Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: margaritas ante procos -- on the rocks, please
Message-ID: <601@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Oct-84 15:57:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.601
Posted: Mon Oct  1 15:57:16 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Oct-84 07:31:05 EDT
References: <186@uf-csg.UUCP>, <338@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 43

[repetition again]

Paul Dubois has asked for tests of evolution that show that
it is falsifiable.  This is a fair request, I wish he would
supply some for creationism.  Actually people have answered
this one before.  The most popular, and reasonable, answer
is that outrageous anachronisms in the fossil record would
constitute disproof of evolution.  These finds should be
discovered, and recorded, in situ (to avoid accusations of
fraud directed against the finders, should they be creationists).
The fossils should be clearly not intrusions from a later date
(burial sites or the result of an intermediate episode of a
ravine which subsequently filled in).  The easiest to establish
that would be if the radiometric dating of the fossil matched the
surrounding rock.  The anachronism can be the discovery of
the fossil remains of any animal at a date at which it could
not reasonably have evolved yet (e.g. human beings several tens
of millions of years old).  The existence today of "living fossils"
(a silly term) is not a true anachronism since rare species will leave
no recognizable fossils.  A species can only be called a living fossil
if it is very rare now, and common in the fossil record from some much
earlier epoch.  This simply shows a species which was very sucessful at
one time and is not now.  Genera which have been common for a long time
(cockroaches - or are they a family?) will leave fossils from many epochs
in the geological record.
    An example of a succesful evolutionary prediction is the prediction
that related species (judging by their morphology and the fossil record)
will show biochemical similarities whereas morphologically similar but
more distantly related species will show lesser similarities.
    R. Miller has suggested that DNA similarities are a successful
prediction of creationism.  I don't understand what kind of similarities
he is suggesting ought to follow from creationism.  I don't understand
how any of what we see in modern biochemistry follows from creationism.
Finally, if all he means is that similar species have similar biochemistry
I don't understand why he thinks this follows from creationism and not
evolution.  I'd greatly appreciate a clarification of any or all of these
points.
                         
"I can't help it if my     Ethan Vishniac
    knee jerks"         {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                           Department of Astronomy
                           University of Texas
                           Austin, Texas 78712