EVOLUTION vs. CREATION DIGEST
VOL 1. NO. 1 17 Jan 1990
----------------------------------------------------------
| Message may have been editted to correct spelling, |
| improve readibility, or fix formatting problems. Every |
| effort has been made not to change the actual content |
| but mistakes can happen. |
----------------------------------------------------------
MESSAGE: 1
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Rich Payne
Subject: Re:the Creation And Evolu
Date: 04 Jan 90 23:32:17
> One can present the scientific evidences for
> creation (and against evolution) without referring
> at all to the Bible or to any type of religion.
This may indeed be true, though the evidence presented is a mixture
of misquotation and distortion. The point is the scientific creationism
is an oxymoron. Creationism attributes the origin of the universe, the
orgin of the earth and the diversity of life to the direct action of a
supernatural agent (god). Science cannot dig into the supernature for
explanations. If you do this, then you are not doing science.
> Entire books have been written on scientific
> creationism without a single quotation from the
> Bible and without basing any argument on Biblical
> authority or doctrine. Such arguments deal with
> genetics, paleontology, geology, thermodynamics,
> and other sciences, not with theology or religion.
All of the books on creationism that I have read (it's usually very
easy, as they are often less than 100 pages long) do not present
evidence for creationism. The attempt to pick away at one aspect of
evolutionary or cosmological theory. None of them present any actual
evidence to support the idea of special creation. Even if evolutionary
theory is disproved at some time, creationism does not win by default.
If it is to be considered a scientific explaination, it must amass data
to support it. It must generate testible hypotheses. Most of the
tenets of creationism cannot be tested. Those that can have been
falsified.
> Indeed, the scientific case for creation is based
> on our knowledge of DNA, mutations, fossils, and other
> scientific terms and concepts which do not even appear
> in the Bible. Furthermore, creationist scientists,
> including many who were formerly evolutionists, have
> made a thorough study of the scientific evidences
> related to origins and are firmly convinced (not by
> religious faith but by the scientific evidences) that
> the scientific data explicitly support the Creation
> Model and contradict the Evolution Model.
Not "our" knowledge. Evolution is THE central premise of modern biology
today. It brings together many seamingly unrelated sets of data and
forms it into a rather cohesive whole. There many indeed be working
scientists who support creationism, but they are not biologists,
biochemists, geologists, geneticists or paleontologists. They are
usually out of their depth or engaged in active distortion of
information.
If I am wrong, then please give me one person working in any of these
fields.
Creationists often try and wrap themselves in the cloak of a group
presenting a new idea and who are being resisted by an entrenched
scientific establishement. New ideas are often resisted by scientists
who have a life long commitment to the orthodoxy. Yet, if the new ideas
are better, they will eventually replace the old. The early quantum
physicists didn't hide their ideas. They published them and then fought
and defended them.
Creationism is not a new idea. It is an old idea, like the flat earth
or geocentric universe. It was reject 100 years ago because it could
not account for the new insights of Charles Darwin.
Even if creationism do not explicitly make reference to religion, their
agenda is religious in nature. They seek to promote their own
particular religion, accusing all who accept evoltion of being atheists.
Yet, most organized religions have made their peace with evolution. It
is only a small group of fundementalists (christian, Moslem and Jewish,
but mostly christian) who find evolution incompatable with their faith.
Philip A. Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
MESSAGE: 2
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Rich Payne
Subject: Re:the Origin Of Birds:
Date: 04 Jan 90 23:50:05
Do you have a reference for the Chatterjee fossil bird? I have not
heard of this one. My area of expertise is primates and not birds. I am
preparing a lengthy response to your messages on the evolution of birds,
and will incorporate your reference if you will supply it.
Some notes on Archaeopteryx. Had it not been for the feathers,
Archaeopterx would have be classified as a reptile. Also,
Archaeopteryx is dated at 175 million years and not 150 million years.
Philip A. Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
MESSAGE: 3
FROM: Larry McGee
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: creationism
Date: 03 Jan 90 07:21:00
JH> nebulous special force. It is still a statistical
JH> matter and there is a tiny but real probability of the
JH> molecules all being on the same side of the room.
JH> This is becoming a very silly and tedious side issue.
It might help if the example uses a much smaller room with fewer
molecules so the mind can comprehend it. Start with a room with exactly
1 molecule in it and a line down the center. At any moment, the
probability that ALL the molecules in the room are on one of the two
sides is 100%.
Now add a second molecule. The probability that they'll both be on the
same side at any instant drops to .5 with that probability split
equally with both sides of the room. As you continue to add molecules,
the probability of them all being on one side of the room at once
follows the formula P=2/n. Since the number of molecules in a room is
finite, this probability never drops to 0.
The problem those people are having is that when 'n' is a big number
10e25 for example then P is very small and they can't tell the
difference between that and zero.
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort--Pacifica CA 415-359-6036(1:125/190.0)
MESSAGE: 4
FROM: Joseph Landman
TO: Doug Bell
Subject: Re: The Vanishing Case for Evolution Sci
Date: 05 Jan 90 23:00:00
Doug,
(bell sounds) Wrong!!!
In my trusty CRC reference guide the "beta"progenitor for 218Po IS
218At. 214Po is formed by decays of Radon (alpha decay) and Astatine,
which are BOTH in the decay chains for U233,Np239 and a host of other
isotopes.
Your "research physicist" was discredited long before his "radiohalo"
measurements when he made an unsubstantiatable claim (that was later
proven to be wrong) about the decay of the earths magnetic field over
time. His evidence pointed to a young earth (about 10000 years). He
based it upon his own pseudo-observations of geological structures, and
his own dating methods.
His results were THOROUGHLY disproven, and have been discussed MANY
times on the nets as a very bad way to do science.
I STRONGLY urge you to abondon the creationist literature you have
around you, and search for your origins among the people whom are
interested in what actually is the case, instead of what they want to be
the case. The creationists are bent on the bringing down of a sound
scientific theory, based upon many hundreds of manyears of observations,
speculation, experimentation etc.
* Origin: -=< The Lansing Forum >=- (1:159/500)
MESSAGE: 5
FROM: James Hay
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 07 Jan 90 16:23:00
Please give your definitions of Ape and Man so we can see how fossil
skeletons would be All ape or man. Where do you consider the dividing
line to be among accepted intermediates?
Even if saying that man evolved from apes was an insult (and BTW,
evolutionists don't say that, they say that apes and man had a common
ancestor so please quit saying that) what would that have to do with it
being the truth? Calling Morton Downey Jr. a loud-mouthed jerk is an
insult, but it is also true.
"Besides, you people are just continuing this belief in evolution to
avoid acknowledging the existence of God, because if you acknowledged
GOd's existence then your whole case for evolution would completely
crumble."
1) Then how do you explain theistic evolutionists?
2) A God could easily have used evolution as a mechanism.
3) Look at your statement here. It comes to "you want A because
that denies B which denies A". This reduces to the statement that we
support evolution because otherwise our case for evolution would
crumble. A truely silly statement.
You say that you're open minded but any information that doesn't jibe
with your beliefs (i.e. the Bible) is trashed. Obviously this is some
new use of the word "open-minded" which I was not previously aware of.
This last stated attitude, BTW, is exactly why I don't think that
creationism should be taught in the science classroom. You can't call
it science if you will not admit to the submission of new evidence, i.e.
you will not allow for disproof of your hypotheses.
A similar statement is made by Henry Morris, one of THE top men of
creationism, in his book "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science":
"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact
of history...is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geological
difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over
the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture. (pp. 32-33)"
This is NOT science.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 6
FROM: James Hay
TO: Rich Payne
Subject: Re: The Origin of Birds:
Date: 07 Jan 90 16:46:00
PAT GOLTZ PLEASE TAKE NOTE. This also is a reply to your previous
request about archeopteryx.
Why do we consider Archeopteryx a transitional form? Because it has MANY
ceatures of both birds and "reptiles" (actually Coelurosaurs) and other
factors which are in between.
Birdlike features:
Feathers (Coelurosaurs have none to our knowledge.)
Fused Clavicles (Coelurosaurs' aren't)
Coelurosaurlike features:
Coracoids: Round and rounded (Birds: Long and narrower)
No keel (Birds have one)
Ribs: slender, rounded, no uncinate process
(Birds: Flat with uncinate process)
Ventral Ribs (Birds have none)
Cervical Vertebra: Slightly concave (Birds: Saddleshaped)
OOPS, two minute warning. I will continue this next time.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 7
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: David Hoffman
Subject: Re: Evolution V. Creation
Date: 06 Jan 90 09:20:00
> Piltdown man and Nebraska man were not very good examples of proof for
> evolution were they? The Coelacanth wasn't a very good example
> either. d.h.
Thank you for bringing these matters up. As evolutionary theory is a
science, then there is no such thing as "proof." All matters are open
to question and to debate.
Piltdown is a good example. Yes, scientists are human and sometimes can
make mistakes when they allow their own prejudices to guide them. Yet
the Piltdown case is a positive example of the self correcting nature of
science. Piltdown was not discovered by creationists looking to
disprove evolution. It was uncovered by scientists who noticed that it
didn't seem to agree with later discovery.
Piltdown is discussed in Roger Lewin's book _Bones of Contention_. One
of the scenerios posited by evolutionary biologists was that the brain
was critical to early human evolution. Piltdown fit right into that
scheme as the cranium was fairly modern, while the jaw was distinctly
ape-like. Also, it was discovered in England, and thus fit in nicely
with racial prejudices of the time.
In 1925, Raymond Dart discovered the first Australopithecine skull. The
Taung child, discovered in Africa, of all places (even though Darwin
suggested that is where humans most likely originated) was a small
brained biped. Perhaps it was a bit of human ego that refused to accept
evidence for a small brained ancestor when the was evidence for a large
brain ancestor. Taung was rejected.
Later, as discoveries in Asia (later named Homo erectus) and Germany
(Neanderthal) began to show that the modern human cranium was a very
recent event, the Piltdown materials were carefully re-examined. It was
then that the fraud was uncovered.
It is possible for prejudice and ego to influnence scientific
interpretations. Such errors are eventually corrected. As a
scientists, every idea must be put forward where it can be inspected and
challanged by others. This insures that bad or poorly conceived ideas
are weeded out.
The Coelacanth shows your own ignorance of evolution. Please don't rely
on ICR materials. Coelacanth is a member of the group of fish from
which amphibians evolved. Most Crossopterygians are extinct. The
discovery of the Coelacanth demonstrated that not all of them were
extinct. This is interesting, but has no effect on the scenerio of
tetrapod evolution.
Nebraska man is a creationist straw man. No one accepted the fossil as
hominid. It was shown to be non-hominid by biologists, not by
creationists. This is how science is down. Since most of the basic
tenets of creationism cannot be challanged, we see in these examples
reasons why creationism cannot be considered scientific.
Thanks for bringing up these examples. I hope you found my answer
satisfactory.
Philip Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State Unversity.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
MESSAGE: 8
FROM: James Hay
TO: Eric Haas
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 07 Jan 90 16:03:00
An expansion on your point about Hen's Teeth for our creationist friends.
It has been shown that chicken's have all the genetic information needed
for the production of teeth, a rather complex structure. Teeth are
induced in the tissue which forms them via stimulation by the presence
of a chemical released by adjacent tissue. When the tissue which forms
this chemical was extracted from a mammalian embryo (a mouse, I believe)
and placed in a chicken embryo, a tooth was induced. It was easy to
show though tissue examination that the tooth was formed from chicken
and not mouse tissue. Now, why would a chicken have this information in
it's DNA if it was a seperately created kind? There are birds with
teeth, but if you are going to assume that these are the same "kind" as
chickens you are going to have to postulate a kind that basically
encompasses ALL birds. Once you have allowed "macroevolution" on this
scale, to deny the possibility of reptile to bird, and pretty much any
transition would be sheer pigheadedness.
Any explainations out there?
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 9
FROM: James Hay
TO: Rich Payne
Subject: Archeopteryx
Date: 08 Jan 90 21:44:00
A continuation of my message about Archeopteryx
Further Coelurosaur like features of Archeopteryx:
Caudal Verterbra: >20, unfuse (birds have few fused into a pyrostyle)
Humerous: Few tubericles and crests (Birds have many)
Carpometacarpus: Complete joints and full no. of elements
(Brids have a reduced no. of elements and they are extensively
fused)
Teeth: Thecodont (Birds generally have none)
Palate: Theropod (Birds is Neognathous)
Occipital condyle and foramen magnum: Far above dorsal end of
quadrate (Birds: at base of skull)
Skull Openings:
Anteorbital: Present (Birds: absent)
External nostrals: Near tip of snout (Birds: Near eye)
External mandibular: Probably present (Present in
Coelurosaurs, Absent in Birds)
Factors Intermediate Between BIrds and Coelurosaurs:
Pelvis:
In BIrds: Elements fused together and to vertebral
column, with pubis rearward-projecting.
In Archeopteryx: Unfused, with pubis slightly
forward-projecting.
Coelurasaurs: Unfused and even more forward-projecting
Orbits: Birds: Large, incompletely surrounded by bone
Archeopteryx: Smaller, Bone surround probably complete
Coelurasaurs: Smallest: Bone surround complete
Braincase: Birds: greatly expanded, elements extensively fused
Archeopteryx: Moderately expanded. Fusion incomplete
Coelurasaurs: Not expanded, not fused.
THIS is the reason we say that Archeopteryx is a good intermediate between
birds and Coelurasaurs. Elements resembling both and with several
intermediate between the two. The amazing thing is that Creationists can
possibly contend that Archeopteryx is completely bird, since it shares by
far more features with Coelurasaurs. But then, they try to simplify it
all and just look at feathers.
Too bad that science isn't that simple.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 10
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Darrell Shoop
Subject: Re: Re: Evolution Vs. Cre
Date: 07 Jan 90 08:48:47
Creationism was explored on the scientfic level some 100+ years ago. At
that time, it was the accepted view of the origin of species. It was
rejected by scientists when Darwin published his book because Darwin
provided a better explaination.
I suggest you do some reading on the nature of science and expand your
reading beyond the ICR bulls**t you constantly quote. That is, if you
have a real interest in learning something.
By the way, can you present evidence of a creationist ever submitting a
grant proposal and having it turned down ONLY because it was a creationist
proposal? Names and dates to backup your claim.
Philip Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
PS There is NO scientific evidence to support creationism.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
MESSAGE: 11
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs Creation
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:19:00
The relevance of the fact that man can make functional proteins comes from
the fact that it is a reply to YOUR statement about the fact that man
can't (an incorrect statement, multiply refuted). First you (I believe it
was you, the messages are long since cleared) inquired as to how chance
could possibly create a functional protein when intelligent humans
couldn't. I was then pointed out that they could. YOu then asked some
question about how chance could create a functional protein if it took an
intelligence (or something like that, I can't remember the wording and as
it didn't make any logical sense to me I can't easily recreate it) at
which I pointed out what I saw to be a contradiction in your logic.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 12
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: creationism
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:23:00
I keep posting messages in response to questions you ask about evolution
and the resultant strings of logic coming from those questions. You then
keep attacking me as saying that these questions are not relevant. If the
aren't then don't bring them up but don't blame me for talking about what
you asked to talk about.
Are you losing track of your own conversations, am I loosing track or is
this some strange twisted strategy to drive me insane?
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 13
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: information theory
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:26:00
No doubt, thermodynamics is important at some basic level to information
theory. It is also important to chemistry and thus biology and thus
evolution, though not in the way that creationists keep trying to use it.
BUT the questions we are discussing are DIRECTLY those of thermodynamics,
not information theory (I do not believe). Thus, for that purpose,
information theory is not the relevant factor, thermodynamics is.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 14
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Schools
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:29:00
No, disproving evolution in and of itself is not the right way to
scientifically support creationism.
1) This would ONLY disprove evolution and not, in and of itself,
support creationism.
2) You have to have disprovable arguments for creationism as well.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 15
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: age of rocks
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:35:00
All rocks were not formed at the same time. The earth "forming as a piece"
would refer only to the total material not specific subforms (and wouldn't
be completely true even then).
Rocks are continually destroyed via erosion and subduction. Rocks are
continually formed via sedimentation and volcanism.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 16
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Various Questions
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:40:00
re eye development:
Just because a particular trait is advantagous doesn't mean it will
automatically develop - you have to have the right mutations, conditions,
etc.
(Evolution is not a directed process.) Also, maybe the particular eye
structure of goats hass a special advantage for goats. The statement
about the clearer vision was aimed at the specific question of how sharp
eyesight could have evolved and assumed we were talking about cases where
THAT is the advantagous thing.
Where did the clear focussing lens come from? Mutation.
re skethers: I don't believe that feathers are thought to be altered scales.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 17
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Questions
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:52:00
Evidence for reversals of the magnetic field can be seen, among other
places, in the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is growing
larger via seafloor spreading. As it grows, it pulls apart at the
mid-Adlantic ridge (a range of underwater mountains) and magma flows up to
fill the whole (thus creating the ridge). Now, the magma has iron in it
which has magnetic dipoles.
These dipoles tend to be aligned with the magnetic field of the earth when
the magma is fluid and freeze in place as the magma cools. Now, if you
look at the ocean floor you will find that the rock is older the farther
you get away, in either direction, from the midoceanic ridge (rock forms,
gets pulled away, new rock forms, etc). Now, if you look at the alignment
of the dipoles of iron in the ocean at various points, you will see a
clear pattern. The dipoles will be aligned in one direction at one point.
As you go either in or out from the ridge the alignment will get less
strong then disappear with the dipoles being randomly oriented. Then as
you continue moving along, the dipoles will align again IN THE OPPOSITE
DIRECTION. They will then unalign, realign in the opposite direction
again, over and over. This gives good evidence of the repeated reversal
of the earth's magnetic field.
Please, do not assume that ANYTHING getting bigger or stronger goes
against the 2nd law of thermo. If that was the case, no growth, energy
storage, etc. would be possible at all. Do you consider it a
contradiction to this law every time a breeze picks up?
re echinoderm and chordate embryos: Don't be so directional toward man.
Similarities between 2 organisms often indicates common ancestory (closer
relation between these two organisms than between either of them and a
third not sharing the similarities) NOT that one evolved from the other
(though that is the case in certain instances.)
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 18
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Probability
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:54:00
I believe that what Rick Ellis did in his statement about drawing cards in
a particular order was draw an analogy. (A somewhat sarcastic one.) What
he was saying waas not that creationists would or did contend this but
that, given creationist logic on similar questions, this is what a
creationist would conclude in this case (if he applied the same logic.)
You're reading "a creationist would say" too literally.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 19
FROM: Harlow Campbell
TO: Ozzie Stiffelman
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 06 Jan 90 21:49:00
I think your message went to the wrong person. I am no creationist .
* Origin: Kat(h)'s Meow (99% Seriousness Free!)(603)881-9741 (1:132/117)
MESSAGE: 20
FROM: Dan Singleton
TO: Marty Leipzig
Subject: Re: The Vanishing Case For Evolution Sci
Date: 03 Jan 90 23:21:00
(ML=>Not one single state funded University has a creationist in its
(ML=>science dept.
Provine of Cornell writes that "creationism should be taught along
with evolutionism in grade schools and high schools...in the science
classroom," because "creationism is a viable, understandable and plausible
theory for the creation point", although it is his "opinion that it is a
wrong theory." Stonehouse of Cambridge says that a recent creationist book
"may convince you...that there is more in the creationist argument than
scientists are generally willing to concede," and "that uncritical
acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive." Morrow, Thompson, and
Solomon have said similar things (which I can quote if you like)
(Alexander as well). Anderson and Kilbourn agree that at least "an
argument for teaching special-creation can be made." And I am pretty sure
that your above statement is inaccurate so could you give a source to
verify it?
* Origin: Good News! - Lawton, OK - (405)353-5129 (1:385/16.0)
MESSAGE: 21
FROM: David Barnes
TO: All
Subject: creation
Date: 07 Jan 90 18:20:33
It seems to me that all the arguments of creation seem to forget one
simple fact, we as people have grown. Our understanding has grown. We all
sit around and argue as to HOW it was done. We know it happened,can't deny
that point. Religion asks you to accept this fact as is and this would
satisfy some. Science trys to describe the events and those who are not as
adept at scientific lingo don't want to be removed from the group of those
"IN THE KNOW". I'm sure in the end all will agree that it is more than
either group can really just explain.
* Origin: Friendship Inn, Danville, Illinois (217) 443-1860 (1:233/6)
MESSAGE: 22
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Peter Lee
Subject: Evolution, continued...
Date: 09 Jan 90 12:46:20
A slight correction to my last response to you, viz:
Point 3: "Would that famous microbiologist be one Dr. Morris from the
Institute of Creation Research?".
Please insert "Dr. Gish" for "Dr. Morris". Seems that Dr. Gish is the
"Famous Microbiologist". Dr. Morris is the "Famous Hydraulic Engineer".
See, science IS self-correcting.
* Origin: The Edge -=[ Concepts With Integrity ]=- (Opus 1:106/9430)
MESSAGE: 23
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Creation
Date: 08 Jan 90 15:42:44
Hello, Pat.
200 years ago, scientists believed in phlogisten and the lumiferous
aether. New data and theory have shown why these are wrong.
Let's pretend I'm talking to a creationist, and he convinced me that
evolution is not possible. Now I'll accept any acceptable theory. All
the creationist has to do is show me evidence for creation. "What does
your theory state?" I'll ask him, and he'll say "That the earth and all
living things on it were created at about the same time." Then I'll ask
him "Wouldn't that mean that the number of species is decreasing, and that
all species living now have lived for the life of the earth?" He'll
(probably, if I understand creation correctly) say "Exactly!"
Then we'll happily go down to a library or something to look at data on
the fossil record. I'll ask him "Gee... how come humans weren't around 20
million years ago? How come mammals weren't around 60 million years ago?
Where did they come from?" The creationist will probably say "Err, well,
um...", or "Incorrect dating techniques!", or even "Foul! Fraud!"
200 years ago would be 1789. At that point, very little if anything
was known about the fossil record. Nature was still mostly a chaotic
system instead of one with regularities. Besides the bias toward
creation, there was very little evidence to point to something else.
It's pretty simple, actually. New data is found, old theories are
found to contradict the data, new theories take their place. And each new
theory is usually a closer approximation to reality.
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
MESSAGE: 24
FROM: Matt Glass
TO: Mike Pompura
Subject: now what
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:51:00
MP> Religion and politics....
MP> Everything is being discussed here BUT science.
MP> Somebody, wake me up...am I dreaming? I had this horrible nightmare
MP> that I was in the "SCIENCE" echo on my system, and I read nothing
MP> but endless gibberish about religion and politics.
There is most certainly a valid reason to discuss the creation issue on
this echo. I don't think anyone is laboring under the assumption that any
person on either side of the argument is going to be convinced to change
his mind; rather the point (in my opinion) is to make those who feel snug
and secure with the role of science in modern society aware of the fact
that science is under attack; not simply by bible-thumping luddites, but
by well-financed politically canny lobbyists, backed by (believe it or
not) LARGE groups of very vocal constituents who are not vulnerable to
persuasion based on logic, reason, or physical evidence. Like any group
desiring to make the most impact with the least effort, they realize that
reaching young people is the most effective method available. Their main
focus is to introduce creationist doctrine to elementary and middle school
classrooms in the guise of "science" textbooks. To ignore this very real
threat to our educational system is to concede to it. These people will
NOT go away simply because you dismiss them as religious fanatics. I
guarantee you that any politician would be committing political suicide by
not paying polite attention to everything they have to say (whether or not
he agrees with them.)
The mistake many people make in dismissing creationists is in thinking that
they are limited to a small group of barefoot hicks (some with computers)
who would never have believed in something as "absurd" as creation if only
they had a decent education. This isn't the case. While you might sneer at
the credentials of members of the ICR, for instance, or ridicule the
spelling in creationist posts on this echo, I'll assure you that there are
creationist proponents who are literate, well spoken, persuasive, and,
yes, intelligent, who can present very credible arguments to anyone,
including politicians and school board members, not equipped with the
scientific acumen necessary to refute them. Remember that most politicians
are lawyers, not scientists, and those credentials so easily dismissed by
some can look mighty impressive when presented with the proper pomp and
flourish. You don't have to fool all of the people all of the time; you
merely have to fool enough of the people enough of the time. Remember as
well, these people have the strength of their convictions; do not
underestimate the advantage this gives them. I doubt seriously that any
tobacco lobbyist would be able to bring tears to his eyes as he prays
before the local school board meeting for divine help in making the
"right" decisions.
Finally, do not forget the final arbiter in the matter; the general VOTING
public at large. "Skeptical" and "New Age" literature has done a great
deal to damage the credibility of science as far as many of these folks
are concerned. Unfortunately, in many many cases, skeptical publications
hypocritically do nothing more than ridicule opposing viewpoints without
presenting countering arguments that the average lay person can sympathise
with and understand. For that matter, while I enjoy reading James Hay's
posts, I don't have the physics, biology, or geology background necessary
to agree or disagree with his more esoteric arguments (it's been all I can
do to pursue a measly CS degree); the fact that I believe what he says is
a matter of faith on my part. I have faith in science even though I lack
the time (and inclination) to verify for myself everything I read. (Well,
before I open myself to a lot of criticism for using the word "faith", let
me clarify by saying I have faith in my own ability to see the truth and
make up my own mind even when I can't verbalize the exact reasons why I
feel the way I do. I trust my own intuitiveness.) On the other hand,
preachers and other proponents of creation have "built-in" credibility.
Would a PREACHER *LIE* to you? Hmmm. Who do you trust? Especially when you
know one person (the good reverend) on a day-to-day basis, while the other
person is a bearded long hair with a PhD and a name you don't recognize.
Arguments that simply ridicule creation are an instant turn-off to the
mass of people who are torn between the ideas they were instilled with as
children and the opposing ideas they've since aquired, or at least been
exposed to, as adults. Rational arguments which rely on some scientific
savvy may often simply sail over the heads of even intelligent people.
Confused, they fall back on the beliefs that they learned in Sunday
school. Hey, my preacher wouldn't LIE to me, would he? Hmmm.... Don't
underestimate the number of people who fall EXACTLY into this class,
either. Don't assume just because your next door neighbor can carry on an
intelligent discussion about the space shuttle that, for instance, if push
came to shove, he would vote on your side against a school board member who
vowed to introduce creation to the local classroom. Don't underestimate the
power of the average person to rationalize something he doesn't understand
into something he does understand, or worse, reject one thing he can't
understand for another thing he can't understand simply on the basis of
who is presenting these "things" to him.
To conclude (whew!):
1) Ridicule doesn't help the issue, especially when your opponent has more
credibility with the target audience. Moderate people will respond only to
moderate arguments.
2) Don't waste time patting yourself on the back for successfully defending
evolution in that last big debate. The other guy has dusted himself off,
and no-worse-for-the-wear, is taking a school board president and PTA
chairwoman to lunch tomorrow.
3) Don't underestimate the resources of your opponent. There are many more
closet creationists than you might believe. (Nope, NONE of them are
scientists, but TONS of them are on school boards.)
4) Don't assume that being correct gives you any sort of innate advantage.
It doesn't.
5) *DON'T ASSUME IT ISN'T YOUR PROBLEM*. It IS your problem. It's
everybody's problem. Don't assume the problem will go away by itself. It
will not.
Sorry to be so long winded. I still didn't say everything I had to say,
but this will do for now. :)
-- Endeavor to persevere.
Matt Glass (1:3612/812 | 777.2)
(Bix==pod) | (GEnie==matthewglass) | (UUCP==matthew@ingr)
* Origin: Mars Hotel (Quick 1:3612/777.2)
MESSAGE: 25
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 09 Jan 90 21:43:00
In a message to Paul Bijhouwer <01-05-90 12:13> Pat Goltz wrote:
> invitation to evolutionists to prove evolution. Actually, I
> extended an invitation to both sides to prove their point...
> I have seen a lot of messages from evolutionists
> attempting to do just that, and some of them make sense to
> me, and some don't. I saw few from creationist at first,
> but there have been more lately, and I am encouraged.
The messages I have seen from the creationist side have not attempted
to make a case for creation, but rather have tried to detract from
evolution, as if that by default would support creation. Have you seen
any that directly address a creationist model? You may netmail to me if
you wish.
* Origin: APPLEGATE South, QuickBBS'ing in Menasha, Wisc... (1:139/650.0)
MESSAGE: 26
FROM: Jonathan Rogers
TO: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
Subject: Re:the Creation And Evolu
Date: 09 Jan 90 08:41:51
For one thing, just to a little thing in here, Charles Darwin on his
deathbed refuted his theory of evolution so I don't think it has much
credibility if its founder says it's wrong. We creationists are not
trying to force a particular religion on anyone, the muslums may do
this as they believe the world MUST be muslum, but I can't see
personally how anyone can believe in evolution and God at the same
time, doesn't quite fit. Could you possibly explain to me why
evolutionists aren't necessarily atheist(in your views expressed in the
message I'm responding to)? Just curious....
* Origin: CATCOM -1- Aerospace Technology
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 30
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Scott Howard
Subject: Mutation
Date: 08 Jan 90 09:47:02
In a recent message, you said that if you take a tissue sample from a
human's intestine and successfully culture it, you would observe
certain things. I gather from what you say that you will observe that
certain mutations will show up, which is to say that you are observing
0-1 clusters of cells with an enhanced transport ability, by which I
gather you mean this is a beneficial mutation. Would that be correct?
Leaving aside your own description for a moment, which does not clearly
identify which cells are supposed to be mutated cells, it is my
understanding of the nature of things that if a cell mutates, it will
now be a genetic "foreigner". Would this be correct? And as such, it
would be subject to attack from the organism's immune system, would it
not? And if it were not so attacked, it might replicate, and that often
such replications are diagnosed as cancer, is that not correct? Could
you please explain this further?
You further state that there is a ratio of deleterious mutations to
helpful mutations of 1:1,000,000. That sounds plausible to me. Assuming
this is correct, and that many harmful mutations are incompatible with
life, what would be the odds that the organism would survive the
harmful ones long enough to propagate the beneficial ones (taking for
the sake of argument that we are talking about a gamete, here)?
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 31
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Scott Howard
Subject: Creation of proteins
Date: 08 Jan 90 09:58:38
In a recent message, you asked me to define life, and then you would
tell me if the peptide synthesizer can make it for me or not.
Well, that's kinda a tall order, but I'll try. It seems to me that we
don't observe life apart from the existence of an organism that is
alive. This means at a minimum, one cell. I would argue that
crystalline structures, which grow, are not alive, because they do not
excrete! Likewise, if one creates an amino acid, a peptide chain, etc.,
this structure, though it may reproduce, also does not excrete.
I would define life as any structure that does the things living
structures are supposed to do, including, but not limited to, eating,
excreting, reproducing, moving, etc.
Now, can you tell me if said peptide synthesizer can make a structure
that will do these things?
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 32
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Steve Muth
Subject: Evolutionary Tree
Date: 08 Jan 90 10:20:22
In a recent message you state that you usually skip my mail. Gee, it's
nice to know I am wanted!
Then you go on to respond to a message in which I asked about the
practical applications of research to construct the evolutionary tree.
Your message goes into more detail about the way in which the
evolutionary tree is constructed, specifically finding out what genes
tie different organisms together. "Why do we have more genes in common
with sheep than with pigs?" Etc. You then go on to discuss this awhile.
And then you state that the predictive value is that we assume we will
not find a sheep fossil in Pre-Cambrian strata. I would assume
likewise, BTW! That seems self-evident. As for the predictive value,
OK, fine, why don't we just dig up some Pre-Cambrian layers and SEE?
Either we will find sheep fossils or we will not. QED. Of what value is
it try to predict whether we will find them or not? What hinges on
knowing before we do the requisite digging? In other words, WHAT is the
PRACTICAL application of constructing the evolutionary tree? How does
it improve the quality of life? Does it contribute to better medical
treatments? Does it contribute to better quality food? What? Stating
that it helps one construct the evolutionary tree itself still leaves
unanswered my concern that we are just constructing this hypothetical
structure for its own sake. Do you see what I am getting at?
To you and James Hay: I would like to ask a question about homologous
structures. Homologous structures, as I understand them, are structures
that function similarly and have similar physiology and anatomy. Such
as an arm and a wing, which both arise from a shoulder, and move in a
particular way, though they are used for different purposes. Is this
correct, or am I painting them too broadly? OK, assuming we come to an
agreement in our definition of homologous structures, I have heard that
the genes that give rise to these structures are generally on vastly
different chromosomes in different species.
Is that correct? And if so, how does the existence of homologous
structures support evolution? If one organism is related to the other,
I would assume that the genes ought to be located on roughly the same
chromosome, in roughly the same place. The scrambling we are talking
about puzzles me.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 33
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Mike Bourne
Subject: handed molecules and time
Date: 08 Jan 90 10:31:55
Thank you very much for the recent information about the difference
between right handed and left handed thalidomide. I was not aware of
this, and it is really interesting! It casts a whole new light on
things for me. One of the questions that obviously arises is whether or
not if some of these molecules arise spontaneously, in both forms, this
does not throw a further stumbling block in the way of the evolution of
life!
I stated that I would post a couple of messages about the amount of
time it would take for all this development to take place. It seems
that we have to demonstrate that the earth is INDEED 3.5 to 4.5 billion
years old, for there to be sufficient time. Would you say that is the
concensus?
I have recently been reading about Mount St. Helens, and I would like
to ask you some questions about that. These questions are directed at
other persons as well. I read that when the mountain erupted, that
material came down the hillside and slopped into Spirit Lake, and
slopped the water out the other side approximately 860 feet up the
opposite hillside, denuding it of trees. Apparently the force of the
explosion had already stripped all the branches and foliage, leaving
bare trunks, which were then deposited in Spirit Lake, millions of
them, forming a large log mat taking up half the area of Spirit Lake,
or approximately two square miles. These logs then moved about on the
water, driven by wind, and rubbed against each other, stripping each
other of pieces of bark which then sank, and deposited themselves on
the bottom forming a bog. This bog has been observed by scuba divers.
One of them has theorized that if the mountain erupts again and
deposits more layers of some kind of material on top of this, the
requisite conditions for the formation of coal will exist. Further, it
is stated that coal can be formed rapidly in the laboratory, and it is
suggested that the requisite conditions in the bottom of the lake would
make rapid formation of coal possible. Do you know anything about this?
Does this seem plausible to you?
The second thing about Mount St. Helens I want to ask about is the mud flows.
I understand there were gigantic mud flows after the eruption, which
reshaped the headwaters of the Toutle River and of the canyon system.
Specifically, I have seen photographs of a new canyon that was formed,
which is about 60' deep.
The explanation accompanying the photographs said that mud flows carved
out this canyon in a single day. The sides of the canyon were examined,
and many layers which were on the order of millimeters thick were
found. They appeared to be layered in three regions. The bottom region
consisted of ash from the eruption, and as I recall, the other two were
each formed by deposits of mud, from two separate flows. They found
that mud flows in waves, and that this causes the layering. They were
able to attribute the entire structure to the recent eruption because
of the ash on the bottom. At the time they went there and found this,
the eruption had been in the recent past, which meant that these layers
formed in a matter of months. The structure was very similar to the
structure of layers commonly found in the Grand Canyon. Do you know
anything about this? What does the fact that these canyons formed so
quickly suggest to you? Thank you.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 34
FROM: George Erdel
TO: Robert Elzinga
Subject: Re: The Vanishing Case for Evolution Sci
Date: 09 Jan 90 17:25:00
You do not find the conservative voice trying to silence the liberals.
however when you see conservatives get onto mainstream media you hear
the cry come from far and wide that they shouldn't be given the
platform to express their facts from. You are half right in so far as
people being to the left of mainstream do think that they are right and
will not debate the facts, as evidenced by their personally attacking
the conservative rather than sticking to the facts or issues at hand.
A good example of this is the Strategic Defense Initiative. Many
conservative scientists give good hard evidence as to the feasability
of the project. They show that hardware is available TODAY to begin
implimenting the project. The liberals such as Carl Sagan and others of
his ILK criticize the people who support the project and not the project
itself. They do this in an attempt to draw attention away from the good
evidence of the otherside as well as away from the FACT that their
opposition has no legitimate foundation, thus their argument falls on
its lack of merits.
The personal attacks on their opponants is all that remains, like TEDDY
KENNEDYS label of STAR WARS. It was a clevar diversion and as far as those not
intelligent enough to see through it that is all that was necessary to convince
them that SDI is a bad program.
As far as debate changing either your beliefs or reinforcing them, you
must realize that NOT ALL QUESTIONS HAVE ANSWERS!!! There are some
things that the EDUCATED ONES may postulate on but can NEVER prove.
That is when a little faith comes in. In this particular area of
intrest (SCIENCE) it doesn't hurt to accept some things on faith. Some
things I know will NEVER be answered until GOD wants us to know the
answer. That is certain. The EDUCATED ONES may throw every theory
that they can but will never prove some things. I support spending
money on some of these things and I do enjoy the conversation that may
arise from their theorys, but until they are able to proove these things
they will continue to be labeled theory by myself.
* Origin: >>>>>>>>>>Radio Free Jacksonville * Echoes to go<<<<<<<<<< (1:112/8)
MESSAGE: 35
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: creationism
Date: 09 Jan 90 19:39:02
Okeydokey, I got our point about the molecules in the room illustrating
the difference between an improbability and an impossibility, but from
where I sit,
I consider it impossible.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 36
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Ozzie Stiffelman
Subject: Re: Blind Cave Fish, Etc.
Date: 09 Jan 90 19:50:33
You and at least one other person have commented that it is to the
advantage of a cave fish to be blind. Well, I'll take that one under
advisement. They didn't used to know what my appendix was good for, and
then they found a use for it. I imagine the blind cave fish is in the
same boat. Until he figures out what his eyes used to be good for, he's
pretty much in the dark.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 37
FROM: Trygve Lode
TO: Peter Lee
Subject: Re: EVOLUTION
Date: 09 Jan 90 22:39:50
You mention the "common sense" tenet that "order cannot come from
disorder"--while this may seem like common sense, it's really little
more than a misinterpretation of thermodynamics. The thermodynamic
principle that the entropy (degree of disorder) of a closed system will
never decrease only refers to the entropy of the entire closed
system--any portion of that closed system that is not itself a closed
system is free to become more ordered, so long as another part of the
closed system becomes less ordered. If this were not true,
refrigeration (a paradigm of decreasing entropy in one place while
increasing it elsewhere) would be impossible. Also consider the
formation of crystals, whether in the slow cooling of molten rock or in
a glass of dissolved sugar sitting on your kitchen counter--here we
have an extreme example to order (the crystal) forming for chaos (the
molten rock or sugar solution). Again, order increases locally while
disorder increases globally.
I've often heard the argument that the belief that human beings evolved
from inert matter is akin to the belief that, if a tornado blew through
a junkyard, it would, purely by chance, build a working 747. What this
argument fails to take into account is the very important fact that
evolution is a series of minute changes, most of which are
unsuccessful, of which only the ones that work are retained. My
favorite counter-argument for the 747 argument is to imagine that you
are holding a box of one thousand pennies and, each second, you shake
the box and check to see how many of the pennies have come up heads.
Now, to do this experiment until all the pennies have come up heads,
you'd have to be awfully patient--you'd expect to have to wait for
around 2^999 seconds before they'd all show up heads. (This works out
to be just over 10^293 years, which is around 10^278 times the expected
lifetime of the universe, give or take a factor of a hundred or so.)
Now, suppose instead that, after each shake of the box, you removed the
pennies that had come up heads and set them aside--after all, in a
rough way, this is what evolution does by letting the successuful
experiments survive and reproduce and the unsuccessful experiments
vanish with nary a trace. This time, to have all the pennies show up
heads, instead of waiting 10^278 times the lifetime of the universe,
you'd end up waiting only ten seconds.
That, I think you'll agree, is a pretty substantial difference. And
since the chemical "pennies" involved in evolution were being tossed
continually over much of the surface of the earth for billions of
years, it's almost inconceivable that complex life forms would not have
evolved.
* Origin: The Comm-Post - Denver - (303) 534-4646 Multi-Line HST/DS (104/666)
MESSAGE: 38
FROM: Trygve Lode
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: THE CREATION AND EVOLUTION MOD
Date: 09 Jan 90 23:22:41
Actually, I quite disagree with the notion that Atheism is a religious
faith. If I were to espouse a belief that the center of the milky way
galaxy is actually a cantelope that has been painted to look like an
accumulation of stars in the absense of any evidence to support my
claim, that would be faith.
If I were to assert that there's no reason to believe that the center
of the milky way galaxy is actually a cantelope, that would not be
faith. Despite the western tradition's acceptance of a belief in an
anthropomorphic supreme being, every theism I've heard of is logically
far more absurd than the canetelope theory of galactic centers and, as
such, a healthy disbelief in such theories until such time as evidence
is presented is not an act of faith.
* Origin: The Comm-Post - Denver - (303) 534-4646 Multi-Line HST/DS (104/666)
MESSAGE: 39
FROM: Trygve Lode
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: QUESTIONS
Date: 10 Jan 90 23:46:06
Fortunately, there's an abundance of evidence of a cyclic magnetic field
with polar wandering and reversal. Ferromagnetic materials have what
is known as a "Curie point"--a temperature that, when raised above it,
their magnetic fields are erased and, when allowed to cool below it,
their magnetic fields align with the external field. This means that a
given piece of material that contains iron or other ferromagnetic
material will store the direction and intensity of the magnetic field
present around it when it was last cooled below it's Curie point. Along
the mid-atlantic ridge, where major continental plates are drawing
apart and being formed (an effect which can and has been measured),
there are parallel bands of rock with cyclicly varying magnetic fields,
showing that as they were formed, the magnetic field of the earth was
varying, the location of the poles was changing, and the field
direction was occasionally even reversing. All other objects which had
been heated and can be dated (the remains of campfires, for example)
happen to agree with this, so the past behavior of the earth's magnetic
field is both well supported and well known.
* Origin: The Comm-Post - Denver - (303) 534-4646 Multi-Line HST/DS (104/666)
MESSAGE: 40
FROM: James Hay
TO: Joseph Landman
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 11 Jan 90 05:28:00
Watch out, you're getting rabid. :-) When I used the word "belief" in
the context of "I believe that feathers were not derived from scales",
this is NOT some statement of a preconceived notion prejudicing my
views. This meant that I seem to remember reading this but I can't
find the article or book right now to confirm it. Remember, "belief"
has more than one shade of meaning.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 41
FROM: Phil Nicholls
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Evolution V. Creation
Date: 09 Jan 90 22:22:20
I can only conclude that Gish will not debate in front of a scientific
audience because he never HAS, despite given the opportunity to do so
several times at meetings of the AAAS (American Advancement for the
Advancement of Science). The AAAS has held several forums to discuss
the claims of scientific creationism and no one, NO ONE from the ICR
has ever shown up to present their evidence.
As to the ICR bibliography, the publications it lists (I have a copy of
it too) are not published in peer reviewed journals nor were they
presented at scientific meetings. That is how you communicate new
information in science. You might accuss biology of being biased in
the area of journals, but anyone can present a paper at a meeting if
they are a member of the society/association holding the meeting.
During the 1982 trial of a creationist law in Arkansas, creationists
failed to present a single paper that had been presented to a
scientific journal and rejected, FOR ANY REASON.
I submit that scientific creationism is an oxymoron. I submit that
those who advocate scientific creationism are not interested in
science. I submit that their agenda is political. I suggest, Pat, that
if you ar really interested in evolution, that you read beyond the ICR
crap or works by know-nothings like Michael Denton. Try going to you
average university library and looking at the journals. Try the
following:
EVOLUTION
Journal of Human Evolution
Evolutionary Theory
Brain Behavior and Evolutio
Journal of Molecular Evolution
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Current Anthropology
Quarterly Review of Biology
American Naturalist
These and other journals present state of the art science.
Thank You
Philip Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State Unviersity
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort(415-359-6036)Pacifica CA. (125/190) (Opus
1:125/190)
MESSAGE: 42
FROM: Scott Howard
TO: Greg Hansen
Subject: Re: Amino Acids
Date: 09 Jan 90 07:06:38
Both amino acids are fairly small molecules and it is no big deal for
them to be formed by themselves. Its very easy to reconstruct the same
kind of events in a flask, if you put some simple compounds and zap
them with UV or X-Rays. Meteorites in our solar system are usually one
of two types, one of them being composed of mostly carbon, so there's
the source of the carbon. Ammonia and sulfates are extremely common in
ices around the solar system, so there's the other component of the
system... The solar environment is a great place to catch rays, so
there's the energy input to drive the reactions.
There has been a broiling debate in the Journal 'Nature' for the last
three years concerning whether terrestrial amino acids were formed from
the energy of heat at thermal vents or from atmospheric forces
(lightning) and UV light.
* Origin: Welcome to Avalon... A Service of the CUMUG (1:233/14)
MESSAGE: 43
FROM: Jean Nance
TO: Jayce Wharton
Subject: Evolution
Date: 10 Jan 90 17:14:56
I have not seen anyone here who seems to have faulty and pseudoscience
ideas about evolution. I see many who have obviously studied it at
length. I see some who have a good enough grasp of it to make accurate
statements. You don't need to name names, but what kind of statements
indicate that a person is defending evolution without understanding it?
* Origin: SigBio Opus (217) 333-9660 Urbana, IL USA (Opus 1:233/4)
MESSAGE: 44
FROM: Jack Kilmon
TO: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
Subject: Re: Re: Evolution Vs. Cre
Date: 11 Jan 90 19:41:29
Maybe Dwayn Gish submitted a grant proposal to search the European peat
bogs for a well preserved fire-breathing dragon so he could prove that
they were really the same dinosaurs that left their footprints in the
Paluxy riverbed. You remember, the ones that used the bombadier beetle
mechanism for fire-breathing? Now why would a proposal like that get
turned down? It HAS to be a conspiracy of the evil, atheist,
satan-taught evolutionists to keep such scientific breakthroughs from
reaching the classrooms of America.
* Origin: -=[ SoundingBoard of Houston (713)821-4148 HST ]=- (Opus 1:106/12)
MESSAGE: 45
FROM: Peh Lee
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Scientists who publish
Date: 08 Jan 90 13:18:52
Re: Creation scientists' work
>I have noticed one tendency among scientists that bothers me a lot,
>and that is the tendency to jump to conclusions.
But when we are talking about the validity of that so call creation
`science', we are talking about bunch of bulls here.
A entire new field that was formed by a collection of legendary tales,
with absolutely no prove, should be subjected to intense criticisms.
But no, the supporters of the creation `science' argue that thet've got
the prove, and it was the BIBLE that lead them into believing the
existence of Noah's arc, universe being created within 7 days, craps
that don't hold water, among others.
How can one be subjectively neutral in argument like that. To remain
our supposing neutral posture in this debate is to gave up ground we
fight so hard to achieve.
I, for one will never yield to forces that never talk in terms of
logic. Never!
Peh Lee
* Origin: The Political Arena -- Dallas, Tx. (1:124/3100.0)
MESSAGE: 46
FROM: Brad Moffat
TO: Larry Mcgee
Subject: Creation and evolution
Date: 08 Jan 90 21:45:18
In a message dated 03-Jan-90, you argue that there is always a tiny probability
that all the molecules of a gas can be found in only one half of the room.
It seems that you have missed James Hay's problem. A similar example to
yours may clarify. Take a cube with an edge length of 10 units. Start
tossing in gas molecules with an average diameter of 1 unit. I believe
he was suggesting that sooner or later, *assuming* some particle
interaction, the box will be sufficiently full as to require more than
half the box to contain all the particles at any time. A full box of
steel ball bearings will never fit into half the box with just random
shaking at room temperature.
I think he needs you to tell him why this line of reasoning doesn't
work for gases.
* Origin: PComm #D1: 167/1 : Montreal : 514/989-9450 (1:167/1.0)
MESSAGE: 48
FROM: Jon Guthrie
TO: Greg Hansen
Subject: Re: Amino Acids
Date: 10 Jan 90 20:26:39
>In Science News (June 10, 1989, p356) I just finished reading about
>amino acids in meteorites, and what it means for the theory of a
>meteor striking the earth and causing mass extinctions.
>The acids are isovaline and alpha-aminoisobutyric acid.
>What I'd like to know is, what are these amino acids and what do
>they do?
Amino acids are molecules that are parts of proteins. They don't do a
whole lot of anything by themselves.
>How are they formed?
Depends. Are you talking about the extraterrestrial amino acids or
terrestrial amino acids. Some living organisms produce their own amino
acids naturally. However, amino acids can be formed by random chemical
reactions in the presence of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.
>Are they produced terrestially?
Yes.
>And most important, what the heck are they doing in a meteorite!
They were probably in the gas cloud that the formed the meteorite.
Amino acids have been detected in extrastellar gas clouds by radio
astronomers.
> (I wonder how this would affect creationists saying "Amino acids
>are only made by by 'intelligent design', not by 'random chance'"?)
Kind of makes them look silly. (Actually, I've never heard any
creationist claiming that amino acids could not be formed by random
chance. Especially since amino acids have been formed in controlled
experiments purely by random chance.)
* Origin: SCI's Revenge - Winning the Battle Against ntEorpy! (1:226/70.2)
MESSAGE: 49
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Eric Haas
Subject: Re: Various Questions
Date: 10 Jan 90 11:43:16
Thanks for the info re feathers, scales, etc. Although biologically
scales may not consist of bone tissue (I realized they didn't), they
are bony in consistency, and that's what I was referring to. Sorry to
be imprecise.
Archaeopteryx had scales on its body? That's interesting. Can you
provide me a reference for that? Thanks.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 50
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Dee Lamzaki
Subject: Re: Blind Cave Fish, Etc.
Date: 10 Jan 90 11:58:12
Last night my daughter was telling me that blind cave fish do indeed
have primitive eyes, and can see light and dark. I don't know if she is
correct. Does anybody out there know?
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 51
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Greg Hansen
Subject: Re: Amino Acids
Date: 10 Jan 90 12:11:08
There's a third possibility about amino acids. The design could be one
order of magnitude removed. In other words, the universe was set up to
manufacture certain simple ones. That puts it beyond the realm of
chance, but also beyond the realm of direct design. And it would also
explain why meteorites have amino acids in them sometimes. And then
there is another possibility: that there is life elsewhere in the
universe. Lots of possibilities come to mind. Don't be too narrow in
your thinking, and in suggesting possible explanations.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 52
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Rick Moen @ 914/207
Subject: Re: Re: Evolution Vs. Cre
Date: 10 Jan 90 12:16:05
I agree with you. I have never bought the argument that it's like that
because God made it that way (i.e. for example, that the universe is
young because God made the starlight in between), or any similar
argument. If someone wants to tell me God made it that way, I want to
know WHY.
It does disturb me when people like Morris make careless statements
that lump REAL and APPARENT geological difficulties together. He MUST
address the REAL geological difficulties, and he must refute the
apparent ones, but in no way are they comparable.
Thanks for your message. It was helpful.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 53
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: My sources and evidences
Date: 12 Jan 90 05:11:00
The cycles I mentioned for rock are not going to cause isotopes to go
into igneous rocks and screw up the dating, we are talking about cycles
that effect the actual formation of new rocks not a diffusion of
factors into pre-existing rocks.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 54
FROM: Joseph Landman
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs Creation
Date: 10 Jan 90 14:57:00
Pat,
You amaze me. You in previous messages seem to fight for an unbiased
approach to argumentation and exposition, yet you write in exactly the
oppposite fashion, asking questions then muttering your opionions under
your breath (in a manner of speaking..). eg
pg> adding elements not likely present...
etc
For shame Pat, for shame...
* Origin: -=< The Lansing Forum >=- (1:159/500)
MESSAGE: 55
FROM: Joseph Landman
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: creationism
Date: 10 Jan 90 15:19:00
Interesting note. I must assume that you know 0 about probability or
Statistical Mechanics.
Well, I Do know something about them.
PG> It strikes me that you are demnonstrating the inapplicability of
PG> probability...
[stuff delete]
PG> In spite of the probablility considerations
[well you do contradict yourself only 2 lines apart]
I will quote no more to save bandwidth.
I am glad that "you can agree". I am of the opinion that you have NEVER
seriously undertaken a study of the 2 aforementioned topics, and I must
conclude that you CANNOT render any opinion that may be of any
consequence as a result.
The relation of air molecules suddenly jumping to one side of the room
was an argument brought forth in the 1890's by Ludwig Boltzman, to
illustrate the PROBABILISTICE NATURE OF AGGREGATES OF PARTICLES. The
primordial soup had MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TIME AND NUMBERS OF MOLECULES
WITHIN IT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FORMATION OF REPLICATING STRUCTURES!!!
For example,
a simple calculation
t(primordial) ~ 10^9 years (eg thats the primord soup lasted
for about 1 billion years or more)
t(interaction) ~ the interaction time for objects in a fluid
to make or break bonds is on the order of 10^-6
seconds.
the number of paritcles in the soup N ~ 10^30
Using these VERY crude numbers, and knowing that there are about
31*10^6 seconds in a year one finds that there were about
31*10^12 interactions per yewar per molecule.
Also, there were about 31*10^42 total interactions per year,
and about 31*10^51 total interactions between molecules during the
10^9 years using this VERY naive model.
Saying that the RIGHT combination of molecules COULD not happen after so
darned many interactions is complete and utter hogwash. Even If my
order of magnitude is down 10^10 (there is NO possibility that it could
be that low) the number of intereactions is staggering, and the
probability is STILL THERE!!.
This model is very naive, and there is evidence to suggest that I am
LOW by 3 orders of magnitude. (fluid interactions take nanoseconds, no
microseconds, but I gave it time to diffuse and move around a bit)
Stating your opinion that you do not "believe" X, just means that you
nor the people who gave you this information really have thought the
problem thru very carefully.
Please give more careful consideration before you spout nonsense in the
future.
* Origin: -=< The Lansing Forum >=- (1:159/500)
MESSAGE: 56
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Mutation
Date: 12 Jan 90 20:57:00
Most mutations that a cell would undergo would not trigger an immune
system response. FIrstly, it would have to be a mutation that actually
made a change in the phenotype of a cell, not a neutral one. Then, the
mutation would have to cause a change in some molecule exposed to the
outside of the cell and thus to the immune system. Then the change
would have to be substantial enough to cause a reaction. This
certainly happens, but not with most mutations.
Cancer is UNRESTRAINED cell replication - not replication of a mutated
cell. Normally, there are mechanisms which limit the replication of
cells, based on, among other factors, contact inhibition. (DIrect
contact with other cells inhibits replication of the cell.) Cancers
cells have lost these restraints.
Since gamete mutations are the ones that will pass on mutations to
children and since gametes mutations don't effect the parent organisms
survival, only VERY early mutations would have any effect on both
survival and what was passed on to the child.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 57
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Creation of proteins
Date: 12 Jan 90 21:01:00
"We don't observe life apart from the existence of an organism that is
alive." "I would define life as any structure that does the things
living structures are supposed to do..."
Hmmmm....I don't think we are going to get very far with these
definition.
Now, with regards to the more specific requirements: "eating, excreting,
reproducing, moving, etc...." This we can look at. They raise the
question: do you believe that viruses are alive? Viruses have long
been one of THE hard cases in defining life. They don't eat or
excrete; they only move passively.
About all they DO do is attach to cells and replicate.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 58
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Tree
Date: 12 Jan 90 21:03:00
Actually, homologous structures would tend to be on similar
chromosomes, though it must be remembered that chromosome
rearrangements do happen - a piece breaking off and either inverting or
attaching to another chromosome - so there ARE going to be many cases
of genes for homologous structures being on different chromosomes.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 59
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Creation
Date: 12 Jan 90 21:13:00
Ah, but in the scientific community there ISN'T a controversy over
whether evolution occured. There ARE those who still support
creationism, yes, but there are people who still support a flat earth
as well.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 60
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Life
Date: 12 Jan 90 21:14:00
YOu [sic] seem willing to admit that there is no special "mechanism" to
cause sunlight to do the work entailed in weather, so why must there be
some special mechanism in evolution and the origin of life?
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 61
FROM: James Hay
TO: Brad Moffat
Subject: Re: Creation and evolution
Date: 12 Jan 90 21:25:00
I think you need to recheck my postings. The question of gas molecules
all going to one side of a room has NOTHING to do with your example of
a box completely packed with ball bearings because a room, assumed at 1
atm - not stated but everyone seems to have assumed this up to now - is
nowhere near fully packed. All those gas molecules will easily fit
into half as much space.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 62
FROM: Graham Kendall
TO: John Thompson
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 04 Jan 90 00:40:05
The January(Feb?)1990 issue of Scientific American had a good
discussion of left/right problems in nature including the problem of
amino acids and life evolution. Certain clays have preferences of
left/right in absorbing amino acids(nitrogen bases) in their matrix.
* Origin: MOTE PRIME,918'836-6308 TULSA OK 7:771/204 (Opus 7:771/204)
MESSAGE: 63
FROM: Scott Howard
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Creation of proteins
Date: 12 Jan 90 07:57:26
Wait a minute, you didn't define life! Machines can do everything you
mentioned- they excrete, consume energy, move, and reproduce.
Here's the list of proteins you wanted anyway:
excretion: Kdp A, Kdp B
Energy Consumption: Gln B
Move: Fla A-G, Che B, Y, M, Mot A-C
Reproduce: Pol A, etc...
All of these proteins have been made de novo without the use of any
biological sources.
Cells are subject to the same principles of chemistry as are wood,
paper, rocks, and your Automobile. There is no divine spark. Hence, you
can easily synthesize proteins using known chemical principles. If you
don't believe this, you can access the Brookhaven Database from almost
any University or Industrial Research Concern and see for yourself. If
you require further evidence, visit a University Library, and consult
Lenniger's Biochemistry, Lewin's Genes IV, and Watson's Molecular
Biology of the Gene. Once you have digested the principles in those
books, then consult Cantor's Three Volume Series on Biophysical
Chemistry, Richardson's Principles of Protein Structure, and see if can
get ahold of the public domain protein modeling program, pdV.
* Origin: Welcome to Avalon... A Service of the CUMUG (1:233/14)
MESSAGE: 64
FROM: Scott Howard
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Mutation
Date: 12 Jan 90 08:10:27
1) I gave the tissue sample example only as an easily reproducible
example that made definite, testable, predictions. Your interjection
of the immune system into the argument is spurious. The cell lines I
mentioned are not in the body any longer. Assuming that we do somehow
put these cells back in the human though, the immune system of that
person would still recognize those cells- that is why tumors often
escape detection by the body. The determination of self vs non-self
is made on the basis of the gene expression of a narrowly limited set
of genes expressed and located on the cell's surface called The Major
and Minor Histocompatibilty Complex Genes.
* Origin: Welcome to Avalon... A Service of the CUMUG (1:233/14)
MESSAGE: 65
FROM: Scott Howard
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Mutation
Date: 12 Jan 90 08:29:38
2) Organisms get around the deleterious effects of mutation in a number
of ways. The Multicelluar organisms producing gametes employ the
following strategies:
a) Multiple Copies of the same gene
b) Multiple Sets of Chromosomes
In case a gene takes a hit, there will be
functional copies left.
c) Overproduction of Sperm and Oocytes
In case the first two strategies don't work,
the organisms produce an overwhelming number of
potential offspring to circumvent the effects
of deleterious mutations. At least some of the
offspring will be viable.
Recent studies have also indicated that the copy number of certain genes
critical for celluar function is adapted in response to mutation as
well. If one of these genes becomes non-functional,the cell notes the
drop in the number of functional copies of this protein and responds by
duplicating the remaining good copies of the gene and supressing
expression of the bad copies.
* Origin: Welcome to Avalon... A Service of the CUMUG (1:233/14)
MESSAGE: 66
FROM: Jean Nance
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Mutation
Date: 12 Jan 90 19:13:43
What is a "harmful" mutation and what is a "helpful" one depends on the
situation. Actually, most "harmful" mutations are not lethal. They
merely make the organism slightly less able to survive in its present
environment. We probably all carry a good load of these, as do all
animals and plants, but we survive anyway. Then if there is a distinct
change in the envirnoment: temperature, what plants are available to
eat, what predators are after us, what prey is available, and a host of
other factors, then one of these "harmful" mutations may turn out to be
"helpful".
* Origin: SigBio Opus (217) 333-9660 Urbana, IL USA (Opus 1:233/4)
MESSAGE: 67
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Bibliography
Date: 12 Jan 90 14:23:00
What follows is a bibliography of books relating to the "Evolution vs.
Creation" issue. Most of this list was originally posted on this echo
on 25-Mar-89 by Jerry Lewis. I have added a couple more refernces that
I have found enlightening.
Brooks, Daniel and Wiley, E. O., Evolution as Entropy: Toward a
Unified Theory of Biology, University of Chicago Press, 1986,
ISBN 0-226-07581-8.
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for
Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, Norton, 1986, H-
$18.95, ISBN 0-393-02216-1; 1987, P-$7.95, ISBN 0-393-30448-5.
Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at
Creationism, Washington Square Press, 1982, P-$3.95, ISBN
0-671-53141-7.
Frye, Roland M., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case against
Creation-science, Scribner's, 1983, P-text edition by Macmillan,
ISBN 0-02-339560-5.
Futuyma, Douglas J., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution,
Pantheon Books, 1982, H-$16.00, ISBN 0-394-52371-7; P-$8.95, ISBN
0-394-70679-X.
Godfrey, Laurie R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W.
Norton, 1983, P-$8.95, ISBN 0-393-30154-0.
Hanson, Robert, ed., Science and Creation: Geological,
Theological and Educational Perspectives, Macmillan Publishing
Co., 1985, H-$24.95, ISBN 0-02-949870-8.
Kitcher, Phillip, Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism,
The MIT Press, 1982, P-$8.95, ISBN 0-262-61037-X.
LaFollette, Marcel, Creationism, Science and the Law: The
Arkansas Case, MIT Press, 1983, P-$11.95, ISBN 0-262-62041-3.
McGowan, Chris, In the Beginning: A Scientist Shows Why the
Creationists Are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, P-$12.95, ISBN
0-87975-240-8.
Montagu, Ashley, ed., Science and Creationism, Oxford University
Press, 1984, H-$35.00, ISBN 0-19-503252-7; P-$13.95, ISBN
0-19-503253-5.
National Research Council, Science and Creationism: A View from
the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, 1984,
P-$4.00, ISBN 0-309-03440-X.
Newell, Norman D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality?
Columbia University Press, 1982, H-$25.00, ISBN 0-231-05348-7;
Praeger, 1984, P-$9.95, ISBN 0-275-91792-4.
Pastner, Stephen and William Haviland, eds., Confronting the
Creationists, American Anthropological Association, 1982, H-
$6.00, ISBN 0-317-66352-6.
Ruse, Michael, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution
Controversies, Benjamin-Cummings, 1982, P-$24.95, ISBN
0-201-06273-9.
Ruse, Michael, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in
the Evolution-Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, 1988, H-
$23.95, ISBN 0-87975-439-7.
Strahler, Arthur N., Science and Earth History: The
Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, 1987, H-$39.95,
ISBN 0-87975-414-1.
Walker, K. R., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy,
University of Tennessee, Dept. of Geological Sciences, n.d., P-
$6.50, ISBN 0-9131377-00-5.
Wilson, David B., ed., Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Iowa
State University Press, 1983, P-$14.95, ISBN 0-8138-0434-5.
Zetterberg, J. Peter ed., Evolution vs. Creationism: The Public
Education Controversy, Oryx Press, 1983, ISBN 0-89774-061-0.
I hope you find this useful (and not too overwhelming :-) )
* Origin: APPLEGATE South, QuickBBS'ing in Menasha, Wisc... (1:139/650.0)
MESSAGE: 68
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Radiometric Dating
Date: 12 Jan 90 14:27:00
I have found an excellent article on radiometric dating techniques, the
assumptions and theory behind them, and their application to finding
the age of the earth. See if you can find Brush, Stephen G., "Finding
the Age of the Earth", Journal of Geology Education, vol. 30, no. 1
(January 1982). It is quite well written, very comprehnsive, and
directly addresses many of the issues that have been brought up here
recently concerning the topic of radiometric dating and the age of the
earth.
* Origin: APPLEGATE South, QuickBBS'ing in Menasha, Wisc... (1:139/650.0)
MESSAGE: 69
FROM: Jonathan Rogers
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 11 Jan 90 17:30:32
I'd love to see you or anyone else DISPROVE creation? It's not I who
needs to prove my beliefs, its you evolutionists. PROVE to me that life
evolved and that the universe originated through some kind of cosmic
Big Bang and I'll quickly dismiss my belief in Creation. Untill then I
am standing firm beside my belief.(Not you all I've not mentioned God
expect right there). So anyone willing to prove that a divine being
didn't create the universe and all life on earth? I'll be looking
forward to your submission of new evidence to support your theory and
disprove mine, if that's possible. However, as I've not too long ago
been in High School and had a couple science classes along the way I
find the presentation of evolution as FACT extremely disturbing, they
say it's a theory but then attempt to pass it off as fact. All I ask is
that both "theories" be given equal reprentation so students can make
up their own minds from there. The way science classes are now students
are presented with only one side to the origin of life and the
universe. That's my point...
* Origin: CATCOM -1- Aerospace Technology documentation. And I agree with you that disproving
PG> evolution does not prove creation. However, so far no
PG> one has suggested what appears to be a viable
PG> third explanation.
There doesn't need to be a third opton. In science as one hypothesis is
disproven, not everything about the hypothesis needs to be discarded.
Merely those parts which are no longer consistent with the experiemntal
data. Instead of being discarded, it is modified to make a better
model. 'Evolution' today is not the same as it was 50 years ago and
will be different later. Original portions such as gradualism have been
modified to take into account evidence for catastrophic influences. All
of these modifications continue as part of the concept of 'evolution'.
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort--Pacifica CA 415-359-6036(1:125/190.0)
MESSAGE: 71
FROM: Larry McGee
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Mutation
Date: 12 Jan 90 06:15:56
PG> You further state that there is a ratio of
PG> deleterious mutations to helpful mutations of
PG> 1:1,000,000. That sounds plausible to me. Assuming
PG> this is correct, and that many harmful mutations are
PG> incompatible with life, what would be the odds that
PG> the organism would survive the harmful ones long
PG> enough to propagate the beneficial ones (taking for
PG> the sake of argument that we are talking about a
You have this ratio reversed. The harmful mutations are far more
numerous than no-effect mutations which in turn are more numerous than
beneficial mutations. As for surviving harmful mutations, they don't.
The idea in a cell culture is to 'select' for mutations. A colony of
millions or billions of cells is treated with a mutating agent. On the
average there is only one mutation per individual. Those that are
harmful mutations fail to grow.
Those with neutral and beneficial mutations grow. These are then
selected and moved to different growth conditions where the beneficial
mutations can be selected.
In practice, the harmful mutations can also be selected in certain
cases. If an organism is able to grow on a 'minimal' culture medium,
i.e. it can make all its own amino acids, nucleic acids, co-factors
etc. If a mutation occurs that blocks one of these pathways, then that
would be harmful IF the cell is in a minimal medium. If however the
missing component is provided to the medium then the cell can continue
to grow. By examining the differences between these deficient cells and
the original viable strain, the enzymes that are important in various
life processes have been discovered.
Back in nature, a mutation which blocks a particular biosynthetic
pathway, might be beneficial to the organism if that organism gets the
product of that pathway anyway from its normal food supply. The
metabolic energy of the organism can be redirected towards those things
that are limiting its growth.
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort--Pacifica CA 415-359-6036(1:125/190.0)
MESSAGE: 72
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Trygve Lode
Subject: entropy
Date: 11 Jan 90 12:44:42
In response to your comments about evolution and the attempt to obtain all
heads in a box of pennies:
You say that thermodynamics merely requires that the entropy increase
in the overall system, but this is actually the wrong application of
thermodynamics here. What we are talking about is NOT the available of
energy to do work, but the availability of INFORMATION. Thus,
information theory comes into play, and the laws of thermodynamics
definitely apply. You cannot obtain MORE information at the end of the
process; only less. The obtaining of less information at the receiving
end is caused by entropy. In order to convey all of the information,
the message must be redundant. But there is NO process in information
theory for generating MORE information, or MORE COMPLEX information on
the receiving end from the information sent out.
The structure of living organisms is governed by information in the
form of DNA code. The ability of a complex living organism to develop
is dependent on the information contained in its DNA. If a given living
organism has a particular set of DNA, and its offspring is supposedly
more complex, this means that the parent offspring conveyed more
information to the offspring than it had itself. This is clearly
impossible under information theory. In order for the pennies to come
up heads, they have to HAVE heads. If they do not have heads, it is
impossible for them to come up heads, and probability has nothing to do
with it. In the case of evolution, unless the trait is PRESENT, it
cannot be passed on. The question then becomes just how efficient
mutation is in producing favorable new traits. This is the subject
under discussion. Can mutation produce a SUBSTANTIVE difference in
structure and function? So far people have offered many examples of
MINOR changes in structure, but I have seen none of MAJOR changes of
structure or function except the statement that Archaeopteryx had both
feathers and scales. This is why I suggested that we make a list of
just which traits have been observed to have come out of mutations.
It is important in making said list that only those traits that result
from mutation, and NOT natural selection (i.e. the peppered moth color)
be included in the list.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 73
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Trygve Lode
Subject: Re: THE CREATION AND EVOLUTION MOD
Date: 11 Jan 90 12:54:06
I see that you are defining "faith" as belief in the absurd. By our
current definitions.
Thus, it is quite possible for a creationist to state that evolution
must be taken on faith, and who are we to argue with him?
Ultimately, even science requires faith. I must BELIEVE that an electron
exists, because I have never seen one. I must BELIEVE that the light
will come on when I flip the switch or I won't bother. In spite of the
fact that sometimes when I flip the switch, the bulb is burned out, or
the power is off.
I can increase the likelihood that my belief is correct by attempting
to take into account the evidence available to me, but ultimately, it
requires belief just the same. I can always opt to believe that the
universe is a figment of my imagination! It seems more logical to me
not to make this assumption, but a native of India might not agree with
me.
I think it is time for us to admit that no matter how many pieces of
evidence we gather scientifically, the INTERPRETATIONS we put on the
evidence involve an element of belief. To claim otherwise is to be less
than honest.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 74
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Jon Guthrie
Subject: Re: information theory
Date: 11 Jan 90 13:06:43
Two comments:
Evolutionists are claiming that earth is an OPEN system, taking in
sunlight. Why do you say it is a CLOSED system?
If the DNA does not contain information, then where does the genetic
information come from? It was my understanding that the DNA IS the
genetic information.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 75
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Various Topics
Date: 12 Jan 90 23:56:08
> It would be very helpful to me if
> you would prepare a bibliography of the 20-30 most useful
> books in terms of refuting creationism. Feel free to include
> books that are out of print; I customarily buy most of
> my books used. In the meantime, I shall endeavor to locate
> said books in the library, time permitting, and study them.
Just to save James a little time, I'll refresh your memory with that
list of books I just mentioned. Unfortunately, I can't comply with
your wish for books that "refute creationism." None that I know of do
that. What these books do is demonstrate that SciCre is _not_ science.
----------
What follows is a bibliography of books concerned with fringe science
and the paranormal that present the scientific point of view. I'll be
distributing a laser-printed version (very spiffy looking) to all the
librarians in the North Texas area. Please feel free to distribute this
electronic version to anyone who might be interested. It is in the
public domain.
-- James Rusk
Scientists Confront Pseudoscience
A Bibliography [Abridged for SciCre topicality -- the complete file is
available by F'Req from CNS BBS. WRE]
Distributed by: North Texas Skeptics P.O. Box 22 Arlington, TX
76004-0022 (214) 264-0640
Spring, 1989
Creationism
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution
Reveals a Universe Without Design, Norton, 1986, H-$18.95, ISBN
0-393-02216-1; 1987, P-$7.95, ISBN 0-393-30448-5.
Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,
Washington Square Press, 1982, P-$3.95, ISBN 0-671-53141-7.
Frye, Roland M., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case against
Creation-science, Scribner's, 1983, P-text edition by Macmillan, ISBN
0-02-339560-5.
Futuyma, Douglas J., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, Pantheon
Books, 1982, H-$16.00, ISBN 0-394-52371-7; P-$8.95, ISBN 0-394-70679-X.
Godfrey, Laurie R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton,
1983, P-$8.95, ISBN 0-393-30154-0.
Hanson, Robert, ed., Science and Creation: Geological, Theological and
Educational Perspectives, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1985, H-$24.95, ISBN
0-02-949870-8.
Kitcher, Phillip, Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism, The
MIT Press, 1982, P-$8.95, ISBN 0-262-61037-X.
LaFollette, Marcel, Creationism, Science and the Law: The Arkansas
Case, MIT Press, 1983, P-$11.95, ISBN 0-262-62041-3.
McGowan, Chris, In the Beginning: A Scientist Shows Why the
Creationists Are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, P-$12.95, ISBN
0-87975-240-8.
Montagu, Ashley, ed., Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press,
1984, H-$35.00, ISBN 0-19-503252-7; P-$13.95, ISBN 0-19-503253-5.
National Research Council, Science and Creationism: A View from the
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, 1984, P-$4.00,
ISBN 0-309-03440-X. Newell, Norman D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or
Reality? Columbia University
Press, 1982, H-$25.00, ISBN 0-231-05348-7; Praeger, 1984, P-$9.95, ISBN
0-275-91792-4.
Pastner, Stephen and William Haviland, eds., Confronting the
Creationists, American Anthropological Association, 1982, H-$6.00, ISBN
0-317-66352-6.
Ruse, Michael, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution
Controversies, Benjamin-Cummings, 1982, P-$24.95, ISBN 0-201-06273-9.
Ruse, Michael, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the
Evolution-Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, 1988, H-$23.95, ISBN
0-87975-439-7.
Strahler, Arthur N., Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation
Controversy, Prometheus Books, 1987, H-$39.95, ISBN 0-87975-414-1.
Walker, K. R., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy, University of
Tennessee, Dept. of Geological Sciences, n.d., P-$6.50, ISBN 0-9131377-00-5.
Wilson, David B., ed., Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Iowa State
University Press, 1983, P-$14.95, ISBN 0-8138-0434-5.
--------------
> I will admit that it is possible that I am simply not informed.
> In fact, it is quite likely.
> Or, to give another
> example, we have the case of the eye. Someone said that
> an organism with a sharply focusing lens will tend to survive
> over one with a fuzzy focusing lens. Well, my knowledge
> of lenses, eyes, and cameras, tells me that it is not just
> the lens that results in a sharp image. The iris is very
> much of a part of this, because when it shuts down, I get
> greater depth of field.
Pat, one of your earlier comments fits in neatly here.
> I will admit that it is possible that I am simply not informed.
> In fact, it is quite likely.
"Sharpness" is interpreted as "resolution," and any optical maven will
tell you that small apertures result in loss of resolution due to
diffraction. For any real-world lens there will be an optimum aperture
which maximizes resolution (also is noted by the high value in an MTF
analysis). The shape of the iris is not of particular significance.
For perfect lenses, the shape of an iris makes no difference whatever,
except for contributing diffraction degradation and one or two other
minor optical esoterica (nothing on the order of diffraction, anyway).
In living systems, the need for irises is very much reduced from the
necessity in camera systems. Why? Neurons _accommodate_.
> My own eye focuses better in bright
> light than dim. If I grant for the sake of argument that
> cells sensitive to light can at some point become transparent
> and the structure capable of changing shape to focus, then
> I still need an iris, and I am not aware of an organism
> with a proto-iris. Are you?
You mean a currently living species? I don't know of one personally. Of
course, I probably have only encountered the briefest descriptions of
perhaps, at most, one-half of one percent of all living species. There
are lots more extinct species. Irises, whether proto- or otherwise,
are soft tissue structures not likely to be fossilized for our
convenience.
Of course, I have been a student and researcher in life sciences for
only perhaps 11 years of my life. It is easy for me to admit ignorance
when it is true. I don't know of a critter with a "proto-iris." But
I'll point out that just because I haven't found one (I wasn't looking)
and you haven't found one (I don't think you're looking either, since
you don't believe it exists), is not a proof of non-existence.
By the way, if you are noticing a difference in perceived sharpness
with light level, it is time for you to see an optometrist or
ophthalmalogist.
> The point is, I find people on both
> sides of the fence on this: either the changes from parent
> to daughter are very large (hopeful monsters) or they are
> very small. Well, which is it? That is the nature of my
> question.
Genotypic changes range from single-locus changes to pleioploidy.
Single-locus changes can cause large phenotypic changes, moderate
phenotypic changes, or no phenotypic changes at all. Pleioploidy can
cause from moderate to large phenotypic changes. Certain small
phenotypic changes can nevertheless cause a population to be
reproductively isolated from the parent stock, causing speciation.
Certain fairly large changes may not.
The point is, change comes in all flavors and sizes. There is no
universally applicable dichotomy to apply to the problem, much though
it appears that you would wish it. The nature of your question is such
that I must throw it back, since it exceeds the nonsequitur limit.
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
MESSAGE: 76
FROM: Rick Moen @ 914/207
TO: Marty Leipzig
Subject: Re: The Vanishing Case Fo
Date: 12 Jan 90 16:49:19
> Hello, Dan...
> The quote came from testimony in the Louisiana "Balanced Treatment"
> trial back in '86, during cross examination. I don't have the exact
> quote at hand, but will leave it in a later message.
> BTW, you cite 5 or 6 who tangentially seem to support Creationism
> taught alongside evolution. Interesting, but no less than 72 Nobel
> prize winners (representing some 24 diverse scientific organizations),
> filed a brief as friends of the court in this very trial to which I
> refer. It stated: "Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science
> (Creationism) is detrimental
> to scientific education:It sets up a false conflict between science
> and religion and misleads our youth about the nature of scientific
> inquiry". Note, these 72 were American Nobel Prize winners from the
> U.S. This is the largest group of Nobel laureates ever to support a
> single statement on any subject.
This brief, a wonderfully cogent, informative, and well-written
document, was compiled and distributed among the signatory scientists by
the Southern California Skeptics. Paperbound copies are available for
a reasonable price (something like $10) from SCS, P.O. Box 7000-39,
Redondo Beach, CA 90277.
-- Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
MESSAGE: 77
FROM: Jack Kilmon
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Scientists who publish
Date: 13 Jan 90 17:30:02
"By defintion, exactly *ZERO* scientists are creationists" is certainly
an accurate statement. If it is "dogmatic," reason demands it. I
wouldn't think that "exactly *ZERO* capitalists are communists" would
be dogmatic or "zero trees are aardvarks" or "zero terrorists are
moral".
Evolution is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution is a reasoned
set of propositions, based on the evidence, to explain the mechanisms
of the FACT of evolution. One cannot be a scientist and accept ancient
middle eastern cosmogenic myths as scientific facts.
* Origin: -=[ SoundingBoard of Houston (713)821-4148 HST ]=- (Opus 1:106/12)
MESSAGE: 78
FROM: Jack Kilmon
TO: Phil Nicholls
Subject: Re: Evolution V. Creation
Date: 13 Jan 90 17:49:22
Actually, Phil, Gish DID debate before a scientific audience ONCE.
He debated Thwaites and Awbrey at San Diego State in 1978 on his
ridiculous bombadier beetle model. Gish claims that the mixture of
Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone (which produces the noxious exudate
from the beetle) is explosive and that complex inhibitors of the
explosion could not be developed by adaptation over time. The
scientists mixed the two ingredients at the debate and formed a brown
goop....no explosion!
Gish, embarrasingly claimed he must have mistranslated a German paper.
In 1980, Gish, who had admitted the error of this folly, was STILL
using this ridiculous argument in his "debates" before non-scientific
audiences. He also claims that the fire-breathing "dragons" of
medieval folklore were probably dinosaurs that use this bombadier
beetle mechanism for their fire-breathing. If, as you say, he no
longer debates before scientific audiences, I can certainly understand
it.
* Origin: -=[ SoundingBoard of Houston (713)821-4148 HST ]=- (Opus 1:106/12)
MESSAGE: 79
FROM: Jayce Wharton
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: The Beginning of the Universe.
Date: 12 Jan 90 11:06:24
True, many people debate the age of the universe. They usually have
faulty scientific evidence to try and support what the Bible states.
The Bible is incorrect in many scientific aspects. But this does not
necessarily mean that a God does not exist. Personally, I must say that
I am curious about whether such an entity is possible. I would like to
research that as a new field of science. At the moment, evidence does
not support creation by an intelligence.
You obviously do believe in the existence of a Designer/Creator. If you
will, answer the following questions. They are serious, sincere
questions I am curious about.
First, why do some people discard scientific evidence if something in
the Bible disagrees with it?
Second, why does the possibility that the universe and Earth were not
designed by an intelligence upset some people, rather than making them
think and want to expand their knowledge of the universe?
Third, if Science discovered the method by which a Universe is created
in a Superspace, and it did not include the possibility of a
Designer/Creator, how would you feel? (If the proof were absolute)
* Origin: Dawn Patrol "380 Net Host/Echo Coord 14.4 HST" (Opus 1:380/0)
MESSAGE: 80
FROM: Jayce Wharton
TO: Jean Nance
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 12 Jan 90 14:34:48
True, many here are familiar with the theory of evolution.
Others merely jumped in to support it, without being able to discuss
it. This lead to many wasteful messages.
---
* Origin: Dawn Patrol "380 Net Host/Echo Coord 14.4 HST" (Opus 1:380/0)
MESSAGE: 81
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Phil Nicholls
Subject: Re: Evolution V. Creation
Date: 12 Jan 90 11:41:01
Half your list of suitable publications that you submitted in your
message to me were CLEARLY slanted toward evolution. What about the
other half?
Are you SURE you have the same bibliography I do? The one I have has a
number of papers that were originally given at conferences, and the
majority are what would appear at least on the surface to be from
refereed journals. Is there a difference between that and peer review
journals? Would you say that a peer review journal is nothing more than
a bastion of majority opinion which is designed to stifle dissent?
I would like to see a collection of rejection slips, too, but I am also
mindful of what in law one would call "a chilling effect", whereby a
person fails to do an act because it has been discouraged in a very
real way, and the person sees no percentage in pursuing what is almost
sure to be a futile act.
I have uploaded a list of the journals in the bibliography of ICR
faculty that I have, to Larry McGee. He said he would make it available
as a file, but if you like, I can netmail you the list directly: it
takes up two messages.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 82
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: age of rocks
Date: 12 Jan 90 11:56:15
Although rocks are continually being formed, they are being formed FROM
material that has been here since the earth was formed, and therefore
the material is the same age as the earth. I do not understand what it
is about the FORMATION in its present state that makes a rock a
different age from the earth. Would you please enlighten me?
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 83
FROM: John Tender
TO: Gerard Weatherby
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 11 Jan 90 23:55:34
GW> petty. On the other hand, a God that could script the laws of
GW> nature such that, from a single clump of stuff, earth and life
GW> and us could evolve in Saganish 'billions and billions' of
GW> years later is far more impressive to me, at least. I think
But the laws of nature are probabilistic, not deterministic. There is
no way to plan the evolutionary development for any system over a long
span of time; there are inevitably many opportunities for chance to
divert it.
* Origin: NSS BSS - Ad Astra: To the Stars (412) 366-5208 1:129/104
MESSAGE: 84
FROM: James Hay
TO: Rod Alan
Subject: Re: Balances in Nature
Date: 14 Jan 90 07:14:00
Is entropy involved in the way that nature is always trying to balance?
Not really. Equilibriums have their own mathematics quite independent
of thermodynamics though, of course, many equalibriums do involve
thermodynamics.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 85
FROM: James Hay
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 14 Jan 90 07:30:00
You didn't understand what I was asking. I did not ask that
creationists DISPROVE creationism - that would be rather self
defeating, would it not - but that they show that their ideas are
DISPROVABLE. Big difference.
You see, in science, nothing can be truely proven (beyond maybe the
fact that there is a table sitting here, etc.) The best that you can
do is show that your idea is consistent with all observations and that
the consequences of your observation are also consistent with all
observations. On the other hand, you can disprove things by showing
that they are NOT consistent with observation. (You can't prove that
something is true because there might always be some other idea that is
ALSO consistent with all observations. But you can eliminate
possibilities.)
Now, because of the above logic, and so that it is possible to choose
between scientific theories, one of the requirements for some
hypothesis or theory to be considered scientific is that is is
POTENTIALLY disprovable, i.e. there is some observation which, if made,
would be inconsistent with the hypothesis and thus disprove it.
Evolution is disprovable in many ways, for instance, if all the
different methods of giving phylogenies were to come up with different
ones: physiologically chickens were more closely related to robins than
wolverines but biochemically they were more closely related to the latter, etc.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT EVOLUTION IS DISPROVEN, again, to show what a
theory was disproven would hardly be a way to support it. In fact,
there various possibilities of disproof have never panned out;
evolution has been shown to be consistent with observation.
Now, in order to have creationism considered a science, and thus
teachable in science classes, creationists need to come up with
possible disproofs of creationism: some sort of observations that would
be inconsistent with their "theory". They have yet to do so to my
knowledge. (Of course, if they came up with potential disproofs and
one panned out, i.e. they actually disproved creationism, then it would
be discarded and not taught in classrooms either, just as we don't
teach flat earth science. In point of fact, the creationism expoused
by earlier scientists back in the 19th century and earlier, is
considered to have been disproven which is one reason why evolution is
the accepted theory today.)
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 86
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: entropy
Date: 14 Jan 90 16:28:00
You seem to keep mixing info theory and thermo but we'll get around
that. Is there any rule that says you can't convey more info in a
smaller message than what you start with? If not, you haven't said
anything new about evolution and thermo. You still have to consider
the entire system and over the entire system the living organism is
part of the total amount of info HAS DECREASED.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 87
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re:the Creation And Evolu
Date: 13 Jan 90 20:52:37
> For one thing, just to a little thing in here, Charles Darwin on his
> deathbed refuted his theory of evolution so I don't think it has much
> credibility if its founder says it's wrong. We creationists are not
> trying to force a particular religion on anyone, the muslums may do
> this as they believe the world MUST be muslum, but I can't see
> personally how anyone can believe in evolution and God at the same
> time, doesn't quite fit. Could you possibly explain to me why
> evolutionists aren't necessarily atheist(in your views expressed in
> the message I'm responding to)? Just curious....
Darwin did not refute or recant his theory on his deathbed. This is a
lie. Darwin was upset that he did not solve the problem of the source
of variation.
I have seen this in ICR propaganda. If I say that Dwane Gish wears
womens underwear, it has no more validity (well.....).
This echo is for the discussion of science and not the discussion of
religion. Most religions have come to terms with evolution. Only a
small percentage of fundementalist christians insist on trying to pass
of their own literalist interpretation of the bible as science.
Claiming that those that accept evolution are atheist is an expression
of religious intolerence.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
MESSAGE: 88
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: N
Date: 13 Jan 90 21:03:34
> Thank you for a good message. But it needs some documentation. And I
> agree with you that disproving evolution does not prove creation.
> However, so far no one has suggested what appears to be a viable
> third explanation.
> If so many gaps have been filled, howcum all I hear discussed is
> Archaeopteryx?
Cuffey, Roger J. "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution,"
1984 IN _Science and Creationism_, Ashley Montague,
editor, Oxford University Press.
In this article, Cuffey examines the paleontological literature and
produces some 120 references documenting the existence of transitional
fossils. These include successive transitional individuals grading
continuously between successive species within the same higher taxon,
crossing from one taxon to another, and within the same higher taxon.
It is an impressive list. The problem is that creationists tend to
change their definition of transitional.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
MESSAGE: 89
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Jack Kilmon
Subject: Re: Re: Evolution Vs. Cre
Date: 13 Jan 90 21:08:06
I run a local Creationism/Evolution board on my home system. Just
recently, our lone creationists brought up the Paluxy mantracks. Bad
arguements never die, it seems, they are just recycled by people who
don't know better (catch the "Darwin refuted evolution on his
deathbed..." above? These folks need to take a course in critical
thinking. Then again, that might lead them to question fundementalism)
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
MESSAGE: 90
FROM: Eric Haas
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Various Questions
Date: 15 Jan 90 01:33:00
For info on Archaeopteryx, try "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution".
I don't remember the author's name right off hand, if you remind me,
I'll find it for you.
* Origin: MATCHPICK BBS CLUB. MT.WINANS,MD **685-0790** (1:261/1037)
MESSAGE: 91
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Chemical Reactions
Date: 13 Jan 90 21:22:35
I'm sorry, Pat. I neglected to mention this in my last message to you
because I thought it was so obvious it's not worth mentioning, but then
I thought it might be worth it.
One thing that a lot of people don't seem to understand when they're
talking "intelligent design" is that a lot of chemical reactions do not
require any kind of intervention; they happen spontaneously. For
instance, if you have a peice of pottasium in an evacuated chamber and
let flourine flow in, you would get a very violent and very obvious
reaction. The only "intelligent design" going on in this experiment is
setting it up so that it can be observed clearly and dramatically. A
slower example would be rust. If metal is exposed to oxygen for any
length of time, it rusts. You don't need intelligent design to set it
up, it just happens when an oxygen atom collides with an iron atom.
Salt is another example, and I'm sure you can think of many more.
The way this ties in to entropy is that each such reaction releases a
certain amount of energy. The total energy (in the form of chemical
potential energy) is lowered. You could seperate them, but that would
require even more energy than was released.
Another thing is the "randomness" some people are talking about. If
you have a container with hydrogen and oxygen and spark it, you will
get water every time. Not hydrogen peroxide (HO2), not hydrogen
monoxide (HO, and I don't know if it even exists). You will get H2O
every single time. This is because chemical systems aren't really
random.
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
MESSAGE: 92
FROM: Eric Haas
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: entropy
Date: 15 Jan 90 01:58:00
First, you can't separate changes due to natural selection and
mutation. Mutation makes the change available, natural selection
determines which changes are viable.
Secondly, evolutionary changes often take place by first finding a new
function for an old structure, then by "streamlining" the old
structure for its new function through a series of small changes.
* Origin: MATCHPICK BBS CLUB. MT.WINANS,MD **685-0790** (1:261/1037)
MESSAGE: 93
FROM: Eric Haas
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: magnetic field of the earth
Date: 15 Jan 90 02:02:00
The Earth has a magnetic field BECAUSE it has a molten core. It is the
churning of the Earth's molten core that generates its magnetic field.
When the core eventually cools and solidifies, it will be left with a
weak remnent of the original magnetic field.
* Origin: MATCHPICK BBS CLUB. MT.WINANS,MD **685-0790** (1:261/1037)
MESSAGE: 94
FROM: Graham Kendall
TO: All
Subject: Darwin
Date: 13 Jan 90 22:38:48
There is a story widely repeated that Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
There is a book called "The Survival of Charles Darwin" where his
daughter denied that such an event ever took place as she was there at
the time. Even if it had happened then it would not affect the
scientific facts supporting his theory and the modern improvements to
it. It would have the same effect as Newton recanting his theory of
gravity on his deathbed, if such a thing had happened.
* Origin: The GUNNER'S MATE: 918-838-1615 (Alternet) (7:771/201.0)
MESSAGE: 95
FROM: Graham Kendall
TO: All
Subject: Creationism
Date: 13 Jan 90 22:39:35
A creation scientist named Gentry claimed that he has evidence that the
world is young based upon the study of haloes of radiation damage in
rocks around radioactive specks.
In the Journal of Geological Education within the last year is an
article showing that Gentry used very poor geological methods when he
tried to prove that his haloes were found in "God's original rocks" in
the Canadian shield. The geologist showed that the rocks Gentry, who is
a physicist, not a geologist, chose were later rocks in the area
geology. Gentry made a scientific blunder somewhat earlier when he
produced faulty evidence for very heavy, previously unknown, elements.
His claims for a young earth are a reflection of religious faith, not
scientific evidence. Read some standard geology professional journals to
see how the real professionals approach their subjects. There is a world
of difference in the two approaches. The success of the modern
geologists show that their approach has validity. Gentry appeared for
the state in the Arkansas creation trial and evwentually lost his job
with the government atomic lab he previously worked for.
* Origin: The GUNNER'S MATE: 918-838-1615 (Alternet) (7:771/201.0)
MESSAGE: 96
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Graham Kendall
Subject: Stereochemistry
Date: 14 Jan 90 15:04:25
> The January(Feb?)1990 issue of Scientific American had
> a good discussion of left/right problems in nature including
> the problem of amino acids and life evolution. Certain
> clays have preferences of left/right in absorbing amino
> acids(nitrogen bases) in their matrix.
I haven't read that issue, but I do remember that Richard Dawkins in
"The Blind Watchmaker" developed a scenario around that phenomenon to
suggest a possible sequence of events that could give rise to
self-replicating molecules. At first I thought that he was was using
clay crystals as an analogy for what might occur in organic compounds,
but toward the end it became evident that he thinks clay may have been
directly involved in the emergence of life! I'm not sure I buy this; I
find Sidney Fox's work with proteinoid sphericules more convincing in
explaining the emergence of life.
* Origin: Homebuilt Flyer (Opus 1:139/600)
MESSAGE: 97
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: entropy
Date: 14 Jan 90 15:18:46
> ... this is the wrong application of thermodynamics here. What we
> are talking about is NOT the available of energy to do
> work, but the availability of INFORMATION. Thus, information
> theory comes into play, and the laws of thermodynamics
> definitely apply. You cannot obtain MORE information at
> the end of the process; only less. The obtaining of less
> information at the receiving end is caused by entropy.
Thermodynamics does indeed apply in these cases; unfortunately, you do
not seem to understand quite how to apply it. The famous 2nd law
requires (as has been said so many times before) that entropy inrease
IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. If the system is open to energy (as the earth
certainly is) entropy may increase, decrease, or stay the same,
depending on just what is going on in the system.
Thermodynamically, there is no problem in accounting for the increase in
information content due to evolutionary change. You might like to read
"Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics" by Stanley Freske in Creation/Evolution,
Issue 4, (spring 1981).
* Origin: Homebuilt Flyer (Opus 1:139/600)
MESSAGE: 98
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Evolutionary arguements
Date: 14 Jan 90 15:32:43
> I daresay that
> the arguments offered by ICR are far more sophisticated
> than what was believed in Darwin's time. Wouldn't that be
> correct? The explanations may be FALSE, but they are NOT
> what people rejected in Darwin's time.
To a depressingly large extent, that is NOT true. You might do well to
spend some time reading "Origin of Species" and other contemporary
works to see for yourself that ICR continues to recycle the same tired
arguements to an audience (like yourself) that doesn't know any better.
* Origin: Homebuilt Flyer (Opus 1:139/600)
MESSAGE: 99
FROM: Master Sauron
TO: All
Subject: Re: RE: EVOLUTION VS. CREATIO
Date: 13 Jan 90 17:16:00
The "evidence" presented by the creatinsits is very weak, mostly they
rely on attacking evolution and then that somehow "proves" their point.
The lack of government funds to support creationism has little of
nothing to do with the level of evidence for creationism. If anything
creationism has had a several thousand year headstart on evolution and
also has the financial backing of the Vatican!
The reason that there is little evidence for creationism is not related
to the funding, but rather that there is no evidence to be found that
will stand up to serious scientific inquiry. We *HAVE* explored
creationism - it's a dead end - it doesn't work - people that believe
in it have more faith than good sense!
* Origin: Deltona Lakes BBS * Deltona, Fl * HST * (407) 574-9246 (1:363/59)
MESSAGE: 100
FROM: John Tender
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: the Creation And Evolu
Date: 14 Jan 90 01:20:41
JR> For one thing, just to a little thing in here, Charles Darwin
JR> on his deathbed refuted his theory of evolution so I don't
JR> think it has much credibility if its founder says it's wrong.
The theory of evolution was not accepted based on the "credibility" or
credentials of Charles Darwin, but on the basis that it logically
explained a great deal of observed data. Whether what you relate is
true or not, it makes no difference; a theory ultimately stands on its
own merits, not on the credentials or beliefs of its progenitor. You
seem to be under the impression that science shares the same flimsy
foundations as a religion (i.e. the unquestioning acceptance of an
authority), but it doesn't.
* Origin: NSS BSS - Ad Astra: To the Stars (412) 366-5208 1:129/104
MESSAGE: 101
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: age of rocks
Date: 15 Jan 90 05:09:00
The material may be of the same age as the earth, but then, if you want
to think about it that way, much of the material in the universe is the
same age.
The important factor is that when you are dating something like rock,
it is the age of the rock AS A ROCK that you are measuring. This is
because when radiometric dating a particular section or piece of rock,
you are looking at the ratios of various isotopes of compound, and
break down products of compounds and the proportions are going to be
specific for that particular rock. Otherwise you'd have to date then
entire earth at once and you'd only get one sample.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 102
FROM: James Hay
TO: Ozzie Stiffelman
Subject: Re: Age Of Rocks
Date: 15 Jan 90 05:17:00
You do radiometric dating based on the ratios of various isotopes of the
substance you are using and the amounts of the various breakdown
products of that substance. Now the initial amounts of the substances
involved are going to be different and the amount of breakdown are
going to be different, depending on when and how the rock was formed.
For instance, if you have a certain type of rock which always forms
with a certain percentage of some compound with radioactive isotopes,
then no matter what time the rock was formed it will have, say, .01%
uranium. Well, if the rock was formed 3 billion years ago, the
radioactive isotopes of uranium are going to have had more time to brak
down than if the rock was only formed 100 million years ago. Thus you
willhave lower amounts of the radioactive isotopes and larger amounts
of the breakdown products of radioactive isotopes in the older rocks.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 103
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Joseph Landman
Subject: Re: Re: Evolution Vs. Cre
Date: 14 Jan 90 19:44:33
Don't get upset. I was merely pointing out that words have different
meanings in different contexts and that even dictionaries may over more
than one definition. I don't think there is any disagreement here.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
MESSAGE: 104
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: age of rocks
Date: 15 Jan 90 09:25:00
In a message to James Hay <01-12-90 11:56> Pat Goltz wrote:
PG> Although rocks are continually being formed, they are
PG> being formed FROM material that has been here since the
PG> earth was formed, and therefore the material is the same
PG> age as the earth. I do not understand what it is about the
PG> FORMATION in its present state that makes a rock a
PG> different age from the earth. Would you please enlighten
PG> me?
While rock is in the molten state (magma) material is free to diffuse
throughout the fluid. Any radioactive breakdown products (for example)
will not necessarily stay close to their point of origin, and therefore
cannot be used to date magma. Once the magma has solidified, any
subsequent radioactive decay products will be retained WHERE THEY ARE
FORMED and can safely be assumed to be the result of particular decay
sequences. Dating the rock then becomes a matter of measuring relative
amounts of isotopes, determining primordial ratios, and from that
calculating the age. It should be noted that consistant ages have been
determined in this way using several decay sequences, and in some cases
have even been correlated with KNOWN historical dates, e.g. volcanic
eruptions in historical times. The process is very reliable when done
properly; I hope you will read the article I suggested in the Journal of
Geological Education on "Finding the Age of the Earth" (vol. 30, no. 1;
Jan. 1982).
* Origin: APPLEGATE - a Quick(er)BBS in Appleton, Wisc. (1:139/630)
MESSAGE: 105
FROM: Jim Lemke
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 15 Jan 90 13:51:00
In a message to James Hay <01-11-90 17:30> Jonathan Rogers wrote:
JR> I'd love to see you or anyone else DISPROVE creation?...
Well, I'm not really interested in disproving creation...something
happened! What I would like to know is what is it that you would
consider proof of evolution? Being mentioned in the Bible? Happening
in your backyard or even to your sister? I have the feeling that you
will not accept proof when you see it. Galileo had what now seems to
be pretty solid proof of a solar centered solar system but it took a
long time to be accepted.
When you demand proof, be sure to allow facts from beyond a small
teleological system.
* Origin: Al's Cabin in Milford, PA (717)-686-3037 *[HST]* *[SDS]* (1:13/75.0)
