From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Origins
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:50:19 GMT

   My apologies again to those not interested in this discussion, but
the posting to which I am replying is very objectionable.  I cannot let
the unsubstantiated insinuations stand unchallenged.

   I still think that this discussion would be better carried on in
talk.origins, if you can get to that group.  Also, you should ask for
the FAQ.  If you cannot get to that group, you can let me know, and
I will e-mail you some of it (actually, I will volonteer that for
anyone, provided I'm not deluged by requests).  In another posting you
refer favorably to Phillip Johnson's book.  It may interest fans of
Johnson that he is now carrying on correspondence on talk.origins.
While I have not yet had a chance to read his book, it seems from his
correspondence that his complaint about Darwin is only a matter of the 
evidence for the _mechanism_ for evolution above the level of species.

In article <C1E2B0.KKL@unix.portal.com>, zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha) writes:
|> >Article: 4289 of bit.listserv.catholic
|> >From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
|> 
|> >In article <C16nAF.BIE@unix.portal.com>, zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha) writes:
|> >    [...I'm going to delete a lot here from time to time.  I'm trying to
|> 
|> I also deleted the original article to save space.
|> 
|> >	 save bandwith and everybody's time and patience...]
|> >|> Also look up tautology.  The definition of species is a group of organisms
|> >|> that can interbreed...
|> >
|> >    OK, there was a suggestion that this would be better carried on in
|> >talk.origins, so I refrained from entering in on this for a while.  But
|> >when I see such an outrageous offense against logic, I can't resist.
|> 
|> >Let's see, if it is logically proved, then it's a tautology.  If it
|> >isn't logically proved, then you can deny it.
|> No logic was involved in the original post.  It was not shown how mutation
|> would result in a new species, just (from memory> "Lets also assume that
|> this group is no longer able to breed...", then "forms a new species".
|> No evidence was given that this actually happened.  Just the assertion that
|> the populations were apart long enough that they DID lose the ability to
|> interbreed.  Not how they would lose it, though this might be implied, no
|> case histories where this happened, just that:
|> A. X is a mutated form of Y.
|> B. X no longer able to breed with Y.
|> C. X is now a different species than Y.
|> 
|> A is isolated and B and C state the same thing in different ways.
|> 
|> IF mutations occur in a subgroup, and IF the subgroup is no longer able
|> to interbreed with the original, THEN the subgroup is a new (different)
|> species.
|> 
|> I can try to find the original post.

    If you were to read the FAQ, you would find references to the
literature for the appearance in recent times of new species.  Your
failed attempt at logic-chopping will not get around the facts.

|> 
|> >|> Let me summarize.  You believe that we arose because of evolution.	This has
|> >|> implications for the nature of man, and public policy applied to man, and
|> >|> the expected results of evolution as applied to the human race.  Do you
|> >|> simply reject that evolution applies to humanity, or do you accept it but
|> >|> not follow it to the logical conclusions?
|> >
|> >    You seem to be saying that unless a field of inquiry rejects, for
|> >example, eugenics, its conclusions are false.	Once again, I find it
|> >difficult to believe that anyone is so deficient in logic that he
|> >doesn't see the fallacy here.  But let me again show by an example.
|> >"The law of gravity does not reject eugenics.  In a mechanistic
|> >universe ruled by gravity there is no good or evil.  Therefore the
|> >law of gravity is false."
|> 
|> The problem is that eugenics does seem to follow from evolution, not from
|> gravity.  Even Darwin wrote some blatantly racist pieces to the effect that
|> the nonwhite races were not subject to the same stresses etc.  I do not think
|> anyone is exempt from gravity, but I am pointing out that if evolution and all
|> it implies is a scientific law, that humanity should still be affected by it.
|> 
|> Therefore, if eugenics is implied by evolution, but is rejected by those who
|> believe in evolution, they have difficulties with their own theory because
|> they don't like some of the conclusions.
|> 
|> Perhaps there is a problem of definition.  As I define eugenics (in this
|> context), it is the attempt to improve man using the principles of evolution
|> and natural selection.

    Perhaps there is a problem, indeed.  Do you think that anything that
a human being does could be termed _natural_ selection?  Indeed, natural
selection would argue against human intervention, and if anything,
against eugenics.  Anyway, this is such a hodge-podge of an argument -- 
do you expect anyone to fall for it?

|> 
|> Let me restate it clearly (I thought I did above, but apparently not):
|> 1. X believes in evolution, specifically a mechanistic explanation for
|>    the origin of life and man, and in particular, natural selection as
|>    expressed as the survival of the fittest.

    Please learn a little about what you are talking about.  Evolution
is defined by biologists as something like descent with change.
Contemporary biologists contend that the mechanisms of evolution
include mutation and natural selection.  None of this has anything to
do with the origin of life.  It is offensive to refer to this as
"mechanistic", as offensive as if I referred to you as "vitalistic".

|> 2. X believes that the human race is exempt from the items noted in (1.).
|>    i.e. human populations aren't "selected", nor do they evolve, or that
|>    if they do, arbitrary attributes can be declared exempt for the sake of
|>    political correctness and not on a scientific basis.
|> 
|> I am not asking the evolutionist to, for moral reasons, reject eugenics.
|> 
|> I am asking how they *CAN* reject eugenics on a logical basis.

    It is as easy for an "evolutionist" to reject eugenics as it is
for one who believes in atoms, a round earth, or any other scientific
theory.  If it weren't such a stupid charge, it would be insulting.

|> 
|> ---
|> zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA