From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:26:38 GMT

adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

	(It's easy to find articles addressed to me: G talk.origins s=Antti :) )
>an answer, does he say, "but this couldn't be, because the probability
>of these two chemicals coming together is extremely low"?  No, he 
>accepts the evidence he has that it happened.  In addition, you have
>failed to show (in the "Methinks..." thread) that the probabilities are
>as low as you say.

	When I saw, for instance, Buff-breasted Sandpiper here, it was exremely
	rare, the fifth occurrence in the history of Finnish ornithology. But 
	it had mostly only curiosity value: It doesn't prove anything, one rare 
	observation has no value. 

>Finally, I must point out that you have evaded the question put to
>you yet again.  Why do you not accept the definition of science as 
>providing predictable, falsifiable theories and gathering evidence
>to support them?

	I do !
>EVASION ALERT!  EVASION ALERT!  If the sources are bogus, then the
>conclusions have no basis.

	Actually they aren't bogus - just the authors were creationists, not 
	evolutionists. It's sometimes difficult, as you know. I'm not a 
	creationist, but neither an evolutionist - well, as you know. This 
	has, however, no value when the evidence is considered. 
>rule?"  DANGER!  DANGER!  EVASION!  EVASION!  As far as I recall, we were
>talking about gulls, not dogs.  You have admitted that the extreme
>_Larus_ subspecies are biological species.  In addition, you have stated
>that the only evidence you will accept for the definition of species is
>the lack of the ability to interbreed.  EXPLAIN why _this_specific_example_
>is not speciation.

	o o o o  o o o o                        x x x x    x x  x x   x x
   o o  o o o o o o o o o  o                 x x x x x x x x    x   xx x 
  o o o o o  o o  o   o  o o                 x  x x  x  x  x   x  x  x
   o o o o o  o o o o--------------------------------x x x  x x x  x  x x
     o o  o o o o o o o o o                   x x x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x x
	o  o   o o  o o o                           x   x  x   x x x  x x
		o o o o                                   x  x  x  x

	o = Larus fuscus and species with close characteristics to L.fuscus
	x = Larus argentatus -----------------"------------------- L.argentatus

	My point is that it would be easier to consider o:s and x:es to be 
	the same species with each other, but that is not the case. Naturally
	you would think the evolution has gone like this:

	   o o o o <---->o<------------------------->x<----> x  x x x x x 

	but there is NO evidence that for instance     

	LAR MAR <--->LAR FUS<------------------------>LAR ARG<----->LAR HYP

	I think it's a great miracle. I would consider this to follow directly,
	but it doesn't - for a strange reason. And that are we studying. 

>As for me, I have done field projects and laboratory (greenhouse) projects
>in the past; I'm currently starting research which will have a field
>and lab empirical component, as well as a theoretical component.

	Good !

>Why, exactly, do you not accept my answer?

	Because I want you to explain the whole thing with your own words. 
	Another, but worse alternative would be a reference to Blind Watchmaker,
	page xxx
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins