From: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) 
Subject:  re: Gardner on Evolution
Reply-To: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:31:54 GMT

                                          
In article <1992Aug25.160114.12277@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>  writes:
>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.

?? Please fill me in.  What do you mean by "population aspect"?  If
you mean greater population gives an advantage, I would include that 
in survival of the fittest.

>
>> 
>> 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.

If you will notice, I said "Evolution, like creation, is not a verifiable
fact."  I simply took exception with a dogmatic statement about the FACT
of evolution, something you cannot do with either, and calling people
disagreeing "ignorant creationists."

>	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.
>

This is interesting because this theory (embryology) has been discredited
since the late 60's even by secular evolutionists.  This is because 
similarities to structures in more primitve animals is merely
superficial and has no root in genetics, the real determinant,

>	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 the root of the issue.  A person who rules out supernaturalistic
origins must settle for evolution, because there is no other conceivable
naturalistic solution.  Even when evolution violates fundamental 
naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 
(i.e. closed systems tend to move toward disorder, or randomness, or 
unusable forms of energy, depending on application), it still must be
accepted because the only alternative is a supernaturalistic 
explanantion, no matter its scope.  The profound transition from
evolution to creation is not scientific, but _philosophical_.

>=====================================================.
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1013 alt.rush-limbaugh:3975 alt.activism.d:2904