Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: re: Gardner on Evolution
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:01:14 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1992Aug24.211221.4008@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham)  writes:
> In article <SLEATOR.92Aug24092613@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU> news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System) writes:

> When has evolution ever been observed in "repeated observations 
> and experiments"?!  Never!  NEVER!  
 
	see below.

> 
> Definition time:  there are two parts of evolution. 
> 
> Micro-evolution:  The survival of the fittest.  An organism with
>                   a characteristic which gives it an advantage will
>                   survive.
> 
> Macro-evolution:  The process by which new structures are produced,
>                   resulting in an increase in complexity.

	well, you left out the population aspect of both, but this is a
passable simplification.

> 
> The first has never been contested, and is easily verifiable.
> 
> The second is where the entire "unified" theory breaks down, and
> is the crux of evolution.  This is the part that has never been
> verified or proven.  

	Two points:


	1) Let's assume that you are right.  Macroevolution is bogus.  Just
because one theory is incorrect does not mean that another is right.  You
cannot "prove" strict creationism simply by proving that a theory (one that
is still being formulated/debated about) is false or incomplete.
	2) The vertebrate fossil record is quite complete, and it shows
a great deal that macroevolution is based upon.  embryology is a another one. 
How does one explain that all vetebrates at one time all have:

	- a hollow notochord
	- gill slits
	- a two chambered heart
	- a tail

	either as adults ( less complex -- not less evolved) or as embryos (
more complex or terrestrial vertebrates) More complex critters lose the
notochord, tail, and slits, and modify the heart as development continues.

	Mere coincidence?  How does a view of the universe that eliminates
macroevolution explain these and other similarities between organisms if they
did not evolve from common ancestors?

> _This_ is entirely ignorant.  A lot of the pre-eminent
> creation scientists have advanced degrees in the field of study
> they use to backup up their creation arguments.  Henry Morris,
> for example, has a degree in geophysics.  He bases his arguments
> in geophysical arguments for creation.  There are by biochemists,
> astrophysicists and others who support creation.  To call them
> ignorant is silly.  If the "ignorant" argument is based on their
> adherence to creation, then that is a philosophical difference
> not based on their knowledge or scholarship. 

 Support creation and yet rule out evolution at the same time?  They can
coexist.

> ---------------
> "They always told me I would be a rocket scientist"
> tcanham@jpl.nasa.gov
> Timothy K. Canham                                          



=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "...God sets us nothing but riddles.."
Miami University	      -Dostoyevski's _The Brothers Karamazov_
Oxford, Ohio 45056  		
(513) 529-5417	      "The absurd is all too necessary on earth.  
 yeech! ack!		  The world stands on absurdities.."
  ungh!				-Fyodor Dostoyevski
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d