dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/07/84)
While we're all getting a chuckle over the variable-c creationist who engaged in the disreputable practice of curve-fitting (which evolutionists never do, natch), I thought perhaps the following interesting item might enthrall us similarly. However, I should warn any creationists
rcd@opus.UUCP (09/11/84)
The parent article (from Paul DuBois) is one of the more shamelessly distorted postings I've seen in this newsgroup. It's got a typical lead-in for some bad reasoning: > While we're all getting a chuckle over the variable-c creationist > who engaged in the disreputable practice of curve-fitting (which > evolutionists never do, natch),... This sets the attitude: It's completely irrelevant to the rest of the posting; a gratuitous "up-yours" to evolutionists. The idea, in case it's not evident, is that you're not allowed to criticize any creationist for bogus use of a technique (in this case, careless extrapolation) unless you are willing to abandon the technique entirely (whether used right or wrong). But on to the meat: > However, I should warn any creationists in the crowd that you > probably better not read this, as it will devastate you and > perhaps result in severe stress on your mental well-being. This > is because you are about to be faced with incontrovertible and > irrefutable evidence for evolution... Lay it on thick Paul...see if you can lay it on as thick as my contempt for your emotional writings. The subject: > "Evolution and the human tail: a case report", Fred D. Ledley, M. D. > The New England Journal of Medicine, 306(20), May 20, 1982, 1212-1215. A few excerpts from the article explain that a child was born with some manner of tail-like appendage. It turns out to be a little off-center, and doesn't have skeletal structure in it. The author of the article comments on how this occurrence brings home, quite graphically (my words) the "reality of evolution." > Got that, creationists? "Tangible and inescapable." That means > you're blown out of the water. Give it up!... The article, of course, was not an attack on creationism. I'm not sure what the big deal is, but a caudal appendage is certainly tangible; whether it's inescapable evidence for evolution (or something like it) is a conclusion we, as readers of Dubois' posting, have been mercifully spared by Paul's gracious omission of most of the significant parts of the article. However, the author of the original article was actually somewhat careful in presenting his data: >"However, it is evident that there are major morphologic >differences between the caudal appendage and the tails of >other vertebrates. First of all, the caudal appendage does >not contain even rudimentary vertebral structures... >...Secondly, the appendage is not >located at the caudal terminus of the vertebral column." > >"It is possible that this structure is merely a dermal appendage >coincidentally located in the caudal region. This possibility >cannot be excluded." If you study this, what you see is that the author is trying to be careful to qualify what he has observed so as to allow a reasonable set of alternate interpretations and to avoid attaching too much (or wrong) significance to the data. This is a laudable trait for a scientific person. What sort of response does it elicit from DuBois? > In other words, it's not a tail after all. It consisted of a > "fibrous, fatty core, with normal skin...", but no bones. The straw man has been set up and knocked down, or so DuBois thinks. He can't fathom that a reappearance of the core and skin over a tail might not be a perfect copy of what it was millions of years ago. Why shouldn't this one-in-a-billion genetic abnormality follow the model of the tails of other vertebrates from which our evolution diverged so long ago? (I have to digress. Are the sacrum and coccyx really functional in humans, and not the vestige of a tail--or were they just put there to confuse evolutionists and other faithless ones?) > Anyway, I suppose this doesn't prove a whole lot,... I will leave that quote from Paul, purposely ripped out of context, and agree wholeheartedly! If you're going to try to support creationism by disproving evolutionism, you can't succeed; there are more than two theories in the universe. If you're going to try to attack every piece of evidence in support of evolutionism (or worse yet, in contradiction of creationism) you won't have time; there's too much. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Keep your day job 'til your night job pays.