From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  9 Oct 92 06:54:10 GMT

jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:

>ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

>: Ok, just tell us all the Biblical errors and a logical explanation on how 
>: you came about. No, do not quote the THEORY of evolution I said proof - your 
                                        ^^^^^^

Man, I'm sick of hearing that evolution is "only a theory". With no due
respect, I'd like to point out that probability is called the "Theory of
Probability". This *theory* states that if you flip a coin 100 times you
expect to get heads about 50 times. I know this may seem to be common
knowledge but it is still called a theory. We also have a thing called the
"Theory of Gravitation" which states that massive bodies attract each other,
in fact anything which predicts anything is called a theory. This does not
mean that it is not backed up by empirical evidence. So please no more
evolution is "just a theory".
>: own personal ideas on why the human body is symmetrical and does not have 
>: two arms on one side and only one on the other for example. Also explain why 
The human body is symmetrical because it was descended from symmetrically
shaped predessors. The predesessors were symmetrical for numerous
fundamental ecological advantages that this provides (eg binary vision,
easier locomotion,balance).

>: if human life came about by freak accident why only we are intelligent. Why 

There is not a serious biologist which states that life happened by *freak
accident*. The only thing required is that over a period of 1 and a half
billion years (1,500,000,000 years or 15,000,000 of your lifetimes, count up
to 1 and a half billion and see how long it takes and realize that each
number stands for a year) is that somewhere once on the earth (the earth is
a very very big place) lightning, thermal vents, gamma radiation, solar
radiation or any other of a number of energy sources produced a molecule
that was capable of replicating itself. After this point mutation via
radiation (note that gamma radiation fluctuates violently dependant upon
local supernova explosions) produced different varieties of this molecule
until after another billion years (another phenomenally big number) or so along
with natural selection we have a single-celled creature. If you scoff at any
of this I suggest you sit in on a first year genetics lecture at the local
Uni or read a good biology text.
	Note that after only about thirty
years experimentation in very tiny flasks we have managed to reproduce most
of the amino acids required for protein manufacture (this is equivalent to
picking up a handful of dirt in a search for gold just once and actually
finding some, I conclude that gold must be pretty prevalent here : I
facetiously ask if this analogy is above your head). Secondly, the
ecological niche for intelligence probably only had room for one species,
there were other species that were intelligent but ours was the more
succesful species. If there had been another type of intelligent species
that competed for our ecological niche more successfully or earlier than us
we would not be around to talk about it. Hence there is only one intelligent
species (also note that this requires a definition of intelligence: as
chimpanzees have been taught to communicate using symbolic language). So I'm
afraid that there is likely to be only one intelligent creature. In fact
note that parrallel evolution has happened only a number of times, throughout
evolutionary history  and it is a relatively rare phenomenon. Logic would
dictate (based on evolution) that there is likely to be only one species with
intelligence.
>: not, as logic would point out, some creature with a different shape to the 
>: human being with the gift of intelligence.
>: 
>: It is logical isn't it - and please do not ignore or laugh at the question.
Oh please take off your blinkers and see the world through learning. There
is much beauty out there and it is more beautiful when you realise how it
all came to pass. There are far more detailed and unbiased texts to read
than the ones you have been given. Your proposals sound uncannily similar to
Jehovah's Witness book on Evolution vs Creation I am currently reading. This
book is full of biased arguments, suspicious quotes, and outright falsehood.
The book quotes Christians such as Isaac Asimov as "admitting" that there is
little evidence for evolution under the guise of his being a science writer
(no disrespect to the late Isaac intended). It also has Astronomers giving
authoritative opinions on the state of genetics and palaeontologists
debunking psychology. This book, which would sound highly convincing to
those who have medium to low education would seem highly convincing but in
fact is an outrageous abomination of truth.

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism