Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Out-of-Context Quote-of-the-Month.  July 1985.
Message-ID: <576@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 12:29:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.576
Posted: Mon Aug 19 12:29:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:35:56 EDT
References: <1296@uwmacc.UUCP> <1310@uwmacc.UUCP> <198@kitty.UUCP> <373@scgvaxd.UUCP <388@phri.UUCP> <381@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 113

>In article <388@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes:
>>> Since  man  does  not have the  genetic potential for producing an ape
>>>offspring, this could offer evidence  that man and ape are  genetically
>>>unrelated and separate creations.
>>> 
>>> 					     Dan
>>
>>Unfortunately, Dan, this posting shows (me, at least), that you really have
>>not learned any biology or genetics from reading this net.  Sequence studies, 
>>both at the protein and DNA levels, skeletal similarities, etc, etc, etc
>>all show that man is very closely related to apes.  Isn't there a quote 
>	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>		       (common design)
>>somewhere about no one being so blind as those who will not see?
>>-- 
>>Dave Fritzinger
>
>   Reminds me of that old saying,
>
>   So CLOSE, yet SO FAR AWAY!
>
>					     Dan

I think I see why Dan is missing the point that people have been
trying to make.  Let me say first that Dan is right about one thing:
The similarity between Man and Ape at the various levels is consistent
with both being due to a common design by a Creator.  I hope he will
agree that the similarities are also consistent with evolution from a
common ancestor.

However, consistency is only part of the story.  While it is true that
the observed facts are *consistent* with both explanations, it is NOT
true that the observations constitute *evidence for* both 
explanations.  In fact, the observations constitute *evidence for
evolution*, but they do NOT constitute *evidence for creation*.
Let me explain myself.

Suppose we had observed a different situation.  For example, the 
hemoglobins of Chimpanzee and Man are virtually identical, but because
of the fact that there are 64 "letters" in the DNA alphabet and only
20 amino acids, there are literally billions of ways DNA could
have coded for this particular sequence of amino acids.  Chimpanzee 
hemoglobin could have been coded for by one DNA sequence, and Human
hemoglobin by an entirely different one.  What would be the 
consequences for Evolution and Creation of such an observation?

Such an observation, if it were to be confirmed, would be 
devastating for the evolutionary hypothesis.  Because of this fact,
Duane Gish frequently tries to make debating points by claiming that
Bullfrog and Human blood proteins are more similar than Chimpanzee and
Human blood proteins.  The fact that these claims are false is 
immaterial; Gish recognizes that if such differences could be found,
particularly at the DNA level where evolution must be controlled, it 
would be impossible to reconcile them with evolution.  Thus evolution 
makes the very strong logical connection:

    If (Man and Ape evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past,
        as is claimed by evolutionary theory)
    Then (at the DNA level, Man and Ape must be very similar).
	
However, Creationism offers us no corresponding logical connection.
In fact, as Gish explicitly recognizes in his debates, there would
be no contradiction at all with Creationism if his claims about
Bullfrog proteins were correct.  One could simply say that the Creator 
designed it that way.  Creationism is therefore consistent with 
*any conceivable observation that could be made about the similarity 
or dissimilarity of Human and Ape blood proteins or their corresponding 
DNA sequences*.  It "takes no risks" from an experiment which tests 
this similarity, because no matter *how* the experiment turns out, 
Creationism would be consistent with it.

Not so evolution.  Every time an experiment of the kind I described is
performed (and they are being performed in laboratories all the time),
evolution is at risk.  If a sufficient number of experiments of this 
sort turned out to contradict the predictions of evolution, then
evolution would become an untenable hypothesis.  But by the same token, 
every time the similarity of DNA sequences for similar proteins is 
*confirmed*, evolution gets a reward: It is strengthened and confirmed 
in its turn, and  another piece of evidence FOR evolution has been found.

Creationism, on the other hand, *takes no risks, so it reaps no reward*. 
Creationism is NOT strengthened by observations of DNA sequences, 
because Creationism makes no predictions about how such experiments
should turn out.  The experiments are *irrelevant* to Creationism.
Therefore, the results of such experiments *are not evidence for
Creationism*.  This is an essential difference between science and 
non-science.

In this newsgroup I have called repeatedly for "scientific evidence
for creation".  By 'scientific' I mean evidence of a concrete, physical
nature: fossils, DNA sequences, black marks on an astronomical plate,
meter readings and the like, things that you can see and touch, and
phenomena that can be independently reproduced.  These are the sorts
of things that scientists can sink their teeth into, the sorts of 
things that can be replicated, the sorts of things of which other 
examples remain to be discovered.  By 'evidence for' I mean evidence 
of a kind that poses a potential *risk* to Creationism.  If it doesn't 
matter to Creationism *how* the experiment turns out, then it doesn't 
matter how well the alleged "evidence" agrees with the Creation model: 
The assertion that it is "evidence for Creationism" is vacuous.

So, Creationists, if you want to demonstrate that Creationism is
a science, then you have to produce *scientific evidence for
creationism*, as described above.  So far I haven't seen any.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)