dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/29/85)
>> 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]. > [Keith Doyle] > This is simply more of #1. Kind of the attitude 'if you can't see it, > it isn't there'. Hardly convincing. We certainly do not normally conclude that because we *don't* see something, that it *is* there. > 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 You mean "quickly" not "often" (I think), else there wouldn't be very many species alive today. > 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. Ahem. Haven't you just admitted that you've no evidence? And no hope of any? >> >> __________ >> >> * 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) Modifying a theory to fit observed evidence? What a scurrilous strategem!! Next they'll be doing research of their own!!!! :-) > 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. "Mainstream" doesn't mean much to me. "Lots of dispute characterizes good science" &c, &c. I don't care very much about whether a view is mainstream as much as whether it is right. Besides, most majority viewpoints were held by a minority sometime. But your claim that 'beneficial change' isn't mainstream is erroneous. What is an "adaptation" if it is not "beneficial"? If it is not beneficial, it is simply change. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/01/85)
[...................] >>> 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]. > >> [Keith Doyle] >> This is simply more of #1. Kind of the attitude 'if you can't see it, >> it isn't there'. Hardly convincing. > >We certainly do not normally conclude that because we *don't* see >something, that it *is* there. Ok, and that's what evolutionists think about 'limits' to genetic variation. And, if you want to respond that we DO see limits, (fossil record etc.) I disagree. This notion the creationists have that the evolutionists are saying 'a lizard gave birth to a bird' is ridiculous. The fossil record does not give evidence that there are limits. The fossil record shows that there are NO limits. Genetic experimentation does not indicate there are any limits. You want transient forms? Pick an animal. Most could be transient forms to somewhere. Fish could be transient to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals perhaps, just about any form can be transient if you look at it right. Do you think that lizards or snakes are any LESS transient than some animal with half wings? WHen the environment changes, we may find that new characteristics surface in a relative hurry (they may have to for survival), and/or many species may die out entirely. >> 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. > >Ahem. Haven't you just admitted that you've no evidence? And no hope >of any? > No, But maybe you've just admitted that the only 'evidence' that you're interested in (a lizard giving birth to a bird or something) is impossible (which I expect it is). That dosen't mean there isn't other more meaningful evidence that does exist. If you want to argue there are no transient forms, why don't you start by defining what characteristics YOU think a transient form would have to have to qualify. >>> >>> __________ >>> >>> * 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) > >Modifying a theory to fit observed evidence? What a scurrilous >strategem!! Next they'll be doing research of their own!!!! :-) How does MACROevolution differ from many years of accumulated MICROevolution? There seems to be a feeling that MACROevolution is something that occurs overnight (lizard to bird example). Remember that until certain genetic experiments (not performed by creationists I expect) creationists didn't differentiate macro vs micro. When the facts came to light, they modified their theory. This is in accordance with scientific practice. However, what bothers me about this particular issue, is the new 'limits' imposed out-of-the-blue, based on effectively nonexistant evidence. Obviously genetic experiments of the fruit fly nature could take a massive amount of time to generate new species. And, you then have to define what you mean by species. How do you know when you've crosses such borders? It's easy to see that even if a fruit fly was 'evolved' into some sort of dragonfly or something, that the creationists would merely claim that its still of the same 'kind'. You can extend these artificial 'limits' as far as you want to cover any new evidence that is uncovered via genetic experiments. Maybe ALL insects are a 'kind' covering any future facts that could be found via fruit fly type experiments. Maybe all birds? How about all reptiles? Or all primates? (uh-oh we just stepped over the line) I'm sorry, it just bugs me that intelligent people can hang on to a ridiculous theory and keep propping it up with weak arguments, deception, misrepresentation, and 'magic', to the point that you can't argue with it one way or another. Most of evolution is based on facts and observed evidence (despite the comment 'evolution has never been observed'). Creation 'science' is based on 'God magic' and distorted, out of date information on evolution, as we have seen from the #### categories of evidence. Sure evolution isn't perfect, and probably needs all kinds of refinements in all kinds of areas. But, it better explains the facts, is useful in the framework of scientific experiments and investigations, and dosen't use superstition to cover it's 'holes'. Again, if you want to convince scientists, and not just the unsuspecting public, your theory must better explain the evidence, not just poke holes in present theories. > >> 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. > >"Mainstream" doesn't mean much to me. "Lots of dispute characterizes >good science" &c, &c. I don't care very much about whether a view is >mainstream as much as whether it is right. Besides, most majority >viewpoints were held by a minority sometime. > >But your claim that 'beneficial change' isn't mainstream is erroneous. >What is an "adaptation" if it is not "beneficial"? If it is not >beneficial, it is simply change. Still, representing scientific view of evolution as requiring 'benificial change' or better: 'increasing complexity' is misleading. I've heard or read quite a few scientists on the subject and none of them seemed to think that increasing or decreasing complexity has much to do with evolution. In some cases the simpler forms of a given organism might survive better during some change in environment. Certainly if someone imported a bunch of bird predators to Hawaii or something, you might find that the 'simpler' birds that don't have such brightly colored (and predator attracting) feathers and don't survive. Note that 'benificial' is relative to specific environments. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd