wre00001.htm, by Wesley R. Elsberry

00000007.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506011343.AA18659@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Do you like Turing?
References: <3QHLK5$S72@NZ12.RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE> <60.14241.4330.0N1E4681@CANREM.COM> <3QJACB$NUD@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <3QKC07$1GS@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3QKC07$1GS@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU>,
Matthew P Wiener  wrote:
>In article <3QJACB$NUD@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>, welsberr@orca (Wesley R. Elsberry) writes:
 WRE>The brain performs functions, and insofar as those functions are
 WRE>computable, the brain performs as a biological computer.

 MPW>Who says all its functions are computable?  As stated, the above is
 MPW>a meaningless tautology.

If you would care to examine the original context, the above quote
is under the section which treated the original statement as 
descriptive.  Tautologies are descriptive, if nothing else.  You
have thus verified my other point, since "computer" originally
referred to a person performing a cognitive task.  The portion
of the anatomy ultimately responsible for proper performance of
such tasks is the brain, and thus referring to it as a computer
is redundant, as I previously stated.

As for all functions being computable, neither you nor I has said
that, nor is that implied in my statements above.  That's what
the "insofar" is there for; it is part of a qualifying clause.

 WRE>							   AFAIK,
 WRE>normally functioning humans brains are Turing machine equivalent.

 MPW>And how do you know this?  This view is universally rejected in the
 MPW>neurosciences (you know, the people that study functioning brains?).
 MPW>The standard view is essentially

 MPW>    artificial intelligence:brains::creation science:biology.

Very cute.  Insofar (that qualifying word again) as AI people 
attempt to say, "Our current models are completely descriptive of
the biological reality" I would agree with you.  On the other hand,
some of the models have had correspondence with biological reality
to a degree that SciCre-ists have never approached.  I reference
Hestene's work on models of schizophrenia, which is documented in
"Motivation, Emotion, and Goal Direction in Neural Networks" (1990,
Levine & Leven, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

However, Turing machine equivalence is a statement of capability,
and doesn't refer to structure or means of operation.  If the human
brain can accomplish the same kinds of tasks that a Turing machine
can, it is Turing machine equivalent.  AFAIK, no one has disputed
that the human brain is so capable.  I think that you must have
been thinking that I was advancing the view that the brain operated
in the same manner as Turing's theoretical computing apparatus.  That
view would, indeed, be rejected out of hand by neuroscientists, and
rightly so.  Equivalence, however, is not that kind of claim.

To verify this, you might look up Szu and Hartley's 1987 analysis
of a variety of artificial neural network architectures, where they
found that some were Turing machine equivalent, and others were
not.  None, however, could be said to show a structural or procedural
equivalence to a Turing machine.



From welsberr  Thu Jun  1 08:49:09 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA18733; Thu, 1 Jun 95 08:49:09 CDT
9506010.mai: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 08:49:09 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000008.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506011349.AA18733@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Do you like Turing?
References: <3QHLK5$S72@NZ12.RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE> <60.14241.4330.0N1E4681@CANREM.COM> <3QJACB$NUD@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <3QJEJC$N34@NEWS.KTH.SE>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: f93-dwa@filsun10.nada.kth.se
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3QJEJC$N34@NEWS.KTH.SE>,
Daniel Wahlquist  wrote:
In article <3QJACB$NUD@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry) writes:
 WRE>The brain performs functions, and insofar as those functions are 
 WRE>computable, the brain performs as a biological computer.  AFAIK, normally 
 WRE>functioning humans brains are Turing machine equivalent.

 DW> This is true if materialism is true. 

No, the statement above is true without further conditions.  The
mechanism by which computation in the brain occurs is irrelevant
to the statement as given.  Thus, no matter whether the mechanism
might be considered to be patterns of neuronal electrochemical
activity, quantum neurodynamics, or little pink fairies swapping
symbols, if computable functions are derived in the brain, then
the brain is a biological computer.

[Further irrelevant diatribe deleted.]







From welsberr  Thu Jun  1 09:01:23 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA18878; Thu, 1 Jun 95 09:01:23 CDT
9506010.mai: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 10:53:22 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000009.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506011553.AA19078@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Shockley update
References: <3QJB0E$O92@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <3QKDCC$1GS@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: ahimoe@prairienet.org
Apparently-To: welsberr

I've found an actual quote of Shockley's to put into the jargon file.

The revised subsection now reads:

(d) The authority actually is speaking on a topic well outside his
field of expertise.  Example: "William Shockley said, Nature has
color-coded groups of individuals so that statistically reliable
predictions of their adaptability to intellectually rewarding and
effective lives can easily be made and profitably be used by the
pragmatic man in the street."  While Shockley worked wonders in
semiconductor technology, his acumen in sociology was not high.



From postserv@dragon.tricity.wsu.edu  Thu Jun  1 14:47:47 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from beta.tricity.wsu.edu by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA19553; Thu, 1 Jun 95 14:47:47 CDT
Received: by beta.tricity.wsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
	id AA11442; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 12:46:34 -0700
Received: by dragon.tricity.wsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
	id AA25002; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 12:44:24 -0700
9506010.mai: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 16:46:08 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000000a.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506012146.AA20109@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Do you like Turing?
References: <3QHLK5$S72@NZ12.RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE> <3QJEJC$N34@NEWS.KTH.SE> <3QKGGK$AFH@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <3QKUD8$QQV@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3QKUD8$QQV@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU>,
Matthew P Wiener  wrote:
>In article <3QKGGK$AFH@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>, welsberr@orca (Wesley R. Elsberry) writes:
>>In article <3QJEJC$N34@NEWS.KTH.SE>,
>>Daniel Wahlquist  wrote:
>>In article <3QJACB$NUD@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry) writes:

 WRE>The brain performs functions, and insofar as those functions are 
 WRE>computable, the brain performs as a biological computer.  AFAIK, normally 
 WRE>functioning humans brains are Turing machine equivalent.

 DW> This is true if materialism is true. 

 WRE>No, the statement above is true without further conditions.

 MPW>How about, experimental verification?

 MPW>Sheesh.

How does one go about experimentally verifying a tautology?

 MPW>You AI fen are worse than creationists.

Isn't it Duane Gish that goes around saying, "Evolution is a 
tautology!" and then follows it up with, "Evolution has been
proven false!"?

 WRE>							      The
 WRE>mechanism by which computation in the brain occurs is irrelevant
 WRE>to the statement as given.  Thus, no matter whether the mechanism
 WRE>might be considered to be patterns of neuronal electrochemical
 WRE>activity, quantum neurodynamics, or little pink fairies swapping
 WRE>symbols, if computable functions are derived in the brain, then
 WRE>the brain is a biological computer.

 MPW>And if non-computable functions are derived?

 MPW>Sheesh and double sheesh.

Then the brain shows more capability than "simply" performing 
computable functions.  That doesn't stop the brain from being
a biological computer on top of whatever other functions it may
have, nor does the property of computation perforce stop the 
brain from performing other functions.  There has been no claim
of exclusivity of function.

I'm curious, though, as to an example of a non-computable cognitive
function that might be performed by the brain.

Let me put out some statements for further discussion.

1) The human brain can perform some computable functions.
(I think that this one should be unobjectionable, but I thought
that about my posts last night, too.)

2) Systems performing computable functions may be called computers.
(I'm certain that this one will raise objections.)

3) The computational capability of computers may be analytically
   characterized.
(Of course, such analyses don't say anything about the non-computational
characteristics of such systems.)



From nuucp@dg-rtp.dg.com  Thu Jun  1 19:41:43 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from dg-rtp.dg.com (dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com) by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA20258; Thu, 1 Jun 95 19:41:43 CDT
Received: by dg-rtp.dg.com (5.4R2.01/dg-rtp-v02)
	id AA18550; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:41:40 -0400
To: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000000c.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506021405.AA20732@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Do you like Turing?
References: <3QHLK5$S72@NZ12.RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE> <3QKUD8$QQV@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU> <3QLCET$NDR@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <3QN1SJ$QEO@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3QN1SJ$QEO@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU>,
Matthew P Wiener  wrote:
>In article <3QLCET$NDR@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>, welsberr@orca (Wesley R. Elsberry) writes:
>>In article <3QKUD8$QQV@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU>,
>>Matthew P Wiener  wrote:
>>>In article <3QKGGK$AFH@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>, welsberr@orca (Wesley R. Elsberry) writes:
>
 WRE>The brain performs functions, and insofar as those functions are
 WRE>computable, the brain performs as a biological computer.  AFAIK,
 WRE>normally functioning humans brains are Turing machine
 WRE>equivalent.

 WRE>No, the statement above is true without further conditions.

 MPW>How about, experimental verification?

 MPW>Sheesh.

 WRE>How does one go about experimentally verifying a tautology?

 MPW>*What* tautology?

That by performing computable functions, the brain is shown to
be a biological computer.  You identified that as a tautology.

 MPW>Turing machine equivalence is a strong experimental assertion.

OK, I can buy that.  I'll also admit ignorance as to whether 
anyone has done the job of having a person perform the tasks
of a universal Turing machine in establishment of that.  One
more "AFAIK" blown to bits.

However, I wasn't discussing the Turing sentence with 
Wahlquist, but rather the sentence that you had identified
as a tautology.

 MPW>You AI fen are worse than creationists.

 WRE>Isn't it Duane Gish that goes around saying, "Evolution is a 
 WRE>tautology!" and then follows it up with, "Evolution has been
 WRE>proven false!"?

 MPW>What tautology again?

That biological systems performing computable tasks are biological
computers.  Watch the next two quoted sentences...

 WRE>							      The
 WRE>mechanism by which computation in the brain occurs is irrelevant
 WRE>to the statement as given.  Thus, no matter whether the mechanism
 WRE>might be considered to be patterns of neuronal electrochemical
 WRE>activity, quantum neurodynamics, or little pink fairies swapping
 WRE>symbols, if computable functions are derived in the brain, then
 WRE>the brain is a biological computer.

 MPW>And if non-computable functions are derived?

 MPW>Sheesh and double sheesh.

 WRE>Then the brain shows more capability than "simply" performing 
 WRE>computable functions.

 MPW>Gosh and golly.  So it does.  So much for "Turing machine equivalence".

Hmmm... I wasn't aware that Turing machine equivalence was a
property which excluded other properties.  I certainly had
no intention of implying such.

 WRE>		        That doesn't stop the brain from being
 WRE>a biological computer on top of whatever other functions it may
 WRE>have, nor does the property of computation perforce stop the 
 WRE>brain from performing other functions.  There has been no claim
 WRE>of exclusivity of function.

 MPW>Sure there has.  When you claim it is "Turing machine equivalent", you
 MPW>have excluded most functions.

TME isn't an exclusionary property in my view.

 WRE>I'm curious, though, as to an example of a non-computable cognitive
 WRE>function that might be performed by the brain.

 MPW>Thinking?

We certainly can't point to an AI system which does that in a human
like manner.

 WRE>Let me put out some statements for further discussion.

 WRE> 1) The human brain can perform some computable functions.
 WRE> (I think that this one should be unobjectionable, but I thought
 WRE>that about my posts last night, too.)

 MPW>Ignoring the built-in decay features, no problem.  I'm willing to
 MPW>discuss "ideal" brains.  And using pen and paper, ideal brains can
 MPW>ideally simulate any Turing machine.

Perhaps I am using the term incorrectly, but that's precisely what
I was referring to as "Turing machine equivalence".

 WRE> 2) Systems performing computable functions may be called computers.
 WRE>(I'm certain that this one will raise objections.)

 MPW>If you like.

 WRE>3) The computational capability of computers may be analytically
 WRE>   characterized.

 MPW>No problem.

 WRE>(Of course, such analyses don't say anything about the non-computational
 WRE>characteristics of such systems.)

 MPW>Exactly.  Which is what I was objecting to.  No more, no less.  The AI
 MPW>creed is that what goes on up stairs is simulable by Turing machines.
 MPW>I don't buy it, and there is absolutely no evidence for this dogma.

Ah... I don't buy the AI creed, either, as instantiated by the brief
description of the Church-Turing Thesis: "What is human-computable is
machine computable."  My point was the inverse, that what is 
machine-computable is human-computable.  As a point of research into
AI, one has to take Church-Turing as axiomatic, and wait for the
non-machine-instantiable bits to fall out.  As you say, there is no
experimental verification of Church-Turing.

Let me reiterate that my view is that Turing machine equivalence (the
universal TM type, that is) doesn't mean that such a system can't
do other things; it just includes the capability of performing all
computable functions.  TME is probably the long cutting blade of the
Swiss Army Knife of the brain.



From welsberr  Fri Jun  2 09:18:24 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA20807; Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:18:24 CDT
9506020.mai: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:18:24 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000000d.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506021418.AA20807@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Do you like Turing?
References: <3QHLK5$S72@NZ12.RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE> <60.14241.4330.0N1E4681@CANREM.COM> <3QJACB$NUD@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <3QLFFO$FIT@PANIX2.PANIX.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3QLFFO$FIT@PANIX2.PANIX.COM>,
Kurt vonRoeschlaub  wrote:
>In article <3QJACB$NUD@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry) writes:
>[...]
 WRE>not subject to such criticism.  The brain performs functions, and
 WRE>insofar as those functions are computable, the brain performs as a
 WRE>biological computer.  AFAIK, normally functioning humans brains are
 WRE>Turing machine equivalent.

 KV>  Not to nitpick (okay, maybe to nitpick) but wouldn't the "Turing machine
 KV>equivalence" require that the brain have an infinite capacity (demonstrably
 KV>false)?

 KV>  Also it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove the brain is
 KV>Turing equivalent because you would have to show that the brain was
 KV>capable of any function a Turing machine is.  What would correspond to
 KV>the memory tape, or the state rules?  How do you do a mapping when the
 KV>memory and functionality are so thoroughly integrated?

Ok, two issues: memory and architecture.

As Clark Dorman pointed out, a limited memory *computational* system can
only be capable of a strict subset of computable functions which a 
unversal Turing machine can handle.  If we restrict the human brain
to the resources locked inside the skull, this is a large, but finite
subset.  However, if we permit the brain the use of the attached 
body, and provide this theoretical body with an infinite supply
of paper and writing implements, then the human could implement any
computable function.  At the least efficient, the human could simulate
the operation of a universal Turing machine.

As for architecture, there is no requirement in the analysis that
structure of systems be identical or mappable.  TME is a black-box
analytical tool.  That was the point of referencing Szu and Hartley's
1987 analysis of various artificial neural network models; neither 
the ANNs nor the human brain have a structure or mode of operation
which can be said to be "like" the UTM.



From welsberr  Fri Jun  2 15:19:19 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA21597; Fri, 2 Jun 95 15:19:19 CDT
9506020.mai: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 21:22:22 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000000e.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506030222.AA22166@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
References: <3QGCDV$38M@DAWN.MMM.COM> <3QO00P$RC6@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Keywords: Haldane's dilemma
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3QO00P$RC6@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU>,
S. LaBonne  wrote:
>In article <3QGCDV$38M@DAWN.MMM.COM>,
>Walter Remine  wrote:

 WRM>Evolutionary theory could adapt to "morphological similarity with no 
 WRM>genetic homology."  In fact, evolutionists are *already* trying to 
 WRM>decouple morphology from genetics.  We've seen that right here in this 
 WRM>thread, where evolutionists claimed (dubiously) that the morphological 
 WRM>stasis seen in the fossil record does not indicate genetic stasis.  

 SLB>Again incompetent reading on your part.  The organisms from the
 SLB>beginning and end of the "static" period would still be _very closely
 SLB>related_, just not _identical_.  

There is empirical evidence of decoupling between rates of
morphological change and genetic change.

Zeh, D.W. & J.A. Zeh.  1994.  When morphology misleads: interpopulation
uniformity in sexual selection masks genetic divergence in harlequin
beetle-riding pseudoscorpion populations.  Evolution 48(4):1168-1182.

	"How can such interpopulation homogeneity in male sexually
	dimorphic traits exist in the face of strong genetic
	divergence?  We propose that sexual selection, oscillating
	between favoring small and then large males, maintains such
	high levels of male variability within each population that
	it has obscured a speciation event in which genetic
	divergence and postzygotic incompatibility have clearly
	outpaced the evolution of prezygotic reproduction
	isolation."

The species name of the subjects is Cordylochernes scorpiodes.  Zeh
and Zeh have established that the French Guiana and Panama populations
are actually sibling species, despite current taxonomic classification
as a single species.  The nifty thing is that this study actually
applied tests of reproductive isolation.  Heteropopulation zygotes
invariably aborted early in development.  Zeh and Zeh noted little
difference at the behavioral level.

	"The research has established that geographically distant
	populations may diverge genetically, become postzygotically
	isolated, and yet show little evidence of this reproductive
	divergence at the phenotypic level."

======================================================================

It seems about time for a reminder to Walter ReMine:

When will you get around to addressing the challenge made to 
reduce this dispute to practice in the form of a simulation
of evolutionary processes, as you indicated suffered the same
kind of harm as real populations due to Haldane's Dilemma?



From welsberr  Fri Jun  2 21:59:07 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA22273; Fri, 2 Jun 95 21:59:07 CDT
9506020.mai: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 21:59:07 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000000f.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506030259.AA22273@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: PBS Show, "In the Beginning"
References:  
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article ,
Ev Cochrane   wrote:
 EC>I too read the item in the Times about the PBS special on the Evolution/
 EC>Creationism debate and watched one part of the show (apparently there
 EC>were two parts, of which only the first has appeared in my time zone).
 EC>The interviewer did a good job of just letting the Creationists talk,
 EC>thereby exposing the fact that they had no idea of biology and were
 EC>primarily interested in pushing Christian values/dogma.  The poor
 EC>couple from Texas with the "scroll of errors" was particularly
 EC>pathetic.  This said, and while I naturally sided with the Evolutionist
 EC>side of the debate, I couldn't help but chuckle at the gaff by the
 EC>long-haired paleontologist about Darwin predicting rapid bursts of
 EC>evolution *and* corresponding gaps in the paleontological record.
 EC>Did anybody else catch that one?

Darwin certainly hit it bang on about natural selection occuring
intermittently, the fact that varieties occur locally and then spread,
and many of the causes of poor preservation of fossils in the
geological record.  About the only contribution to a "gaff" I see in
the above is the part about correspondence between adaptive radiation
and gaps in the fossil record.  That Darwin predicted comparatively
rapid divergence upon development of novel and generally useful
adaptations is not in doubt (quote to be found below).  Darwin
stresses slow change in just about every other instance, but he *did*
make that prediction.  Your characterization of the above indicates
that the speaker is perhaps too ready to assign current thought to
Darwin than may be justifiable, but the speaker seems to be closer to
the mark than you are, judging by your reaction to the comments.  No,
I didn't see the show, and yes, I could be in error about your
familiarity with the relevant Darwin source.  Perhaps we'll find
out...

The following was gleaned from my copy of an etext of the first
edition of The Origin of Species, in response to persistent 
claims that Darwin had not advanced any theory of multiplication
of species and repeated assertions that PE "proves Darwin was
wrong".

Charles Darwin, from the First Edition of The Origin of Species:

  =====

Lastly, isolation, by checking immigration and consequently
competition, will give time for any new variety to be slowly improved;
and this may sometimes be of importance in the production of new
species.  If, however, an isolated area be very small, either from
being surrounded by barriers, or from having very peculiar physical
conditions, the total number of the individuals supported on it will
necessarily be very small; and fewness of individuals will greatly
retard the production of new species through natural selection, by
decreasing the chance of the appearance of favourable variations.

(p. 106)

That natural selection will always act with extreme slowness, I fully admit. Its action depends on there being places in the polity of nature, which can be better occupied by some of the inhabitants of the country undergoing modification of some kind. The existence of such places will often depend on physical changes, which are generally very slow, and on the immigration of better adapted forms having been checked. But the action of natural selection will probably still oftener depend on some of the inhabitants becoming slowly modified; the mutual relations of many of the other inhabitants being thus disturbed. Nothing can be effected, unless favourable variations occur, and variation itself is apparently always a very slow process. The process will often be greatly retarded by free intercrossing. Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply sufficient wholly to stop the action of natural selection. I do not believe so. On the other hand, I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world have changed. (pp. 152-153) [The above is highly noteworthy, since it records Darwin's recognition of the *intermittent* action of natural selection, and not just the intermittent nature of the fossil record. PE folks owe their source concepts to Darwin. In 1900, three separate researchers published on population genetics, and each separately had found and given priority to Mendel for the concepts. It is too bad that the 'genetic revolutionists' and 'punctuated equilibrists' did not deal similarly with Darwin. - WRE]

After ten thousand generations, species (A) is supposed to have produced three forms, a10, f10, and m10, which, from having diverged in character during the successive generations, will have come to differ largely, but perhaps unequally, from each other and from their common parent. If we suppose the amount of change between each horizontal line in our diagram to be excessively small, these three forms may still be only well-marked varieties; or they may have arrived at the doubtful category of sub-species; but we have only to suppose the steps in the process of modification to be more numerous or greater in amount, to convert these three forms into well-defined species: thus the diagram illustrates the steps by which the small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into the larger differences distinguishing species. By continuing the same process for a greater number of generations (as shown in the diagram in a condensed and simplified manner), we get eight species, marked by the letters between a14 and m14, all descended from (A). Thus, as I believe, species are multiplied and genera are formed. (p.164) [I think that the above is quite clear, and settles the point nicely. - WRE]

On the sudden appearance of whole groups of Allied Species.

The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by Professor Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, — longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created.

I may here recall a remark formerly made, namely that it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance to fly through the air; but that when this had been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would be able to spread rapidly and widely throughout the world. (pp. 309-310) [Looks like adaptive radiation to me. - WRE]

Dominant species spreading from any region might encounter still more dominant species, and then their triumphant course, or even their existence, would cease. We know not at all precisely what are all the conditions most favourable for the multiplication of new and dominant species; but we can, I think, clearly see that a number of individuals, from giving a better chance of the appearance of favourable variations, and that severe competition with many already existing forms, would be highly favourable, as would be the power of spreading into new territories. A certain amount of isolation, recurring at long intervals of time, would probably be also favourable, as before explained. One quarter of the world may have been most favourable for the production of new and dominant species on the land, and another for those in the waters of the sea. If two great regions had been for a long period favourably circumstanced in an equal degree, whenever their inhabitants met, the battle would be prolonged and severe; and some from one birthplace and some from the other might be victorious. But in the course of time, the forms dominant in the highest degree, wherever produced, would tend everywhere to prevail. As they prevailed, they would cause the extinction of other and inferior forms; and as these inferior forms would be allied in groups by inheritance, whole groups would tend slowly to disappear; though here and there a single member might long be enabled to survive.

Thus, as it seems to me, the parallel, and, taken in a large sense, simultaneous, succession of the same forms of life throughout the world, accords well with the principle of new species having been formed by dominant species spreading widely and varying; the new species thus produced being themselves dominant owing to inheritance, and to having already had some advantage over their parents or over other species; these again spreading, varying, and producing new species. The forms which are beaten and which yield their places to the new and victorious forms, will generally be allied in groups, from inheriting some inferiority in common; and therefore as new and improved groups spread throughout the world, old groups will disappear from the world; and the succession of forms in both ways will everywhere tend to correspond. (pp 327-328)

Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection. We can thus understand how it is that new species come in slowly and successively; how species of different classes do not necessarily change together, or at the same rate, or in the same degree; yet in the long run that all undergo modification to some extent. The extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms. We can understand why when a species has once disappeared it never reappears. Groups of species increase in numbers slowly, and endure for unequal periods of time; for the process of modification is necessarily slow, and depends on many complex contingencies. The dominant species of the larger dominant groups tend to leave many modified descendants, and thus new sub-groups and groups are formed. As these are formed, the species of the less vigorous groups, from their inferiority inherited from a common progenitor, tend to become extinct together, and to leave no modified offspring on the face of the earth. But the utter extinction of a whole group of species may often be a very slow process, from the survival of a few descendants, lingering in protected and isolated situations. When a group has once wholly disappeared, it does not reappear; for the link of generation has been broken. (p. 342)

This relation between the power and extent of migration of a species, either at the present time or at some former period under different physical conditions, and the existence at remote points of the world of other species allied to it, is shown in another and more general way. Mr. Gould remarked to me long ago, that in those genera of birds which range over the world, many of the species have very wide ranges. I can hardly doubt that this rule is generally true, though it would be difficult to prove it. Amongst mammals, we see it strikingly displayed in Bats, and in a lesser degree in the Felidae and Canidae. We see it, if we compare the distribution of butterflies and beetles. So it is with most fresh-water productions, in which so many genera range over the world, and many individual species have enormous ranges. It is not meant that in world-ranging genera all the species have a wide range, or even that they have on an average a wide range; but only that some of the species range very widely; for the facility with which widely-ranging species vary and give rise to new forms will largely determine their average range. For instance, two varieties of the same species inhabit America and Europe, and the species thus has an immense range; but, if the variation had been a little greater, the two varieties would have been ranked as distinct species, and the common range would have been greatly reduced. Still less is it meant, that a species which apparently has the capacity of crossing barriers and ranging widely, as in the case of certain powerfully-winged birds, will necessarily range widely; for we should never forget that to range widely implies not only the power of crossing barriers, but the more important power of being victorious in distant lands in the struggle for life with foreign associates. But on the view of all the species of a genus having descended from a single parent, though now distributed to the most remote points of the world, we ought to find, and I believe as a general rule we do find, that some at least of the species range very widely; for it is necessary that the unmodified parent should range widely, undergoing modification during its diffusion, and should place itself under diverse conditions favourable for the conversion of its offspring, firstly into new varieties and ultimately into new species. (pp. 390-391)

I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. It cannot be objected that there has not been time sufficient for any amount of organic change; for the lapse of time has been so great as to be utterly inappreciable by the human intellect. The number of specimens in all our museums is absolutely as nothing compared with the countless generations of countless species which certainly have existed. We should not be able to recognise a species as the parent of any one or more species if we were to examine them ever so closely, unless we likewise possessed many of the intermediate links between their past or parent and present states; and these many links we could hardly ever expect to discover, owing to the imperfection of the geological record. Numerous existing doubtful forms could be named which are probably varieties; but who will pretend that in future ages so many fossil links will be discovered, that naturalists will be able to decide, on the common view, whether or not these doubtful forms are varieties? As long as most of the links between any two species are unknown, if any one link or intermediate variety be discovered, it will simply be classed as another and distinct species. Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, — both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration, I am inclined to believe, has been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. Successive formations are separated from each other by enormous blank intervals of time; for fossiliferous formations, thick enough to resist future degradation, can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the subsiding bed of the sea. During the alternate periods of elevation and of stationary level the record will be blank. During these latter periods there will probably be more variability in the forms of life; during periods of subsidence, more extinction. (pp. 439-440) 9506060.mai: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 20:13:34 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000010.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506070113.AA29915@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Forrest M. Mims III can only correct spelling?
References: <3R1R0O$1O9@NEWS.IASTATE.EDU> <3R2T8D$BD3@GAP.CCO.CALTECH.EDU>
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3R2T8D$BD3@GAP.CCO.CALTECH.EDU>,
Carl J Lydick  wrote:

 CL>Well, y'see, like many creationists, Mims seems to have somehow
 CL>reached the conclusion that folks object to his errors of fact because
 CL>we don't like his religion, rather than vice versa.  

What, we object to his religion because we don't like his errors of fact?
I don't think that comes out any better.  ;-)

 CL>That belief seems
 CL>to be fairly widespread, as indicated by the fairly frequent
 CL>appearance of "stealth creationists" in various newsgroups: Folks who
 CL>deny being creationists but whose nonsense is lifted, sometimes
 CL>verbatim, out of ICR tracts.

What's even more galling are the "evolutionist mimic" SciCre-ists --
the folks who enter a discussion saying,

"Hey, I'm well versed in evolutionary biology, but that doesn't
mean that these creationists don't make some good points with
their criticisms. We scientists should acknowledge that they
have legitimate claims."

Usually, they then proceed to lay praise upon things like the 
Argument From Design, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as
being problematic for "evolution", or some such.  Within
a short time, it becomes apparent that many of these folks
have never cracked open any book more sophisticated than
some bowdlerized high school bio text, but have managed to
read copious quantities of guff from Morris, Gish, Wysong,
and Johnson.

(Hmmm, would these folks then be the proverbial sheep in
wolves' clothing?)



From BARRON1@delphi.com  Tue Jun  6 21:55:24 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from bos1h.delphi.com by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA29984; Tue, 6 Jun 95 21:55:24 CDT
Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-9 #10880)
 id <01HREI1913R49QVFB6@DELPHI.COM>; Tue, 06 Jun 1995 22:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
9506070.mai: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 13:01:40 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000011.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506071801.AA01216@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.christnet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution/Creation - Any Middle Ground?
References: <3R4K7O$RUN@DATA.INTERSERV.NET>
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

Note Followups.

In article <3R4K7O$RUN@DATA.INTERSERV.NET>,
Bob Queenan   wrote:

[...]

 BQ>I suspect there are SOME evolutionists that feel that 
 BQ>there is hard evidence for evolution combining with 
 BQ>natural selection to improve a species, but admit that 
 BQ>there are still some holes in the arguements that 
 BQ>evolution could create a species, 

Since speciation has been observed both in the field and in
the lab, such evolutionists would be spreading misinformation
to say that this was in any sense in doubt.

 BQ>or make the major 
 BQ>changes required in the time allowed to produce man.

Perhaps there are such evolutionists.  However, I'd like to
know more about the analysis that demonstrates that the 
above point is really an issue, and identification of what
you think might be holes in responses.

 BQ>Anyone interested in trying to define some common ground? 

SciCre-ists already have attempted to "claim" the common
ground for themselves.  The more astute SciCre-ists simply
take evolutionary mechanisms and arbitrarily claim that
those mechanisms are somehow limited in action, or take
evolutionary concepts and rename them as SciCre concepts.
For the first, note the coopting of "natural selection"
by various SciCre-ists, with the proviso that NS cannot
produce changes above the "kind" level.  For the second,
note that when pressed for a definition of "kind", SciCre-ists
coopt the definition of "clade".  Biologists think that life
forms between one and a few clades (depending on whether the
person thinks that some kingdoms may not share a common
ancestor with the others... a controversial point of view,
but one which dos exist).  SciCre-ists won't give a 
number of original kinds, but do object to the number "one".

To have a common ground, the SciCre-ists would have to start
operating in the realm of science.  I don't see that happening
anytime soon.



From postserv@dragon.tricity.wsu.edu  Wed Jun  7 15:11:30 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from beta.tricity.wsu.edu by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA01303; Wed, 7 Jun 95 15:11:30 CDT
Received: by beta.tricity.wsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
	id AA10477; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:10:42 -0700
Received: by dragon.tricity.wsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
	id AA02822; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:08:09 -0700
9506070.mai: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 18:50:47 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000012.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506072350.AA01541@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
References: <3R4PPF$KPI@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Keywords: Haldane's dilemma
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3R4PPF$KPI@DAWN.MMM.COM>,
Walter Remine  wrote:
 WRM>

 WRM>: Soft selection failed to make evolution go faster.

 CC>So you claim; why don't you take up Elsberry's challenge and show
 CC>that you are right?

 WRM>

 WRM>Chris failed to show that soft selection makes evolution go faster.  (In 
 WRM>fact, he showed it goes slower.)  He has no justification that soft 
 WRM>selection is a solution to Haldane's Dilemma.  So now he wants to pass 
 WRM>the matter off to computer simulations.  

At least two of your original claims, as seen in the post quoted by
Robert Bass, asserted that computer simulations demonstrated problems
due to cost of selection.  You said that the problem was "proper and
firm", and made the claim that computer simulations were subject to
it.  It sure looks like you are trying to pass this matter off...

It isn't really Elsberry's challenge to ReMine, but rather ReMine's
challenge to himself.  I'm just reminding Walter of it.

Walter sure has a lot of explaining to do, if he wishes to continue
to claim that computer simulations demonstrate the problem.  So far,
all I've seen is the claim, without an iota of evidence to document
it.



From pc@kcbbs.gen.nz  Wed Jun  7 23:44:11 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from kcbbs.gen.nz by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA02038; Wed, 7 Jun 95 23:44:11 CDT
Received: from localhost (pc@localhost) by kcbbs.gen.nz (8.5/8.5) id QAA10411; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 16:33:12 +1200
9506080.mai: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 08:03:01 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000013.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506081303.AA02395@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: wescotds@sd2.af.mil
Subject: Re: OK, I'm ready to jump in (newbie)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3R50HR$JOS@BLACKBIRD.AFIT.AF.MIL>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: welsberr


Please post a summary of responses once you get responses, 
including any URL's that are forwarded to you.

Thanks.



-- 
Wesley R. Elsberry wre2889@tam2000.tamu.edu | Central Neural System BBS
4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554    | FidoNet 1:386/385  409-737-5222
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences    | Artificial neural networks,
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/      | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more


From Mailer-Daemon  Thu Jun  8 08:03:03 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from mail.tamu.edu by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA02401; Thu, 8 Jun 95 08:03:03 CDT
Received: from localhost (localhost) by mail.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with internal id IAA20269; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 08:03:02 -0500
9506080.mai: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 08:03:01 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000014.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506081303.AA02395@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: wescotds@sd2.af.mil
Subject: Re: OK, I'm ready to jump in (newbie)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3R50HR$JOS@BLACKBIRD.AFIT.AF.MIL>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: welsberr


Please post a summary of responses once you get responses, 
including any URL's that are forwarded to you.

Thanks.



-- 
Wesley R. Elsberry wre2889@tam2000.tamu.edu | Central Neural System BBS
4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554    | FidoNet 1:386/385  409-737-5222
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences    | Artificial neural networks,
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/      | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more



From welsberr  Thu Jun  8 08:39:16 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA02576; Thu, 8 Jun 95 08:39:16 CDT
9506080.mai: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 08:39:16 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000015.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506081339.AA02576@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: ReMine's Dilemma
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Keywords: Cowardice, misdirection
Apparently-To: welsberr

*** The ReMine Challenge ***

[From Walter's original list of claims...]

 WRM> 4) The problem is robust and firm -- the phenomenon can even be
 WRM> demonstrated in computer simulations, such as the same one Dawkins
 WRM> used in his book _The Blind Watchmaker_.

[From Walter's original discussion...]

 WRM> Haldane's Dilemma is fundamentally simple.  Anyone can understand it.
 WRM> Anyone with a pencil can calculate it and see.  Computer simulations
 WRM> clearly demonstrate the problem.  So evolutionists cannot claim they
 WRM> were unaware. [...]

Walter establishes the appropriateness of computer simulation to
the issues posed by cost of selection in the first quote above.

Walter establishes that the computer simulations demonstrating
his point *already exist* in the second quote above.

[And more recently...]

 WRM>Chris failed to show that soft selection makes evolution go faster.  (In 
 WRM>fact, he showed it goes slower.)  He has no justification that soft 
 WRM>selection is a solution to Haldane's Dilemma.  So now he wants to pass 
 WRM>the matter off to computer simulations.  

Pardon me, Walter, but "passing the matter off to computer
simulations" was your *initial* move, well before Chris
ever responded to you on the topic.

When will you get around to actually pursuing the matter
with anything better than vague claims?

Produce the computer simulation that you claimed above
already exists.  Show us how you determine that cost of
selection is an issue.  The programmers on t.o. will then
try applying the concepts that have been forwarded by Andy
Peters and Chris Colby.  We'll then see whether the
program shows no change (your claim) or changed behavior
(Andy and Chris's claim).

What could be more honest in discourse than you backing
up your original assertions?

Eighth presentation of ReMine's Challenge to himself.

*** ReMine's Dilemma ***

This is Remine's Dilemma: To accept his own challenge means
that he accepts the significant chance of being demonstrated
to be wrong in a way not easily amenable to simple dismissal,
as has worked previously.  To not accept the challenge means
that he would be, in effect, abandoning his prior claim that
the problem of Haldane's paradox was so pervasive that it
caused difficulties in computer simulations of evolutionary
processes.  From a cost/benefit standpoint, if I were Walter,
I would quietly ignore the challenge, figuring that the claim
concerning computer simulation is not such a strong support
that losing it costs much, whereas pursuing that claim could
jeopardize the whole argument.  Ignoring it also leaves open
the possibility that some will not recognize that the original
claim concerning simulation has, in fact, been abandoned.
Perhaps not surprisingly, this is what Walter has thus far
done.



From mooret@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu  Thu Jun  8 11:51:09 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from aruba.ccit.arizona.edu by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA02834; Thu, 8 Jun 95 11:51:09 CDT
Received: (from mooret@localhost) by aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA100243; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 09:50:58 -0700
9506090.mai: Date: Fri, 9 Jun 95 18:20:52 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000016.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506092320.AA01785@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
References: <3R4K30$8I7@DAWN.MMM.COM> <3R9LMH$LSH@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3R9LMH$LSH@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU>,
S. LaBonne  wrote:
>In article <3R4K30$8I7@DAWN.MMM.COM>,
>Walter Remine  wrote:

 WRM>With another sweep of his hand, Steve explains away the origin of upright 
 WRM>posture.  It's just "developmental delays"!

 SLB> There's a copious literature giving details of this idea in a
 SLB> rigorous way, with no "hand-waving"; that portion of it published
 SLB> by 1975 is extensively reviewed in _Ontogeny and Phylogeny_.
 SLB> Perhaps after responding to Elsberry's challenge (which was
 SLB> really _your_ challenge to begin with), you'll finally find time
 SLB> to _read_ _Ontogeny and Phylogeny_.  Then I'm sure we'd be very
 SLB> interested to hear your informed critique of the hypotheses that
 SLB> you now dismiss- on the basis of what knowledge, Walter?- as
 SLB> hand-waving.  (You might try to find time to read a basic
 SLB> developmental biolgy text while you're at it.)

 SLB> But it's too late, really.  You respond even to Andrew Macrae-
 SLB> who has forgotten far more about evolution than I'll ever know,
 SLB> and who studs every post with multiple literature references-
 SLB> with the same ignorant petulance and the same complete lack of
 SLB> specifics or references that you display above.  Too bad- you
 SLB> started out with some credibility, and now you've thrown it all
 SLB> away.

I think my cost/benefit analysis of ReMine's dilemma didn't fully
evaluate the cost of ignoring the challenge.  

[From Walter's original list of claims...]

 WRM> 4) The problem is robust and firm -- the phenomenon can even be
 WRM> demonstrated in computer simulations, such as the same one Dawkins
 WRM> used in his book _The Blind Watchmaker_.

[From Walter's original discussion...]

 WRM> Haldane's Dilemma is fundamentally simple.  Anyone can understand it.
 WRM> Anyone with a pencil can calculate it and see.  Computer simulations
 WRM> clearly demonstrate the problem.  So evolutionists cannot claim they
 WRM> were unaware. [...]

Walter can't pass on the computer simulations and still claim that
Haldane's paradox is fundamentally simple.  Something that can
be calculated easily with a pencil is quite likely a very good
candidate for computer simulation.  So Walter really will be
abandoning a good chunk of claim 4, contrary to my previous
statements on Walter's best strategy, if he lets the computer
simulation challenge that he set up founder.

If we aren't going to wait around for Walter's probably 
nonexistent response, maybe we can start tossing around some
points of design for an appropriate simulation.



9506100.mai: Date: Sat, 10 Jun 95 07:55:28 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000017.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506101255.AA00539@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: 74644.3017@CompuServe.COM
Subject: Re: flaming
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3RA5FD$S8U$1@MHADG.PRODUCTION.COMPUSERVE.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: welsberr

In article <3RA5FD$S8U$1@MHADG.PRODUCTION.COMPUSERVE.COM> you write:
>	I am a writer for PC Novice Magazine.  I am working on an 
>article regarding the topic of flaming.  We are looking for 
>people who have either been flamed, or people who flame others. 
>We are taking several angles in this article, so any information 
>or opinions are welcome.
>	My name is Kirsten and you can reach me at 
>1-800-544-1264.  Our offices are open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
>Central Standard Time. The deadline for interviews is Friday, 
>June 16, 1995.  Thank you.

I've been on both sides of the flamethrower, so to speak, and
received flames from people who disagree with almost everything
I post and also from people who agree with *almost* everything
I post.

My own policy on flaming others is highly context dependent.
On Usenet's talk.origins and the FidoNet Controv Echo, I feel
free to respond to posts with exactly the same level of respect
that the poster gave others.  In the creation/evolution debate,
this means that replies to people who claim that biologists
are essentially idiots can be very toasty indeed.  On the 
FidoNet Evolution Echo, I am the moderator, so some further
degree of restraint usually applies.  On the GenNet Creation
echo, I participate on the strict principle of not saying
even one nasty thing to another participant, no matter how
clueless, obnoxious, or insulting my correspondent may
actually be.  As a biologist in "hostile" territory there,
I have to set a good example of net participation, lest
someone should make comments in the vein of "evolution corrupts
morals; just look at Wesley's posts".

Contact info:
409-737-5312 home voice
409-740-4927 work voice


-- 
Wesley R. Elsberry wre2889@tam2000.tamu.edu | Central Neural System BBS
4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554    | FidoNet 1:386/385  409-737-5222
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences    | Artificial neural networks,
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/      | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more


From webinfo@rtis.com  Sat Jun 10 23:43:22 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from brazos.bihs.net by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA01310; Sat, 10 Jun 95 23:43:22 CDT
Received: from realtime (www.rtis.com [204.96.15.10]) by brazos.bihs.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA16234 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 23:42:46 -0500
Message-Id: <199506110442.XAA16234@BRAZOS.BIHS.NET>
9506120.mai: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 11:47:45 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000018.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506121647.AA02947@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: labonnes@csc.albany.edu
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3RHNID$OBC@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU>
References: <3RG7PC$E9R@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: welsberr

In article <3RHNID$OBC@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU> you write:
>Lie.  Your silly response to my bird/fish example shows that you are
>quite unable to imagine good arguments that "evolutionists" could
>use in such a situation.  Repeating the same stuff over and over again,
>after it's been demonstrated that you can't back it up, just doesn't
>cut it, Walter.  You're bucking to be the next Ted Holden.  What
>you need now is a mascot for your .sig!

Maybe... "Walford the Weasel"?

                  
     |\---/|      
    
    =-\_v_/-=

;-)

"Walford sez... Never acknowledge your correspondent's arguments,
and never respond to challenges of your claims that seem certain
to prove embarrassing.  And, oh yes, don't forget to chant, 
'Tain't so, tain't so, na nyah na nyah na nyah.'"

-- 
Wesley R. Elsberry wre2889@tam2000.tamu.edu | Central Neural System BBS
4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554    | FidoNet 1:386/385  409-737-5222
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences    | Artificial neural networks,
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/      | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more


From welsberr  Mon Jun 12 11:54:37 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA02997; Mon, 12 Jun 95 11:54:37 CDT
9506120.mai: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 12:18:33 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000019.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506121718.AA03103@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: ReMine's Dilemma
Summary: To support his claims, or to abandon them willy-nilly...
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Keywords: cowardice, misdirection
Apparently-To: us236454@dawn.mmm.com
Apparently-To: welsberr

It was back on 950509 that I first expressed the ReMine Challenge
under that name.  I'll note here that I asked a couple of questions
much earlier that are part of the challenge.

Given that the challenge has been repeated eight times previously,
over a month has gone by, and the only response has been, "hold your
horses", I'm about ready to give up on extending the benefit of doubt
to ReMine, and consider the original claims that he made which deal
with computer simulation to have been abandoned.  Those are that
Haldane's paradox is a "proper and firm" problem (computer simulations
run afoul of it) and that "anybody can calculate it" (computer
simulations stated to have already demonstrated the problem).

If Walter doesn't want us to consider those claims to be abandoned,
he should come across with the following bits of information
immediately.

  1) The name and reference for at least one of the already
     existing computer simulations that he claimed demonstrated
     Haldane's paradox.

  2) The diagnostic means by which one determines that the
     simulation identified in (1) actually does demonstrate
     the problem.

These two items are something that Walter should be able to toss
off without further ado.  (1) without (2) doesn't do anything,
though, for we would have no way of checking Walter's claim without
knowing what his criteria are for diagnosis of the problem.  Either
an equation or pseudocode will suffice for (2).

 WRM> Haldane's Dilemma is fundamentally simple.  Anyone can understand it.
 WRM> Anyone with a pencil can calculate it and see.  Computer simulations
 WRM> clearly demonstrate the problem.  So evolutionists cannot claim they
 WRM> were unaware. [...]

The claim is that already existing simulations demonstrate the problem,
and by implication Walter is aware of these simulations.  Giving us
the name and how we know that the problem has actually been 
demonstrated doesn't require any further research on Walter's part.

The further parts of the challenge might actually require Walter to
learn something new, but the two items above are just asking him
to support his previous claims, not to explore new territory in
simulation.



From @MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU:schafersman_steven@msmail.muohio.edu  Mon Jun 12 12:19:49 1995
Return-Path: <@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU:SCHAFERSMAN_STEVEN@MSMAIL.MUOHIO.EDU>
Received: from MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA03122; Mon, 12 Jun 95 12:19:49 CDT
Message-Id: <9506121719.AA03122@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Received: from msmail.muohio.edu by MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with TCP; Mon, 12 Jun 95 13:19:09 EST
9506120.mai: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 20:32:39 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000001a.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506130132.AA04310@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Shockley update
References: <3QKNPH$DQH@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <95061007561013173@ATHEIST.ORG> <3RC7PS$6O3@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <3RIGU1$LIA@VIXEN.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3RIGU1$LIA@VIXEN.CSO.UIUC.EDU>,
Albert Himoe  wrote:
>Wesley R. Elsberry (welsberr@orca.tamu.edu) wrote:
>: Albert Himoe  wrote:
 AH>I've become somewhat of a student of the Shockley style in that past few
 AH>days. I didn't run into your "color-coded" quote or anything

 WRE> Interview in Harper's, early 1970's, "The Smart White Man's Burden".
 WRE> I'll see about looking up the issue.

 AH> I found an article by Michael Rogers in Esquire, Jan. 1973,
 AH> which gives your quote, but he seems to be quoting
 AH> something else, not reporting. He gives the date as Jan.
 AH> 1972, no source. (Rogers' article is mostly about
 AH> Shockley's personality, based on Rogers' experiences in
 AH> obtaining an interview with WS; little of substance on WS's
 AH> ideas.) I couldn't find anything in Harper's around that
 AH> date.

Try

Daniels, N.  1973.  The smart white man's burden.  Harper's 247:25.




From welsberr  Mon Jun 12 21:07:29 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA04423; Mon, 12 Jun 95 21:07:29 CDT
9506120.mai: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 21:07:29 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000001b.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506130207.AA04423@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Texas Textbook Selection Alert
Distribution: tx
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

I've limited distribution to Texas.

The State Board of Education in Texas now has a majority of 
creationists.  Steven Shafersman of the NCSE recommends that
now is the time to get involved in the process.  Biology 
textbooks are coming up for review, and it is expected that
the SciCre forces will be pushing for elimination of evolution
references and adoption of SciCre texts.  Public hearings are
coming up *soon*.

From Steven's message to me:

You must do two things: First, contact the Texas Education Agency,
1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, TX 78701-1494, and ask to be put
on the current list of "Interested Citizens for Textbook Adoptions."
Specifically ask for a copy of the current Proclamation, the State
Textbook Program General Provisions, and any other relevant documents.
The latest Proclamation I have is Proclamation 1992 for textbooks to
be discussed and selected in 1994 and to be used starting in
September, 1995.  You will want copies of Proclamation 1993 and 1994.
Proclamation 1993 is being used this year to select the biology
textbooks to be used in 1996.  I think this is the one you want.  The
public hearing for these books before the State Textbook Committee is
in July, 1995, but the deadline to request in writing to appear at the
joint hearings is in June.  The deadline to request to speak before
the SBE in November is in October.  I don't know the exact dates
because I don't have my own copy of Proclamation 1993.

[End quote]

The second action item is to get connected with the NCSE.  The
email address is ncse@crl.com.

I've already sent off my letter to TEA requesting information,
and am spreading the news to friends and acquaintances who are
interested in keeping science in science classrooms.

Wesley



9506130.mai: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 07:44:16 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000001c.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506131244.AA05119@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu
Subject: Well, I tried to, anyway

To: ms3a522@GEOMAT.math.uni-hamburg.de

 MR> In talk.origins you write:

 WRE>I've limited distribution to Texas.

 MR> And it still reached Germany...

I guess that I should have said that I responded with "tx" when
asked what the distribution should be.

;-)






From welsberr  Tue Jun 13 08:01:49 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA05222; Tue, 13 Jun 95 08:01:49 CDT
9506130.mai: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 08:01:49 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000001d.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506131301.AA05222@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.origins,misc.education.science
Subject: Re: Evolution vs. creationism in public schoo
References: <3RCKNL$P3J@ODIN.COMMUNITY.NET> <3RE6JA$2AB@NEWSBF02.NEWS.AOL.COM> <3RI7GF$NP@HERMES.ACS.UNT.EDU> 
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: inet
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article ,
John C. Hail  wrote:
 JH>2.  Public school policy case in point: in my local school district, the
 JH>science curriculum committee wrote that macroevolution is fact (ie,
 JH>skepticism is not an option) and that creationism is illegal &
 JH>unconstitutional.  

Speciation is observed.  Speciation is the only natural event which
comprises macroevolution.  To say that macroevolution is not a fact,
you have to disestablish the observations of speciation that have 
happened.

Somehow, I don't see you doing that.

Creationism, taught as if it were scientific, should be both illegal
and unconstitutional.  Unless you can present a scientific theory
of creation, this should always be so.  Once you or some other
SciCre proponent antes up with the long awaited STOC, there just
isn't any basis for teaching creationism in science classes.  Well,
actually, I guess that there is such a basis: if an example of 
pseudoscience is wanted, SciCre fits the bill perfectly.

 JH>As you might infer, none of them were creationists or had any doubts
 JH>about the absolute truth of evolution.

Is there some reason to doubt the existence of a class of phenomena,
many instances of which have been observed?  

I don't think so.



From welsberr  Tue Jun 13 09:21:49 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA05501; Tue, 13 Jun 95 09:21:49 CDT
9506130.mai: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 09:21:49 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000001e.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506131421.AA05501@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: human fossils
References: <3R5PCV$M0O@ACCESS2.DIGEX.NET> <60.15526.4330.0N1E6691@CANREM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <60.15526.4330.0N1E6691@CANREM.COM>,
J. Moore  wrote:

[re: Koko]

 JR>Not to mention being the biggest scam in recent anthropological history.

 JR>Too bad about that part. :-(

I apparently missed this news flash.  Care to enlighten me, with
references for the technical bits?





From pmoore@nosc.mil  Tue Jun 13 09:25:34 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from trout.nosc.mil by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA05540; Tue, 13 Jun 95 09:25:34 CDT
Received: from porpoise (porpoise.nosc.mil) by trout.nosc.mil (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA19506; Tue, 13 Jun 95 06:45:45 PDT
Received: from trout.nosc.mil by porpoise (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA17222; Tue, 13 Jun 95 06:46:33 PDT
Received: from sonar1.nosc.mil by trout.nosc.mil (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA19499; Tue, 13 Jun 95 06:45:37 PDT
9506140.mai: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 00:46:38 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

0000001f.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506140546.AA07723@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.origins,misc.education.science
Subject: Re: Evolution vs. creationism in public schoo
References: <3RCKNL$P3J@ODIN.COMMUNITY.NET>  <3RJC6G$DDM@HERMES.ACS.UNT.EDU> <3RL2PL$LEL@ACMEZ.GATECH.EDU>
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: inet
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3RL2PL$LEL@ACMEZ.GATECH.EDU>,
STAN MULAIK  wrote:

 SM> But science *is* about values, the values of objectivity, and
 SM> something that men have given their lives and endured suffering for.
 SM> It is unfortunate that there are school administrations that wish to
 SM> avoid discussion of the pros and cons about theories like evolution,
 SM> for that undermines teaching students about objectivity, as a value.

When teaching the subject of biology, one would hope that the 
instructors would have more familiarity with the topic than 
to use the phrase "theories like evolution".  There are several
indications of less than stellar scholarship immanent in such
usage:

 1) Evolution is a class of phenomena with the diagnostic
    characteristic of allele frequency change over time.
    The existence of this class of phenomena is established
    by the observation of any instance which displays the
    diagnostic criterion.  Many such instances have been
    observed.  These observations demonstrate that
    evolution is a fact.  Referring to a fact as a theory
    is fallacious.

 2) Evolution sometimes is loosely used to also refer to
    theories of how evolution, the phenomenon, occurs.
    If this sense is applied, a further fallacious viewpoint
    from the phrase "theories like evolution" is revealed.
    Evolutionary mechanism theories have a cardinality
    greater than one, yet the quoted phrase implies a 
    cardinality of one for the set of EMTs.

 3) Ignoring the errors identified in (1) and (2), the
    further error of vagueness of meaning arises.  What,
    precisely, makes some one or several scientific 
    theories "like" some unspecified EMT?  The similarity
    measure is unspecified.  Given that, as a class, EMTs
    share the property of being scientific theories, it
    would seem that a reasonable similarity criterion for
    "like" would be "is also a scientific theory".

 SM> Objectivity in theoretical matters takes dialogue, debate, to sort out
 SM> what is subjective from what is objective.  Any education about
 SM> science that does not teach that value is not teaching an important
 SM> value in life.

Since "theories like evolution" are simply the class of scientific
theories, and biological science is rarely the first science presented
in pedagogy, I fail to see how the issue really concerns EMTs in any
special manner.  The discussion of the pros and cons of theories
(establishment of objectivity, empirical knowledge on the pro side,
and limitation of applicability to natural phenomena, conditional
retention without hope of "proof" on the con side) should have been
covered long before the student encounters biological theories.



From welsberr  Wed Jun 14 01:13:04 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA07830; Wed, 14 Jun 95 01:13:04 CDT
9506140.mai: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 01:13:04 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000020.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506140613.AA07830@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
References: <3RHRKM$J1P@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Keywords: jargon
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3RHRKM$J1P@DAWN.MMM.COM>,
Walter Remine  wrote:
 WRM>This is my response to Brett Vickers.

 BV>Walter seems to see conspiracy everywhere.  

 WRM>Once again, that misrepresents me.  I have never accused evolutionists of 
 WRM>intentional error or conspiracy.  

A "trade secret" is a conspiracy of those involved in a trade or
a concern in a trade to deny information to those outside the
trade or the concern on some particular topic.  If there is no
conspiracy, then withheld information is simply a "secret", not
a "trade secret".  If information is not withheld, then it isn't
a "secret" either.

So, will you give up the "trade secret" claim, or the claim
that you never accused biologists of conspiracy?  I bet you
give up the latter.

By my reckoning, "trade secret" is inapplicable.  By the
various references to publications up to the present time,
"secret" is not indicated.

I think Steve LaBonne is right... when can we expect the 
appearance of ASCII art in your .sig?  And will that be
before or after your identification of which computer
simulation demonstrates Haldane's paradox and the diagnostic
criterion by which we determine that it does so demonstrate?



From webinfo@rtis.com  Wed Jun 14 04:59:45 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from brazos.bihs.net by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA07938; Wed, 14 Jun 95 04:59:45 CDT
Received: from realtime (www.rtis.com [204.96.15.10]) by brazos.bihs.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA07724 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 04:59:09 -0500
Message-Id: <199506140959.EAA07724@BRAZOS.BIHS.NET>
9506140.mai: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 17:46:41 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000021.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506142246.AA09338@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: jgacker@post-f.gsfc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: human fossils
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3RMT2O$P42@POST.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
References: <3RK6K4$QB1@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: 

;-)  ;-)  ;-)

!


Oh, I'm thinking of awarding the slimiest poster each month with
a .sig that they can use...

     |\---/|      
       Walford the Weasel
    =-\_v_/-=

"Walford sez... Never acknowledge your correspondent's arguments,
and never respond to challenges of your claims that seem certain
to prove embarrassing.  And, oh yes, don't forget to chant, 
'Tain't so, tain't so, na nyah na nyah na nyah.'"

Of course, Walford has been inspired by one particularly slimy
talk.origins denizen.  Whatcha think?

-- 
Wesley R. Elsberry wre2889@tam2000.tamu.edu | Central Neural System BBS
4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554    | FidoNet 1:386/385  409-737-5222
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences    | Artificial neural networks,
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/      | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more



From welsberr  Wed Jun 14 18:03:22 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA09445; Wed, 14 Jun 95 18:03:22 CDT
9506140.mai: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 18:03:22 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000022.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506142303.AA09445@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution vs. creationism in public schoo
References: <3RCKNL$P3J@ODIN.COMMUNITY.NET> <3RL2PL$LEL@ACMEZ.GATECH.EDU> <3RLT3S$K9J@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <8JRPI9600IWR47YWID@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: inet
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: dp2p+@andrew.cmu.edu
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <8JRPI9600IWR47YWID@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>,
Denys Proteau   wrote:

 WRE> 1) Evolution is a class of phenomena
 WRE>.....
 WRE> These observations demonstrate that
 WRE>     evolution is a fact.  Referring to a fact as a theory
 WRE>     is fallacious.

DP>  I beleive that the vast majority of scientists find the term "theory"
DP>acceptable when refering to a set of facts or observable phenomena that
DP>are understood within a framework of specified principles or equations. 
DP>Two examples are the theory of gravitation and the theory of
DP>electromagnatism.  Gravity and electromagnatism are facts as well as
DP>theories.  So with this meaning the term "theory of evolution", though
DP>vague, is acceptable. 

Usually, the usage of "evolution" to mean some one or several
evolutionary mechanism theories can be disambiguated from reference
to phenomena via the context.  However, the kind of usage that I
was pointing out as fallacious is that usage which denies that
"evolution" can refer to anything except theory, or which erroneously
categorizes observed phenomena as being theoretical concepts.

DP>  I think it is unfortunate that the word "theory" has so many meanings.
DP> Laypeople so often use the word "theory" to mean complex conjectures
DP>for which there is no experimental support.  It is not surprizing that
DP>any biological use of the word "theory" is tainted with the shadowy
DP>meaning of "uncertain" in the minds of laypeople.  In all fairness
DP>though, scientists do use the word "theory" even for sets of rules and
DP>knowlege that have not yet gained wide acceptance and even for ideas
DP>that have been disproven.

For science, a theory doesn't stop being a theory simply because the
evidence disconfirms it.  It does mean, however, that the theory is
*abandoned*.  Pangenesis and aristogenesis are a couple of abandoned
biological theories.  The start of a theory doesn't require a whole
bunch of tests.  A few critical tests are sufficient to establish a
theory, supposing that the evidence doesn't disconfirm the theory in
those tests.  All scientific theories are uncertain in the sense that
all are held conditionally upon the review of further evidence.  The
uncertainty implicit in the scientific method is probably the single
most baffling thing to the lay non-scientist.





From jc_hail@ccmail.pnl.gov  Wed Jun 14 18:05:58 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from pnl.gov (gate.pnl.gov) by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA09476; Wed, 14 Jun 95 18:05:58 CDT
Received: from ccmail.pnl.gov by pnl.gov (PMDF V4.3-13 #6012)
 id <01HRPAALQGZK94DODG@PNL.GOV>; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
9506150.mai: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 11:58:52 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000023.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506151658.AA10901@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: gascan@dcst16.pt
Subject: Re: Evolution vs. creationism in public sc
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3RN4KQ$CK9@LSI.LSIL.COM>
References: 
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: welsberr

In article <3RN4KQ$CK9@LSI.LSIL.COM> you write:

 BG>You left out "when taught as science."  Creationism is not science; it
 BG>is religion.  If it is taught as religion, fine.  Skepticism *is* an
 BG>option; I might opine that it is a requirement for a good scientist,
 BG>and that the crudulity required to accept creationism should not be an
 BG>option.      ^^^^^^^^^

Excellent spelling variant!  I think calling SciCre-ists overly crudulous
is a far better description than calling them overly credulous.

;-)

Your jargon pedant,

Wesley



-- 
Wesley R. Elsberry wre2889@tam2000.tamu.edu | Central Neural System BBS
4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554    | FidoNet 1:386/385  409-737-5222
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences    | Artificial neural networks,
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/      | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more


From Mailer-Daemon  Thu Jun 15 11:58:54 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from mail.tamu.edu by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA10907; Thu, 15 Jun 95 11:58:54 CDT
Received: from localhost (localhost) by mail.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with internal id LAA24322; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 11:58:54 -0500
9506150.mai: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 11:58:52 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000024.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506151658.AA10901@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: gascan@dcst16.pt
Subject: Re: Evolution vs. creationism in public sc
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3RN4KQ$CK9@LSI.LSIL.COM>
References: 
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: welsberr

In article <3RN4KQ$CK9@LSI.LSIL.COM> you write:

 BG>You left out "when taught as science."  Creationism is not science; it
 BG>is religion.  If it is taught as religion, fine.  Skepticism *is* an
 BG>option; I might opine that it is a requirement for a good scientist,
 BG>and that the crudulity required to accept creationism should not be an
 BG>option.      ^^^^^^^^^

Excellent spelling variant!  I think calling SciCre-ists overly crudulous
is a far better description than calling them overly credulous.

;-)

Your jargon pedant,

Wesley



-- 
Wesley R. Elsberry wre2889@tam2000.tamu.edu | Central Neural System BBS
4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554    | FidoNet 1:386/385  409-737-5222
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences    | Artificial neural networks,
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/      | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more



From welsberr  Thu Jun 15 14:21:03 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA11344; Thu, 15 Jun 95 14:21:03 CDT
9506160.mai: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 07:57:05 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000025.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506161257.AA15072@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
References: <3RQBTF$HA3@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3RQBTF$HA3@DAWN.MMM.COM>, Walter Remine  wrote:
 WRM>This is my response to Wesley Elsberry.

 WRE>A "trade secret" is a conspiracy of those involved in a trade or
 WRE>a concern in a trade to deny information to those outside the
 WRE>trade or the concern on some particular topic.  

 WRM>My use of the words "trade secret" are no different than Gould's.
 WRM>Gould called the large morphological gaps between fossil species the
 WRM>"trade secret of paleontology".  (His words)

Yes.

So what?

The issue wasn't "only Walter uses the term 'trade secret'".
The issue was "Walter claims not to have accused biologists
of conspiracy, yet uses the term 'trade secret'".  What you
have established above is that Gould is also into conspiracy
theories, not that you have not engaged in imputing conspiracy
on the part of biologists.

I really did enjoy your comments on misdirection in 'The Biotic
Message'.  I see that you practice as well as expose such.

Now, what about a response dealing with your apparent abandonment
of the claims that Haldane's paradox is a "proper and firm"
problem, and that "anybody can calculate it" by means of failing
to support the linked statements on computer simulation?

Give us the name of one of the computer simulations that you
said demonstrate the paradox, and the diagnostic means of 
knowing that the paradox has been demonstrated, and that will
help quite a bit in restoring some of your lost credibility.



From steve@syl.dl.nec.com  Fri Jun 16 10:52:07 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from mail.tamu.edu by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA15462; Fri, 16 Jun 95 10:52:07 CDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) id KAA04282 for welsberr@orca.tamu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 10:52:07 -0500
Received: from telemann.inoc.dl.nec.com (telemann.inoc.dl.nec.com [143.101.112.2]) by mail.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP id KAA04275 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 10:52:05 -0500
Received: by telemann.inoc.dl.nec.com (8.6.12/YDL1.9.1-940729.15)
	id KAA26274(telemann.inoc.dl.nec.com); Fri, 16 Jun 1995 10:51:35 -0500
Received: by texas.syl.dl.nec.com (8.6.12/YDL1.9.1-940729.15)
	id KAA05045(texas.syl.dl.nec.com); Fri, 16 Jun 1995 10:51:34 -0500
Received: by scooby.syl.dl.nec.com (8.6.12/YDL1.9.1-940729.15)
	id KAA01127(scooby.syl.dl.nec.com); Fri, 16 Jun 1995 10:51:34 -0500
9506170.mai: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 95 20:21:02 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000026.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506180121.AA18043@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Possible cures for evolutionism
References: <3RFUGS$50O@CRL2.CRL.COM> <3RS0D9$LU0@NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU> <3RUOK6$4V8@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU> <3RVKNR$1PF@CRL4.CRL.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr

In article <3RVKNR$1PF@CRL4.CRL.COM>,
Michael Griswold  wrote:
 MG>I don't have to answer or explain anything to you. BTW, if you join 
 MG>Weiner in twisting my name you many have to suffer the legal 
 MG>ramifications with him. I can tolerate the your/his insulting/sarcastic 
 MG>remarks, however, I will not tolerate the misuse of my name and I want 
 MG>you to understand that I am seeking my legal options in this regard. 

Your legal options are "you may feed the lawyers at any time you 
wish".

Ted Holden would be disappointed in you.  Before you get all litigious
over *that* comment, let me inform you that Ted Holden claims that
reasonable people don't file lawsuits over stuff that happens on
Usenet.  Ted is used to people telling him that he is wrong, though.



From samnets@gate.net  Sat Jun 17 22:47:04 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from tequesta.gate.net by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA18170; Sat, 17 Jun 95 22:47:04 CDT
Received: from dffl5-31.gate.net (dffl5-31.gate.net [198.206.134.95]) by tequesta.gate.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA04643 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 23:45:41 -0400
9506190.mai: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 14:45:06 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

00000027.txt


 From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506191945.AA21184@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: bharper@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: Chemical Evolution and its non-existence
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3S4HA8$6GF@CHARM.MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
References: <3RQ69N$1DQ@NEWSBF02.NEWS.AOL.COM> <3RSBR6$HVO@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: welsberr

In article <3S4HA8$6GF@CHARM.MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> you write:

>Author:       Pierce, John Robinson, 1910-.
>Title:        Symbols, signals, and noise: the nature and process of
>              communication.
>Pub. Info.:   New York, Harper [1961].
>LC Subject:   Information-theory.

Shouldn't that be Peirce?  (Assuming this is the semiotics dude...)

-- 
Wesley R. Elsberry wre2889@tam2000.tamu.edu | Central Neural System BBS
4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554    | FidoNet 1:386/385  409-737-5222
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences    | Artificial neural networks,
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/      | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more


From Mailer-Daemon  Mon Jun 19 14:55:44 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: from tamvm1.tamu.edu by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA21207; Mon, 19 Jun 95 14:55:44 CDT
Message-Id: <9506191955.AA21207@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU by tamvm1.tamu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 3195; Mon, 19 Jun 95 14:55:41 CDT
Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@TAMVM1) by TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8851; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:55:41 -0500
9506191.mai: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 23:27:31 CDT


Back to WRE Archive listing

Online Zoologists Home