years out of date. No serious scientist today would accept a theory > > of the form you are debunking, they realized such a theory was > > inadequate 40 years ago and have been changing it to eliminate the > > inadequacies. > > Simply saying something is old is unconvincing. Of course, since he is not just saying that something is old, your statement has very little meaning. It is one thing to criticize a statement but another to raise unapplicable points. Afterall, his point was that the old material is out of date. This is certainly convincing to me. I rarely trust out of date stuff, if ever. ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/20/85)
> Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa } > >> { From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) } >> >>> [Stanley Friesen] >>> ... >>> Ther has been a lot of water under the bridge since 1953, >>> why not try a more recent up-to-date analysis of mutation. >>> ... >>> Good night, this is *really* old, more of historical than >>> scientific interest! >>> ... >>> Also your concept of evolutionary theory seems to be about >>> 40 years out of date. No serious scientist today would accept a theory >>> of the form you are debunking, they realized such a theory was >>> inadequate 40 years ago and have been changing it to eliminate the >>> inadequacies. >> >> Simply saying something is old is unconvincing. > > Of course, since he is not just saying that something is old, your > statement has very little meaning. It is one thing to criticize a > statement but another to raise unapplicable points. Afterall, his > point was that the old material is out of date. This is certainly > convincing to me. I rarely trust out of date stuff, if ever. On other points in the same article, Mr. Friesen did indeed say WHY he did not accept the points made. For the three points I cited above there was no reason given, and certainly no explanation of why the points he was responding to were out of date. Hence my comment. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/20/85)
> P.S: Could you get rid of all those blank lines and leaders, > they just eat up net resources without contributing anything! If *THAT'S* the criteria, they'll have to eliminate the whole article. The blank lines are the best part of that effort.
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (04/23/85)
> > [Stanley Friesen] > > ... > > Ther has been a lot of water under the bridge since 1953, > > why not try a more recent up-to-date analysis of mutation. > > ... > > Good night, this is *really* old, more of historical than > > scientific interest! > > ... > > Also your concept of evolutionary theory seems to be about > > 40 years out of date. No serious scientist today would accept a theory > > of the form you are debunking, they realized such a theory was > > inadequate 40 years ago and have been changing it to eliminate the > > inadequacies. > > Simply saying something is old is unconvincing. > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- In a religious discussion saying that something is old is besides the point. Quoting outdated scientific discussions out of context is deliberately misleading. Thirty five years ago (from whence come most of Mr. Kukik's references) scientists were still arguing about whether hereditary information was encoded in DNA or protein. Many of these citations are attempts at explaining the data available at that time from such sources as breeding experiments and paleontology. Some of them refer to problems that subsequently proved to have trivial solutions. In all of the areas covered by this list there has been an increase in both the amount of observation that has been done and in the sophistication of scientific thought applied to the problem. They are thus not merely old, they are outdated. SCIENCE LIVES! Michael Lonetto PHRI
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (05/23/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
31. DNA can only be produced with the help of certain enzymes.
But these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of
DNA [a]. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory
explanation for the origin of one must also explain the
origin of the other [b,c]. Likewise, some proteins are
required to produce other proteins. Apparently the entire
manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously.
This implies Creation.
a) Richard E. Dickerson, ''Chemical Evolution and the
Origin of Life,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Vol.239,
September 1978, p. 73.
b) Francis Hitching, THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE
DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and
Fields, 1982), p. 66.
c) ''The origin of the genetic code presents formidable
unsolved problems. The coded information in the
nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the
transition machinery, but the specification for this
machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the
machinery the information is meaningless, but without
the coded information the machinery cannot be
produced! This presents a paradox of the ''chicken and
egg'' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far
been sterile.'' [John C. Walton, (Lecturer in
Chemistry, University of St. Andrews Fife, Scotland),
''Organization and the Origin of Life,'' ORIGINS, Vol.
4, No. 1, pp. 30-31.]
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brown