Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site hpfcrs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!lief
From: lief@hpfcla.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <14600039@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 17:18:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcrs.14600039
Posted: Mon Aug 12 17:18:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 05:03:36 EDT
References: <14600027@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Organization: 12 Aug 85 15:18:00 MDT
Lines: 71

[MIKE HUYBENSZ]
>Whales have abundant organs that you would classify as "progressive".  Such
>as the flukes of the tail, the insulating layer of blubber, the melon (oil
>filled chamber in the head for the directional reception of sonar), baleen
>(the filters of mysticete whales), and others.  Most of these don't make
>any sense for land-living animals, just as legs don't make sense for whales.
>
[LIEF SORENSEN]
> As a creationist, I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of
> species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution.  I may be all wet, but
> I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of
> evolution.
>
[MIKE HUYBENSZ]
>They serve as evidence of the history of the ancestral line.  Presumably
>the organs were once functional in a homologous way to homologous organs
>in other animals.
>
>There are a number of practical problems with theories of regression or
>degeneration (as well as theological problems.)  The major one is that we
>should be able to find evidence of regression if it occurred in as short a
>span as the past 10000 years (assuming a young-earth creationism.)  But
>we don't find recent bones of "non-regressed" animals.

     First Mike, I would like to challange your first assertation that whales
show many "progressive" organs.  How do you know they are "progressive"?  I
think that in order to make this claim you need to firmly establish that:

     1) Fossils of whales which prelived today's whales did not have said
        organs (at least not in the currently developed mode).

     2) Present whales could not survive or at least would be severely
        hampered without said organs.

     The second requirement should be easy to establish, but the first one
may be a little difficult since soft tissue organs don't exist in fossil
form.  It's interesting that you said that "I would classify these organs
as progressive."  Does that mean you would?  I think I would if I could meet
these two criteria.

     A case in point.  I would classify the black pigment skin of the negro
as progressive.  As a creationist, I don't believe Noah had son's of three
different races.  I believe that a mutation which caused dark skin pigment
to occur in the human race was what some might classify as a good mutation,
though I too would have to agree that what we define as good and not good
is subjective.  Presumably, white skinned people could not survive the
extreme ultra-violet radiation of equatorial regions of the world (died off
of skin cancer, etc.) while the dark skinned people could survive just fine.
Thus, white skinned folks tried to avoid living in such climates.  This
meets both criteria above.

     To say that "there are a number of theological problems with degeneration
or regression" is just plain wrong.  Don't you agree that the creation model,
which theology asserts, claims that life was created in a perfect form, and
that sin has been causing a general degeneration of life since its inception?
I'm not asking if you agree with the creation model, but whether you agree
that theology teaches that life forms are degenerating?  If you disagree,
could you show me where I'm wrong?  You have got to admit that Genesis teaches
that before Noah's flood, man's life span was almost 1000 years.  Certainly
we don't live that long now.  How can this mean anything other than
degeneration?

     Your last point is well taken -- we have not found any fossils which
can be attributed to non-regressed animals.  Wouldn't I love it if we would
find an anti-diluvian man (since the Bible teaches that these men were giants).
On the otherhand I would like to submit to you that Bison never roamed the
plains of the United States, because we have never found a fossil of one.

Lief Sorensen
HP Fort Collins, CO
Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief