wrote:
AM>P-E doesn't really change much from the traditional model. It
AM>just re-emphasizes the importance of paleogeography to the
AM>interpretation of the fossil record, and the importance of
AM>isolation processes.
WRM>That's flim-flam.
Flim-flam is a term describing deliberate misrepresentation.
Are you going to stick to that, or later claim, "Oh, I just
meant it in the sense that Joe Sliderule used it when doing
a stand-up schtick at the AAAS convention."?
WRM> Punk eq is quite different from the traditional
WRM> (Darwinian) model, but its expositors excel at flexing it to meet
WRM> whatever circumstances are at hand.
The Darwinian model is, canonically, what Darwin forwarded, right?
Let's have a look-see. Why don't you tell me which points of
PE aren't either described outright or presaged in the
following passages, and I'll tell you where you were right,
and where your reading comprehension failed.
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)
From news@wsnet.com Tue Jun 20 12:32:18 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from bubba.wsnet.com by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA23079; Tue, 20 Jun 95 12:32:18 CDT
Received: (from news@localhost) by bubba.wsnet.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id JAA26519; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 09:49:09 -0500
9506210.mai: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 15:43:18 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000002b.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506212043.AA26109@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu
Subject: Response to survey
To: research@astro.sunyit.edu
Dear Contributor to talk.abortion:
I'm working on a research project examining how and why people use
newsgroups to discuss controversial topics with each other. Your name
has been selected from among the contributors to the newsgroup
talk.abortion. I'd very much appreciate your participation in this
research.
Basically, I'd like to interview you by email. This message describes
the study, and poses several questions I'm interested in getting your
responses to. You can send your responses to me by email to
research@astro.sunyit.edu
First, I need to make clear the following: By responding to these
questions, you give your voluntary consent to participate in this
project. All communication will be kept confidential, including your
name, email address and other identifying information you provide. I
will not quote you by name or email address without your explicit
permission. This project is part of my research for a
Ph.D. dissertation being completed at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. If at any point you feel you have been treated unfairly,
contact the MIT Committee on the Use of Humans as Experimental
Subjects. At the completion of the study, I would be delighted to
answer any questions you have about it, and will gladly send you any
papers I write based on this research.
Now to the questions. I have five basic questions. In addition, I'd
welcome any comments you have about the talk.abortion newsgroup.
1. How do you use the talk.abortion newsgroup?
I don't do so, other than replying to cross-posted articles.
For example, how
often do you read the messages posted there?
Unless an item is cross-posted to talk.origins, sci.bio.evolution,
or a few other groups, I don't read them at all.
How many minutes per day
or per week do you spend reading messages?
Probably 1.5 hours per day reading Usenet newsgroups.
How often do you post
messages yourself?
About 5 messages per week.
How long have you been reading and/or posting
messages to this group?
Reading: I don't. Posting: Only in response to cross-posted
articles. I haven't kept track of when the first such
message occurred.
Why do you read and/or post messages to
talk.abortion?
If a message is cross-posted, I usually respond to all groups,
but set followups to the one most appropriate group.
2. How would you compare talk.abortion to newsgroups discussing other
subjects?
I haven't read the full feed, so I don't feel qualified to comment
on it.
How would you compare using a newsgroup to other ways of
talking to people about abortion?
I don't know, since the abortion debate isn't one that I
have done much in.
3. How would you describe the talk.abortion newsgroup to someone not
familiar with the Internet or usenet newsgroups?
That it exists, and is a very active forum.
4. Could you tell me about your political activities: Do you usually
vote?
At the national and state level, yes.
What (if any) organizations do you belong to and/or contribute
money to?
IEEE, ACM, Society for Marine Mammalogy, NCSE, Animal Behavior
Society.
Have you written any letters to public officials about
political issues during the past year?
Yes.
What (if any) activities have
you engaged in related to the abortion issue during the past year?
None.
5. Could you tell me some basic information about you: your age, sex,
occupation and educational background.
35, male, Ph.D. student, BS Zoology, MSCS Computer Science, currently
in Ph.D. program in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences. Have worked as
a programmer, biological researcher, freelance photographer, studio
photography technician, and survey crewperson for a road construction
company.
How frequently do you use a
computer, either for communication or other purposes?
Every day, several hours a day.
What kinds of
things do you use a computer for?
Programming, email, newsgroups, HTML authoring, gopher site admin,
word processing.
How much time do you spend reading
and/or writing to newsgroups?
1.5 hours a day or thereabouts.
I really appreciate your response.
;-)
From ncse@crl.com Wed Jun 21 18:57:46 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from mail.crl.com by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA26720; Wed, 21 Jun 95 18:57:46 CDT
Received: from crl4.crl.com by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA13751
(5.65c/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 21 Jun 1995 16:56:22 -0700
Received: by crl4.crl.com id AA11260
(5.65c/IDA-1.5 for Wesley Elsberry ); Wed, 21 Jun 1995 16:56:20 -0700
9506210.mai: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:26:30 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000002c.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506220426.AA27634@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Do evolutionists silence the creationists?
References: <3RUQDI$5EG@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU> <3SAOL7$491@NEWSBF02.NEWS.AOL.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3SAOL7$491@NEWSBF02.NEWS.AOL.COM>, BHohb1 wrote:
>In article <3RUQDI$5EG@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU>
>labonnes@csc.albany.edu (S. LaBonne) writes:
SL> Similarly, a biology department staffed with creationists wouldn't
SL> produce much in the way of scientific knowledge.
BH>Excluding, of course, men like John Ray, Carl Linnaeus and Georges Cuvier.
So, one of the first applications for a time machine would be to
deliver modern SciCre-ists back to the early 1800's, where they
could stand at the forefront of science?
Or maybe Steve meant that a *current* biology department staffed
with creationists wouldn't produce much in the way of scientific
knowledge.
9506220.mai: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 00:02:10 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000002d.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506220502.AA27801@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Uncertainty in establishment; certainty in disestablishment
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
Having recently seen a spate of assertions that "everything is
speculation", this seems to be a good time to make a point
concerning certainty and science.
That science does not "prove" things is axiomatic, and has
been stated quite forthrightly and repeatedly here. In this
sense, the findings of science are rightly held to be
uncertain: the mechanisms proposed in hypotheses and theories
are held under review of further evidence.
Some posters seem to mistake the above point for an admission that
science is an inherently and *completely* uncertain process.
However, there is an element of certainty in science. When
a mechanism fails to accommodate the evidence, and is not
amenable to revision to accommodate the evidence, that
mechanism is abandoned. We can be certain that an abandoned
mechanism is not congruent with reality, and need not be
reconsidered.
Thus, not everything is speculation. Certain mechanisms
that don't fit the evidence can be eliminated from
consideration with certainty, at least as much certainty as
with which we hold the observation of the disconfirming
evidence.
From webinfo@rtis.com Thu Jun 22 05:04:26 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from brazos.bihs.net by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA28068; Thu, 22 Jun 95 05:04:26 CDT
Received: from realtime (www.rtis.com [204.96.15.10]) by brazos.bihs.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA03595 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 05:03:52 -0500
Message-Id: <199506221003.FAA03595@BRAZOS.BIHS.NET>
9506220.mai: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 19:04:11 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000002e.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506230004.AA29165@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Zero and counting... (was Re: Teaching the Children)
References: <3S54KP$42B@PORTAL.GMU.EDU> <3S8TFV$12A@DECAXP.HARVARD.EDU> <3SA763$IOB@PORTAL.GMU.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3SA763$IOB@PORTAL.GMU.EDU>,
Jim Trettel wrote:
>lee9@fas.harvard.edu (Stephen S. Lee) wrote:
SSL> Creationist theory? You mean, theory as in scientific theory? To my
SSL> knowledge no one has come up with a consistent, scientific theory of
SSL> creation. Would you care to share your presumably vast intellect with
SSL> the us, and tell us what this theory is, or at least give us a reference?
JT> I'm referring to the set of beliefs held by most folks who call
JT> themselves creationists.
That isn't theory, scientific or otherwise.
JT> This digression is of little importance to
JT> the overall meaning of the paragraph. Explaining creationism as a
JT> _scientific theory_ is a bit beyond me right now. Maybe in my next
JT> post ...
I've added
/jtrettel/f:+
to my killfile. I'll be counting the messages until such time as
you post a scientific theory of creation (STOC).
Various people have given timetables for presentation of an STOC on
the order of a few days to six months. Uniformly, no STOC is ever
posted. The fellow who allowed himself six months is noteable for
the fact that he admitted (after several months) that the task was
beyond his capabilities. That's better than most SciCre-ists manage.
9506230.mai: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 08:29:08 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000002f.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506231329.AA29945@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu
Subject: SciCre links
To: wfleming@sans.vuw.ac.nz
WF> Hi. Saw your email address mentioned in the talk.origins archive.
Your email got to me, but the address is an old one that should
be changed. Do you recall which file in the archive had that
address?
WF> Do you know of any sites on the internet that support creationist
WF> viewpoint ? Am trying to find out their arguements in the creation v
WF> evolution debate.
If you point your WWW browser at
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evosci.html
there are at least two links to SciCre groups, the CRS and the
CLM. I believe that these are also linked from the talk.origins
WWW site.
From bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu Fri Jun 23 08:44:46 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from clyde.as.utexas.edu by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA00112; Fri, 23 Jun 95 08:44:46 CDT
Message-Id: <9506231344.AA00112@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Received: (from bill@localhost) by clyde.as.utexas.edu (8.6.11/2.01) id IAA13618; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:46:56 -0500
9506230.mai: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 09:06:28 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000030.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506231406.AA00183@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
References: <3SD0DI$93@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Keywords: Darwin, Darwinism, punctuated equilibria
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3SD0DI$93@DAWN.MMM.COM>, Walter Remine wrote:
>This is my response to Doug Quarnstrom.
DQ>It is you who seem to think it is a problem that Darwin
DQ>was wrong about certain things. Certainly he was.
DQ>Science advances beyond founders of ideas.
WRM> Doug has mistaken me. To me, Darwin is not an issue. I hardly
WRM> discuss Darwin in my book, focusing instead on "the Darwinians"
WRM> (or an equivalent term), together with their expectations and
WRM> hopes about the data. It is my opponents here who make Darwin
WRM> the issue. For example, I recently wrote, "Punk eq is quite
WRM> different from the traditional (Darwinian) model, ..." And
WRM> Wesley Elsberry immediately made Darwin the central issue.
WRM> >Wesley responded:
WRE>The Darwinian model is, canonically, what Darwin forwarded, right?
WRM> Wesley then launched into many quotations of Darwin from the _Origin_.
WRM> One other evolutionist here did the same.
For revisionism, you are one slick operator, Walter. Let's
revisit the context.
[Quote]
AM>P-E doesn't really change much from the traditional model. It
AM>just re-emphasizes the importance of paleogeography to the
AM>interpretation of the fossil record, and the importance of
AM>isolation processes.
WRM>That's flim-flam.
Flim-flam is a term describing deliberate misrepresentation.
Are you going to stick to that, or later claim, "Oh, I just
meant it in the sense that Joe Sliderule used it when doing
a stand-up schtick at the AAAS convention."?
WRM> Punk eq is quite different from the traditional
WRM> (Darwinian) model, but its expositors excel at flexing it to meet
WRM> whatever circumstances are at hand.
The Darwinian model is, canonically, what Darwin forwarded, right?
Let's have a look-see. Why don't you tell me which points of
PE aren't either described outright or presaged in the
following passages, and I'll tell you where you were right,
and where your reading comprehension failed.
[End quote]
Is Andrew Macrae really a flim-flam artist? The testimony of
history says no. Quoting Darwin is quite to the point here.
WRM> In Darwin's day his opponents said his writing was often vague,
WRM> indirect, evasive, long-winded, and used "weasel words". And
WRM> they had a point. In the last few decades a sizable "Darwin
WRM> industry" (Gould's words) sprung up to re-assess, re-evaluate,
WRM> resuscitate, and otherwise 'deify' Darwin. It's a spectacle, all
WRM> these modern evolutionists defending Darwin as though a bible,
WRM> citing chapter and verse. Retro-reading any fleck of modern
WRM> insight back into his words. The attempts are mistaken often
WRM> enough. Usually by distorted perspective, such as by citing a
WRM> specific passage in isolation as 'definitive', when it was not.
WRM> Darwin said a great deal, not always clearly or
WRM> self-consistently, he hedged. Normally that works against a
WRM> theory. But modern evolutionists are trying to re-build that
WRM> into a new greater vision of Darwin.
I was just trying to show that your characterization of Andrew
Macrae was full of it. The resounding silence on the topic since
then seems to indicate that I succeeded. The misleading revision
of history above and critique of even looking at what Darwin
wrote would seem to indicate that not only did I succeed, but
that my success really annoyed you in the process.
WRM> That's lamentable, because Darwin isn't the issue. Science
WRM> advances beyond the founders of ideas. It is understandable that
WRM> Darwin (or any scientist) would make mistakes, and I don't fault
WRM> him for that. Darwin deserves his due credit (and no more). But
WRM> there are peculiar motives for the modern Darwin adulation, which
WRM> I will show in a moment.
"His due credit" is a good deal more than you seem willing to give.
You made a charge of flim-flam, remember? Will you defend it,
or retract it, or simply act like your integrity isn't worth
your time to defend?
[...]
Now, there are things that are issues for you. Your apparent
abandonment of the claims that Haldane's paradox is a "proper
and firm" problem, and the claim that "anybody can calculate it"
is puzzling, given the number of posts you've made trying to
salvage the "trade secret" claim in the face of much
disconfirming evidence.
What is the name of one of the computer simulations that you
identify as having already demonstrated Haldane's paradox?
What is the diagnostic means by which we can tell that the
computer simulation does demonstrate Haldane's paradox?
Why is it so hard for you to tell us these two small pieces
of information which you already know, such that you are
willing to abandon whole claims rather than part with the
information? Does the "why" have to do with ReMine's
Dilemma described previously?
From welsberr Fri Jun 23 10:26:43 1995
Return-Path:
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA00656; Fri, 23 Jun 95 10:26:43 CDT
9506250.mai: Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 18:34:57 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000031.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506252334.AA03964@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationism and Anti-Evolutionism (was: Re: Reply to Sand)
References: <3S4NA6$MSC@VIXEN.CSO.UIUC.EDU> <3SCQ8M$J6M@ROVER.UCS.UALBERTA.CA> <3SEADL$GBR@KRUUNA.HELSINKI.FI> <3SKIVN$14P0@ROVER.UCS.UALBERTA.CA>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3SKIVN$14P0@ROVER.UCS.UALBERTA.CA>,
Greg Thomson wrote:
GT>Other definitions:
GT>Anticreation-ist: Opposed to belief in creation (as defined above).
GT>Anti-creationist: Hates creationists.
GT>Antievolution-ist: Denies that existing proposals for the development of
GT>life as we know it from inanimate matter are wrong, or seriously
GT>incomplete.
GT>Anti-evolutionist: Hates evolutionists.
We need another term, to be defined as
"Hates sloppy, misleading, mistaken, or fraudulent antievolution(GT)
and anti-evolutionist(GT) claims."
I'll be happy to present myself as belonging to the class of people
described by the term.
From welsberr Sun Jun 25 22:23:44 1995
Return-Path:
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA04223; Sun, 25 Jun 95 22:23:44 CDT
9506260.mai: Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 09:29:12 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000032.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506261429.AA05314@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ignorance and insults
References: <3QJP50$CD9@NEWS.INFORMIX.COM> <3RFG5B$8GS@INFOSERV.NETKONECT.NET> <3SA9HH$FGM@IXNEWS2.IX.NETCOM.COM> <3SLBDD$3T1@B10.B10.INGR.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3SLBDD$3T1@B10.B10.INGR.COM>,
Joey Paul wrote:
>mcknighl@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence E. McKnight) wrote:
LM>Do you have anything beyond your own ignorance as support for your
LM>statements?
LM>(by the way, it is nice to know that not all the fundie yahoos are
LM>posting from the USA.)
JP>I've been reading this group for several weeks now, and what I find
JP>interesting is how various participants seem to always resort to
JP>personal insult (...your own ignorance...) or name-calling (...fundie
JP>yahoo...)
I'm intrigued by the mindest which equates exposure of ignorance
with insult.
It seems to me that a person with such a view of things will learn
little that is new.
JP>True science, assured of its facts, should welcome alternate viewpoints,
JP>for truth is sharpened by exposure.
Having ignorance pointed out provides a basis for learning. Kind of a
restatement of the same idea you give above. Why do you
inconsistently apply it, i.e., classing exposure of ignorance as
an insult is inconsistent with the view you immediately espouse?
JP>However, there seems to be a certain "insecurity" associated with the
JP>belief system of evolutionary theory. Makes one wonder just how
JP>scientific it really is...
Well, if you are wondering, let me suggest to you some reading on
the topic.
Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" is a good introductory technical
text.
The FAQs at http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/ are an excellent resource.
Arthur Strahler's "Science and Earth History" demonstrates that
close examination of SciCre claims regarding geology and paleontology
uniformly shows that the claims are in error.
Please advise on any insecurity that you find in these.
From grotto.org!dave.horn@dsc.blm.gov Mon Jun 26 15:46:02 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from dsc.blm.gov by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA06027; Mon, 26 Jun 95 15:46:02 CDT
Received: from grotto.org (grotto@localhost) by dsc.blm.gov (8.6.9/8.6.9) with UUCP id OAA03636 for welsberr@orca.tamu.edu; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:41:44 -0600
Received: by grotto.org
id 0KOLC004 Mon, 26 Jun 95 14:43:22
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000034.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506270249.AA07484@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ignorance and insults
References: <3QJP50$CD9@NEWS.INFORMIX.COM> <3SLBDD$3T1@B10.B10.INGR.COM> <3SMG7N$6A6@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <3SN94G$N78@ROMULUS.UCS.UOKNOR.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3SN94G$N78@ROMULUS.UCS.UOKNOR.EDU>,
Bill Conner wrote:
>Wesley R. Elsberry (welsberr@orca.tamu.edu) wrote:
In article <3SLBDD$3T1@B10.B10.INGR.COM>,
Joey Paul wrote:
>mcknighl@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence E. McKnight) wrote:
LM>Do you have anything beyond your own ignorance as support for your
LM>statements?
LM>(by the way, it is nice to know that not all the fundie yahoos are
LM>posting from the USA.)
JP>I've been reading this group for several weeks now, and what I find
JP>interesting is how various participants seem to always resort to
JP>personal insult (...your own ignorance...) or name-calling (...fundie
JP>yahoo...)
WRE> I'm intrigued by the mindest which equates exposure of ignorance
WRE> with insult.
BC>Ah, the tip of the iceberg breaks forth ...
Eh?
BC>Consider the things of which we can be ignorant. Most of what we
BC>"know" is only what we're told. I am told, for instance, that Rameses II
BC>was the Pharoh of the Exodus. There are lots of folks who haven't been
BC>told this and are, therefore, ignorant. But I don't really -know- that
BC>Rameses II even existed, all I know with any certainty is that I was
BC>told that he did. Having no pressing need to verify what I've been
BC>told, I just accept it. Most of what most of us know about anything is
BC>of the same kind of knowledge.
Nice generalities that will hold up for most of what we know.
However, you go well beyond the limited extent in which your
argument holds.
BC>We can then look with disdain upon
BC>those who haven't been told the same "facts" as we have; they are
BC>ignorant.
Eh? That isn't the point of contention. Certain folks make
claims, claims which can be shown to be unfounded in the
same sources which they profess enough knowledge to critique.
Case in point: Tony Ermie on the Evolution Echo claimed that
Eldredge and Gould's PE said that evolution occurred "too fast"
to ever be seen in the fossil record. Simply reading
E&G 1972 reveals two separate presentations of fossil evidences
involving snails on one side and trilobites on the other which
document precisely the kind of transitions which PE predicts.
Tony Ermie's condition in making his claim is best described
as what, Bill?
BC>Being ignorant, they really can't participate in these
BC>learned discussions and we aren't obligated to answer inconvenient
BC>questions.
Who is dodging inconvenient questions? Looks like a touch of
the Kalki Syndrome to me.
Who is restricting ignorant folk from these learned discussions? I
certainly haven't noticed any shortage.
BC>Those who label people who disagree with them as ignorant, demonstrate
BC>only their considerable faith in what they've been told.
Piffle. In many cases, we demonstrate that we are capable of
reading primary sources for comprehension rather than quote
fodder.
BC>This
BC>unquestioning acceptance of "acceptable knowledge" is a form of
BC>idolatry of course, but so entrenched is this confidence in the
BC>infallibility of their sources, that few people are able to see it.
Reality check, Bill. Take a good look at when folks get labeled
ignorant in this forum. Dollars to donuts, just about every time it
will be because of a mischaracterization of a source that can be
readily checked for whether the claim corresponds to what actually
is in the source. We don't have to know that the source is
infallible, just that it has been misrepresented.
Your argument seems to hold that ignorance is claimed as a condition
mostly or exclusively over interpretation. I don't think that you
can support your argument based on what happens in talk.origins.
BC>If there is a single defining difference in the approaches of science
BC>and religion in the pursuit of Truth, it is the role of personal
BC>experience. Religion requires that every phenomenon be compared to the
BC>life experiences of the individual; everything is constantly being
BC>tested. Science posits the existence of some static realities (Laws of
BC>Nature) and attempts to discover the regularities that must
BC>necessarily derive therefrom. With religion, miracles are possible,
BC>with science they are not.
OK.
BC>Science compiles a body of fixed knowledge
BC>while religious knowledge is in constant flux.
Weird. I'd have stated it mostly the other way around.
BC>There is very little
BC>congruence between the two perspectives.
For those who don't wish congruence to exist, no.
BC>It is not helpful to demean either viewpoint in the vain hope of
BC>establishing the other since each is about something different.
Non sequitur. I wasn't discussing demeaning viewpoints. I was
discussing debunking ignorance.
BC>All
BC>that is accomplished is that we create the illusion in the more
BC>credulous bystanders that there is only one -right- way to understand
BC>the universe.
Non sequitur. Demonstrating that someone is ignorant doesn't
establish that any one way of understanding the universe is
correct, nor was such claimed.
BC>If one, by some misfortune of circumstance, is lacking
BC>in the knowledge we consider essential, their ignorance is never
BC>absolute - it's balanced by some kind of knowledge that gives them a
BC>sense of place in this reality.
The essentialness of the knowledge deficits that I'm talking about
speak to the ignorant person's intellectual integrity, not how
that deficit makes them feel warm fuzzies.
BC>The resort to ridiculing another's
BC>point of view because it appears ignorant of things we consider
BC>necessary, says as much about our need for certainty as anything else.
Well, Bill, pointing out ignorance is not ridicule. Please
demonstrate anywhere, anytime that I have called anyone's
*viewpoint* ignorant. You can do that, right? I mean,
you've gone on and on about viewpoints as if I had addressed
something on that topic, so you've got some means of backing
that up, yes?
Didn't think so.
I consider it a need for honesty, mostly. I don't see where you
get this stuff about certainty.
Speaking of honesty, where's your critique of anything out of
Strahler's Science and Earth History on its scientific staus?
9506270.mai: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 22:12:19 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000035.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506280312.AA09553@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: kgs@maths.uq.oz.au
Subject: Re: Creationism requires magic Evolution does not
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3SQGE3$6HN@DINGO.CC.UQ.OZ.AU>
References: <3QJP50$CD9@NEWS.INFORMIX.COM> <3QNUCG$FUI@ACCESS5.DIGEX.NET> <3RFG5B$8GS@INFOSERV.NETKONECT.NET> <3SA9HH$FGM@IXNEWS2.IX.NETCOM.COM> <3SG814$EK0@DEEP.RSOFT.BC.CA>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: welsberr
In article <3SQGE3$6HN@DINGO.CC.UQ.OZ.AU> you write:
>
>Joyce Arthur writes:
>
>>mcknighl@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence E. McKnight) wrote:
>>>
>
>>> (by the way, it is nice to know that not all the fundie yahoos are
>>> posting from the USA.)
>>>
>>But most foreign fundie yahoos have been specially created by
>>travelling creationist salesmen from the U.S. Americans
>>are exporting their insanity.
>
>And then there is the case of Ken Ham.
>Specially created by exports from USA, and now returned to haunt you.
>How do you (plural, generic, not just Joyce) like getting a bit of
>your own back?
>
We'll take responsibility for Lippard if y'all will do the same for
Plimer.
;-)
--
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
9506280.mai: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 19:47:41 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000036.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506290047.AA10950@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Two and counting (was: Re: Teaching the Children)
Summary: Still no STOC.
References: <3S54KP$42B@PORTAL.GMU.EDU> <3SA763$IOB@PORTAL.GMU.EDU> <3SEIO4$7N8@MEADDATA.MEADDATA.COM> <3SNKTQ$SI7@PORTAL.GMU.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Keywords: promises broken
Apparently-To: welsberr
Two messages from J. Trettel in talk.origins appeared. Neither of them
contained the promised scientific theory of creation.
OK, Jim, where are you hiding the STOC? You are now well beyoned
your "next" message.
Any t.o. regulars want to put together a pool for when Trettel
either acknowledges that he won't produce an STOC, or his
disappearance from t.o.?
From B344DSL@utarlg.uta.edu Wed Jun 28 22:36:28 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from UTARLG.UTA.EDU by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA11196; Wed, 28 Jun 95 22:36:28 CDT
Received: from utarlg.uta.edu by utarlg.uta.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #8453)
id <01HS97VYLUDC00HF0B@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 22:36:25 -0500 (CDT)
9506290.mai: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 14:18:45 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000037.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506291918.AA12423@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
References: <3SSPCC$JB5@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Keywords: argument from imperfection
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3SSPCC$JB5@DAWN.MMM.COM>, Walter Remine wrote:
[...]
WRM> P.S. (We really must get back to Haldane's Dilemma.)
Then I take it that you are ready to take up...
*** 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?
I forget how many times I've reminded Walter of these issues
left hanging.
9506300.mai: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 08:19:59 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000038.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9506301319.AA14006@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: HA! Battle of the Food Service Metaphors (was Re: Haldane's Dilemma)
References: <3SSPCC$JB5@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article ,
Tim Ikeda wrote:
>In article <3SSPCC$JB5@DAWN.MMM.COM>, wjremine@mmm.com (Walter Remine) wrote:
WRM> [...]. Well evolutionists have many, many stories
WRM> within their smorgasbord. And a potent, powerful, flexible
WRM> (untestable) smorgasbord it is. [...]
TI>Sounds like the explanation is so flexible as to be compatible with
TI>anything.
TI>If life did not display any recognizable pattern creationists would
TI>attribute it to the "infinite" creative ability of a god. If a pattern
TI>is evident, it's attributed to divine "plan". Basically by invoking
TI>a "designer", creationists can draw from a bottomless cornucopia of
TI>possible explanations. Can some of these explanations be tested?
[...]
I'm intrigued (low threshold of entertainment, I guess) by the
emergence of an alternative food service paradigm metaphor in
the discussion.
In one corner, we have Walter ReMine's smorgasbord metaphor of
biological explanation. Smorgasbord is Swedish, and since whales are
unlike Swedish, we can predict that the evolutionary smorgasbord can't
tell us anything about whales.
In the other corner, we have Tim Ikeda's cornucopia metaphor of
"intelligent design" explanation. Cornucopia derives from Greek
myths, and thus we can predict that intelligent design redounds to the
glory of Zeus alone.
In the battle of the food service paradigms, the Serv-O-Mation
metaphor (U. of Florida food service, 1978-1986) would seem to fit
SciCre rather well: the explanation you want isn't on the menu
tonight; there is no theory of customer satisfaction; and what is
offered appears mainly to be moldy leftovers. Remind me to tell
you the saga of the voyaging grapefruit half sometime...
9507020.mai: Date: Sun, 2 Jul 95 12:18:54 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000039.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507021718.AA18389@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.publius
Subject: Proposal (was Re: Hear Psycho Dave on the Radio!)
References: <3ST4TP$2PK@IXNEWS4.IX.NETCOM.COM> <3T1G3N$1TCV@HOPI.GATE.NET> <3T2JCU$S8O@IXNEWS5.IX.NETCOM.COM> <3T6H64$1QHN@NAVAJO.GATE.NET>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3T6H64$1QHN@NAVAJO.GATE.NET>,
Publius wrote:
>Psycho Dave (psycho0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
[Fifty lines of relevant response to Publius deleted]
Publius' entire response follows:
P> Whata bare-assed ego!
Given the non-presence of Lionel Tun and Antti Siivonnen around t.o.
anymore, I propose that we assign Publius the Lionel Tun Chair of
Nonresponsive One-line Hypocritical Pejorative Replies.
From welsberr Sun Jul 2 19:41:58 1995
Return-Path:
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA18849; Sun, 2 Jul 95 19:41:58 CDT
9507020.mai: Date: Sun, 2 Jul 95 19:41:58 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000003a.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507030041.AA18849@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Nebraska Man
References: <1FB.34354.5158@SAFETYNET.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <1FB.34354.5158@SAFETYNET.COM>,
Frank Steiger wrote:
>[...] The real notoriety of "Nebraska Man" resulted
>from the publicity of the Scopes "monkey" trial, where it was introduced as
>"evidence" by Clarence Darrow, a lawyer, not a scientist.
Could you please cite the day and time at which Darrow referenced
Nebraska Man? I've got the transcript, and have looked for
references to Nebraska Man before, without success. Of course,
I did concentrate upon the expert testimony.
9507030.mai: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 95 20:21:29 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000003b.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507040121.AA20461@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins,misc.education.science
Subject: Re: Evolution vs. creationism in public schoo
References: <3RCKNL$P3J@ODIN.COMMUNITY.NET> <3T937H$189@ACMEX.GATECH.EDU> <3T9ESQ$346@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU> <3TA44E$CQ3@ACMEX.GATECH.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3TA44E$CQ3@ACMEX.GATECH.EDU>,
STAN MULAIK wrote:
SM> [...] That means, how much are you giving to politicians who will
SM> oppose the creationists' efforts? Do you attend textbook selection
SM> meetings in your State? [...]
I'm getting involved in the public comment part of the Texas textbook
selection process. I'll be posting information as I receive it on
the process.
I'm also working on organizing a Texas textbook activism group. Anyone
within Texas who wants to see biological science taught in biology
classrooms, please email me with your contact information.
9507040.mai: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 95 15:47:42 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000003c.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507042047.AA21499@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Nebraska Man
References: <3TBPOI$O28@NIC.UMASS.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3TBPOI$O28@NIC.UMASS.EDU>,
JOHN RICE COLE wrote:
JRC> Since Judge Raulston did not permit any of the defense's expert
JRC> witnesses to testify, they didn't get the CHANCE to make this mistake!
Raulston did allow several experts' affidavits to be read into the
record. None of the affidavits seem to contain a reference to
Nebraska Man, either.
JRC> Henry Fairfield Osborn was a Nebraska Man fan and would probably
JRC> have introduced it, given a chance.
Osborn, perhaps fortunately, was not one of the experts whose
affidavits were read into the record.
JRC> The only "expert" to testify was Bryan, who ASKED to be grilled on
JRC> Biblical inerrancy. (He was not quite as unreasonable than he appears
JRC> in the fiction- alized *Inherit the Wind*, and accepted a more
JRC> liberal interpretation of scriptures than his supporters found
JRC> comfortable!) A lot of non-quotes come from this play, which was a
JRC> fictionalized version of the trial, even though it captured the
JRC> general flavor.
I just finished Ray Ginger's "Six Days or Forever?", which examined
Bryan's performance in detail. Bryan certainly wasn't the pure
literalist that certain of his supporters had hoped for.
I allow for the possibility that my reading of the transcript is
imperfect, thus my continued requests to people asserting that
Nebraska Man was either entered as evidence or even considered as
evidence at the Scopes' Trial to produce a date, time, and speaker
for this presentation so that I may confirm it.
No such reference has been given to me yet.
From welsberr Tue Jul 4 20:29:18 1995
Return-Path:
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA25401; Tue, 4 Jul 95 20:29:18 CDT
9507050.mai: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 10:36:00 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000003d.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507051536.AA26422@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
To: labonnes@csc.albany.edu
Subject: Re: Evolution vs. creationism in public schoo
Newsgroups: talk.origins
In-Reply-To: <3TE41C$8NG@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU>
References: <3RCKNL$P3J@ODIN.COMMUNITY.NET> <3T7OHF$SVI@ACMEX.GATECH.EDU> <3T8AUM$HNO@KRUUNA.HELSINKI.FI> <1995JUL4.170554.7203@SMDS.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Cc: welsberr
In article <3TE41C$8NG@REBECCA.ALBANY.EDU> you write:
>In article <1995JUL4.170554.7203@SMDS.COM>, Richard Harter wrote:
>>In article <3T8AUM$HNO@KRUUNA.HELSINKI.FI>,
>>Tero Sand wrote:
>>
>>>Damnit, man, why couldn't you simply answer the question? Your reply was
>>>a *total* waste of bandwith.
>>>I'll repeat the question: is there, in your opinion, a qualitative
>>>difference as to what are accepted as scientific facts in evolutionary
>>>biology one hand, and, say, particle physics on the other?
>>It was only a total waste of bandwidth if one is obsessed with a
>>question of marginal relevance to what he was talking about. In
>>essence, Steve has totally misread what Stan was talking about,
>>Steve has devised a strawman of his own making and has taken offense
>Baloney. And the fact that this is baloney is demonstrated by Stan's
>oen behavior. If his comment about "concealing the truth to aviod
>giving comfort to the enemy" were not something he really meant and
>believed, it would have cost him nothing to withdraw it. But he has
>pointedly refrained from doing so.
>Again, content-free insults like this are not very impressive. Try
>explaining _why_ you think I misinterpreted what Stan said. And no,
>your comment about "marginal relevance" is _not_ such an explanation;
>it expressess a disagreement about the _importance_ of this issue*,
>not a claim that Stan didn't say what I heard him saying.
>*And for the record, since _you_ were not the target of Stan's
>comment, it's really not _your_ place to express any opinion as to its
>relevance. Or as Ann Landers would say, MYOB.
Bravo.
Let me applaud you in your effort to put net.bullies in their
place, even such erudite ones as Harter. Harter some time back
made a comment about a post of mine being irrelevant; I then
posted messages showing the relevance and challenging him to
examine the context of the discussion and retract his statement.
He never acknowledged that he had been in error.
I wish you better luck than I had.
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 Babinski_Ed/furman@furman.edu Wed Jul 5 12:54:10 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from ns9000.furman.edu by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA26952; Wed, 5 Jul 95 12:54:10 CDT
Received: from by ns9000.furman.edu with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA190316901; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 13:55:01 -0400
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000003f.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507060356.AA28371@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: WATER *DISPROVEN!*
References: <3TETOM$I69@USENET.SRV.CIS.PITT.EDU>
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: morbius@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3TETOM$I69@USENET.SRV.CIS.PITT.EDU>,
Edouard Morbius wrote:
EM> Let's use your methods to calculate the probability that hydrogen and
EM> oxygen will combine into water.
EM> Desired product: HOH
EM> Possible products: HHH,HHO,HOH,HOO,OHO,OOO
EM> Probability of occurrence: 1/6
EM> So only 1/6 of the product should be water. But this is only considering
EM> all the 3 atom molecules. There are 1,2,4,5,... atom molecules too, so
EM> the probability that water is formed is much less than 1/6. Yet, when
EM> hydrogen and oxygen react at standard temperature and pressure, water is
EM> by far the most abundant product. This can only mean one thing: GOD
EM> HIMSELF MUST HAVE PUT TOGETHER EACH WATER MOLECULE!!! Hallelujah! Open up
EM> the taps and look at the MIRACULOUS POWER of the LORD!
You need a little more practice in SciCre probability...
Your possible products have up to three separate oxygen atoms,
and also up to three separate hydrogen atoms. SciCre probability
would focus upon obtaining only one of the possible water molecules,
say aHbObH (if each atom is identified by an alphabetic character
in addition to the atomic symbol).
So, now we have for possible products the following:
HHH: aHbHcH, aHcHbH, bHaHcH, bHcHaH, cHaHbH, cHbHaH
HHO: aHbHaO, aHbHbO, aHbHcO,
aHcHaO, aHcHbO, aHcHcO,
bHaHaO, bHaHbO, bHaHcO,
bHcHaO, bHcHbO, bHcHcO,
cHaHaO, cHaHbO, cHaHcO,
cHbHaO, cHbHbO, cHbHcO,
HOH: aHaObH, aHbObH, aHcObH,
aHaOcH, aHbOcH, aHcOcH,
bHaOaH, bHbOaH, bHcOaH,
bHaOcH, bHbOcH, bHcOcH,
cHaOaH, cHbOaH, cHcOaH,
cHaObH, cHbObH, cHcObH,
etc.
The total SciCre number of "possibilities" is now eighty-four.
It is quite stingy of you to postulate a miracle of only
one-fourteenth the marvelousness calculated using true science.
SciCre probability analysts typically gloss over the concept
of "combination" as opposed to permutation, so it is ignored
here as well.
Any arithmetic errors you may find only lend further verisimilitude
to the calculations.
From LEVINP@TAMUG2.TAMU.EDU Wed Jul 5 23:13:34 1995
Return-Path:
Received: from TAMUG2.TAMU.EDU by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA28428; Wed, 5 Jul 95 23:13:34 CDT
9507060.mai: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 13:44:33 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000040.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507061844.AA29180@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ha! Baromins (was Re: Haldane's Dilemma)
References: <3SQ15O$9E3@DAWN.MMM.COM> <3T1C0I$140E@ROVER.UCS.UALBERTA.CA> <3T78SS$D46@DAWN.MMM.COM> <3TH43M$EPO@ROVER.UCS.UALBERTA.CA>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3TH43M$EPO@ROVER.UCS.UALBERTA.CA>,
Nels Lindquist wrote:
NL> I'd still be interested in an operational definition of "baromin," by
NL> the way...
This would be any "kind" comprised of organisms living under high
pressure, such as is the case for certain deep-sea critters.
From welsberr Thu Jul 6 13:59:02 1995
Return-Path:
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA29348; Thu, 6 Jul 95 13:59:02 CDT
9507060.mai: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 13:59:02 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000041.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507061859.AA29348@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
References: <3SSPCC$JB5@DAWN.MMM.COM> <3T7CTK$DR7@DAWN.MMM.COM> <3TF1P0$LKU@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3TF1P0$LKU@DAWN.MMM.COM>, Walter Remine wrote:
WRM> [...] This confirms what I said all along.
Speaking of confirming what you said at the outset, how about a
defense of your claims?
*** 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?
Yet another presentation of ReMine's Challenge to himself.
From welsberr Thu Jul 6 14:10:10 1995
Return-Path:
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA29443; Thu, 6 Jul 95 14:10:10 CDT
9507060.mai: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 14:10:10 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000042.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507061910.AA29443@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Why lie? (was Re: Haldane's Dilemma)
References: <3T9U7C$L8S@DAWN.MMM.COM> <3TAC27$KKK@DS2.ACS.UCALGARY.CA> <3TEUJ4$F20@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3TEUJ4$F20@DAWN.MMM.COM>, Walter Remine wrote:
[...]
WRM> I haven't been "stingy" with information. I have stayed many
WRM> months longer than I had planned, and strayed from my intended
WRM> subject, the topic of this thread -- Haldane's Dilemma -- because
WRM> participants here asked questions (and challenges) of me. For
WRM> each question I answer, the participants generate several entirely
WRM> new (often tangential) angles of attack. It went from Haldane's
WRM> Dilemma, to neoteny, to testing evolution, to the fossil record,
WRM> to Darwin (and what he did or didn't stand for), to horses, to
WRM> punk eq, to the biotic message, to transposition, to the
WRM> differences between the "Darwinists" and the "neo-Darwinists", to
WRM> genetic throwbacks, to Discontinuity Systematics -- to name a few
WRM> topics.
Excuse me, Walter, but for at least one of these it has been
demonstrated that *you* were the source of the digression.
[...]
WRM> Doug has mistaken me. To me, Darwin is not an issue. I hardly
WRM> discuss Darwin in my book, focusing instead on "the Darwinians"
WRM> (or an equivalent term), together with their expectations and
WRM> hopes about the data. It is my opponents here who make Darwin
WRM> the issue. For example, I recently wrote, "Punk eq is quite
WRM> different from the traditional (Darwinian) model, ..." And
WRM> Wesley Elsberry immediately made Darwin the central issue.
WRM> >Wesley responded:
WRE>The Darwinian model is, canonically, what Darwin forwarded, right?
WRM> Wesley then launched into many quotations of Darwin from the _Origin_.
WRM> One other evolutionist here did the same.
For revisionism, you are one slick operator, Walter. Let's
revisit the context.
[Quote]
AM>P-E doesn't really change much from the traditional model. It
AM>just re-emphasizes the importance of paleogeography to the
AM>interpretation of the fossil record, and the importance of
AM>isolation processes.
WRM>That's flim-flam.
Flim-flam is a term describing deliberate misrepresentation.
Are you going to stick to that, or later claim, "Oh, I just
meant it in the sense that Joe Sliderule used it when doing
a stand-up schtick at the AAAS convention."?
WRM> Punk eq is quite different from the traditional
WRM> (Darwinian) model, but its expositors excel at flexing it to meet
WRM> whatever circumstances are at hand.
The Darwinian model is, canonically, what Darwin forwarded, right?
Let's have a look-see. Why don't you tell me which points of
PE aren't either described outright or presaged in the
following passages, and I'll tell you where you were right,
and where your reading comprehension failed.
[End quote]
Is Andrew Macrae really a flim-flam artist? The testimony of
history says no. Quoting Darwin is quite to the point here.
WRM> In Darwin's day his opponents said his writing was often vague,
WRM> indirect, evasive, long-winded, and used "weasel words". And
WRM> they had a point. In the last few decades a sizable "Darwin
WRM> industry" (Gould's words) sprung up to re-assess, re-evaluate,
WRM> resuscitate, and otherwise 'deify' Darwin. It's a spectacle, all
WRM> these modern evolutionists defending Darwin as though a bible,
WRM> citing chapter and verse. Retro-reading any fleck of modern
WRM> insight back into his words. The attempts are mistaken often
WRM> enough. Usually by distorted perspective, such as by citing a
WRM> specific passage in isolation as 'definitive', when it was not.
WRM> Darwin said a great deal, not always clearly or
WRM> self-consistently, he hedged. Normally that works against a
WRM> theory. But modern evolutionists are trying to re-build that
WRM> into a new greater vision of Darwin.
I was just trying to show that your characterization of Andrew
Macrae was full of it. The resounding silence on the topic since
then seems to indicate that I succeeded. The misleading revision
of history above and critique of even looking at what Darwin
wrote would seem to indicate that not only did I succeed, but
that my success really annoyed you in the process.
WRM> That's lamentable, because Darwin isn't the issue. Science
WRM> advances beyond the founders of ideas. It is understandable that
WRM> Darwin (or any scientist) would make mistakes, and I don't fault
WRM> him for that. Darwin deserves his due credit (and no more). But
WRM> there are peculiar motives for the modern Darwin adulation, which
WRM> I will show in a moment.
"His due credit" is a good deal more than you seem willing to give.
You made a charge of flim-flam, remember? Will you defend it,
or retract it, or simply act like your integrity isn't worth
your time to defend?
[...]
From welsberr Thu Jul 6 23:00:00 1995
Return-Path:
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA00715; Thu, 6 Jul 95 23:00:00 CDT
9507060.mai: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 23:00:00 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000043.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507070400.AA00715@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genome Entropies. WAS: Re: 2nd law of thermo and evolution
References: <3SH985$VR@PANIX2.PANIX.COM> <3SMBA4$H84@KRUUNA.HELSINKI.FI> <3TGJ6G$7LA@HELOTRIX.DEFCEN.GOV.AU> <805071149.18335@IMP.DEMON.CO.UK>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <805071149.18335@IMP.DEMON.CO.UK>,
Philip Dorrell wrote:
[...]
PD>Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I think so... Let me explain....
>In article <3TGJ6G$7LA@HELOTRIX.DEFCEN.GOV.AU>,
> david@defcen.GOV.AU (David Wilson) wrote: (among other things)
DW>>Let G_P be a random variable representing the genome carried by
DW>>a gamete selected at random from a randomly selected member of an
DW>>interbreeding population P of organisms. I am assuming the "entropy
DW>>of P's genome" means the quantity
DW>> H(P) = - Sum_over_g Prob( G_P = g ) lg( Prob( G_P = g ) ) ,
DW>>where the sum extends over all strings of alleles g that could
DW>>appear as the genome of a gamete produced by a member of P.
Notice Wilson's phrasing: "a randomly selected member of an
interbreeding population".
PD> In a population of fit organisms, the quantity H(P) is much lower
PD> than it would be for a population of random genomes,
Non sequitur alert. The discussion and analysis says nothing about
"random genomes". If what you mean by "random genome" is that each
base pair is equiprobable at any locus, this really has nothing to
do with the topic of interest.
In any real organisms, H(P) will be smaller than that for a "random
genome" as given above. However, that isn't the comparison. The
question is whether there is an intrinsic quantifiable difference
between the genotypes of separate organisms of differing fitness from
the same population.
PD>because there is a very small set of genomes (the very fit ones)
PD>which have a much higher probability of existing than all the
PD>other unfit genomes.
The "because" here is simply not warranted. H(P) is lower because
an organism's genome is not characterized as having equiprobable
base pairs at any locus. This difference has nothing to do with
frequency of existence.
Beyond that, this is another non sequitur. There is a very small
set of texts putatively authored by Shakespeare, a huge number of
non-Shakespeare texts, yet it is a theoretical possibility that
some text by Nancy Springer might have an H(P) within some small
epsilon of some Shakespeare text.
PD> Therefore the entropy of genomes of fit organisms is much less
PD> than that of randomly chosen genomes,
First, you have now done a bait and switch. Your discussion
above attempted to compare "fit" to "random". Now, you attempt
to make a statement about "randomly chosen".
Second, you have not here demonstrated the premise, and you
may not go on to such a conclusion here.
PD> and the fitter they get, the lower the entropy
PD>gets,
There has been no demonstration of this here. What you are saying
is that "fitter" genotypes include more repetition than found in
less fit genotypes. Can you point to any genetic analysis that
would tend to support this claim?
PD> which is what I have been trying to say all along.
You can say it all you want to, but I'm going to wait for
a demonstration that sticks to the topic and actually
compares "fitter" and "less fit" genotypes.
PD> Assuming that this statistical sort of entropy corresponds to
PD> thermodynamic entropy,
No assumption is necessary. It does not.
PD> then the thermodynamics of evolution has to deal with the entropy
PD> of genomes and changes to that entropy.
It's been done. I'm going to look for an article or two from
the Journal of Theoretical Biology on this...
Nope, can't find 'em at the moment. I'll keep looking offline.
Basically, the concepts of thermodynamic and information entropy
are compared and contrasted therein, and a basic disconnect arises
due to the lack of anything in information entropy like the
irreversibility seen in thermodynamic entropy.
PD> Someone correct me if I am wrong.
And someone else can take care of my errors... I'm sure someone
will take up the job.
From welsberr Thu Jul 6 23:25:54 1995
Return-Path:
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA00870; Thu, 6 Jul 95 23:25:54 CDT
9507060.mai: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 23:25:54 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000044.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507070425.AA00870@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Designer genes [was: Haldane's Dilemma]
References: <3T9T2C$17U6@DS2.ACS.UCALGARY.CA> <3THT74$A06@DAWN.MMM.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article <3THT74$A06@DAWN.MMM.COM>, Walter Remine wrote:
WRM> [...] I've been through such discussions enough to know where they go
WRM> next. ... if you want my take on these issues, it's in the book.
Can you tell me on what page you identify the specific computer
simulations that demonstrate Haldane's paradox and also the page where
you discuss the algorithmic means by which we can identify that those
simulations actually do demonstrate the paradox? If you do that, I'll
even pester our librarians to put in another Interlibrary Loan request
for it. I got a copy in excellent condition last time; I think I may
have been the first to explore that particular copy's pages...
9507070.mai: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 07:15:30 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000045.txt
From source file wre_to.txt
From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Message-Id: <9507071215.AA01255@ORCA.TAMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 2nd law of thermo and evolution
References: <173C3239CS86.SWBURT0@UKCC.UKY.EDU> <3S7FD3$A9P@AGATE.BERKELEY.EDU> <3SH985$VR@PANIX2.PANIX.COM>
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Apparently-To: hines@cgl.ucsf.edu
Apparently-To: welsberr
In article ,
Wade Hines wrote:
>kv07@panix.com (Kurt vonRoeschlaub) writes:
KV> Last time I chaecked, the entropy of the genome of a creature adapted to
KV>its environment is identical to the entropy of the genome of a creature
KV>with the same amount of genetic material that isn't adapted to its
KV>environment.
WH> This is not entirely obvious, nor I believe true.
Not that it matters to the debate, but I agree with Kurt on one point,
and will offer a clarification on another. Kurt is absolutely right
(IMAO) on thermodynamic entropy (TE) considerations. Kurt is less
than absolutely right on information entropy (IE) considerations. If
Kurt's statement were amended to state that IE did not *necessarily
differ* between adapted and unadapted genotypes, I would
wholeheartedly agree with him.
I will assume for purposes of this post that you would disagree
with me even with the amended statement above. If that isn't
the case, you may hit 'n' now.
If one is considering thermodynamic entropy (TE), then two genotypes
with the same amount of DNA will have the same entropy. If one is
considering informational entropy (IE), the situation is slightly more
complex. What does it mean to have identical IE? Certainly, any
change in base pairs between two genotypes may result in a small
change in H(P) (and thus IE). For what epsilon shall we consider
similar H(P) values to be identical? And of greater importance,
can we reliably attach a fitness value to a change in H(P) between
genotypes?
I think that the answer would lie in whether H(P) had predictive, or
even descriptive, value in the task of distinguishing fit genotypes
from unfit genotypes. There's no substitute for real evidence, but I
have no real evidence to present, organismic biologist that I am. I
will happily defer to those presenting real cases. However, I can
present a hypothetical situation or two to while away the time while
others collect data.
Consider a spherical cow... uh, right. Ahem. Consider a case where a
genotype exists, and a variant would be more fit if one allele were
changed for a specific base pair, we can examine the results on H(P)
of that change. In one instance, perhaps the change involves
substituting in a base pair that is frequently repeated near that
locus. H(P) would decrease in this case. In another instance, the
change might involve substituting in a base pair that is relatively
less frequent near that locus, so H(P) would increase for this case.
For a particular condition of fitness evaluation and sequence in
vicinity of the affected allele, it would appear that we could predict
whether a small change in H(P) indicated increased or decreased
fitness. However, this is illusory. About one fifth of all possible
changes in base result in no change in fitness at all, since the same
amino acid sequence would result. If, within the vicinity of the
locus considered above, a silent mutation occurs, the silent mutation
could represent a confounding influence upon our derivation of H(P)
for that genotype in the context of attempting to compare H(P)'s for
fitness value. A silent mutation that substituted in a base pair of
relatively high local frequency would be confounded with the possible
change in fitness described first, and one which substituted in a base
pair of relative low frequency would be confounded with the possible
fitness change described secondly. This can be extended for any
number of silent mutations, accounting for similar or identical H(P)'s
in almost any comparison of genotypes of fit to unfit inidividuals.
My example shows that, for the situation under consideration, neither
the direction nor the amount of change in H(P) necessarily describes a
change in fitness in the organism whose genotype is being
characterized. H(P) changes linked to differences in fitness cannot
be reliably distinguished from H(P) changes that are not linked to
differences in fitness.
It is possible that some organisms could demonstrate a reliable
relationship between change in H(P) and fitness of individuals,
but that doesn't establish IE as a *general* tool for exploring
fitness relationships. In this sense, you are quite correct
in stating that Kurt's original statement was not true: The
IE of adapted and unadapted individuals may differ. However,
I think I have given some reason to doubt that those possible
differences amount to an establishment that IE *will* differ
between adapted and unadapted inidividuals.
WH> It is however, incidental to the debate at hand as it wouldn't
WH> preclude evolution if there were a distinct cost to a specific
WH> ordering of bases. The cost is paid again, and again and ...
But I *love* digressions. Just ask Walter. ;-)
From welsberr Fri Jul 7 07:30:09 1995
Return-Path:
Received: by orca.tamu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA01345; Fri, 7 Jul 95 07:30:09 CDT
9507070.mai: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 07:30:09 CDT
Back to WRE Archive listing
