Date: Tue Apr 30 1996 00:28:02
Page 2, paragraph 1:
"No Evolution at Present. The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen."
As stated before, evolution as defined by biologists has been observed to occur. Kettlewell's study of industrial melanism in Biston betularia is sufficient to show Morris' statement to be a lie.
Date: Tue Apr 30 1996 18:35:58
I've decided to change the name of the "Lie A Day" feature to "But is it deception?" Many people get hung up on the connotation of lie being "an untruth that is both knowingly and deliberately told". Rather than wrangle over the attribution of internal states on the part of Henry M. Morris or whoever happens to occupy the hot seat in the future, I'll just point out that the statement given is untrue and leave it up to the reader to decide, "But is it deception?".
On page 2, paragraph 3, Morris says,
"'Horizontal variations' (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, [...]"
Of course, 'horizontal' change as defined by biologists is speciation. Different breeds of dogs do not represent separate species. If we flip Morris' assertion through a 90 rotation, we still come up with an untruth, since vertical variation is also evolution so long as the diagnostic criterion of allele frequency change in the population is met.
Date: Wed May 01 1996 07:57:50
Still continuing with Morris and Parker's "What is creation science?"
On page 2, paragraph 3, Morris says,
"'Horizontal variations' (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, nor are 'mutations', which are always either neutral or harmful, as far as all known mutations are concerned."
Beneficial mutations are known to occur, in direct contradiction to Morris' statement above. The Ames test of mutagenicity would not work unless beneficial mutations arose. The Ames test is a standard clinical test.
Date: Thu May 02 1996 03:12:46
On page 2, paragraph 6, Morris states,
"Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study."
The talk.origins FAQs on observed speciation [1,2] blow this lie away. The first speciation seen in the lab was reported in the 1920's, which should have been early enough that Morris would have seen it if he had bothered to try to research his claim.
Date: Sat May 04 1996 01:04:34
On page 2, paragraph 6, Morris states,
"Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study."
Morris follows this up with a quote:
"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it..." (Colin Patterson, 1982).
The quote does not support the inclusive claim that precedes it, and seems an almost complete non sequitur. Patterson only addresses laboratory work in one mode, but Morris' claim was general and inclusive of all modes and venues.
Why would Morris choose to use that particular quote in that particular place?
Date: Sun May 05 1996 22:57:20
On page 2, paragraph 8, Morris says,
"No Known Mechanism of Evolution. It is also a curious fact that no one knows how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism."
The text that follows the heading does not support the claim made in the heading. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution that has been verified through both laboratory and field studies. An existing mechanism of evolution makes hash of the claim of the heading. The remainder of the text is misleading, as no biologist believes evolutionary phenomena (the fact of evolution) to be due to some one unique process.
RealCom. Web page providers extraodinaire... check 'em out.
Search pages: WebCrawler | Excite! | Infoseek | Lycos | Yahoo!