From: Jim.Maroon@f33.n214.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Maroon)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: evolution
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 12:16:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:214/33 - Tulare County Schoo, Visalia CA

 -=> Quoting Bruce Hogan to All <=-


 BH> 1)  The observable fact of the remains of tropical plants found all
 BH> over the  world, including the polar regions (the original question
 BH> that prompted  this flurry of discourse).

 BH> OK, what do you do with this, and the following?  Find out how the
 BH> Evolution model explains it and then find out how the Creation
 BH> model  explains it.  If you meet someone who is afraid to do that,
 BH> avoid them;  they are not helping you think clearly, just helping
 BH> you think "correctly".

        Piece of cake.  I'm no scientist, but even I know that, according
 to geological record, all of the land masses in the world were connected as
 one giant land mass.  Continental drift seperated them, so it is no mystery
 how what you observe above occured, if it occured.  (I'm taking your word
 for it.)

 BH> 2)  The lack of transitional species.  This will be hotly debated, but
 BH> simply  ask for the millions of examples that should be there if
 BH> evolution is a  billions-of- years process with billions upon
 BH> billions upon billions of  mutations and trials and errors.  Don't
 BH> accept an explanation, rather  stand your ground until someone
 BH> produces some evidence.  And study  "punctuated equilibrium" and
 BH> see if it is consistent with the description  of how evolution
 BH> works or if you think it is an explanation by some of  why what we
 BH> observe doesn't fit the process of evolution?

        Two thoughts.  One, there are many examples of transitional change.
 Witness Hyeracotherium  to equus, the modern horse, among a myriad of others.
 Two, you are arguing with the rather old fashioned notion of how natural
 selection occurs.  It was once thought that species evolve slowly, over
 millions of years, and while they do to an extent, that is not the driving
 mechanism behind evolution.  Natural selection works best during times of
 trauma... when two populations are forcefully divided, when conditions in the
 environment force a selection between differing genetic traits.  They are
 forced to evolve quickly or they go extinct.  Lets say it gets really
 cold suddenly.  Those members of the species who have genetic traits favorable
 to cold weather survive, those who do not, die.  Usually,in order to survive,
 it takes a mutation to survive in such a situation.  Thus, the environemnent
 selects for the trait that keeps one warm (longer hair, for example). If the
 environement continues to be cold, it will continue to select for survival,
 until eventually, and geologically quickly, perhaps in as few as couple of
 hundred thousand years, you have a new species, and the old species is
 "extinct."   Finding trasitional species during such a relatively brief
 period would be next to impossible.

 BH> 3)  That fossilization is not a present day process except during
 BH> cataclysmic  events.  To understand why this is foundational to the
 BH> question, study  the term "uniformitarianism" from the
 BH> evolutionists point of view and  then consider the Creation model's
 BH> view that the geologic record, and  the fossil record, are not the
 BH> records of eons of slow, uniform changes  but the records of a
 BH> cataclysmic, hydraulic event (a worldwide flood)  with the
 BH> attendent sorting of debris and the deposition of layers as one
 BH> would expect.

        There is absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood.  Floods are
 easy to detect in the geological record.  A Noah's flood would have left
 massive evidence, which it did not, because it never happened. :)

 BH> 4)  That if the geologic column is the record of billions of years of
 BH> accumulated layers of time/earth, why do we find what is known as
 BH> "polystate fossils", which are fossils (e.g. a tree trunk) which
 BH> transverse millions of years of supposed layers of geologic
 BH> history?

        Earthquakes and plate tectonics, as well as normal, minor shifting.

 BH> 5)  The observable fact that the layers of the geologic column do not
 BH> actually  appear anywhere in the world in complete form _and_ that
 BH> the pieces of the  supposed "column" that do exist can be found in
 BH> reverse order, or a  non-sequential order, when compared to what
 BH> the evolutionary model says  it should be.

        Earthquakes and plate tectonics, as well as normal, minor shifting.

 BH> 6)  The huge and innumerable deposits of fossils where the remains of
 BH> what  should have only appeared millions of years later, according
 BH> to the  geologic column theory, are mixed up with the remains of
 BH> what supposedly  had disappeared from the scene millions of years
 BH> earlier.

       Earthquakes and plate tectonics, as well as normal, minor shifting.

 BH> 7)  The numerous cases of large deposits of fossil graveyards that
 BH> include  the soft parts of the flesh.  This does not fit a model
 BH> which demands a  slow, uniform process.  Flesh rots, and quickly.
 BH> We also have the  millions of mammoths and other large animals that
 BH> were killed instantly  in the north polar regions, many with the
 BH> flesh and hair intact, some  standing, some kneeling, some with
 BH> food in their mouths, with the eyes  and red blood cells well
 BH> preserved and the separation of water in the  animal's cells was
 BH> only partial testifying to an extremely fast and  continuous
 BH> freeze.  The existence of an estimated 5,000,000 frozen  mammoths
 BH> along the coasts of Alaska and Northern Siberia needs to be
 BH> weighed against the evolutionary model which claims no cataclysmic
 BH> events have intervened and that the record is "uniform", or should be.

        Again, evolution is not based on a slow, uniform process.  It is
 driven by natural selection, in spurts and starts, which depends exactly
 on the clatyclismic mechanisms you describe above.  You are basing your
 notion of evolution on outdated science.

 BH> 8)  The rate of abandonment of the evolutionary model by hundreds of
 BH> highly  qualified scientists.  You would never find this out by
 BH> reading your  science book or the newspaper of course, but it is
 BH> worth your research  time.  Find out why they are questioning the
 BH> premisses of evolutionary  thinking.

        No evolutionary scientists I know of have made such a change.  Give
 us a name or two.  The only ones I know of either got their degrees at Bible
 colleges, or their field of science make them completely unqualified (not,
 as you say, highly qualified) to judge the evolutionary process in any
 credible way.

 BH> These are simply offered to fuel your study.  Think for yourself.  Ask
 BH> hard  questions.  Many more questions could, and should, be asked
 BH> before one should

        Methinks you are less open minded than you would have us believe. Be
 honest.  You have an agenda, and that agenda is to prop up the creation
 myth of the old testament.  Creation science is not science at all, but
 religious dogma.  There is nothing scientific about it.




... Blue Wave - World Tour - 1992
    Blue Wave/QWK v2.10



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!214!33!Jim.Maroon
Internet: Jim.Maroon@f33.n214.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science