dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/01/85)
> 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. > [Stanley Friesen] > Not true, biologists have found a number of species which > simply did not exist 300 yrs ago. I'm sure this is true. I'm equally confident that you will list some of them for us, and that you will tell us where we can go read about them for ourselves. > 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. I assume you refer to _Biston betularia_ and other species of moths. So what kind of evolution is this? Now they are changing back as the pollution comes under control. This is an unconvincing example because it does not demonstrate anything but a horizontal change within a gene pool. Only a shift of allelic frequency within a population. Nothing new, which is what evolution requires. Or does it require that? I guess not. Not a priori. But post hoc it is seen to be a necessary part of a theory that's supposed to explain *what happened*. This example doesn't touch it. > > > > 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). Except no creator! :-) > > 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. The difficulty with this defense is that it allows one to avoid bringing up any kind of proof that the time frame makes any difference. > This is where mutation > comes into evolutionary theory - it provides the extra variation > which removes the limitation on short-term breeding. Then you'll tell us about these mutations that give rise to new things. > 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"). What limits were exceeded? All dogs fall within a single species. They're all interfertile. What genetic reorganization are you referring to? The *normal* range occurs in nature and evolution involves natural selection. So how does a limit exceeded by *artificial* selection prove anything about natural selection - except that natural selection is not going to produce as extreme a variation? Even given for the sake of argument that it might, what does the dog example show? That a lot of change can be produced within a single species... > Or how about the man-made species Zea mays(common corn); so different > from its wild ancesters that they are almost unrecognizable. Going back to the dog example, we observe the extreme morphological variability that can be formed *within* a single species. The phrase "almost unrecognizable" in relation to ancestors therefore doesn't mean much by itself. But perhaps you mean more than morphological difference. I'm sure you must - please amplify. > > * 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!! That's right, complexity as a defining characteristic. Ho and Saunders, for instance. Of course, your following sentence (the one about parasites) puts the finger on one phenomenon that gives fits to their ideas. --- The following comments are not directed specifically to Mr. Friesen. But I have noticed that several people now have chafed at the suggestion that increasing complexity is an aspect of evolutionary theory. Evolution *has* to have increased complexity *sometime*, to get from simple organisms to the complex organisms we see today. If not, then you have to say the most complex organism *began* that complex. Not likely. It is true that an increase in complexity need not be an A PRIORI requirement of an evolutionary theory. (Indeed, how could it be?) But is it not maintained that evolution arose in a *data-driven* manner? Is it not maintained that evolution was derived from, and accepted on the basis of, *observations*? Do these observations not form what is commonly called the *fact* of evolution? Does not this *fact* of evolution, derived from *observation*, show *increasing* complexity? Is not *increasing* complexity therefore a characteristic of the evolutionary record and the evolutionary process? Are the evolutionary record and the evolutionary process which the record is supposed to show not the very things to be explained via the mechanisms postulated by evolutionary *theory*? DOES NOT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THEREFORE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR INCREASING COMPLEXITY? DOES IT NOT? Maybe you can't explain the increase in complexity (now). Fine. It cannot be required that one be able to answer all questions at the present moment. But if you say that you don't even *have* to explain it, then I think one might reasonably object. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "The presence of weeds in the garden is not explained by | saying that the gardener has not pulled them yet."
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/03/85)
> Maybe you can't explain the increase in complexity (now). Fine. It > cannot be required that one be able to answer all questions at the > present moment. But if you say that you don't even *have* to explain it, > then I think one might reasonably object. This is absolutely true. BUT the arguments against the need to explain the evolve-toward-complexity idea stemmed from a creationist's criticism that individual species sometimes are seen to be less complex in later strata than their presumed ancestral forms in earlier strata...therefore if they evolved they evolved to less complex forms, therefore evolution is wrong. The theory of evolution must account for the general increase in complexity that is observed in the geological strata. The theory must also allow for the decrease in complexity that is often observed as counter trends to the main trend. The current state of the theory allows for both, though I have not as yet have seen mechanisms proposed for either. The creationists, of course have given no expanation of either (or are we really supposed to accept hydraulic sorting?).
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/04/85)
[....................] >I assume you refer to _Biston betularia_ and other species of moths. >So what kind of evolution is this? Now they are changing back as the >pollution comes under control. This is an unconvincing example because >it does not demonstrate anything but a horizontal change within a gene >pool. Only a shift of allelic frequency within a population. Nothing >new, which is what evolution requires. Or does it require that? I >guess not. Not a priori. But post hoc it is seen to be a necessary >part of a theory that's supposed to explain *what happened*. This >example doesn't touch it. You seem to be implying that there are 'vertical' changes and 'horizontal' changes. What is this based on? What differentiates a 'vertical' and a 'horizontal' change? >> > 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). > >Except no creator! :-) With proper evidence, existence of a creator could possibly become 'science'. >> > * By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial >> > change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. When >> 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!! > >That's right, complexity as a defining characteristic. Ho and >Saunders, for instance. Of course, your following sentence (the one >about parasites) puts the finger on one phenomenon that gives fits to >their ideas. > >--- > >The following comments are not directed specifically to Mr. Friesen. >But I have noticed that several people now have chafed at the suggestion >that increasing complexity is an aspect of evolutionary theory. > >Evolution *has* to have increased complexity *sometime*, to get from >simple organisms to the complex organisms we see today. If not, then >you have to say the most complex organism *began* that complex. Not >likely. > >It is true that an increase in complexity need not be an A PRIORI >requirement of an evolutionary theory. (Indeed, how could it be?) But >is it not maintained that evolution arose in a *data-driven* manner? >Is it not maintained that evolution was derived from, and accepted on >the basis of, *observations*? Do these observations not form what is >commonly called the *fact* of evolution? Does not this *fact* of >evolution, derived from *observation*, show *increasing* complexity? >Is not *increasing* complexity therefore a characteristic of the >evolutionary record and the evolutionary process? Are the evolutionary >record and the evolutionary process which the record is supposed to >show not the very things to be explained via the mechanisms postulated >by evolutionary *theory*? DOES NOT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THEREFORE HAVE >TO ACCOUNT FOR INCREASING COMPLEXITY? DOES IT NOT? > >Maybe you can't explain the increase in complexity (now). Fine. It >cannot be required that one be able to answer all questions at the >present moment. But if you say that you don't even *have* to explain it, >then I think one might reasonably object. Perhaps evolutionary theory CAN provide an EXPLANATION for increasing complexity, but if you will review the original statement: >> > * By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial >> > change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. Note that evolution is not DEFINED as ALWAYS producing 'increasing complexity'. I think this is what we have problems with. In other words: NOT ALL EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES ARE ASSUMED TO BE INCREASING IN COMPLEXITY. Perhaps statistically, changes in general may tend toward increasing complexity, BUT THIS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OR DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION. If you examine a certain subset, you may find that for a time, a given organism may tend toward decreasing complexity, due to associated advantages. Note that MORE does not always mean BETTER. >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/04/85)
>[From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois), Message-ID: <1011@uwmacc.UUCP>] >But I have noticed that several people now have chafed at the suggestion >that increasing complexity is an aspect of evolutionary theory. > >Evolution *has* to have increased complexity *sometime*, to get from >simple organisms to the complex organisms we see today. If not, then >you have to say the most complex organism *began* that complex. Not >likely. > >It is true that an increase in complexity need not be an A PRIORI >requirement of an evolutionary theory. (Indeed, how could it be?) But >is it not maintained that evolution arose in a *data-driven* manner? >Is it not maintained that evolution was derived from, and accepted on >the basis of, *observations*? Do these observations not form what is >commonly called the *fact* of evolution? Does not this *fact* of >evolution, derived from *observation*, show *increasing* complexity? >Is not *increasing* complexity therefore a characteristic of the >evolutionary record and the evolutionary process? Are the evolutionary >record and the evolutionary process which the record is supposed to >show not the very things to be explained via the mechanisms postulated >by evolutionary *theory*? DOES NOT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THEREFORE HAVE >TO ACCOUNT FOR INCREASING COMPLEXITY? DOES IT NOT? > >Maybe you can't explain the increase in complexity (now). Fine. It >cannot be required that one be able to answer all questions at the >present moment. But if you say that you don't even *have* to explain it, >then I think one might reasonably object. I agree with Paul that the theory of evolution is based on observations of events that do indeed show an increase in complexity. My question is: So what? I don't understand why creationists feel that's a major drawback of the theory, and I don't understand why (at least some of) the evolutionists on this net hedge on it. Anybody out there looked under your bed lately? What did you see? 10 to 1 you found dust bunnies. Yes, dust bunnies - the tiny individual particles of dust that were hiding under there got together and formed a more complex structure. Who knows why, maybe some superior being created them (:-), but I tend to think the air you stir up blows 'em close enough together so that the tiny electromagnetic charges on em is strong enough to hold em together. We're talking about how living organisms on earth gained complexity, and the surface of the earth is not a closed system here. We have energy streaming in from the sun, we have winds and rains and lightning and tides and waves, not to mention heavenly bodies crashing into us from time to time and the earth herself belching up occasionaly. There are countless opportunities for things to be nudged together, and once forced together nature has her way with them. Hydrogen and oxygen atoms get nudged together and do what they do (rain), and whatever's in proteins get nudged together and do what they do, and proteins get nudged together and do what they do, and hey, I think we've got something. What *is* the problem here? Maybe we don't yet know exactly what conditions are necessary to make the proteins do what they do (then again maybe we do - I don't know), but there's a helluva of lot of circumstances to try. I can't see how anyone (creationist or not) can say it's absolutely not possible. And if they admit that it's possible then there's no argument. So let's argue about something fun. Like, if life was orginated by an omniscient, benevolent creator, where'd [name your favorite flamer] come from? :-) -- --JB "The giant is awake."
cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (05/06/85)
> > 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. > > I assume you refer to _Biston betularia_ and other species of moths. > So what kind of evolution is this? Now they are changing back as the > pollution comes under control. This is an unconvincing example because > it does not demonstrate anything but a horizontal change within a gene > pool. Only a shift of allelic frequency within a population. Nothing > new, which is what evolution requires. Or does it require that? I > guess not. Not a priori. But post hoc it is seen to be a necessary > part of a theory that's supposed to explain *what happened*. This > example doesn't touch it. > I agree -- this is not proof of or conclusive evidence for evolution. But my high school biology text never presented it as a proof or a piece of evidence. It was simply an illustrative case of adaption that happened within a person's lifetime in response to environmental situations. As such, the example was used only to illustrate a concept (evolution) which, because of it's long time and subtle action, cannot be easily pictured, grasped, understood, etc. Carl Blesch
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/09/85)
In article <1011@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >> In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > >> [Stanley Friesen] >> Not true, biologists have found a number of species which >> simply did not exist 300 yrs ago. > >I'm sure this is true. I'm equally confident that you will list some >of them for us, and that you will tell us where we can go read about >them for ourselves. I have, in fact, been looking for the book, but I cannot seem to find it at the local university library. I have also forgotten the title(I thought it was "The Tempo and Mode of Evolution", but that is a different book. The one I am looking for is a well written "monograph" on the punctuated equilibrium theory, with emphasis on the evidence for rapid evolutionary change. I found it originally at the University of Kansas, and I think I also found it at Berkeley. Can anyone out there find it? > >> 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. > >I assume you refer to _Biston betularia_ and other species of moths. >So what kind of evolution is this? Now they are changing back as the >pollution comes under control. This is an unconvincing example because >it does not demonstrate anything but a horizontal change within a gene >pool. Only a shift of allelic frequency within a population. Nothing >new, which is what evolution requires. Actually more has occured here(also more species than B. betularia are involved), in several cases the melanic allele has switched from a recessive to a dominant, which is *not* just a frequency shift, it involves a restructuring of the gene pool. Also, the reversal under removal of pollution is not significant, evolution is *not* goal-directed and under changing condition it is expected to shift directions. Certainly, removal of the selective advantage of the melanic forms should eliminate a shift towards it. >>> 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. > >> This is where mutation >> comes into evolutionary theory - it provides the extra variation >> which removes the limitation on short-term breeding. > >Then you'll tell us about these mutations that give rise to new things. Actually, I won't, since mutations are *already* new things. > >> 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"). > >What limits were exceeded? All dogs fall within a single species. >They're all interfertile. What genetic reorganization are you >referring to? > The limits I was talking about were the breeding limits mentioned by the "Evidence for Creation" series. As I understood the argument in that article, the author was claiming that all genetic variation possible is inherent in the species, and that selective breeding cannot exceed the existing limit of variation. Now, since domestic dogs were bred from wild ancestors that were essentially wolf-like, and since the full rang of canine morphology is *not* found in wild wolves, the more extreme forms of domestic dog *must* be new forms, and thus the breeding of dogs has exceeded the postulated limit to selective breeding in the original article. To be more specific the original talked about such things as the difficulty breeders have in developing larger pigs and such like. Now look at the size range in domestic dogs, and compare it to the size range in wild canids and you will see what I am talking about. >The *normal* range occurs in nature and evolution involves natural >selection. So how does a limit exceeded by *artificial* selection >prove anything about natural selection - except that natural selection >is not going to produce as extreme a variation? > But you see, I was answering an argument against evolution which claimed there was an intrinsic limit on variation, BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE OF ARTIFICIAL BREEDING.(See 2. above) > >> Or how about the man-made species Zea mays(common corn); so different >> from its wild ancesters that they are almost unrecognizable. > >Going back to the dog example, we observe the extreme morphological >variability that can be formed *within* a single species. The phrase >"almost unrecognizable" in relation to ancestors therefore doesn't >mean much by itself. But perhaps you mean more than morphological >difference. I'm sure you must - please amplify. Zea mays is in fact considered a seperate species from its wild ancestor, that is human breeding has created a new species already. Also, I would even question keeping dogs in one species, the extreme forms are most certainly *not* interfertile, or can you think of any way a Great Dane and a Chihuahua could *possibly* interbreed? In fact dogs form a rather unusual example of the phenonomom called a "ring species", which is widely considered to be one form of intermediate between a single species and multiple species. It is not a very large step from the current condition among special dog breeds and fully independent species. > -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/13/85)
In article <444@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen) writes: >> >>> [Stanley Friesen] >>> Not true, biologists have found a number of species which >>> simply did not exist 300 yrs ago. >> >>I'm sure this is true. I'm equally confident that you will list some >>of them for us, and that you will tell us where we can go read about >>them for ourselves. > > I have, in fact, been looking for the book, but I cannot seem >to find it at the local university library. I have also forgotten the >title(I thought it was "The Tempo and Mode of Evolution", but that is >a different book. The one I am looking for is a well written >"monograph" on the punctuated equilibrium theory, with emphasis on >the evidence for rapid evolutionary change. I found it originally at >the University of Kansas, and I think I also found it at Berkeley. >Can anyone out there find it? As a matter of fact I am very lucky, someone else just happened to post the name and author of the book I was refering to. It is "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process" by S.M. Stanley. You might also try "The New Evolutionary Timetable" by the same author. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen