From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Bales is lying" thread
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:19:02 GMT


David Rice writes:

JM> Jim Meritt
RB> me
 
JM> "What data has been collected in support of creationism."
 
RB> "The interlocking nature of the feather is strong evidence
RB> that it did NOT evolve. Quoting again from _Vertabrates. . . ._
RB> 
RB>     "The typical feather has the two rows of barbs of slightly
RB>     unequal length, the one which is anterior on the body being
RB>     the shorter. Each barb has anterior and posterior barbules,
RB>     the former with hooks or hamuli and the latter with ridges,
RB>     so that the flat surface or vane of the feather is firmly
RB>     locked together on exactly the principle of the zipper."
RB>     (page 434)
 
RB> Here we have another case of of *two* different, independent
RB> things, both of which must be present to accoplish the function.
RB> Evolutionary processes, assuming they occur, explain how *one*
RB> thing (at a time) can develop via a mutation and then be selected
RB> for, but as I pointred out above, they do not explain the
RB> development of simultaneous features.

RB> What I wrote included *two additional lines*, which Jim cut:
 
RB> "On the other hand, the use of multiple different parts working
RB> together to accomplish a function is a hallmark of design.

[Note: David lists these lines as being by Jim, but I wrote them.]
 
RB> "These lines expand what Jim included and completly contradict
RB> the statement that my discussion is *entirely* about evolution.
 
>Are you therefore accusing him of being dishonest in quoting you?

The change distored what I said.  I don't know how or why it happened.
 
JM> Hence, this is not evidence FOR creationism.
 
RB> I mentioned "design" rather than "creation."
 
>Since he asked you for evidence of Creationism, "design" doesn't meet the
>request.

Evidence of design is evidence for a theory from the list of theories which
involve design.  It is a short list: creation.

Evidence of design is evidence for creation.

>Are you saying that Space Beings from Beta Reticulii designed bird feathers
>in a lab?

Observations that feathers have the characteristics of design do not identify
the designer or designers.
 
>I think you just do not understand the issue. The probability of a feather
>being the way it is is ONE, because it is that way.

But the issue is NOT the probability of the feather's being the way it is, but
rather the probability that that state was caused by evolution.  By analogy,
if we flip a coin and get 10,000 heads in a row, the probability that we got
10,000 heads in a row is 1, but the probability that the coin was a "fair"
coin is quite low.

>A feather -COULD- just as easily evolved in some other way,

How do we know?

>and you would look at THAT feather and claim it was designed!

Sorry, but David doesn't know what I would do when faced with a situation that
doesn't exist!

Since my claims are based on the characteristics of the feather, if those
characteristics were different and did not support the conclusion, my
conclusion would be different.

>Feathers are an excellent example of evolution.

The quote I cited is a small part of an article I wrote some time ago
detailing reasons that evolution is not a good explanation for the feather.  I
don't know if David saw the article.  Neither David, nor as far as I know
anyone else, has addressed most of these points.  If the feather is indeed an
"excellent" example, where is some of the overwhelming evidence that is
claimed for evolution?

It seems that, contrary to what is often said in this group, it's not the
creationists who are not interested in discussing the evidence (at least in
some cases.)
 
RB> But since creation is the only prominent theory to include the
RB> idea of design, [....]"
 
>Creationism isn't a theory, it is a religion. I thought you had
>already been corrected on that fact. . . .

That isn't a fact; it's a straw man.  The fact is that creationists -- and in
particular when talking about what I say here, me -- have the privilege of
defining what we (and I) contend.  Since what I've defined here does not depend
on religion, I can't be "corrected" on it.
 
RB> [...] the presence in living organisms of characteristics of
RB> design which are not characteristics of evolutionary-type
RB> processes tends to indicate creation is a better explanation
RB> than evolution."
 
>Sure. You are -MUCH- better at saying what is characteristic of evolution
>than EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS. I'm sure your opinion is must more valid than,
>say, and educated one.

Not at all.  However, according to evolutionary theory, a feature is
selected on the basis of the advantage it offers its possesor.  The ability
to lock feather together is an advantage for birds. However, this ability
comes from two *different* physical structures, which presumable would have
arose separately.  Possesion of *half* of what is needed to lock feathers
together would offer no advantage, so each structure *by itself* would not be
selected for.  Without the structures needed for interlocking, there would be
no interlocking mechanism.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins