Area: Evolution Msg: #284 Date: 101994 14:15 (Public) To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: Our +quot;

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Area: Evolution Msg: #284 Date: 10-19-94 14:15 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: Our "discussion" ------------------------------------ Today, at long last, you finally respond. I note that you sent me a series of posts titled "Larry's pegs" in both Evolution and HolySmoke. I also note that you posted to all in Evolution that I had misrepresented you by posting an InterNet talk.origins criticism of one of your quotes. I further note that in a message to someone else, you claim that you were not receiving mail in Evolution. If that is true, then you missed most of my factual criticisms and may have only seen my HolySmoke posts leaning more to criticism of your character. To get our "discussion" back on track, I will summarize it from my perspective and repost 6 previous messages to you under the subject "Repost". I will make an identical set of posts in both Evolution and HolySmoke in hopes that you receive them somewhere. You are free to reply in either forum. First to your charge that the talk.origin post is a form of cheep shot. Maybe you are right. I did not follow the specifics of the originating thread and I am not prepared to argue what your intention was with the specific quote in question. I accept full responsibility for any misrepresentation I may have caused by my uncritical reposting. I have plenty of issues that I am more familiar with that I wish to pursue with you and I am most interested to see how willing YOU are to accept responsibility for YOUR posts. Now let's review. In July, I questioned you on the 2nd law of thermodynamics in HolySmoke [HS]. While I don't remember personally receiving your reply, I captured a post about it from Karl Lembke that I sent to you once before without response. I repost that in this packet as "Repost 1". Please address the issues he raises. On 9-9 I sent you a series of posts in HS asking you to define "abrupt" as it pertains to the geological record, commenting on "Baramins" and showing that Gish appears to be inconsistent it explaining the concept, questioning you on your source and understanding of Popper's philosophy position, and asking you to backup your assertation that "many" scientists "completely abandon" evolution. Why did you wait till today to address some of these in your "Larry's pegs" series? Why did you not reply to each of these 9-9 issues? Shall I refresh your memory on the details? On 9-15, after you repeated your assertations in Evolution [Evo], I challenged you in Evo again on Popper, as well as Nilsson, mosaics, claimed scientific suppression, and began to question your sources as you were presenting reference quotes AS IF you personally did the research work and should stand accountable for any deliberate misrepresentation. I can repost those messages if you like but the following are much more specific. On 9-21 I made several posts to you in Evo including a question on why we should expect "thousands" of transitional fossil series and a wise crack asking if the dropping of horse series displays falsify evolution as you suggest, then did the ICR dropping of their mantrack display falsify creation. Repost available on request. On that date I asked you a bunch of specific questions designed to determine if you did the research work implied by your choice of quotes to support your conclusions. That I repost today as "Repost 2". I also questioned the motivation of one of your quote sources, Sunderland, and I believe, showed that his objectivity was questionable. I repost as "Repost 3". Lastly, I suggested that your Patterson quote in your closing summary of your criticism of evolution was a gross misrepresentation and was still being deliberately promoted by creationists. That is "Repost 4". Please respond to these posts. On 9-24 in Evo, I reaccused you of plagiarism. That I post as Repost 5. Please respond. On 10-7 and 10-8 I posted to you in HS, accusing you of being a hypocrite regarding Sunderland and showing how your Grasse quote was most likely a deliberate misrepresentation. Did you receive them? If so, why did you not reply or ask what they were about if you were truely not getting the Evo mail where they were explained? Again I can repost these if requested as the Grasse item is particularly telling. In reviewing my file on you, I see that David Bloomberg posted on 9-23 in Evo a reply to you from Ms Hunt in response to your criticisms. I repost that as "Repost 6", assuming that since you most likely did not see it, you would be interested. I post this one purely as an information service, and while in my limited understanding, I tend to believe that she has also correctly "pegged" you, I am not prepared to defend it in detail. Now, I ask you specifically, did you do all the research implied by your quotes? Is not taking credit for the work of others a form of stealing? If a quote or quotes is submitted as support of a conclusion other than that intended by the author, is that not a deliberate misreprentation? Are not deliberate misreprentations, lies? Is it ok to steal and lie in the service of your god? Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * Choosy modemers choose GIF --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Area: Evolution Msg: #285 Date: 10-19-94 12:17 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: Repost 1 ------------------------------------ Area # 233 HOLYSMOKE 07-12-94 17:14 Message # 642 From : KARL LEMBKE To : ARTHUR BIELE Subj : "CONCEDE THIS ???" 2/2 -=> Quoting Arthur Biele to Larry Sites <=- AB> What is needed is an engine, a converting mechanism, some sort of AB> coupling mechanism that will convert the negative entropy associated AB> with energy flow into negative entropy associated with configurational AB> entropy and the corresponding information. This is the problem the AB> second law presents to evolution. Until such an engine is found, AB> evolution is in violation of the second law. Actually, "coupling mechanisms" are not that hard to come across. The energy that runs a water wheel, for example, comes indirectly from the sun. The heat evaporates water from the surface of the ocean. The vapor rises into the atmosphere, moves around a bit, and condenses as rain. If the rain falls on a mountain top, the water will run downhill, converting potential energy to kinetic, all the way down. What has happened is that energy has gone from the sun, into the water vapor, and then been re-radiated out to space as heat, released when the water condenses. The increased potential energy of the water flowing down the mountain is energy that was extracted from the difference between the energy density of the sunlight and the energy density of the infra-red light radiating back into space. Thus, water acts as a conversion mechanism to turn heat into mechanical energy. Any other case where a substance changes phase can act similarly as a conversion mechanism. Furthermore, we don't even need changes in phase. Wind is driven by the difference in temperature over different parts of the globe. Heat energy is converted into kinetic energy, capable of running a windmill, pushing a boat across the water, or moving sand from place to place. Many chemical reactions will store energy at one temperature, and release it under other conditions. This is because the equilibrium constant for many reactions will shift with temperature. The mechanism for this shift may not be clear (or it may be very clear -- to a physical chemist!), but it is an observed property of the reaction. Once energy is trapped in one molecule, it can transfer to other molecules to drive further reactions. In living things, this coupling of reactions is called "metabolism". All of these are mechanisms by which heat energy from the sun is diverted and made to do other work on its way from the sun to outer space. AB> According to renowned Information Theory expert & evolutionist AB> Hubert Yockey: AB> " An uninvited guest (Schroedinger, 1955; du Nouy,1947; Prigogine, AB> and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz, AB> 1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life AB> and evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is AB> the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the AB> universe which it predicts. The universe should in every way go AB> from states which are less probable to those which are more AB> probable. Therefore, hot bodies cool; energy is conserved but AB> becomes less available to do work. According to this uninvited AB> guest, the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbable ( AB> Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babyloyantz, 1972). The uninvited guest AB> will not go away nor will the biological evidence to the contrary AB> notwithstanding." It would be interesting to read the rest of the book and see what he says this point leads him to. Did he conclude anything based on this point? AB> Evolutionist and anti-creationist John Patterson puts it this way, AB> "It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster AB> uphill processes by tapping downhill processes, but how did the AB> required internal organization come about in the first place? AB> Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill AB> processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, AB> especially when compared to the dispersed arrays from which they AB> assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by AB> natural processes remains a challenging one." Notice, though, the word used is "challenging", not "impossible" or "unanswerable". Calculus is challenging, especially for those first approaching the study of the subject. This does not mean that it can't be mastered. AB> In your example of photosynthesis, the question to be asked is not AB> 'does entropy prevent the energy of the sun from being converted via AB> photosynthesis for sustaining life and variation thereof? but rather, AB> the question is - How do chemicals self-organize naturally to produce AB> the energy conversion engine known as photosynthesis, a process which AB> violates the second law as it requires the chemicals to go from a AB> probable state to a highly improbable state. Actually, it is no violation of the Second Law of Thermo for improbable events to occur, otherwise roulette would be much too boring to muster the interest and attention it does. In statistical thermodynamics, it is understood that aggregates of particles will assume average values based on macroscopic variables such as temperature, pressure, and so forth. But not all the particles in the system will be at the same value. For example, in a gas at a given temperature, we can calculate the average speed of the gas molecules, based on equipartition of energy. Most of the gas molecules will be moving at or near this speed. Some will be moving much slower at any given time, having an effective temperature near absolute zero. Others will be moving much faster, with no real upper limit. (Practically speaking, you can calculate one, a temperature so high that there is only a very small chance that any one molecule is at or above it, but that's another story...) Thus, molecules will be doing improbable things all the time. It's just that the less probable the thing, the smaller the population of molecules engaged in it. This month's Scientific American has an article on self-replicating molecular systems that might make interesting reading. Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * The wages of Peace are Life. --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Area: Evolution Msg: #286 Date: 10-19-94 12:19 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: Repost 2 ------------------------------------ Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-21-94 09:13 Message # 1 From : LARRY SITES To : ARTHUR BIELE RCVD Subj : TRANSITIONALS, PART 7. ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-19-94 00:10 re: TRANSITIONALS, PART 7. Since you note ONLY the original source and since I have previously accused you of taking credit for the research work of others and how that is decidely a non-christian thing to do, and since you appear to be motivated to pursue your evolionary critisms only to forward your religious agenda, I assume that YOU did the original research work to find these interesting quotes and that it is YOU who are willing to stand accountable for their correct presentation. Did YOU personally find each of these quotes in the originals or did you plagerize them? Who is YOUR actual source? If one of your religious persusasion resorts to stealing (plagerism) and lying by not revealing true sources when asked directly, why would anyone be inclinded to give any credulance to the religious philosophy represented by such a person? AB>As is often the case in evolution theory, hopeful confirmations along AB>new lines of inquiry often end up to be bitter disappointments So what? Is that not the case in ALL areas of SCIENTIFIC inquiry? How does that invalidate evolution as THE reason for life as it now exists? How does any number of false starts in evolutionary theory do one whit toward promoting acceptance of your only other acceptable alternative, 6 day instant creation a few thousand years ago? Breaking your own religious rules to attack evolution does more harm to your religious proselytizing than it ever will to evolutionary theory. AB>Evolutionist Norman Macbeth gives yet another example. AB>" No phylogenies have been established and the pursuit of AB> them has fallen into dispute." AB>Evolutionists E. Saiff and Norman Macbeth. Evolution, 1985. Tell us if he said WHY they were not established? Was he concerned? Why or why not? Why did you choose THIS PARTICULAR quote to illistrate your point that "often" science finds deadends? What SPECIFICALLY about this ENTIRE article makes you think it is something MORE than just scientists describing the workings of science? What is the title of the article anyway? Surely you REMEMBER if YOU PERSONALLY went to the EFFORT the find and analize it? AB>Francis Hitchings in his book, 'The Neck of the Giraffe' (1982) points AB>out: AB> "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the AB> fossil gaps; they are missing in all the important places." What page or even chapter did YOU find this? Also answer the same questions as above. Why do YOU think this quote is representative of something significant in the OVERALL point of the book? AB>" Because of all these problems, it is rare to find paleontologists AB> offering ancestral species, AB> raises yet another problem, for groups can not evolve- species are th AB> largest units capable of change." AB>Colin Patterson. 'Cladistics and Classification', 94 New Scientist, AB>1982. What are "all these problems"? Since "these problems" would be a key piece of evidence in your arguments against evolution, you can surely remember some, can't you? Why can't groups evolve and why is that "another problem"? You do understand all this significant evidence, don't you? AB> " This interplay of data and interpretation is the achilles heel AB> of the second meaning of evolution." Evolutionist L. Thomson, AB> Marginalia: The Meanings of Evolution, 70 Am. Scientists, 1982. Did he not give any reason why this "achilles heel" was no big deal? Why do you think his reasoning should be discounted? Why is "Marginalia" part of the title? AB> "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or AB> punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the AB> theory of evolution as opposed to special creation..." Mark Ridley, AB> "Who Doubts Evolution", New Scientist, Vol. 90, No: 1259, June 25, AB> 1981. What evidence DO they use? Why do you think THAT is so illrelivant that you can totally ignore it? AB>Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the AB>University of London, writes: AB> "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit AB> that there is nothing in the geological record that runs AB> contrary to view of conservative creationists, that God created AB> each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." And in just what august SCIENTIFIC publication might we find this "writing" of such a renounded authority? AB> OLX 1.52 For I am nothing, if not critical. It certainly APPEARS that you are NOT critical. Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * Hugh today, Borg tomorrow... --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Area: Evolution Msg: #287 Date: 10-19-94 12:22 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: Repost 3 ------------------------------------ Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-21-94 11:02 Message # 4 From : LARRY SITES To : ARTHUR BIELE RCVD Subj : Sunderland agenda ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-19-94 00:06 re: TRANSITIONS, PART 6. 1/ AB>As I have posted, [In 1979, Creationist Luther D Sunderland, on behalf of the NYS Board of Regents and the NYS board of Education, was requested to conduct taped interviews Mr. Sunderland explicitly asked each of these officials if they were aware of any transitional forms from fish to amphibians, and in particular,the crossopterygian to Ichthyostega, they each indicated that they were unaware of any confirming evidence for such a transition.] researcher Luther Sunderland, Interviewed top paleontology experts from AB>five of the world's greatest fossil museums. They were Dr. Raup of the AB>Chicago Field Museum; Dr. Niles Eldredge of the New York City Museum of AB>Natural History; Dr. David Pilbeam of, Curator of the Peabody Museum of AB>Natural History at Yale; Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of AB>the British Museum of Natural History in London, England; and Dr. AB>Fisher of the New York State Museum of Natural History. The Result: AB> "No museum official offered any real fossil evidence that any one of AB> the various invertebrates evolved into vertebrate fish" P. 63 AB> "None of the museum officials could produce any fossil evidence of an AB> intermediate ancestor connecting the amphibians with with fishes." p 6 AB> "None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a AB> transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the AB> transformation of one basically different type to another." p. 88 AB>Luther Sunderland, 'Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and other Problems', Master AB>Books, 1988. Talk about someone with an agenda, Sunderland is it. Master Books is the old publishing arm of the ICR. Say, since you appear to have read Sunderland's book, does he still mis-represent Patterson's AMNH speech like this: LS> From : Dave Mullenix 03-25-93 03:38 LS> LS> 'Colin Patterson LS> made some statements that taken out of the context of cladistic LS> taxonomy, might sound anti-evolutionary. The Institute for Creation LS> Research published a tract, "Evolution? Prominent Scientist LS> Reconsiders" in 1982, claiming that at the AMNH speech, Patterson LS> "confessed" that he no longer "believed" in evolution. This claim has LS> been widely circulated due to a clandestine tape transcript of the LS> session. This tract by Sunderland is apparently STILL available from the ICR at Impact Reprints, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 as it is listed as #108 on a recent order list, even though according to the following posts, that is NOT Patterson's position: From : Dave Mullenix 03-25-93 03:38 To : All Subj : Colin Patterson ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just got the Winter 92 issue of NCSE Reports, the journal of the National Center for Science Education and it has an interesting article that bears on that Colin Patterson quote we were discussing a while ago. It's "Tracking Those Incredible Creationists", a regular column and this issue it's written by Eugenie C. Scott. I quote: 'In Patterson's own words, from a 1982 letter to teacher Steven Binkley, I was asked to talk on "evolutionism and creationism," and knowing the meetings of the group as informal sessions where ideas could be kicked around among specialists, I put a case for difficulties and problems with evolution, specifically in the field of systematics. (Commentary by Scott deleted) I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland ... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record _and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field_. (italics not in original) I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly represent my views. Scott then goes on: 'So Patterson was tossing around ideas to a group of students and specialists about a specialized subfield, transformed cladistics. The specialized nature of the discussion and the particular philosophical context of the statements were ripe for taking words out of context. Patterson has not "reconsidered" whether evolution has taken place, he is arguing about how to work out relationships between organisms.' ------------------------------------------------------------------------- So eight or nine years ago, Patterson told Sunderland that the quote was out of context, concerned a field other than evolution and that it did not represent Patterson's views on evolution. Yet I purchased an ICR book with this quote in it three years ago at a "Back to Genesis" seminar. Shameful! *************************************************************************** * Message # 5852 Area : 53 BIOGENESIS From : Scott Faust 04-07-93 03:13 To : Steve Geller Subj : Re: Colin Patterson --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As Eugenie Scott explained in the article that Dave was quoting, Patterson adheres to a particular school of taxonomy called "transformed cladistics". I have never really come across a sufficiently detailed account of what this "transformed" cladistics actually is, but my understanding is that these folks hold that the classification of biological organisms should be stripped of any assumptions supplied by evolutionary theory. This, of course, could be easily misinterpreted by our creationist friends: To say that taxonomy should not be -informed- by evolutionary theory, but should instead be based on independent assumptions, is nothing like saying that evolution hasn't occurred, or that evolutionary theory is hogwash. But this is what strikes me as odd... So far as I can tell from the very little I have read about it, "transformed" cladism makes no significant modification to the methodology of cladism. And the cladistic methodology is certainly thoroughgoing evolutionary, in the sense that it is explicitly intended to create classifications that correspond on a one to one basis with phylogenetic branching events. In fact, the system was initially called "phylogenetic systematics," but the name was changed to avoid confusion with a more standard approach called by the same name (even though this other is actually less phylogenetic!). I can't see how it is possible to strip cladism of evolutionary assumptions, unless one does so by means that amount to little more than mere declaration. My guess (admittedly made without adequate background knowledge) is that this "transformed cladism" deal is a tempest in a teapot, concerned more with issues of semantics than genuine substance. However this may be, cladism only works because there are very particular patterns of homology (similarities and dissimilarities among corresponding features of different organisms) which do obtain in nature; and these patterns do obtain because evolution has occurred. Thus, cladism works because evolution has occurred. Patterson's own attempts to decouple classification from evolution apparently led him to recognize this. The following is from a letter he wrote in response to inquiries from the editor of the _Creation/Evolution Newsletter_ (v5,n5 Sept-Oct 1985): [Luther Sunderland, the creationist who taped and transcribed Patterson's talk, said...] "He [Patterson] changed his position [to that of an "anti-evolutionist"] because of the dramatic fossil evidence" -- rubbish. I got myself tangled because of six months cogitating about homology, the central concept of comparative biology. Five years later, I know of no alternative to common ancestry as an explanation for homology. The efforts I have made to find an alternative convince me that there isn't one. So... It seems fairly clear to me also that Patterson's describing himself as a "non-evolutionist" or even an "anti-evolutionist," are to be understood in terms of the approach that he was advocating toward taxonomy. Its very clear that he was never opposed to evolutionary theory, but only to its supposedly undesirable intrusions into the task of classifying living organisms. Anyway, I can understand how this all might be misinterpreted by a layperson, and particularly by a creationist. ************************************************************************ From: PHIL NICHOLLS To: ANDREW CUMMINS Subj: Re: Quotes Area: BIOGENESIS Date: 93/09/02 This is in response to your recent posting about Colin Patterson and his so-called "anti-evolution" statements. Last year on GENIE I got involved in a debate with someone who made this claim. I decided that the best way to approach this was to go straight to the horses mouth, so to speak. I placed a long distance call to the British Museum of Natural History and asked to speak with Dr. Patterson. Unfortunately, Dr. Patterson was vacationing at the time of my call. I did talk with one of his assistants, whose name escapes me at present. I was told that these often quoted remarks were a constant source of irritation to Dr. Patterson and that it was perhaps best that I hadn't been able to reach him. Dr. Patterson made those remarks IN ORDER TO GET HIS AUDIENCE TO THINK ABOUT EVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS AND NOT JUST RECITE WHAT THEY HAD BEEN TAUGHT. It is a tactic that many good teachers take in order to get students to think critically. Dr. Patterson's assistant assured me that Dr. Patterson was definitely not an anti-evolutionist, that he was in fact in the midst of editing a new book on evolutionary biology and cladistics. Phil Nicholls ---end of reposts Some of these posters are still here maybe they have more to say about Sunderland. Also here is another snippet of his work: Area # 53 BIOGENESIS 03-31-94 21:32 Message # 258 From : SCOTT FAUST To : BERNIE WILT Subj : Origin of races! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By Jim Lippard: Tom McIver, an anthropologist who has written several articles for _Creation/Evolution_, _NCSE Reports_, and the _Skeptical Inquirer_, as well as the book _Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography_, has a book on creationism that will be published by the Univ. of California Press. Chapter 15 of the book is titled "Creationism and Racism," and the history of connections between creationism and racism. A shorter version of the chapter will be published in a future issue of _Skeptic_ magazine (probably the issue after next, i.e., vol. 2, no. 4). Anyway, I wanted to share some of it here. McIver begins with a bunch of quotes from creationists who maintain that racism comes from belief in evolution--Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Bert Thompson, Malcolm Bowden, etc.--it's a pretty long list. This part really caught my eye, though: "Evolution and racism are the same thing," declares Jerry Bergman (McIver 1990:21; see Bergman's "Evolution and the Development of Nazi Race Policy" in _Bible-Science Newsletter_ [1988] and articles in _Creation Research Society Quarterly_ [1980], _CSSHQ_ [1986], and _Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_ [1991, 1992]).[2] [2] Bergman has been featured in many creationist publications for his complaint that he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University "solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism"; a cover story, for instance, in the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund's magazine _Creation_ ("The Jerry Bergman Story," 1984). In Bergman's _The Criterion_ (preface by Wendell Bird, foreword by John Eidsmoe), Luther Sunderland said Bergman was fired "solely" because of his religious beliefs--his creationism (1984:64). But in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, Bergman stated that "reverse [racial] discrimination was clearly part of the decision"--i.e., that it was *not* solely religious discrimination (Bergman 1985:2). ---end of second repost I have not personally checked these, nor do I have the complete references. I am however quite willing to write Jim Lippard for answers to any questions you might have. Now you tell me, who is misrepresenting what? Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * How's Hitler & Limbaugh different? Rush uses a script. --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Area: Evolution Msg: #288 Date: 10-19-94 12:24 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: Repost 4 ------------------------------------ Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-21-94 11:59 Message # 5 From : LARRY SITES To : ARTHUR BIELE RCVD Subj : TRANSITIONS, PART 8. ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-19-94 00:25 re: TRANSITIONS, PART 8. AB>As can be seen from my posts, the fossil record, as detailed in the AB>evolutionary literature, provides substantial support for Creation AB>theory. AB> 3. The record shows that new biological designs typically make AB> abrupt appearances, Define "abrupt". AB>This is not at all what Evolution theory predicts. This is very AB>consistent and supportive of creation theory! Explain just exactly how the appearance of increasingly complex lifeforms over the course of MILLIONS of years is consistant with and supports the creation theory when the reference book for creation theory claims that ALL lifeforms were created in a mere 6 DAYS and by deduction this happened a mere few thousand years ago. AB>I offer the following as a conclusion. AB> "I feel that the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics ha AB> not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think i AB> has been positively anti-knowledge. ... AB> Well, What about evolution? It certainly has the function of AB> knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the AB> question I have been putting to people, "Is there one thing you AB> can tell me about evolution?" The absence of answers seem to AB> suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any AB> knowledge." Paleontologist Colin Patterson in a Speech given at AB> the Am. Museum of Natural History, Nov. 1981. AB> Patterson blame[s] evolution for the lack of AB>progress in Paleontology. BUNK! This IS the quote that Sunderland TOTALLY misrepresents! See my message to you titled with his name. If you were at the speech YOU would know that. Since, to my knowledge, this has NEVER been published outside creationist circles, it appears that you stold it from some creationist author. Who did you steal it from? Is it ok to steal and lie for your god? AB>In light of these 8 posts I've just posted, and that FAQ's such as Ms. AB>Hunt's are still widely circulated and believed by evolutionists AB>is evidence that Academia does suppress the spread of knowledge of the AB>scientific inadequacy of the materialistic, atheistic, naturalistic AB>evolution. BUNK! Your misrepresentation of out of context quotes is evidence of no such thing. But the fact that this misquote is still widely circulated by creationist organizations such as the ICR is evidence that the creation "theory" must rely on lies in an attempt to win out by appearing to tear down evolution. AB> OLX 1.52 You Shall Know Them by Their Fruits. When a religion bears lies and theft in promoting it's creation "theory" what kind of a religion will it be known as? Now that you know that this Patterson quote is a misrepresentation, you can no longer present it without being guilty of the sin of false witness. Are you willing to deliberatly lie for your lord? Do you think he will grant you eternal life for such efforts? What if he lied to you so that he could steal YOUR life? Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * THE ROAD TO SUCCESS IS ALWAYS UNDER CONSTRUCTION...... --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Area: Evolution Msg: #289 Date: 10-19-94 12:26 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: Repost 5 ------------------------------------ Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-24-94 08:53 Message # 2 From : LARRY SITES To : ARTHUR BIELE RCVD Subj : Plagerism ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-19-94 21:44 re: A CREATIONISTS IDEA 1/ AB>Eisely, has stated that Darwin plagiarized Blyth in some of Darwin's AB>early writings, and failed to give Blyth the credit due him for his AB>ideas on natural selection. Perhaps you have failed to receive my mutiple posts indicating that YOU are doing the exact same thing. Did YOU personally research all the 150+ year old documents you reference? If not, why did you not give proper credit to the person who EARNED it? Is it ok for those of your religious beliefs to pick and choose the commandments they observe? Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet ... any thing that is thy neighbour's. If you can not observe your own religions rules, what makes you qualified to critize a creation philosophy that is different from yours? John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. AB>In creation theory, natural selection acts as a conservative force for AB>preserving a created kind, i.e. a baramin, and maintaining its fitness. AB>Natural selection works with an organisms ability to change, within AB>genetic limits, so that plants and animals can multiply and fill every AB>possible area of the earth with variations on a theme perfectly suited AB>for that area. An intelligent Creator designed the creation so that all AB>necessary components were there to provide the balance we see in nature AB>and He also provided the genetic information necessary to give each AB>baramin adaptability to changing environments to enhance its survival. AB>At the time of each baramin was created, their genes were in excellent AB>condition and were very rich in information. AB> [For instance, Adam and Eve's offspring would be free of genetic AB> defects (as harmful mutations would not have yet occurred) and they AB> contained all the genetic information necessary to produce all the AB> known human characteristics we observe today in the human races (minus AB> the defects).] Did YOU fomulate this idea all by your self? Or did you steal (plagerize) it? If natural selection acts as you suggest, why did it not eliminate the human behavioral characteristics known as sin that creationists commonly explain as being the result of the same degenerative effect you claim in "your" work that natural selection prevents? If natural selection failed in this respect on such a grand scale that the entire human population (less Noah and crew) had to be eliminated to put things back into order, why would you expect it to work in other areas? If natural selection works to maintain the original species all created in the first 6 days, how does "your" theoritical work account for the absence of the majority of current and extinct species from the early fossil record? It appears the YOU will have many things YOU will have to account for, both in this life and the next. Why don't you repent from your sinning and tell us whose ideas you have been posting so we can read then directly ourselves? Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * Creationists: Road kill on the Information Superhighway. --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Area: Evolution Msg: #290 Date: 10-19-94 12:28 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: Repost 6 ------------------------------------ Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-23-94 07:00 Message # 568 From : DAVID BLOOMBERG To : ARTHUR BIELE Subj : TRANSITIONS In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Arthur Biele of 1:278/108 writes: DB>But, here is some info about transitional forms: DB>====================================================================== >Author: Kathleen Hunt (jespah@u.washington.edu) > Title: Transitional Fossils FAQ >====================================================================== AB> I've come across Ms. Hunts Transitional Fossil FAQ before and I respond AB> fully herewith and direct your attention to my posts addressed to `ALL' AB> under this topic. I forwarded your response to Kathleen Hunt, and she sent me back the following: From: u.washington.edu!jespah (Kathleen Hunt) To: David Bloomberg Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 16:44:12 -0700 (PDT) I started out writing you a short note in reply, but this ended up being rather long, as I thought over Arthur's points more and more. If you want to pass this on to the Fidonet group, please do. You can give out my e-mail address, too, if anyone should want to reply directly to me. Arthur's comments hinge primarily on: 1) A subtle and continual re-definition of "transitional". Shown a fine transitional sequence linking one species to another (e.g. Dinohippus to Equus, or Merychippus to its 19 hipparion descendents), he says that no real, large-scale evolution has occurred. Then, when shown a much larger-scale transition, such as reptiles to mammals, he states that since the fine-scale, species-to-species fossils are lacking, the fossils are not truly transitional and in fact might not even be in the correct ancestral sequence (this is indeed true for "cousin" fossils such as _Archeopteryx_, related to but not ancestral to modern groups. But nonetheless it is still a transitional form that has traits of both birds and of reptiles!). *sigh* In other words, shown a fine-scale transition, he switches to his large-scale definition of "transitional"; shown a large-scale transition, he switches to his small-scale definition of "transitional". (I was particularly interested when he said that no real evolution had occurred in the Merychippus lineage because they were all horses. Well, actually, they were NOT horses. They were non-horse equids that gave rise to horse equids. That was supposed to be the whole point! BTW, does the Fidonet group have access to the horse-evolution FAQ? It discusses this in more detail.) [Yes, I have it here, and will post it for you in the next messagess. -- D.B.] I think he would say that he would only be satisfied by a large-scale transition involving major morphological change (across, say, classes of vertebrates, e.g. fish-amphibian), *with* known fine-scale species-to-species sequences for every speciation across the entire transition. For (say) the reptile to mammal transition, there were probably at least hundreds of speciations over several million years. Now...to get one good species-to-species sequence, you need a very fine-grained temporal series (covering, say, 500,000 years in detail) from the particular location where the speciation occurred. To get a record of a large-scale transition, you need fossils from widespread areas covering several million years. It's really beyond hope that we would get a record of every speciation covered in a large-scale transition. Arthur pooh-poohed my admittedly dramatic account of how unlikely it is to find good fossils; but I really believe it to be true. To get a documented speciation, you need a really spectacular series of fossils from exactly the right geographic location. This *has* happened many times. But it doesn't happen enough to cover an *entire* large-scale morphological change...just parts of the change. Virtually all of his objections to particular fossils are due to this constant shifting between scales, and to his rejection of any transitional fossils that are not accompanied by documented speciations. Maybe I should make that clearer in the faq -- that most of the evidence I'm presenting is *either* a fine-grained species-to-species transition, with many fossils showing the change, *or* a series of rather isolated fossils across a huge time span, without speciations, but showing how some of the intermediates between very different groups lived and functioned. (e.g. _Archeopteryx_ for what a bird-reptile intermediate looked like, and _Ambulocetus_ for a semi-aquatic whale.) But not both. If people think that is not a good enough fossil record...well, they're entitled to their opinion. Personally I think it takes a great deal of mental rigidity to look at the reptile-mammal intermediates and *not* see how easily they must have evolved from one to the next. And what sort of creation model explains the presence of those intermediates? Arthur also doesn't like "cousin" fossils -- fossils that are not direct ancestors of modern groups, but that clearly show how the modern group was derived from a different group. _Archeopteryx_ is the classic "cousin" fossil; it was probably not ancestral to any surviving birds. However, it was clearly a bird that was derived from reptiles, and thus shows us quite clearly how at least one branch of bird evolution (not the surviving branch, but a branch nonetheless) came about. He has a few other objections to particular fossils that I think are unfounded. For example, he clearly hasn't studied middle-ear and jaw anatomy in vertebrates, or it would be very apparent to him how the reptile jaw joint could easily become the mammal middle ear. He also presents a laughably naive list of reptilian and mammalian features, presumably to emphasize how different they are. There are many reptiles that do not have his "reptilian" traits (e.g. live-bearing reptiles and warm-blooded reptiles; both are actually fairly common, reptiles being more diverse than most people imagine), and likewise there are reptile-like mammals that do not have his "mammalian" traits (e.g. egg-laying mammals, mammals that are not really homeothermic [ex. edentates]). The two classes are really not as far apart as he tries to show. 2) He also relies heavily on the Argument from Authority, and takes particular pride in quoting evolutionary biologists who say the fossil record, for the most part, shows stasis. All these quotes are taken from the debate over gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, and the scientists he quoted are, of course, in favor of punk-eek. In my opinion they overstated their case some; they were correct in pointing out the strong tendency toward evolutionary stasis seen in the fossil record, but went overboard stating that no transitions at all can be seen. In the flurry of research during and following this debate, it's become clear that many species-to-species transitions *are* documented in the fossil record, in fine-grained detail, showing change within and among species. (I'll be including info from some of these studies in the faq update.) In essence he spends a lot of time knocking down gradualism, and stating that gradual evolution is not supported by the fossil record. He is essentially presenting one side of the punk-eek vs. gradualism conflict, stating only the evidence against gradualism. He notably does *not* present any of the newer evidence for gradualism, and *also* does not present any of the evidence for punk-eek (!), thus leaving the impression that creationism is the only alternative. I think those are the main two areas of contention: 1) disagreement about what constitutes a True Transitional Fossil, and 2) much discussion from eminent authorities about the lack of gradualism in the fossil record. It was really a very thorough critique on Arthur's part, and though I think most of his points are unfounded, I will look up some of the specific morphological points he raised -- particularly regarding the fish-amphibian transition and the details of Diarthrognathus's ear. I suspect he was copying much if not all of those points out of some creationist book, since those sections showed an apparent sophistication in vertebrate anatomy that was completely unequaled anywhere else in his critique. I was baffled by his insistence that a single transitional fossil would NOT be powerful evidence for evolution. Why on earth not? And finally, wasn't it funny that Arthur spent so many pages quoting evolutionists who were criticizing evolutionary theory -- evolutionists who have gotten a lot of press, have *very* successful careers, have published many books, etc. -- and then, after all that, he concluded by saying essentially that evolutionists ignore all evidence against their theories. For heaven's sake, the one thing that is crystal clear from the punk-eek debate is that evolutionists are constantly modifying their theories in light of new evidence and new (valid) objections. There's an entire new model of macroevolution out there now! I'm also very curious as to what model he would erect *instead* of evolution. I suppose he favors a model of creation in which God created each species separately, but *in series*? For instance, God first creates Hyracotherium, then Epihippus, then Orohippus, etc., etc., then Dinohippus, then Equus. (I wonder why he created such a nice series of intermediate species first, instead of just doing Equus right away.) There's that sad sentence at the end where he refers to evolution as atheistic. That's just not true. Anyway...thanks for sending that all on to me. I'm not sure if I have room in the faq to respond in detail without getting into a long discussion about gradualism and punk-eek. I think I should at least put in a paragraph about what I mean by "transitional" and whether or not the fossils in the list are ancestors or "cousins", and whether the speciations involved are preserved or not. Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * Creationists explain one thing by unexplaining everything --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Area: Evolution Msg: #291 Date: 10-19-94 19:20 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: LARRY'S PEGS ------------------------------------ ARTHUR BIELE to LARRY SITES on 10-17-94 00:17 re: LARRY'S PEGS AB>I've seen from your numerous posts that you are a leader in applying th AB>anti-creationists `scientific method' of Ridicule, Browbeating, and AB>Insults. Whine, whine, whine. What is it with you misguided religious types. Rather than address the issues raised, you whine about being "persicuted". Does that make you feel like you are following in your mythical martyrs footsteps? LS>I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE quote from ANY of the people you >quote where they explain why this disproves evolution. AB>Of course you put me in a no win position. BUNK! As we shall see. I am putting you in no such position, though you are accurate in describing your strawman alternatives below. But first, read what I wrote and pay attention while I explain it. I am not asking for new, addational or different sources, I am asking you to SUPPORT your implication that the quotes YOU ALLREADY PROVIDED actually mean what you say. You quote people AS IF they intended to conclude, as you apparently do, that evolution in general is false. IF that is the conclusion your sources reach, and your are as familiar with the quoted source as your posts indicate (ie your read the original rather than "borrowing" from some unidentified actual source), then you SHOULD be able to quote the sources EXPLAINING how the quote supports YOUR conclusion. To "win", you merely need to illistrate how the quoted authors explain the conclusion YOU imply they came to. If you can not, then one of 2 likely posibilities exist. One, that the quoted author does NOT reach the conclusion you imply meaning that you are attempting to DELIBERATLY misrepresent. Second, you ACCEPTED the quote as evidence of the conclusion from SOMEONE else who you have not identified. Now, if you understand my challenge and how to win, will you show me how the quotes support the conclusion? If not, why not? If I quote Creationists, you AB>brand them all in numerous derogatory terms and reject off hand what AB>they have to say. That is BECAUSE they have been shown to be simply wrong or deliberatly misleading on these very forums in the past. Just because this is YOUR first experience at being shown that doesn't mean that it hasn't been done many times before. AB>So I quote evolutionary scientists with regard to the factual data as AB>they see it, I show how this data supports Creation and/or undercuts AB>evolution, then you accuse me of falsely applying this data because the AB>evolutionary scientists whom I'm quoting are evolutionists. Your AB>reasoning is twisted. No, I and others accurately show HOW SOMEONE has MISREPRESENTED evolutionary scientists by taking portions of their work and using that to imply support for a conclusion that the authors never intended. Scientists attempt to discredit some aspect of evolutionary theory in order to promote some other aspect of their own liking. While one may find numerious examples of this that can be taken out of context, few of them ACTUALLY reach the conclusion implied by their misquoters. AB>The point you are making, that it is unethical to use the testimony of AB>an evolutionist to validate scientific data or a scientific principle AB>which I believe to be supportive of creation theory, is absurd to the AB>highest degree. No, that is NOT the point I am making, if in fact the quoted source REACHES YOUR CONCLUSION. Misrepresenting the sources CONCLUSIONS is unethical. Someone has done EXACTLY that with at least 2 of your quoted sources, Petterson and Grasse. LS>Second you claim that archy is a mosaic and a "true bird". Please ex >the difference between a "mosaic" and a transational. AB>Archy has some characteristics that are not typical of birds living AB>today, such as claws and teeth. Many mammals commonly have claws and AB>teeth, Archy shares these mammalian features with mammals. AB>If you believe in evolution, then any species that is not the last of AB>it's evolutionary line is transitional. That is true in only the most simplistic manner. I believe that has been pointed out to you before. Evolutionary theory does NOT require that every species change over time. I'm interested only in AB>transitional series. Especially any that demonstrate major morphologica AB>changes. I think you are only interested in defining evidence to fit your religious superstitions. Read Hunt's response to your critisms. My statement is that the Fossil record has failed to establish AB>any such phylogenies. Evolution requires millions of phylogenies and th AB>fossil record didn't record even one. A very inexplicable coincidence. Who, besides you, says evolution REQUIRES these "millions of phylogenies"? AB>Archy is not part of any transitional series on two accounts: the first AB>because there is no scientific demonstration of any particular ancestra AB>species (of reptile or whatever) making it's transition through descent AB>and modification up to archy, and second, there is no scientific AB>demonstration that Archy itself was ancestral to any non-archy AB>descendants (e.g. modern birds). As I said, you demonistrate that you are interested in defining away things. So since Archy doesn't meet YOUR transational requirent, that makes it a "mosaic" by default? How do you account for Archy's inability to meet your own definational requirements for "baramins"? Since it contains features of two created kinds, birds and nonbirds, does that mean that there is a third kind, combos? If so how can any of the three be said to reproduce after it's "own" kind? LS>Third, you claim that the frenchman Grasse is contempary to the auth >the transational list you presume to critize. Unless I am mistaken, >wrote about 100 years ago while the list is relatively recent. Pleas >explain where I am wrong. AB>Yes, you are mistaken. Pierre-Paul Grosse wrote his stinging attack on AB>Darwinian evolution `Evolution of Living Organisms' in the 1970's. AB>Grosse was not yet born 100 years ago. Yep, you are right. I had him confused with someone else. I have since got that straight. Since then, I posted to you showing that his "stinging attack" on ___Darwinian___ evolution is in fact a promotion of his own neo-Lamarkian inheratiance of acquired charastics form OF EVOLUTION. Did you get that post? Perhaps the infamious Plannet Connect censorship of 4 letter worded posts caused it to be electronically "burned". More self-rightious religious morality at work, eh. If you did NOT get it, I will take out the offending words and resend it. Then you can explain how his "stinging attack" leads to the conclusion that your religious superstition is correct. LS>Fourth, you seem to believe that life must have jumped from non-exis >to protein complexity similar to that of the present. Who, besides >creationist liars, ever claimed this? AB>I've never made any such statement. I have stated that it is very AB>implausible that the pre-biotic earth could have ever produced AB>life at all solely via naturalistic means. I must have confused you with Robert Rice because of your support for Hoyles ideas. And I have refuted the AB>arguments of those who tried to explain why biochemical evolution is AB>very probable and highly plausible solely via naturalistic means. Your opponents seem to have just the oppsite opinion. I believe them. If yo AB>have a scientific demonstration of how biochemical evolution is highly AB>plausible, please let me know. We'll discuss it. Chemistry. Care to explain why naturalistic means for life origination are "very implausible"? LS>Fifth, how old do you think the earth and universe are? What scienti >methods support that age? AB>I do not know how old the earth and the universe are. The Creation AB>Theory I proposed does not insist on any particular age for the earth o AB>the universe. It is not scientific to insist on a particular age of the AB>earth and/or universe. Do you believe that the earth and the universe AB>must be a certain age? I believe that all scientific evidence converges to suggest that the universe is 10-20 billion years old, the earth around 5 billion, and that increasingly complex lifeorms lived and died for millions of years before the apperance of humanity. Got any evidence to the contrary? Yet Henry Morris, head of one of the largest creation organizations, makes it plain that if everything wasn't created as it now is in 6 days a few thousand years ago, then the central tennant of christianity, that death was the result of HUMAN sin and that belief in a mythical saviour is required for eternal salvation from that sin, is false. So which does the evidence support, an old earth and millions of years of death before humanity, or your religious superstition? LS>I hope that you plan to stick around and see how the author you plag >is a liar and has grossly deceived you. AB>I will `stick around'. Lets see if you make good on any of your AB>accusations. Talk to Mark Fox. He said the same thing before being shown a liar and thief for your god and running away rather than confessing and repenting. Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * Listen up, serve God, and live! John 5:24 --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Area: Evolution Msg: #292 Date: 10-19-94 20:13 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: LARRY'S PEGS 1 ------------------------------------ ARTHUR BIELE to LARRY SITES on 10-17-94 00:17 re: LARRY'S PEGS 1 LS>ARTHUR BIELE to FREDRIC RICE on 09-05-94 01:03 re: "THEORY" Why did you wait for over a month to reply? LS>AB> many other >AB>accredited scientists have completely abandoned evolution. LS>Name these "many" scientists, and quote their documented "abandoning >forever be known as a liar. AB>I can't name all of them Larry. I do not know even most of them. Plus AB>their are numerous scientists who do not express their anti-evolutionar AB>views because they value their jobs and careers and would like to avoid AB>the many mudslingers like yourself. BUNK! Urban creationist legend or people holding to religious superstitions that have nothing to do with their field of "science". AB> There are leading scientists, non-creationists, who reject AB> macro-evolution strictly on scientific grounds, though they have AB> nothing to replace it with. These include Denton, Totally discredited by the reviews I've read. I'd be happy to post some, though I'm not willing to explain or defend the criticisms. Lipson, Kerkut, AB> Sermonti, Hull, Fleischmann, Fondi, Vernet, Ball, Ambrose, Quote thier documented "abandoning evolution". AB> Nilsson, See below and then explain why he is a "leading scientist". AB> Bounoure, Koop, Olson, etc.. Get to quoting. AB>"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothin AB> in the progress of science. It is useless." AB> Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of research at the French National AB> Center for Scientific Research, Director of the Zoological Museum, AB> and former President of the Biological Society at Strassbourg. AB> (Quoted on a televised debate of Creation vs. Evolution, 1986) "He's wrong", Larry Sites, self educated debunker of creation. AB>"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest AB> growing controversial minorities. ... Many scientists supporting this AB> position hold impressive credentials in science." Science Digest: AB> `Educators against Darwin', winter, 1979. Usually in fields other than those they critize. Find ONE practicing creationist paleontoligist. AB>N. Heribert Nilsson, the famed botanist, "My attempts to demonstrate AB> Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have AB> completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having AB> started from a preconcieved anti-evolutionary standpoint. ... It may b AB> firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of AB> an Evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil material is now AB> so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and th AB> lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the AB> scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be AB> filled." As quoted in Arthur C. Custance,'The Earth Before Man', Part AB> II, Doorway Publications (1984). From a post by Scott Faust: Tom McIver has an entry on this book in his _Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography_. Nilsson was a geneticist, and apparently worked as a botanist. McIver reports that he was director of the "Botanical Institute" of Lund, Sweden. But Nilsson also seems to have been a bit of a loon! He had some weird ideas about genes (even for the time), including the claim that enzymes were also genes. In this book he also advocated Hans Horbiger's "cosmic ice theory", a pseudoscience of repeated planetary catastrophes which obtained a cult following in Germany and Austria under the Nazis. The cosmic ice theory is similar in flavor and evidentiary basis (though not in specifics) to Velikovsky's planetary pinball scheme. It involves the claim that the orbits of the planets and moons are gradually slowing down. The earth has had a number of different moons -- small planets that the earth has sequentially captured and which eventually disintegrate and fall to the earth. Mythological evidence (supposedly) indicates that our present moon was captured 13,500 years ago. One of the past moons was made of ice (thus "cosmic ice"), and its disintegration caused Noah's flood. As with Velikovskism, "cosmic ice" theorists were often big on "proving" the accuracy of the bible. Nilsson's views on "synthetic speciation" were even stranger. Here is McIver's summary: During these catastrophic periods, new organisms are created by "emication" -- a drastic alteration or production of gametes. A few survive as totally new forms. Inspired by Oparin's theory of spontaneous origin of life, Nilsson argues that these gametes, of entirely new organisms, could form spontaneously and polyphyletically, out of the mix of biocatalytic substances engendered during the catastrophic episodes. "During paleobiological times whole new worlds of biota have been repeatedly synthesized." Nilsson declares that organisms such as orchids and elephants were "instantly created out of non-living material." AB>"I'm part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a AB> good number of these are creationists. Many don't actively belong to AB> any creationists organization. Based on proportions and knowing the AB> membership of the Creation Research Society, it's probably a AB> conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 AB> practising scientists who are biblical creationists." Dr. Russel AB> Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, Physicist at prestigious Sandia National AB> Laboratories, Alberquerque, New Mexico, In a 1993 interview with Dr. AB> Carl Wieland. Creation Ex-Nihilo, Summer, 1993. The guy is an ICR adjunt prof. and his non-science has been throughly debunked. From the talk.origins faq file: Author: Tim Thompson (tjt@jpl.nasa.gov) Title: Creation Science and Magnetic Fields I draw your attention to the paper "The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields", by D. Russell Humphreys, Quarterly Journal of the Creation Research Society, vol. 21, December, 1984. Recieved 3 January, 1984, revised 14 August, 1984. This is a refereed, scientific journal. It says that Humphreys has a PhD in physics, and is (was) a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories. Here is the abstract of the paper: "God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough to account for the magnetism of the planets. Within seconds after creation, ordinary physical events would convert the alignment of nuclei into a large electric current circulating within each planet, maintaining the magnetic field. The currents and fields would decay steadily over thousands of years, as Barnes has pointed out. The present magnetic field strengths of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets agree very well with the values produced by this theory and a 6000-year age for the solar system. The theory is consistent with all the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled evolutionists." Humphreys presumes that God made the sun, and all of the planets out of water, which has a strong dipole. Line up enough dipoles, get a big field, then God changes everything from water to the silicate/iron type stuff we see now, leaving behind decaying magnetic fields. For those of you who still think scientific creationism is scientific, I leave you with a paragraph from Humphreys' "conclusions" section: "The Bible is scientifically accurate. A straightforward reading of Scripture supplied the essentials of this theory: the possibility of initial alignment, the water composition, and the short time scale. The fact that the theory fits the facts shows that the scientist can rely on the Bible for new insight into the natural world. Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot Universe ? (Y/N/Q) --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Area: Evolution Msg: #293 Date: 10-19-94 21:25 (Public) From: LARRY SITES To: ARTHUR BIELE Subject: LARRY'S PEGS 2 ------------------------------------ ARTHUR BIELE to LARRY SITES on 10-17-94 00:17 re: LARRY'S PEGS 2 AB>Scientists are abandoning Evolution. And your source for all these interesting quotes is? Given your track record, why should anyone take your word that these are not gross misrepresentations? AB>In a Newsweek article, 1985, "The great body of work by Charles Darwin AB>is under increasing attack and not only by Creationists, but by all AB>sorts of other scientists." Why is it that you note neither the specific issue date nor the title of the article? Are you deliberatly making it difficult for anyone to check this source, expecting that no one will bother to look through a whole YEAR of magazines to find this mystery article? Would it suprise you to know that your religious twin Mark Fox used the same techniques to avoid being checked on? He seems to have favored many of the same creationist authors you do. AB> "Today, a hundred and twenty years after it was first promulgated, the AB> Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. It is AB> interesting, moreover, that most of these `experts' have abandoned AB> Darwinism, not are the basis of religious faith or biblical AB> persuasions, but strictly on scientific grounds, and in some AB> instances, regretfully, as one could say." AB> J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Telhardism an AB> the New Religion" 1988, Tan Books and Publishers Inc.. Quote something that shows he is not just arguing a different aspect of evolution against ___Darwinism___ aspect of evolution, rather than entirely "abondoning" evolution as you imply. AB>Lipson writes in his published paper 'A Physicist Looks at Evolution' AB>(31 Physics Bulletin 38, 1980) rejects macro-evolution. He says: AB> "I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution AB>Lipson, an agnostic physicist, goes on to show that the scientific AB>discoveries not only failed to support macro-evolution, but that, at AB>the same time, the evidence also supports creation theory: AB> "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that AB> the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is AB> anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not AB> reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence AB> supports it." First off, why is a ___physicist___ qualified to judge evolutionary theory? Evolution as it is generaly known in the layman sense is in the rhelm of biology and palentology. Physicists, however, are qualified to talk about the origin of the universe and many believe that its beginning while, descriable in scientific terms, is indicative of a created beginning. Is that what he really says? Quote him claiming that the universe is young or that all life was created in 6 days. Second that is another strange looking reference. Later on you refer to the same apparent source again: AB>If I may add one more Lipson quote: AB>"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all AB>scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their AB>observations to fit in with it." (Physics Bulletin, "A Physicist Looks AB>at evolution," 1980, Vol. 31,p. 138.) So which is it, if either? Mark Fox also "mistyped" a similar reference. One that when found, showed quite clearly that the author intended the exact oppsite of his implication. Are you willing to certify that this author is in fact "abandoning" evolution as you imply or merely putting his own religious spin on the ultimate origin of the universe? Did you verify this article yourself? What would you think if some author mislead you? AB>Biochemists and noncreationist Professor G.A. Kerkut systematically AB>examines the evidence for macro-evolution in his book, 'Implications of AB>Evolution' and shows that in case after case, the evidence for AB>macro-evolution is weak and can not be extrapolated from microevolution AB>Kerkut sums up his books thesis, namely that: AB> "What conclusions, then, can one come to concerning the validity of AB> the various implications of evolution? If we go back to our initial AB> assumptions it will be seen that the evidence is still lacking for AB> most of them." So what is his explaination for why things are the way they are? AB>Dr. Guiseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics at the University of AB>Peruvia, former director of the Genetics Institute of the University of AB>Palermo, Senior Editor of the Biology Forum, and co-author and AB>paleontologist Dr. R. Fondi (Dopo Darwin, 1980) stated that: AB> "The result we believe must be striven for can therefore only be the AB> following: Biology will receive no advantage from following the AB> teachings of Lamarck, Darwin, and the modern hyper-Darwinists; AB> Indeed, it must as quickly as possible leave the narrow straits and AB> blind alleys of the evolutionistic myths and resume its certain AB> journey along the open and illuminated paths of tradition." Quote the part where they explain just what this "tradition" is. BTW, is this book in english? I'd be really impressed if you read it in Portaguse or whatever they use Peruvia. What does the Dopo in the title mean? This could also be your chance to document a paleontologist creationist! Just quote some of his scientific works that show the earth is young. AB>Besides the anti-evolutionists, Who, the unspecified Newsweek, 2 physicists, and your word on a biochemist and two south americans? That's the "many scientists completely abandoning" evolution? That's good for a RBI if I ever saw one! their are also the anti-Darwinians, who AB>believe in macro-evolution on philosophical grounds but concede that AB>there is no known mechanism for how it may have occurred. Among them ar AB>Hoyle, Lovtrup (who wrote a stinging refutation of all Darwinistic AB>approaches entitled 'Darwinism, Refutation of a Myth'), Grasse, Lemoine AB>Macbeth, Saunders, Ho, Ambrose, Russell, and Hsu. SO WHAT! They sure are not "completely abandoning" evolution. And just how does their disagrement upon the specifics of evolution provide evidence that your religious superstition is anywhere near correct? AB>In fact Hsu, a prominent geologist at the Geological Institute at AB>Zurich, Stated: (Darwin's Three Mistakes, Geology, Vol.14 (1986)) AB> "We have had enough of of this Darwinian Fallacy. AB> It is time we cry: 'The Emperor has no clothes.'" Oh, really. I'd say it is your assertation that "many scientists completely abandoning" evolution that is pretty scantily clad. Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * I know, I know. It's off to work I go! --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank