X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:15:31 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Origins

Thomas E Zerucha <zerucha@SHELL.PORTAL.COM> writes:
>>It is important in any discussion to know what each will accept as evidence.

>I accept observable facts, and deductive and inductive logic.

Steve, I think this is your queue:-)

>  The question
>is whether you are attempting to prove microevolution (a single entity), or
>that primordial soup ended up with life today (which is a very long causal
>chain with many entities and as strong as it's weakest link).

Thomas, I'm not attempting to prove anything here on this list, the evidence
you will accept cannot be transported vie e-mail:-), but apparently you
also accept colloquialisms as truth:-)

>Also look up tautology.  The definition of species is a group of organisms
>that can interbreed.  If something happens, naturally or artifically to
>prevent a subgroup from interbreeding, the subgroup is, by definition, a
>new species.  All you said is that because they mutated, they could not
>interbreed (the definition of new species) therefore they formed a new
>species.  Because they formed a new species they formed a new species.
>Your premise and conclusion are the same.  As such it says nothing.

What are you trying to say, Thomas? You don't accept the definition of
species? That we can show that new species come into existence through
mutation and that there are no other obsevable mechanisms that produce
new species, should lead one to logically deduce that at one time or
another all species came into existence through the mutation of other
species, including humans. Perhaps you have some observable evidence
to present of some other method of the origin of species, as you appear
hesitant to accept the fact that humans mutated/evolved from another
species?

>>Dinosaurs existed earlier than 4000+ years ago (since I don't see any proof
>>beyond that and the written record doesn't go back farther).  The fossil
>>record is a matter of interpretation and debate, even between the
>>varying camps of evolutionists (NeoD's and PuncEq's).
>Thomas, we're not talking about the Flinstones, dinosaurs did not coexist
>with man.

>Read closer.  I simply said that there was no evidence that they did coexist.
>The operative questions were the existance (which is true) and the dates
>(which are ambiguous).  I think I overloaded the point - Dinosaurs
>existed.  They predate any records.  I have no precise clocks or
>anything like a video camera that recorded dates back that far.  So I
>don't know when they appeared or how long they existed on the earth.  I can
>make guesses, but that is not scientific proof.

Thomas, nothing is precise, every measurement instument you have has a
tolerance on it's measurement. Evidently you consider an approximation
a guess. I'm puzzled at why you are hesitant to accept Carbon dating, do
you have some evidence which suggests that the rates of radioactive
decay have varied significantly in the last billion years?

>Oh, so there are no transitional forms?  Darwin said there would be lots of
>them.  I reject a priori any theory that says A is proof, and NOT(A) is
>also proof (such a theory is by definition not falsifiable). If I say
>the fossils show a continuum, that *proves* evolution. If I say they
>contain spontaneous appearance followed by stasis, that also *proves*
>evolution.

I see your point, yet there are many fossils of transitional forms. I
guess I didn't understand you to mean that these fish "spontaneously"
appeared and did not mutate from some other species. I'd certainly be
interested in specific references to this alleged event.

>No, I do not sense any evil.  I am simply point out that evil is not a
>meaningful expression in a mechanistic universe.  In a universe that allows
>for morality, mutation and natural selection (where is this different from
>the term "survival of the fittest"?) are merely natural forces and therefore
>neither evil nor good.  However they would have good or evil applications.



>>You seem to be under the impression that the level of intelligence among a
>>species is determined by race.
>Note:
>>Race, sex, and intelligence are simply
>>characteristics which vary among our species, don't try to blame your
>>personal prejudices on evolution.

>Do these characteristics arise from evolution or not?

Yes, (he says from the witness stand:-)
but.. (all I want is a yes or no answer)
but.. (your honor, please instruct the witness to answer yes or no)
Yes, but.. (witness is excused)

Thomas, you do know what variables are?

>I don't believe that race determines intelligence.  That is because I don't
>believe in the mechanisim.  I think you believe evolutionary forces are
>responsible for there being different races - but do you believe that
>those same forces act on intellilgence or not?

Maybe I should ask you how "you" measure intelligence first. Sex seems
easy to determine, race is a bit more difficult, intelligence or a capacity
for intelligence seems to be a bit more subjective.

I would say that humans, regardless of sex or race, have evolved a higher
level of intelligence than most other species here on earth.
(individual results may vary)

>>>Indeed, since I don't believe in evolution, I can say that Hitler was
>>>completely wrong...
>>Thomas, this paragraph would seem to indicate that a belief in evolution
>>would deny you something to hate. Other than that, it is only an example
>>of some bizarre type of logic.

>My question is on what basis does an evolutionist reject eugenics.  You are
>the one saying that we exist in a world of natural selection.  Extinction is
>part of that.  Genocide is extinction.  Natural selection tends to favor the
>ruthless.

Maybe you should write a letter to the Pope. I believe he has been
reported to be an evolutionist. Would you take his word on why he opposes
genocide?

>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 believe that if we accept evolution we must accept genocide also?
Thomas, you're not interested in logical debate:-)
Humans can have an impact on evolution, is all that genocide would suggest.
Do you think that evolutionist oppose relief efforts in Somalia?

>>You apparently view human written words as the only possible way of recording
>>an event. The fossil record is recorded history and we now have the methods
>>of measuring it.
>>I'm curious, Thomas, how do you reconcile 20 Billion years of the universes
>>existence with only accepting some 6 thousand years of organic life existence?
>>...or how long do you believe organic life has existed on earth? -J.J.

>The fossil record is unfortunately not a recording.  It is a set of
>disparate pictures, or at best very short clips.  The splicing tends to
>occur based on taxonomy (which existed before evolution), but with
>evolution as an assumption, so anything that looks primitive is placed
>earlier.

What your saying is that archeology is useless. Layers and layers of organic
deposits which do not contradict what would be predicted to be found mean
nothing. I suppose you've found some layer of deposit which contains both
human and dinosaur remains. (Maybe those supposedly human foot prints and
dinosaur footprints in Arkansas:-)

>Organic life has existed for more than 10,000 years, and probably for much
>longer.  I have no way of dating the universe (we are assuming that some
>processes that have been observed for only a few years are constant over a
>timespan several orders of magnitude greater).

Thomas, do you doubt the speed of light? Some of the events we see in
the sky actually happened billions of years ago. You did say you had
a solid belief in modern physics. didn't you? -J.J.