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)