dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/28/85)
>> A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. >> > [Jeff Sonntag] > 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. There is a difference. All creationist models that I am aware of propose one period of (or at most a very proscribed number of) periods of creation. No formulation which I have encountered includes the proposition that creation will occur again, or that it is a continuous process. (Though I am not sure on what basis this can ruled out.) The basic event has occurred and is past. One would not therefore expect to observe it. However, evolution is (according to all formulations that I am aware of) a continual process, as much with us today as it has been since the origin(s) of life and even for some period of time before that. It proposes that the basic processes are still in operation. These processes have produced the historical events that we find today. Since such models propose that evolutionary change still occurs, it is not unreasonable to expect that observations of the process should be made sometime, and it is up to proponents of such models to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. You do not. This does not help your case. You say that 'X has never been observed' is a poor way to invalidate a theory. Needless to say, it is an even poorer way to *validate* a theory that says that X does in fact occur. It is also interesting that you say evolution has been looked for "now and then". Quite an understatement; the search has been intensive. Obviously someone expected to observe it. >> 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? "Maybe even thousands"? Another understatement. "Big difference"? I guess so. But "Absolutely no basis" doesn't extrapolate very well to anything but "Absolutely no basis." We might expect SOMETHING to occur. Clearly *somebody* expected something to occur or a lot of research that has been done wouldn't have been done. > 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? No. I might reconsider after 2700 generations of several hands each, however. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/29/85)
In article <997@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >> 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? > > "Big difference"? I guess so. But "Absolutely no basis" doesn't > extrapolate very well to anything but "Absolutely no basis." We might > expect SOMETHING to occur. Clearly *somebody* expected something to > occur or a lot of research that has been done wouldn't have been done. Assume for a moment that some change we have observed in a fruit fly experiment IS the first step of the evolution of a new species showing "an increase in complexity and viability". Joe Scientist observes just this first step. Not being blessed with foresight, how could he know or claim this? So Joe Scientist doesn't publish the evidence of evolution he has witnessed. Only in hindsight is it clear. That's why creationists can claim "absolutely no basis." But it CAN extrapolate into something real. Finally, the something that somebody expected to occur in those 70 years of experiments DID occur. Thus we have much of our current science of genetics. The vast majority of fruit fly experiments have been addressed to genetics, not evolution. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (04/30/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) > > >> A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > >> > > [Jeff Sonntag] > > > > { Jeff's comment on "A." } > > > > 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. > > There is a difference. All creationist models that I am aware of > propose one period of (or at most a very proscribed number of) periods > of creation. No formulation which I have encountered includes the > proposition that creation will occur again, or that it is a continuous > process. (Though I am not sure on what basis this can ruled out.) The > basic event has occurred and is past. One would not therefore expect > to observe it. The problem with such those formulations is that they do not provide any predictions that can be verified today, other than the fact that we exist. Unless you want to consider something to the effect of progressive or sporatic creationism, the fossil record seriously conflicts with the formulations. Even with gaps, the fossil record cannot support creationism within any narrow limits, certainly not the 6-day deal. The original article was meant to support creationism. Unfortunately, it came nowhere near doing that. > However, evolution is (according to all formulations that I am aware > of) a continual process, as much with us today as it has been since the > origin(s) of life and even for some period of time before that. It > proposes that the basic processes are still in operation. These > processes have produced the historical events that we find today. > Since such models propose that evolutionary change still occurs, it is > not unreasonable to expect that observations of the process should be > made sometime, and it is up to proponents of such models to demonstrate > that this is in fact the case. Through some estimations/projections/extrapolations/interpolations of available data, this is done. Of course, you can always gripe about the incompleteness. > You do not. This does not help your case. You say that 'X has never > been observed' is a poor way to invalidate a theory. Needless to say, > it is an even poorer way to *validate* a theory that says that X does > in fact occur. It was not HIS case that was supposed to be supported; it was creationism's case. > It is also interesting that you say evolution has been looked for > "now and then". Quite an understatement; the search has been > intensive. Obviously someone expected to observe it. Yes, you are right. In fact, people are trying to make use of the facts found in studying evolution. (e.g. genetic engineering) > >> 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? > > "Maybe even thousands"? Another understatement. > > "Big difference"? I guess so. But "Absolutely no basis" doesn't > extrapolate very well to anything but "Absolutely no basis." We might > expect SOMETHING to occur. Clearly *somebody* expected something to > occur or a lot of research that has been done wouldn't have been done. The original expectation was a change of some drastic magnitude. The reply suggests that that expectation did not correspond in any reasonable way to the real expectations behind the said experiments. > > 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? > > No. I might reconsider after 2700 generations of several hands each, > however. You could buy 2700 batches of 100 lottery tickets each and still not win the $2 million. Would you sue the state for false advertising at this point? I personally think that the last examples are difficult since they have known answers. The answers to the real questions are not known. (I guess that's why this news group is alive and well.) ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/02/85)
> 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? I disagree that viable mutations are unlikely. Gross mutations that have major effects on the organism are probably not viable, but such gross mutations are in the minority as far as mutations are concerned. Mutations are happening all the time, and not many of them have so much significance as to dramatically affect the organism, as creationists would have us believe. The viability of such minor mutations may be a little harder to determine. Note that a royal flush is not the only winning poker hand, a pair or an ace-high 'nothing' can be 'viable' too. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd