RE: First Cause (to Walt Jr)

Aaron Oakley (s_aarono@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU)
Sun, 20 Apr 1997 18:19:59 +1000 (EST)

Walt Jr-
I am aware of those three arguments you set out. However, you did not
tell me what about them demonstrates the factuality of evolution. You
simply made blanket assertions. So how about it? Tell me specifically
what about those evidences demonstrates evolution.

Aaron O-
I do not have the time to go through the masses of evidence, but I will
give you one example. Multicellular animals have a gene which encodes
an enzyme called glutathione S-transferase P1-1. Nematodes have the
gene, humans and monkeys have the gene. Evolutionary theory as it
stands would predict that the human and monkey genes are more similar
than the human and nematode genes. This was found to be the case.
There are many examples such as this. If you want more, then there are
lots of text-books on the subject.

Walt Jr-
Also, the burden of proof is not on me...it is on you. To use Till's
argument, we see nothing but fixity/stasis within a species today. In
other words, if someone is going to say that organisms evolve from one
species to another, then the burden of proof is on them. This being the
case, I will await your explanation of the evidence.

Aaron O-
If you wanted me to explain the evidence then I would have to write
a 100,000 word thesis, and that would only scratch the surface.
If you are serious about learning about modern evolution, then why
don't you read Richard Dawkins' books "The Selfish Gene" or
"the river out of Eden"? There are others as well.

On the other hand, if you want to assert that the creation story
as presented in Genesis is an accurate acount, then the burdon
of proof IS on you. You must find evidence which supports
that idea.

There is a book which was written by Ian
Plimer called "Telling Lies for God" which documents the
sort of dishonest tactics used by creation "scientists"
to attack evolutionary theory. This book may interest you.

If you were to say that our understanding of evolution is
incomplete, then you would be 100% correct. If you were to
say that evolution has not happened, then you would be wrong,
because of the evidence. I do not have time to go through
the masses of evidence. But I can refer to ther works which
do.

Inasmuch as you wish to assert that the genesis account of creation
is correct then this IS an erracy issue. And the burden of
proof DOES lie with you. You must show evidence which supports your
claim.