From:    Dr Pepper
To:      Jim Blakeman                           Msg #16, Nov-10-93 10:38PM
Subject: About Evolution

to: Jim Blakeman

I see where you've been expressing discomfort at the amount of material
involved in the controversy and its complexity. Well i hope you realize that
it's all on one side.

The creationists have no theory. You don't believe me, great. Prove me wrong
and win $10 for your favorite charity. Just cite 1 theory. In the 3 years or
so i have been on this news group, we have constantly asked, begged, pleaded,
cajoled, offered rewards-- but the creationists have never given us one. So i
have the $10 offer. $10 because i'm not very well off so it has to be
something i can afford. But in addition, you'd become a hero to everyone,
creationist and conventional science side alike.

As for the complexity of the subject, i have taken the liberty to put together
a sort of layperson's faq that might help you get started. It's not very long,
i'll post it right now:



  A Quick Description of the Theory of Evolution for Creationists
  ---------------------------------------------------------------

First we have to distinguish between the theory of evolution, and
the fact of evolution. I'll start with the fact.

Well you've probably heard the phrase "A change in allele
frequencies over time" but that's a little complex. So i'll stick
with Darwin's phrase "Descent with Modification", which is still an
adequate summation.

Descent with modification means that as one observes a population
over time, one sees change over generations. The amount of change
can vary, but in general, the more time, the more change.

We can observe this happening today by direct observation, over
relatively short periods of time. And we can observe it happening in
the past through the fossil record, over relatively long periods of
time.

So as you can see, to say that "evolution happens" is pretty much on
a par with saying "gravity happens". The theory has to do with
*how*.

So now i will state the theory. Again, i will use an old and
traditional form:

        DIFFERENTIAL REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS

which means that within a given population, different individuals
will, under the same conditions, have different chances to
reproduce, and thus pass on their particular genetic makeups. And
since genetic makeups are always changing, there are always
differences. It doesn't matter how the differences arise, nor the
nature of the circumstances that affect reproductive success. As
long as both exist, evolution will happen.

As you can see, my statements above contained no unfounded
assertions, no statements against any other theory, nor was it just
a list of predictions. However, it is a basis from which we can go
on and make predictions.

One important prediction is that for any given physical feature, (to
the extent the data is available), we can take a horizontal slice,
that is in one time period examine different species that have that
trait, and find a range of variants of it. The beaks of Darwin's
finches are a classic example of this.

Or we can take a vertical slice, that is look at a given trait
through time, and see a sequence of change. Further we can see
development, that is to say, if a given trait has a given use we can
go back and find in the lineage of the creature that has that trait,
an earlier creature that has a less developed version of it, where
"less developed" is used in the sense of the later use, not in the
sense of it being *totally* useless before then.

A fine example of this is the development of the mammalian inner ear
from the reptilian jawbone. A faq is available on this.

Another, somewhat trivial prediction is the phylogenic tree itself.

Now of course, you have heard that there are a number of different
theories, plural, of evolution. Yes there are. And all of them are
perfectly compatible with "Descent with modification". These
theories are intended to fine tune the above and explain the
details. This is analogous to the way quantum physics explains
electron orbitals without repudiating the idea that electrons are
bound to the atomic nucleus by the attraction of opposite charges.


10                    2
       DR PEPPER
                      4

---
 * Origin: I survived: Reagan-Bush, 1980-1992 (1:103/241)