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