Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <1251@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 10:38:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1251
Posted: Fri Jun 28 10:38:30 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 08:07:13 EDT
References: <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <41500001@ur-univax.UUCP>
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 52


> [Steve Robiner]
> part of the problem with creationists, is that they fail to understand
> exactly what evolution and nature selection imply.  Natural selection
> does not state that "all this" was acheived by chance - far from it.
> The big 'chance' factor was the creation of the first self reproducing
> amino acid (which, considering the millions of years of during which
> billions of non-reproducing amino acids could have been modified by a
> chance (lightning, radiation, etc) is not unlikely ).  All the rest of
> evolution was a process of natural selection over a billion years of it
> ( that's quite a long time, by the way ) in which entities which had a
> superior trait which allowed them to live longer and have offspring
> with the same trait continued to exist. These traits which were
> produced by random (chance, if like) scramblings of the genetic code
> also produced many, many more mutations which did not survive, which
> were in fact worse off than there ancestors.  This still happens to
> this day.  It is the rare occurence where a trait which is helpful
> occurs, and then, becuase it is helpful, allows that entity to live and
> reproduce.

Sez you.  (With apologies to Keith Doyle)

Part of the problem with a number of evolutionists is that they seem
to have uncritically swallowed the Darwinian line they were taught in
their open-minded biology classes hook, line, and sinker, and
regurgitate it verbatim, and, worse yet, seemingly expect us dopey
creationists to *believe* it, when even their more informed
evolutionary colleagues hestitate to do so wholeheartedly.  "For
shame."
---
It is too much of a temptation for me, to resist the next comment:

> The big 'chance' factor was the creation of the first self reproducing
> amino acid (which, considering the millions of years of during which
> billions of non-reproducing amino acids could have been modified by a
> chance (lightning, radiation, etc) is not unlikely ).

This, as is well-attested by numerous personages on the net, has
nothing to do with evolution.

(Actually, I still maintain that the dichotomy between chemical and
biological evolution is false.  So my sympathies lie more with Mr.
Robiner on this point.)


back to work...

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"Photoplankton"                                                     |