Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!mit-eddie!mit-vax!slk From: slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku) Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.origins Subject: Re: Evolution vs.(?) Creationism Message-ID: <1273@mit-vax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Dec-86 14:15:32 EST Article-I.D.: mit-vax.1273 Posted: Fri Dec 12 14:15:32 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Dec-86 22:56:43 EST References: <2778@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> <1260@cybvax0.UUCP> Reply-To: slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Siu-Ling Ku) Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 22 Xref: mnetor sci.bio:51 talk.origins:193 In article <1260@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >Followups to sci.bio and talk.origins (definitely not the kids newsgroups!) >> And then there's all the diseases that have become >> resistant to the drugs used to treat them. > >Yes, this is a good example of selection. > >> These are all examples of natural selection at work. > >Neither of these is natural selection, in that the selection pressures are >being applied by man. > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Why is there any difference, whether the selection is due to "nature" (like temperature, amount of sunlight etc) or due to "human" in the form of mass killings or change of natural environment? As long as the human race is continue going to affect the environment in a certain way, then it seems any selection pressures we put on the environment has the same effect as "natural" selection. Siu-Ling