From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Evolution (was Re: Liberal Bias Example)
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:37:32 GMT
Reply-To: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

I've editted the newsgroups line to drop unrelated newsgroups.
In article <1992Aug25.153821.3683@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>Evolution is "woefully lacking?"  As if Creationism is based in sound
>scientific theory!  
There's a fallacy here along these lines: Explanation A is viewed as an 
alternative to Explanation B, if Method A is lacking, then Method B must be 
true.  This is a fallacy. Under the scientific method, each theory
must explain the known facts.  When a theory fails to explain the
known facts (or the facts contradict the theory) then the theory
is rejected. Under this method you CANNOT defend a theory by attacking
alternative explanations.  In short, attacking creationism does
NOTHING to defend evolution, in any scientific sense.

>I got an evolution experiment for you.  Take a bunch of bacteria and
>expose them to an stong antibiotic.  Most of the time you will kill
>all of the bacteria, but occasionally, one or more will survive.  Let
>these bacteria grow, and try the antibiotic again.  More will survive.

The original post on this thread noted that NO ONE disputes
natural selection (addressed by your experiment).  The disputed issue 
is whether mutation and natural selection are responsible for the 
genetic diversity observed today (i.e., whether all life is 
descended by evolution from a single primordial form).  That issue 
is NOT addressed by your experiment.  And given the discontinuous
nature of the fossile record (long periods of identical animals, 
punctuated by sharp changes where new animals appear) the issue 
may still be regarded as not being settled.  Mutation may be far too slow
a mechanism to explain these sharp changes (unless the mutations are 
guided). 

Here's an evolution experiment for _you_: the mammalian ancestor is
often described as similar to a squirrel.  Assume 1 mutation per
generation.  How many generations will it take to produce a blue whale
even if _no_ unneccesary or counterproductive mutations take place?
Now add in randomization, and assume (an artificially high value) 10%
of the mutations will be necessary and productive (i.e., multiply your
generations by 10).  In squirrels, a generation is roughly a year.  In
whales, it is closer to 10 years, so assume an average of 5 years per
generation.

Now, even under these artificially favorable assumptions (in observed
fact, it's closer to 1 transmissable natural mutation per thousand
generations, and a tiny fraction of 1% can be expected to be necessary
and productive, where productive implies granting a competitive
advantage, so the actual gap must be about 1,000,000 times longer than
the original figure):  is the gap in the fossile record between the
proto-mammals and the first blue whales long enough for mutation to
account for it?

If it isn't, then there is evidence that classical
mutation-and-natural-selection evolution does not explain the facts.
Modern evolutionary theorists are working extremely hard 
to find alternate mechanisms.  Thus far, they've not found any that
are defensable.

I leave up to you the question of where the fossile record is for virtually
ALL of the intermediate forms between proto-mammal and blue whale, despite a
century of intensive search.

				Tim
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)
The proper response to detecting a bug isn't to fix the bug - it's to make 
sure you'll never have to worry about that bug again.  --- Richard Hamming