Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: misc. creationist topics - (nf)
Message-ID: <129@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 12:37:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.129
Posted: Wed Sep 19 12:37:21 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 07:32:58 EDT
References: <32500002@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 32


>     Turning to others, we have Ray Mooney cheering on one sideline that evolu-
>tion is so good because we can pigeonhole plants/animals into nice species ca-
>tegories.  On the other sideline we have Phil Polli cheering that evolution is
>so good because it's "very hard" to do this.  Hmmmmmm.
     Evolution's classificatory difference over creationism is simply explained.
Evolution postulates a (roughly) tree shaped model of the descent of life,
stemming from a protobiological system, branching through the major kingdoms,
phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and finally species.  Creationism
postulates a short forest (grassy?) model of the descent of life, stemming from
an unknown number of kinds and branching into species.
     The advantage of evolution's difference is that it allows predictions to
be made that creationists cannot make.  Both evolutionary biologists and
creationists can say "Two species in genus/kind X have a characteristic Y.
Therefore it is likely that another species will have this characteristic.
However, evolutionary biologists can then predict that if two genera in family
X have characteristic Y, another genus in X will also have character Y.
And so on for order, class, etc.  Creationists have no theory on which to make
predictions on levels higher than "kind".
     Another advantage of evolution is the construction of hypothetical
ancestors.  Assume you thought birds evolved from reptiles (for a variety of
good reasons, mostly anatomical.  Two major differences between birds and
reptiles are feathers and teeth.  Thus we can construct several hypothetical
ancestors that show alternative  ways to arrive at birds from reptiles.  Say,
losing teeth then developing feathers, or developing feathers then losing
teeth.  We may even have a reason to prefer one of the hypotheses.  Then along
comes Archaeopteryx, and one of our hypotheses is confirmed.  (This is not an
actual example: it is more a thought experiment.)  A creationist, in similar
circumstances can only observe a new kind he had no inkling of before.  Or, if
a creationist chooses to hypothesize intermediate kinds, why shouldn't he
hypothesize fish-birds or worm-snakes?  Clearly evolutionary hypotheses have
more predictive value.