From: zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha)
Subject: Re: Origins
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:43:52 GMT

>Article: 4280 of bit.listserv.catholic
>From:	       URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM

>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:-)

I don't accept colloquialisms, unless I see other evidence.  Some of the
things you were posting sounded like proof.  Of course if you transmitted
random noise, and I recieved a workable copy of UNIX, it would help.

>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?

Mutation and Speciation are only distantly related.  Most mutations occur
within species.  If you have enough mutations you may end up with a group
that cannot interbreed with the original.  Out of curiosity, do you have
an example of this (citation)?

You are the one stating that mutation produces new species.  However in the
case of domesticated mammals, I don't think that any new species have been
found, even though the breeders were isolating mutation and selecting for
differences.  As far as I know, a Yorkie and a Greyhound can have viable
offspring.

Let me trace the causal chain:

1. Mutations occur (I agree).

2. They produce different species.  This I am not sure of.  Do you have an
example of an organism that you can trace such that a group of parents
produced offspring that could not (and not simply would not) interbreed?

3. This can be extended to allow for the generation of all species from a
single, or a few progenitors.  No *evidence*.  You simply infer this
assuming that 2. is true, and *can* be extrapolated.

Note that it is up to you to find evidence.  I can make up things too.
You give an improbable naturalistic mechanism.	I give an unrepeatable
intelligent one.  When I see cars, I don't say the Mark 8 evolved through
naturalistic mechanisms from the model T.  When I see life, I apply the
same rule: complexity implies intelligent design.

>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?

First, (you should know this) Carbon dating does not apply over billions
of years - the half life is too short.	What evidence do you have that
the decay rates have remained constant (or are not affected by supernovae,
etc.)?	Then there are the times a single rock is tested with the Uranium
series, Potassium-Argon, and others and give totally different dates for
each.  And when modern rocks are dated (go to your nearest volcano, grab
something that has come from a recent flow, still molten if you like), they
can sometimes turn out over a billion years old.  And even carbon dating had
trouble when applied to a living mollusk.  When the tolerance is over +/-
100%, I worry.

>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.

Archeopteryx has feathers, and therefore is a bird.  Which fossil has a
structure between scale and feathers?

>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?
It would help if you cite where the Pope believes in biological
evolution, especially as an explanation for the origin of life.
I would think he opposes genocide based on the intrinsic dignity of
human life.

>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?
My point is not whether they DO oppose relief, but SHOULD they.  If human
life is an accident, then what motivates people to save others?

>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:-)

So if those footprints cannot coexist, then they don't?  Or pollen in
precambrian strata.  The problem is that the original (darwinian)
prediction was a continuum, not a stasis.  So for a long time
palentolgists had trouble reconciling the record with the theory. So it
*did* contradict.  The problem is that there is no real *prediction*.
You see a fossil.  You know evolution.	You place the fossil in
evolutionary position, or find an explanation of why it doesn't fit.
Since there are no real predictions, there cannot be any real
contradictions.

>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.

Right now, c is approximately 186,000 MPH.  I can find a more accurate
reference.  It varies by gravity, or by refractive index.  What was it
4.5 Billion years ago?	Alpha Centuri is observed about 4 years old.
I have no idea about quasars, since gravity can alter the redshift as
much as speed, I can't know how much is responsible from which effect so
I don't know their distance, therefore how old the light is.

---
zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address
Thomas Zerucha / 24075 Lee Baker / Southfield MI 48075 - hardcopy
(313)594-4941 - work phone
Pax Domini sit sempre vobiscum
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic