Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site phri.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!phri!lonetto From: lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A new voice. Message-ID: <308@phri.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Jul-85 14:34:23 EDT Article-I.D.: phri.308 Posted: Thu Jul 4 14:34:23 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 09:49:08 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <300@azure.UUCP> <350@scgvaxd.UUCP> Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) Lines: 53 > This is just not so! The central hypothesis has been attacked over and > over. When it is, however, netters change their tune and claim that > evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creation. > > Mutation has been shown to be a poor mechanism for Evolution. Transmutation > has never been observed and most all mutations have proven harmful. The > variations within species are predicted by the creation model. Even > Evolutionists have admitted the problems involved with Evolution occuring > by chance mutation. Natural selection has serious problems as well. As a biologist I find these objections ridiculous. Looking at the the second paragraph: 1) WHO has shown that mutation is a poor mechanism for GENERATING DIVERSITY (no one ever said mutation=evolution). HOW was it shown? 2) That 99.999999...% of mutations are harmful is both expected and appreciated by current evolution theory. This property is often useful in the laboratory, where a desired mutation can be obtained by generating random mutations and setting up conditions where only certain mutants will survive. The original strain and most other mutants die. 3) WHAT creation theory predicts current diversity and relatedness and accounts for all the extinct (also related) species of the past? 4) Once again, no one ever said that mutation and evolution are the same thing. > It has been stated that N.S. predicts everything, therefore it predicts > nothing. 5) Those who believe that natural selection is a tautology are treating biology as a mathmatical discipline. Close reading of the theory and thought about the CONCEPT will evaporate those objections. Biology is an essentially historical discipline. Often things could have happenned several ways, but only one of them actually occurred. Why? Good question! If you just apply natural sel- ection you say "There must have been some advantage to having things happen this way." This is tautological. It also ignores the fact that the organism in question was chugging along just fine up to this point and had a lot in- vested in keeping things as close to the same as possible. Just because the amateur evolutionist on this net don't have a full understanding of the theory and mechanisms of natural selection (and complementary but less well understood means of change, such as genetic drift) does not make the concept irrelevent. > Evolution really has more problems than you are willing to believe. > Dan Creation really has more problems than you are willing to believe. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) Do you think it's REAL?