Back to WRE Archive listing
00000048.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507072114.AA02316@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> To: trott@gandalf.rutgers.edu Subject: Gish/Trott Newsgroups: talk.origins In-Reply-To: <3TJHLR$H21@GANDALF.RUTGERS.EDU> Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University Cc: welsberr Some SciCre-ist has trotted out Gish's response to your article, and Gish's response to Carnell, as part of his attempt to overload the FidoNet backbone carrying the Evolution Echo with SciCre quotes, pamphlets, and other folderol. If you have your original and reply-to-reply handy, could you email those to me for posting back at him? Thanks, Wesley -- Wesley R. Elsberry wre2889@tam2000.tamu.edu | Central Neural System BBS 4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554 | FidoNet 1:386/385 409-737-5222 Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences | Artificial neural networks, http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/ | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more From welsberr Fri Jul 7 16:34:17 1995 Return-Path:
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000049.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507072134.AA02448@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Need for an aging process References: <3TJVAM$CRG@FALCON.NS.NET> Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University Apparently-To: welsberr In article <3TJVAM$CRG@FALCON.NS.NET>, Ron Meisenheimer
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000004a.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507072319.AA02824@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Remedial Theoretical Biology for Larry References:
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000004b.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507080434.AA03191@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Jargon: genome (was Re: 2nd law of thermo and evolution) References: <173C3239CS86.SWBURT0@UKCC.UKY.EDU> <3SLF5A$8J0@HELOTRIX.DEFCEN.GOV.AU> <3SMBA4$H84@KRUUNA.HELSINKI.FI>
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000004c.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507082326.AA05639@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Information Entropy = Thermodynamic Entropy References: <805206358.24608@IMP.DEMON.CO.UK> Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University Apparently-To: welsberr In article <805206358.24608@IMP.DEMON.CO.UK>, Philip Dorrell
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000004d.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507090508.AA05962@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> To: cust_ts@cc.Helsinki.FI Subject: Re: Remedial Theoretical Biology for Larry Newsgroups: talk.origins In-Reply-To: <3TLUQ9$3HF@KRUUNA.HELSINKI.FI> References:
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000004e.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507091646.AA06819@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> To: drewd@cc.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Need for an aging process Newsgroups: talk.origins In-Reply-To: <3TOTVT$OKJ@TERMINUS.CC.GATECH.EDU> References: <3TJVAM$CRG@FALCON.NS.NET> <3TK98P$OBA@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University Cc: welsberr Good points. I'll try to remember them the next time senescence comes up. Wesley ... still waiting for the Moran/Weiner axe to fall... ;-) -- 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 Sun Jul 9 12:03:51 1995 Return-Path:
Back to WRE Archive listing
0000004f.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507091703.AA06894@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.publius Subject: Re: Evolution and Entropy References: <3TBBRE$CQK@NEWS.GLOBALONE.NET> <3TJPCQ$1V3U@SEMINOLE.GATE.NET>
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000050.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507091725.AA06959@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: t.o haiku References: <3TOQNS$71O@NEWS.ND.EDU> Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University Apparently-To: welsberr In article <3TOQNS$71O@NEWS.ND.EDU>, scharle
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000051.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507091729.AA07018@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> To: rmg3@access5.digex.net Subject: Re: Ice formation was Re: Help with Creationist (please!) Newsgroups: talk.origins In-Reply-To: <3TOU2M$IVF@ACCESS5.DIGEX.NET> References: <3TKTD2$7J1@NEWSBF02.NEWS.AOL.COM>
Back to WRE Archive listing
00000052.txt
From source file wre_to.txt From: welsberr (Wesley R. Elsberry) Message-Id: <9507091751.AA07111@ORCA.TAMU.EDU> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Information Entropy != Thermodynamic Entropy References: <805206358.24608@IMP.DEMON.CO.UK> Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University Apparently-To: p@dorrell.demon.co.uk Apparently-To: welsberr In article <805206358.24608@IMP.DEMON.CO.UK>, Philip Dorrell
Back to WRE Archive listing
01.evo
Public message # 337 SCIENCE ECHO Entered: 16 Nov 89 23:12:53 From: Wesley R. Elsberry To: Pat Goltz Re: Knowledgable SciCre'ers > While you may be satisfied that scientific creationsts > are a bunch of charlatans, not everyone has made up her > mind. I have not. I find value in some of what they have > written. I hoped that some really knowledgeable people > who are versed in scientific creationism and who support > those conclusions would get involved in those discussions, > so I could hear their defenses against specific criticisms > here. So far, that has not happened, and I am disappointed. I consider myself knowledgable, and I have read quite a bit of the SciCre literature. I don't support the "conclusions," however, since I happened to obtain a good science education along the way. I have yet to meet a SciCre'er who actually was knowledgable concerning the scientific method and evolutionary theory. The mutual disappointment we feel is the more pointed to me, since this means that I end up explaining basic points over and over. There are plenty of troublesome points for any theory of evolutionary mechanics to address which would provide good debating points for a SciCre proponent. Unfortunately for the SciCre'er, those points are explicated and published by ... "evolutionists." The journals are full of controversy and argument over how evolution happens, and it is a darned shame that the SciCre folks just keep hoping to come up with a knockout piece of rhetoric rather than really digging into the current research and picking out possible flaws. As to discussion in classrooms, should we provide time in history classrooms for the explication of alchemy? Should Wiccans be given "equal time" for expounding soothsaying as a form of statistical prediction? Should SciCre be given exposure in science classrooms? The answer is no, since none of the intruding "curricula" are properly categorized as belonging in the primary subject fields. SciCre should be given some coverage in Civics, Current History, or Comparative Religions courses, but it has no place whatever in a science classroom, except as an outstanding example of a pseudoscience. I have a hypothesis concerning SciCre'ers and scientific knowledge. At some point in the acquisition of knowledge, a SciCre'er ceases to be a SciCre'er and accepts some evolutionary mechanical theory. This reduces "knowledgable SciCre'ers" to a null set, and explains why they are not observed. --- TPBEdit v3.2 * Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
Back to WRE Archive listing
02.evo
Public message # 378 SCIENCE ECHO Entered: 01 Dec 89 22:20:52 From: Wesley R. Elsberry To: Joe Fischer Re: Evolution > Couldn't you post at least one example of "real time" > evolution that has been observed in real time. I listed seven or eight off the top of my head. I know that you saw the list, as your comments to Pat Goltz referred to it. > Developing a tolerance for arsenic is certainly not > evolution, but it results from repeated micro doses. I did not say anything about mithridatism. Please don't "credit" me with straw men. I specifically outlined the distinction between individual adaptation and heritable change in my last message to you. > The direction that evolution takes is not always > pretty, and it is not always beneficial. While I am > certain that evolution is proven by the massive number > of artifacts, I feel that in human terms, it moves > very slow. There is a difference between evolution, and evolutionary mechanism theory (my own terminology to replace the less precise term, "evolutionary theory"). Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. There are lots of examples known, many of them recent (in "real time," consult the list I provided before). Evolution is, therefore, an observation. Evolutionary mechanism theory, however, is an attempt to model the mechanisms of evolution, and is bound by the assumptions and procedures of the scientific method. In the scientific method, there is no such thing as proof. All theories are retained only so long as they remain supported by the evidence, and are always subject to disproof. > I wonder if damage from cosmic rays might cause more > change than adaptive or natural elimination. I must > say that I am impressed by the angler fish. Why don't > more fish have a fishing pole, since it seems to work > great? There are many different species of angler fishes. There is even an angler clam (the young are parasitic on fishes, so the angling is aimed at infecting the lured fish rather than eating it). A sea filled with angler fish, however, is not a stable scenario. There are lots of ecological niches, and they tend to get filled. --- TPBEdit v3.2 * Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
Back to WRE Archive listing
8073s005.txt
Public message # 402 SCIENCE ECHO Entered: 12 Jan 90 23:00:45 From: Wesley R. Elsberry To: Pat Goltz Re: Still not reading? > If so many gaps have been filled, howcum all I hear discussed > is > Archaeopteryx? > Pat About a month ago, I pointed out to you (gave references for, etc.) an article by Cuffey which gave lists (having many included examples) of transitional forms. I take it you haven't bothered to look it up yet. Nor any of the other books (which you SAID you would read) that I gave bibliographic information about. Before you complain about not hearing so well, it helps to take out the earplugs. --- TPBEdit v3.2 * Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
Back to WRE Archive listing
8073s006.txt
Public message # 403 SCIENCE ECHO Entered: 12 Jan 90 23:56:08 From: Wesley R. Elsberry To: Pat Goltz Re: Various Topics > It would be very helpful to me if > you would prepare a bibliography of the 20-30 most useful > books in terms of refuting creationism. Feel free to include > books that are out of print; I customarily buy most of > my books used. In the meantime, I shall endeavor to locate > said books in the library, time permitting, and study them. Just to save James a little time, I'll refresh your memory with that list of books I just mentioned. Unfortunately, I can't comply with your wish for books that "refute creationism." None that I know of do that. What these books do is demonstrate that SciCre is _not_ science. ---------- What follows is a bibliography of books concerned with fringe science and the paranormal that present the scientific point of view. I'll be distributing a laser-printed version (very spiffy looking) to all the librarians in the North Texas area. Please feel free to distribute this electronic version to anyone who might be interested. It is in the public domain. -- James Rusk Scientists Confront Pseudoscience A Bibliography [Abridged for SciCre topicality -- the complete file is available by F'Req from CNS BBS. WRE] Distributed by: North Texas Skeptics P.O. Box 22 Arlington, TX 76004-0022 (214) 264-0640 Spring, 1989 Creationism Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, Norton, 1986, H-$18.95, ISBN 0-393-02216-1; 1987, P-$7.95, ISBN 0-393-30448-5. Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press, 1982, P-$3.95, ISBN 0-671-53141-7. Frye, Roland M., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case against Creation-science, Scribner's, 1983, P-text edition by Macmillan, ISBN 0-02-339560-5. Futuyma, Douglas J., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, Pantheon Books, 1982, H-$16.00, ISBN 0-394-52371-7; P-$8.95, ISBN 0-394-70679-X. Godfrey, Laurie R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton, 1983, P-$8.95, ISBN 0-393-30154-0. Hanson, Robert, ed., Science and Creation: Geological, Theological and Educational Perspectives, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1985, H-$24.95, ISBN 0-02-949870-8. Kitcher, Phillip, Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism, The MIT Press, 1982, P-$8.95, ISBN 0-262-61037-X. LaFollette, Marcel, Creationism, Science and the Law: The Arkansas Case, MIT Press, 1983, P-$11.95, ISBN 0-262-62041-3. McGowan, Chris, In the Beginning: A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists Are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, P-$12.95, ISBN 0-87975-240-8. Montagu, Ashley, ed., Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984, H-$35.00, ISBN 0-19-503252-7; P-$13.95, ISBN 0-19-503253-5. National Research Council, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, 1984, P-$4.00, ISBN 0-309-03440-X. Newell, Norman D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality? Columbia University Press, 1982, H-$25.00, ISBN 0-231-05348-7; Praeger, 1984, P-$9.95, ISBN 0-275-91792-4. Pastner, Stephen and William Haviland, eds., Confronting the Creationists, American Anthropological Association, 1982, H-$6.00, ISBN 0-317-66352-6. Ruse, Michael, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies, Benjamin-Cummings, 1982, P-$24.95, ISBN 0-201-06273-9. Ruse, Michael, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Evolution-Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, 1988, H-$23.95, ISBN 0-87975-439-7. Strahler, Arthur N., Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, 1987, H-$39.95, ISBN 0-87975-414-1. Walker, K. R., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy, University of Tennessee, Dept. of Geological Sciences, n.d., P-$6.50, ISBN 0-9131377-00-5. Wilson, David B., ed., Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Iowa State University Press, 1983, P-$14.95, ISBN 0-8138-0434-5. -------------- > I will admit that it is possible that I am simply not informed. > In fact, it is quite likely. > Or, to give another > example, we have the case of the eye. Someone said that > an organism with a sharply focusing lens will tend to survive > over one with a fuzzy focusing lens. Well, my knowledge > of lenses, eyes, and cameras, tells me that it is not just > the lens that results in a sharp image. The iris is very > much of a part of this, because when it shuts down, I get > greater depth of field. Pat, one of your earlier comments fits in neatly here. > I will admit that it is possible that I am simply not informed. > In fact, it is quite likely. "Sharpness" is interpreted as "resolution," and any optical maven will tell you that small apertures result in loss of resolution due to diffraction. For any real-world lens there will be an optimum aperture which maximizes resolution (also is noted by the high value in an MTF analysis). The shape of the iris is not of particular significance. For perfect lenses, the shape of an iris makes no difference whatever, except for contributing diffraction degradation and one or two other minor optical esoterica (nothing on the order of diffraction, anyway). In living systems, the need for irises is very much reduced from the necessity in camera systems. Why? Neurons _accommodate_. > My own eye focuses better in bright > light than dim. If I grant for the sake of argument that > cells sensitive to light can at some point become transparent > and the structure capable of changing shape to focus, then > I still need an iris, and I am not aware of an organism > with a proto-iris. Are you? You mean a currently living species? I don't know of one personally. Of course, I probably have only encountered the briefest descriptions of perhaps, at most, one-half of one percent of all living species. There are lots more extinct species. Irises, whether proto- or otherwise, are soft tissue structures not likely to be fossilized for our convenience. Of course, I have been a student and researcher in life sciences for only perhaps 11 years of my life. It is easy for me to admit ignorance when it is true. I don't know of a critter with a "proto-iris." But I'll point out that just because I haven't found one (I wasn't looking) and you haven't found one (I don't think you're looking either, since you don't believe it exists), is not a proof of non-existence. By the way, if you are noticing a difference in perceived sharpness with light level, it is time for you to see an optometrist or ophthalmalogist. > The point is, I find people on both > sides of the fence on this: either the changes from parent > to daughter are very large (hopeful monsters) or they are > very small. Well, which is it? That is the nature of my > question. Genotypic changes range from single-locus changes to pleioploidy. Single-locus changes can cause large phenotypic changes, moderate phenotypic changes, or no phenotypic changes at all. Pleioploidy can cause from moderate to large phenotypic changes. Certain small phenotypic changes can nevertheless cause a population to be reproductively isolated from the parent stock, causing speciation. Certain fairly large changes may not. The point is, change comes in all flavors and sizes. There is no universally applicable dichotomy to apply to the problem, much though it appears that you would wish it. The nature of your question is such that I must throw it back, since it exceeds the nonsequitur limit. --- TPBEdit v3.2 * Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
Back to WRE Archive listing
81bbs002.txt
Message filename: 901206_a.evo Date: 06 Dec 90 09:49:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Texas Textbook board EID:b642 15864e20 James Rusk sent me the following letter concerning the recent Texas Textbook board's decision on new textbooks. The books that were approved for biology courses treat evolutionary theory in more detail than past textbooks used in this state. --- Wesley, thought you might want to see this: The following State School Board members voted *against* the excellent set of science books the Board adopted on November 10, 1990. If you feel that these members need to be reminded that most Texans are for science books that teach the best science, please write or phone them. Jane Nelson Texas State Board of Education 1933 Maxwell Drive Lewisville, TX 75067 (214) 434-1414 (H) Ms. Nelson is quoted by AP as saying that most of the books don't present sufficient evidence refuting or presenting flaws in evolution theory. The board had asked publishers to include such evidence, she said. "I don't think the issue is that we want to put religion in the biology textbooks. I just want to give enough information for the teachers to use to show that we haven't proven the theory of evolution." [Just what this person is doing on a board empowered with selection of science textbooks is beyond me. Anyone with the slightest grasp of science knows that _no_ theory is _ever_ proven. All theories are retained until new evidence causes them to be modified or abandoned. -- WRE] Monte Hasie, Chairman Texas State Board of Education Prudential Bache 5211 Brownfield Highway Lubbock, TX 79407 (806) 792 0015 (O) (806) 794 2625 (H) Mr. Hasie said on November 9 (according to AP) that the books weren't perfect, but better than the current ones. "I think we're making progress and that's what education is all about." However, on Saturday, November 10, he said "I think when we have a 1,000-page textbook . . . it doesn't hurt to have a page in there" presenting alternative theories. [There are plenty of theories concerning evolution. Which ones was Mr. Hasie considering? -- WRE] John Shields Texas State Board of Education 9000 Tesoro Dr. #122 San Antonio, TX 78217 (512) 821 5007 (O) (512) 494 5504 (H) Shields offered revisions over whether a reference in some of the books saying human embryos have gill slits was accurate. The board didn't approve the revisions. William L. Hudson Texas State Board of Education 2805 Delta Drive Wichita Falls, TX 76308 (817) 691 4243 (H) --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303
Back to WRE Archive listing
81bfs005.txt
Message filename: 901210_a.evo Date: 10 Dec 90 21:14:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Genetic algorithms EID:1f12 158aa9c0 Browsing through a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, I ran across an interesting paper: Sumida, B.H, A.I. Houston, J.M. McNamara, and W.D. Hamilton. 1990. Genetic algorithms and evolution. J. Theoretical Biology 147:59-84. Abstract: The genetic algorithm (GA) as developed by Holland (1975, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press) is an optimization technique based on natural selection. We use a modified version of this technique to investigate which aspects of natural selection make it an efficient search procedure. Our main modification to Holland's GA is the subdividing of the population into semi-isolated demes. We consider two examples. One is a fitness landscape with many local optima. The other is a model of singing in birds that has been previously analysed using dynamic programming. Both examples have epistatic interactions. In the first example we show that the GA can find the global optimum and that its success is improved by subdividing the population. In the second example we show that GAs can evolve to the optimal policy found by dynamic programming. - - - The paper discusses two simulations based upon Wright's "shifting-balance theory". This introduces the concept of multiple-population GA simulations, and demonstrates improvement over the typical single-population GA. --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303
Back to WRE Archive listing
81bfs008.txt
Message filename: 901210_b.evo Date: 10 Dec 90 22:00:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Entropy and information EID:a7ee 158ab000Hariri, Ali, Bruce Weber, and John Olmsted III. 1990. On the validity of Shannon-information calculations for molecular biological sequencs. J. Theoretical Biology 147:235-254. Abstract: The usefulness of information-theoretic measures of the Shannon-Weaver type, when applied to molecular biological systems such as DNA or protein sequences, has been critically evaluated. It is shown that entropy can be re-expressed in dimensionless terms, thereby making it commensurate with information. Further, we have identified processes in which entropy S and information H change in opposite directions. These processes of opposing signs for (delta)S and (delta)H demonstrate that while the Second Law of Thermodynamics mandates the entropy always increases, it places no such restrictions on changes in information. Additionally, we have developed equations permitting information calculations, incorporating conditional occurrence probabilities, on DNA and protein sequences. When the results of such calculations are compared for sequences of various general types, there are no informational content patterns. We conclude that information-theoretic calculations of the present level of sophistication do not provide any useful insights into molecular biological sequences. - - - It is interesting to note that this paper demonstrates that a common argument (that the Second Law of Thermodynamics argues for increasing information in biological systems) is invalid. (Apparently, the literature has a current of arguments almost exactly opposite those spouted by SciCre proponents. Of course, the reality appears to be more complex than either camp proposes.) "The value of thought experiments such as those described above is that any thought experiments which faithfully describes possible real-world situations must be in conformity with universal laws. The two experiments just described disprove the assertion that information inevitably increases in any real process. Hence, we must conclude that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does _not_ mandate increasing information content over time. In fact, in the absence of energy constraint data, the Second Law is totally neutral with regard to how information changes. What connection does this leave between the Second Law and evolution? The Second Law constrains evolution in the same way that it constrains all processes: it is _restrictive rather than _prescriptive_. Applying this general notion to information content, the Second Law requires that any process generating more order (such as increased information) in a biological system must be accompanied by generation of equal or greater disorder in the surroundings. Disorder in the surroundings ultimately stems from the degradation of highly ordered energy (e.g. sunlight) into dissipated energy (e.g. heat). Thus, evolution -- to the extent that it is information-amassing and therefore an ordering phenomenon -- must be fueled by energy expenditures. The Second Law does not _mandate_ that evolution lead to ordered structures, but it _does_ mandate that whenever ordered structures appear, they do so at the expense of energy degradation." --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303 PATH: 930/303
Back to WRE Archive listing
81c6s002.txt
Message filename: 901218_a.evo Date: 17 Dec 90 09:04:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Ported from the Science Echo EID:5a5e 15914880 Public message 2144 SCIENCE Area 13:08 Saturday 15-Dec-90 From: JOE FELSENSTEIN To: ALL Re: Some statistical analysis of "Eve" From: felsenst@milton.u.washington.edu Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Message-ID: <12698@MILTON.U.WASHINGTON.EDU> The theory of how far back a mitochondrial "Eve" should be is well-known. It involves the time until Nf female lineages have a common ancestor up the female line. It is a bit too complex to explain here but is based on old results in genetic drift theory. Basically with Nf females (N-sub-f) in a randomly reproducing population (one where each offspring comes from a randomly selected female independently of all others -- the classical Wright-Fisher model), the time until two randomly sampled females have a common ancestor up their female lines is on average Nf generations. For all females in the population the corresponding result is 2Nf generations. The result for two female lineages is easy to explain. Each generation going back there is a random chance with probability 1/Nf that they come to the same ancestor. Then it is just like tossing a coin with this probability of heads. The result for the time to first heads is a geometric distribution with mean time Nf generations. The result for all Nf females is more complex so I won't try to explain it unless there is some overwhelming demand, but it comes out as twice that time, on average. Keep in mind that this "Eve" will then be (1) not the common ancestor of other parts of the genome, and (2) by no means the only female in the population, and (3) by no means the only female in that generation who contributes genes to the population of the present. --- Joe Felsenstein, Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Seattle WA 98195 DO NOT send to me at "milton" but instead please use: Internet/ARPANet: joe@genetics.washington.edu (IP No. 128.208.128.1) BITNET/EARN: FELSENST@UWALOCKE UUCP: ... uw-beaver!evolution.genetics!joe --- QM v1.00 * Origin: One For All {tm}, Anaheim CA 714 939-1041 (1:103/208.0) --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303 PATH: 930/303
Back to WRE Archive listing
8280s003.txt
Message filename: 910622_1.!fm Date: 21 Jun 91 19:49:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Minister of Silly Walks EID:dc3d 16d59e20 > The eucaryotes are subdivided into > three distinct classes, yeasts, plants and animals; the > animals can be subdivided into two further subclasses, > insects and vertebrates. For some reason, I am reminded of a Monty Python skit: Doctor (pompously): The brain is like an enormous fish. It is flat and slimy, and has gills through which it sees. I must admit, for awhile I thought you were serious about the things that you have been posting, but now I see that it is simply a seriously skewed attempt at levity. I give it a C+. --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303 PATH: 930/303
Back to WRE Archive listing
8280s004.txt
Message filename: 910622__.!fm Date: 21 Jun 91 19:40:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: First things first EID:0700 16d59d00 > However, I would also call > Lenin, Mao-Tse Tung, and Daniel Ortega religious fanatics. > The first thing the communists do when they take power is > censor or kill all the Bible-believing Christians. Really? I heard a reliable authority (Pres. of the NRA) state that the first thing all these folks do is round up firearms. ;-) --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303 PATH: 930/303
Back to WRE Archive listing
82abs002.txt
Message filename: 910804__.!fm Date: 03 Aug 91 23:05:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Out of date data EID:0441 1703b8a0 > Denton makes this comment on trial and error : > "The inability o unguided trial and error to reach > anything but the most trivial of ends in almost every > field of interest obviously raises doubts as to its > validity in the biological realm. Such doubts were > recently raised by a number of mathematicians and > engineers at an international symposium entitled " > Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian > Interpretation of Evolution ", a meeting which also > included many leading evolutionary biologists. The major > argument presented was that Darwiniam evolution by natural > selection is MERELY A SPECIAL CASE OF THE GENERAL > PROCEDURE OF PROBLEM SOLVING BY TRIAL AND ERROR. > Unfortunately, as the mathematicians present at the > symposium ... pointed out, trial and error is totallly > inadequate as a problem solving technique WITHOUT THE > GUIDANCE OF SPECIFIC ALGORITMS, WHICH HAS LED TO THE > CONSEQUENT FAILURE TO SIMULATE dARWINIAM EVOLUTION BY > COMPUTER ANALOGUES." "Mathematical Challenges..." is not a recent reference. The whole point made here is erroneous given the advances made in the two decades since the "Mathematical Challenges..." conference. Denton is, as usual, in error in his assertion. Please reference: Holland, J.H. 1975. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press. This book sets forth most of the principles of the field of research and application known as "genetic algorithms." These algorithms are basically natural selection. Applications include difficult problems in optimization, such as oil field pipeline layout and scheduling. Far from being a substandard and unworkable scheme, genetics algorithms have shown to be very good in comparison to conventional techniques for complex or adaptive search. There is also a very simple demo file, GENALG.ARJ, available on CNS. BUGS is another genetic algorithm demo, and the GENESIS package is also on line here. Now that you have been informed of the state of the art, I expect you to stop quoting this passage from Denton as if it carried any weight. --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303 PATH: 930/303
Back to WRE Archive listing
82acs002.txt
Message filename: 910805__.!fm Date: 04 Aug 91 19:24:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: Michael Voytinsky on 0/0 Subject: Speciation events EID:8b5e 17049b00 > I have recently heard about some trees in the vicinity of > Chernobyl changing to a point where they will not be > pollinated (sp?) by their immediate ancestors. Yet they > are viable. It may be that for the first time we may have > direct proof that new species can evolve. Not for the first time, though. Orchids are well-noted for producing new species by polyploidy, especially tetraploidy. This tendency is well known to geneticists with a botanical bent. From Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology": "... a new biological species has arisen spontaneously in a laboratory. A strain of Drosphila paulistorum when first collected was fully interfertile with other strains but developed hybrid sterility after being isolated in a separate culture for just a few years." This is referenced in: Dobzhansky, Th., & O. Pavlovsky. 1971. An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature 23:289-292. Please note that speciation is "no big deal" in the literature. Observing it happen merits citation, but it is not the news of the century. --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303 PATH: 930/303
Back to WRE Archive listing
82aes002.txt
Message filename: 910806__.!fm Date: 06 Aug 91 00:48:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: John Thompson on 0/0 Subject: Stray balls EID:d5ad 17060600 > From my studies of evolution, even limited to the few > books, letters, > and articles I have read(I am an engineer, not a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > biologist), I DO NOT ^^^^^^^^^ [Expert opinion alert!] > SEE HOW ANY RATIONAL, INFORMED PERSON COULD POSSIBLY > BELIEVE IN > EVOLUTION AS THE ANSWER TO LIFE ON EARTH! [Further raving deleted.] Ignorance is curable. Here's a resource list to help you out... What follows is a bibliography of books concerned with fringe science and the paranormal that present the scientific point of view. I'll be distributing a laser-printed version (very spiffy looking) to all the librarians in the North Texas area. Please feel free to distribute this electronic version to anyone who might be interested. It is in the public domain. -- James Rusk Scientists Confront Pseudoscience A Bibliography Distributed by: North Texas Skeptics P.O. Box 22 Arlington, TX 76004-0022 (214) 264-0640 Spring, 1989 [Note: I have excerpted the relevant section. The entire file is available for F'Req on Central Neural System BBS, 8:930/17.0. W.R. Elsberry] Creationism Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, Norton, 1986, H-$18.95, ISBN 0-393-02216-1; 1987, P-$7.95, ISBN 0-393-30448-5. Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press, 1982, P-$3.95, ISBN 0-671-53141-7. Frye, Roland M., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case against Creation-science, Scribner's, 1983, P-text edition by Macmillan, ISBN 0-02-339560-5. Futuyma, Douglas J., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, Pantheon Books, 1982, H-$16.00, ISBN 0-394-52371-7; P-$8.95, ISBN 0-394-70679-X. Godfrey, Laurie R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton, 1983, P-$8.95, ISBN 0-393-30154-0. Hanson, Robert, ed., Science and Creation: Geological, Theological and Educational Perspectives, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1985, H-$24.95, ISBN 0-02-949870-8. Kitcher, Phillip, Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism, The MIT Press, 1982, P-$8.95, ISBN 0-262-61037-X. LaFollette, Marcel, Creationism, Science and the Law: The Arkansas Case, MIT Press, 1983, P-$11.95, ISBN 0-262-62041-3. McGowan, Chris, In the Beginning: A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists Are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, P-$12.95, ISBN 0-87975-240-8. Montagu, Ashley, ed., Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984, H-$35.00, ISBN 0-19-503252-7; P-$13.95, ISBN 0-19-503253-5. National Research Council, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, 1984, P-$4.00, ISBN 0-309-03440-X. Newell, Norman D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality? Columbia University Press, 1982, H-$25.00, ISBN 0-231-05348-7; Praeger, 1984, P-$9.95, ISBN 0-275-91792-4. Pastner, Stephen and William Haviland, eds., Confronting the Creationists, American Anthropological Association, 1982, H-$6.00, ISBN 0-317-66352-6. Ruse, Michael, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies, Benjamin-Cummings, 1982, P-$24.95, ISBN 0-201-06273-9. Ruse, Michael, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Evolution-Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, 1988, H-$23.95, ISBN 0-87975-439-7. Strahler, Arthur N., Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, 1987, H-$39.95, ISBN 0-87975-414-1. Walker, K. R., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy, University of Tennessee, Dept. of Geological Sciences, n.d., P-$6.50, ISBN 0-9131377-00-5. Wilson, David B., ed., Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Iowa State University Press, 1983, P-$14.95, ISBN 0-8138-0434-5. --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303 PATH: 930/303
Back to WRE Archive listing
82b1s002.txt
Message filename: 910809__.!fm Date: 09 Aug 91 02:19:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/303 To: David Bump on 0/0 Subject: Repost of Firecracker `Par EID:aeed 17091260 > > DB> I notice the path of the emitted light from the > spark is a > > DB> simple line, not a cone. Aren't even single > photons supposed > > to > > DB> "spread" significantly at a distance of one ct? > > > > The two plates on each object with the pinholes in > them are so > > designed such that a narrow beam of light is emitted, > not a cone. > > > > Arnold Gill --- astrophysician in training > > > I picked that up from the description, but if you > really just used pinholes, you would get a cone of > light-- otherwise,pinhole cameras wouldn't work! And > single photons do have (spreadout) waveforms, otherwise, > the twin-slit interference experiments wouldn't work. > Maybe if you used a laser... Dennis Gabor, in his review article on holography, showed the setup for getting a coherent light beam from a mercury-arc light source. It used two pinholes in succession, and it worked... somewhat. The problem was that the resulting beam was incredibly weak. When the laser was invented, this technique became a curiousity. Gabor? He's just the fellow who invented holography as a means of improving the resolution of electron microscopes. --- TPBoard 6.2 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303) SEEN-BY: 930/301 303 PATH: 930/303
Back to WRE Archive listing
82f4s002.txt
Message filename: 911015__.ms! Date: 15 Oct 91 07:04 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/8 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Feb. '92 Conference EID:5feb 174f3a7c From <@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU:INNS-L@UMDD.BITNET> Thu Oct 10 09:50:08 1991 Sender: International Neural Network Society
Back to WRE Archive listing
82f8s004.txt
Message filename: 911019__.ms! Date: 19 Oct 91 07:09 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre EID:68cf 1753b5b1 In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us: > He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps. > phylogeny'). Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". For someone who insists on reviewing the facts, Chuck seems to be horribly sloppy at following his own dictum. The fallacious tidbit above is simply the latest in a long line of whoppers from Chuck. These have included such Twainian "exaggerations" as mistaking differences in relationships at the kingdom level to be at the class level instead, insisting that Denton had a background in molecular biology, and the continued equating of natural selection with "pure chance". All of these, and more, have been thoroughly debunked. I propose to keep a running tally of Chuck's whoppers in a database here. If you have saved any text of one of these with the appropriate rebuttal, I would appreciate it if you would append a very brief synopsis of the incident under the heading "For the Chuck Whopper D.B.:" at the end of an Evolution vs. SciCre post that you were already making. I'll post the accumulated database on a monthly basis so that the folks new to the echo will understand that Chuck Maier doesn't get responded to because Chuck Maier is unreliable. This will help out in the Chuck Information Boycott. Don't include personal commentary in an entry, and try to keep the entire entry scrupulously correct. Try to only advance prevarications with simple rebuttals of fact, rather than interpretation. Sample entry: For the Chuck Whopper D.B.: On 17-Oct-91, Chuck Maier said: > He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps. > phylogeny'). Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton. End of entry. Note the question mark in the copyright date field. I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't verify the last digit. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Back to WRE Archive listing
82f9s00d.txt
Message filename: 911021__.ms! Date: 20 Oct 91 08:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Warren York on 0/0 Subject: Identity transfer EID:e43d 175534b5 Warren York says: > perspectives, then one will not be caught in the mire of complication > and nonsense. There it is. Matt. ^^^^ Is this a typo? I sure hope so, because otherwise it leaves grave doubt as to the credibility of the Warren / Matt postings. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303 PATH: 347/303
Back to WRE Archive listing
82f9s018.txt
Message filename: sci-cre9.!fm Date: 20 Oct 91 06:33:28 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/301 To: All on 930/303 Subject: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre EID:68cf 1753b5b1 In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us: > He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps. > phylogeny'). Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". For someone who insists on reviewing the facts, Chuck seems to be horribly sloppy at following his own dictum. The fallacious tidbit above is simply the latest in a long line of whoppers from Chuck. These have included such Twainian "exaggerations" as mistaking differences in relationships at the kingdom level to be at the class level instead, insisting that Denton had a background in molecular biology, and the continued equating of natural selection with "pure chance". All of these, and more, have been thoroughly debunked. I propose to keep a running tally of Chuck's whoppers in a database here. If you have saved any text of one of these with the appropriate rebuttal, I would appreciate it if you would append a very brief synopsis of the incident under the heading "For the Chuck Whopper D.B.:" at the end of an Evolution vs. SciCre post that you were already making. I'll post the accumulated database on a monthly basis so that the folks new to the echo will understand that Chuck Maier doesn't get responded to because Chuck Maier is unreliable. This will help out in the Chuck Information Boycott. Don't include personal commentary in an entry, and try to keep the entire entry scrupulously correct. Try to only advance prevarications with simple rebuttals of fact, rather than interpretation. Sample entry: For the Chuck Whopper D.B.: On 17-Oct-91, Chuck Maier said: > He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps. > phylogeny'). Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton. End of entry. Note the question mark in the copyright date field. I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't verify the last digit. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 8/0 10/8 13/13 914/201 930/0 1 2 3 10 14 201 301 303 970/201 PATH: 347/8 1/217 13/13 8/0 930/1 301 303
Back to WRE Archive listing
