From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:41:36 GMT

In article <q8m3TB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:
>
>> >But if the bacterium is being pressured by "natural selection" (i.e. a
>> >hostile environment) to mutate and reproduce or perish, then if it
>> >doesn't get just the right burst of cosmic rays at the right time, it
>> >will perish and decompose back into its component chemicals. Is it not
>> >so?
>> 
>> Oh, absolutely. What with the selection pressure of antibiotics the bacterium
>> that cause syphilis and gonorrhea are just disappearing, right? :-)
>> Is it purely by chance that these and other diseases treated with 
>> antibiotics are producing resistant strains?
>
>I'm not sure I can read through the sarcasm. Do you mean to say that,
>despite the pressure of the alleged mechanism of "natural selection"
>(or, sarcastically, "unnatural selection") organisms can and do survive?
>And that if organisms do change, it is not by "random mutation" but is
>instead a somehow intelligent response to the environment?

You are right, you could not read through the sarcasm. Please note that I did 
warn everyone of its presence by the ":-)".

What I mean is that if getting "just the right" mutation were as difficult 
as you indicate then these bacteria would have disappeared long ago.
Certainly you agree that disease causing bacteria were around for many, many
years with no antibiotic remedy and hence no reason to develop resistance
to antibiotics. A short time (speaking in evolutionary timescales) after the
introduction of these disease fighting drugs we find drug-resistant 
diseases. By your logic this should be impossible.

The fact is that it is not impossible because it has happened. The only 
thing to do is to discover the explanation. There is a very interesting
article in this month's Scientific America along these same lines by 
Levinton. In it he discusses the Cambrian explosion and some of the factors
that go into the apparent difference in evolutionary rates between the present
(basically defined as anytime _after_ the Cambrian) and the Cambrian.

In this article he presents an even more startling case 
of animals evolving to 
withstand human-made ecological pressure. A stream that he visited that
is heavily contaminated with heavy metals (up to 30% of the bottom mud is
actually Cadmium) is teaming with many forms of life that would
normally be killed such poisons. I have not finished the article so if anyone
is interested I can past a more comprehensive review (even though SC is 
_slightly_ more easy to obtain than Thompson's book) or the exact issue it
is in.
(I better stop now, I think I'm getting dangerously close to posting
_information_ to t.o. Only Chris Colby has a license to do that.)

>Does this mean that you think organisms do actually change into new
>species by some process, although not by the processes of random
>mutation and natural selection as claimed by most evolutionists? Or do
>you support the thesis that the forms of the living organisms have been
>surviving more or less intact since their "creation"?

No and no. I have not seen any evidence that mutation, natural selection,
and genetic drift are unable to explain the origin of the species. Until
I do I will continue to accept the theory of evolution as the explanation.

[deletions]
>I am willing to discuss the theory of evolution on its own terms, by
>using its own premises and definitions. I am convinced that there are
>serious flaws in the theory, that the flaws are contained in the
>premises, and that the flaws can be exposed by deducing false
>conclusions from the premises.

You have not shown me any willingness to discuss the theory of evolution
"on its own terms." All I have seen from you is the _assertion_ that the
odds against evolution are umpty-ump to nil. You still have yet to back that
up with any real evidence. Why don't you quit carping and handwaving and
post the "proof", already. Really, the complaint that you are trying to
get Thompson's permission is wearing rather thin. If you understand the proof
so poorly that you can not even paraphrase it then that says a great deal 
about the validity of your assertions.
 
>> 
>> Only if we can find it. My local bookstore doesn't even have record of the
>> publisher.
>> 
>
>Yes, it is not easy to find. You can call the Bhaktivedanta Institute in
>San Diego at 619-272-8145 and order a copy. I think it's around $10.

Cut the crap. For a small amount I can get all the books I
want about Scientology. I am not going to give my money to those people
either.

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa
>       -------------------------------------------------------
>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
>      |                                                       |
>      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
>      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
>       -------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget to chant: I'll post the evidence later
                       evidence I'll post later
                       later I'll post the evidence

Scott


Newsgroups: talk.origins