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