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" |