arndt@lymph.dec.com (09/17/86)
It has taken me a few minutes to stop laughing so that I can see the screen and type again. 'Stuart' (I am going over old files) on 24 Jun posted a piece to the effect that he 'silenced' "born-again fundy types" with his study of autopsy reports and the discovery that brain weights in humans have been going up and this is 'proof' of evolution taking place before our eyes. Stuart, if this is serious - if it's not it's a great gag - you'd better place your head on a scale for the next few mornings in a row and tie some sand bags to your pants before you float off into space. No doubt the bgfts were 'silenced' by shock! Flash! Hands, arms, feet and torsos have also been increasing in weight!!! Golly, look at all that proof of evolution! But what are we evolving into?? Goodyear Blimps?? It does seem that, especially among some 'scientists' (who hold to the religious form of evolutionism) there is movement toward certain barnyard animals that go 'hee haw'. Which brings to mind the claim of certain Claddists and others that there is really not a single FACT that supports the Theory of Evolution. I find that somewhat of an amazing thing to say. So how about it. Can someone give a SINGLE fact in support of the Theory of Evolution???? Remember, "vertibrates evolved from invertibrates", and "thumbs evolved to make it easier to handle toilet paper" are tautologies, not 'facts'. Remember the 'creationists' silly listing of points that seemed to go on and on forever? Let's hear it from the Evolutionists!! Go ahead. Make my day. Regards, Ken Arndt
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/18/86)
In article <5387@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: > It has taken me a few minutes to stop laughing so that I can see the screen > and type again. 'Stuart' (I am going over old files) on 24 Jun posted a > piece to the effect that he 'silenced' "born-again fundy types" with his > study of autopsy reports and the discovery that brain weights in humans have > been going up and this is 'proof' of evolution taking place before our eyes. I recall several competent rebuttals of this claim by non-creationists. You're quite justified in making fun of it: but it would be unfair to consider this a widely held evolutionary idea. > Which brings to mind the claim of certain Claddists and others that there is > really not a single FACT that supports the Theory of Evolution. By Claddists do you mean people like yourself with armor-clad brains? Oh, you must be misquoting the Pattern Cladists, perhaps specifically Norman Platnick at the American Museum of Natural History. They claim that they need no evolutionary hypothesis to make a cladistic classification. Most cladists that I know (at Harvard and Cornell) disagree on the basis that the evolutionary hypothesis underlies character interpretation. > I find that somewhat of an amazing thing to say. So how about it. Can > someone give a SINGLE fact in support of the Theory of Evolution???? Depends on how you define "support". Can you name a single fact in support of the theory of universal gravitation? Motion of planets, falling objects, etc. are consistent with the theory: is that good enough "support"? Or do we need something that rules out little invisible angels first? There are multitudes of facts that support evolution in terms of being consistent with it, and frequently inconsistent or not necessary to other theories. For example, there is the fact of branching patterns of similarity, which is required by evolution, but is unnecessary to special creation (where a mosaic pattern or no pattern would do just as well.) The branching patterns of similarity describe respiration, structure, and a host of other features. Those patterns are why we're able to make classifications of organisms. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jiml@cavell.UUCP (Jim Laycock) (09/19/86)
In article <5387@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: >Can someone give a >SINGLE fact in support of the Theory of Evolution???? > >Remember, "vertibrates evolved from invertibrates", and "thumbs evolved to >make it easier to handle toilet paper" are tautologies, not 'facts'. > >Remember the 'creationists' silly listing of points that seemed to go on and >on forever? Let's hear it from the Evolutionists!! > >Go ahead. Make my day. >Ken Arndt There is a great deal of corroborative evidence for the Theory of Evolution-- evidence that one would have great trouble explaining in other models of how we came to be here. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." What it means is that fetal development (for the individual) mimics what we believe to be the evolutionary development (of the species). At early stages in the womb, the human fetus has gills, a tailbone, and other structures that our evolutionary forebears possessed. Even as adults, humans possess many vestigal features. The appendix and the ear-wiggling muscle (some people have it, others don't) are two examples of out-moded structures in humans. Can you suggest in non-evolutionary terms, Ken, why such structures might be present? Evolutionary adaptation can be clearly seen in organisms with much shorter life-spans. We are constantly changing our medicines in response to changing bacterial and viral strains. A certain species of bird has turned from white to grey to survive in industrial cities. The domestication of dogs and horses over the past few centuries attests to a human influence over species adaptation, but the changes would just as surely take place under natural conditions. But I babble. Chow. -- Jim Laycock decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!alberta!cavell!jiml OR alberta!Jim_Laycock@UQV-MTS Philosophy major, University of Alberta (5th year)
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (09/19/86)
[] In article <5387@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: >... Can someone give a >SINGLE fact in support of the Theory of Evolution???? This reminds me of an *old* joke: the guy who wanted to sell his house, and carried a brick around as a sample. Biologists' ideas about evolution are supported by lots and lots and lots of facts. It takes a lot of facts to support a big, complex, audacious idea. If you want to come to grips with the ideas, as they were developed over a period of 100 years or so, I recommend Ernest Mayr's _The Growth of Biological Thought_. (Or very similar title. Very recent book.) 900-page books from Harvard University's Belknap Press are not my idea of recreational reading; but this one managed to usurp the place of detective stories and science fiction until I finished it. Other books by Mayr, and by Gaylord Simpson, also explain what biologists think about evolution. > >Remember, "vertibrates evolved from invertibrates", and "thumbs evolved to >make it easier to handle toilet paper" are tautologies, not 'facts'. > The statement that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates entails that certain invertebrate organisms were ancestors of you and me. That's not a tautology, but a substantive statement. So substantive, in fact, that I can readily imagine a person to whom it would be unpalatable. Such a person would, however, assert that it was "untrue", not that it was "tautologous". As for thumbs, they evolved to make it easier for small mammals to hold on to tree branches. Is this a tautology? No. It is an assertion of a final cause, operating in the context of a population of organisms over a long time (many generations). As E. Gilson pointed out in his book about Darwin (by the way, Ken, thanks for recommending it) final causes make perfectly good sense when one is talking about individual organisms. Genetics provides an intelligible way for final causes to operate on individual organisms. "Natural selection" is Darwin's idea of an intelligible way for final causes to operate on species. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ...!hjuxa!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Concurrent Computer Corporation; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288 Concurrent Computer Corporation is a Perkin-Elmer company.
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/21/86)
In article <5387@decwrl.DEC.COM>, arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: > and type again. 'Stuart' (I am going over old files) on 24 Jun posted a My company was not on the net until 15 Jul. It wasn't this 'Stuart'. -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>