EVOLUTION vs. CREATION DIGEST VOL 1. NO. 1 17 Jan 1990 | Message may have been editted to

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

Skeptic Tank!

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)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank