From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Evolution and bogus creationist assertions.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:27:41 GMT

In article <35128.2B49AFC1@puddle.fidonet.org>,
Richard.O'donovan@f155.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Richard O'donovan) writes:

> "Creation science is not science at all, but religious dogma. There is
>nothing scientific about it".  Interesting thought, but have you given any
>great thought to the scientific process??  Far more dogmatic and akin to
>religion than you would like to portray and/or believe, as you seem to be
>demonstrating admirably!!

   Could you please be specific in your accusation?  Saying sopmeone else is
dogmatic without giving the specific instance to which you refere is dishonest,
immoral, and forces others to dogmatically accept or reject your conclusions
because they lack the evidence you used to form them.

>  Incidentally, if one of the earliest forms of
>evolved life was a blue-green algae, which is acknowledged as one of the most
>durable life forms around, then why did life every evolve

   So what you appear to be saying is that because one durable life form existed
it would prevent others from arising.  This is a typical creationist piece of
reasoning.  Clearly once one life form had taken hold it's waste and decay
products would make it easier, not harder, for other life as long as that other
life didn't directly compete for all the same resources the blue gree algea used
in the same places the blue green algea used them.

   But, to be fair, do you have any scientific evidence for your proposition,
that blue green algea would prevent other forms of life from arising
eventually?  In the modern world algea is at the foundation of a diverse food
web and certianly seems to make the presence of other life easier.  Why do you 
think this was different long ago?
 
>d it?  What's more, how could it if any mutations would be overwhelmed by
>the numbers of non-mutants?n 

   Why would mutations be overwhelmed?  Do the (more common) brown eyed people
go kill all the blue eyed ones because they're different?  I think you made the
exact same logical error as before.  Almost all mutations have little effect
and are hard to detect when they happen.  Some die out and some spread based on
luck.  Ones that turn out to be benificial (usually later when things change)
are preserved.

>And then there's the tricky one about cell
>specialisation.....

   Bzzzzzttttt!  You pegged the bogosity meter with that.  What "tricky one"?
If you aren't specific about what you mean then it is dishonest and unfair to
make a statement like that.  Given what you had to say about algea and
mutations I bet you're just parroting something someone else said but _please_,
I invite you to prove me wrong.  Tell me why you think cell specialization is
tricky.  From my point of view it arose very directly from colonialisim which I
have seen arise directly from free living individuals in Thomas Ray's Tierra
experiments.

   Finally, I notice that you did nothing to answer the claim that creation
science is dogmatic religious belief but rather claimed science was also
dogmatic.  Does this represent an admission that creation science is totally
worthless from a scientific perspective?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU