82fcs015.txt
Message filename: 911023__.ms! Date: 23 Oct 91 07:30 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: John Thompson on 0/0 Subject: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre EID:f8a8 17573c52 > WR> the appropriate rebuttal, I would appreciate it if you would > WR> append a very brief synopsis of the incident under the heading > WR> "For the Chuck Whopper D.B.:" at the end of an > Evolution vs. > WR> SciCre post that you were already making. I'll post the > > I have several months of my correspondence with Chuck (and > others) archived on disk, but I'm not sure that it would > be appropriate to send it to you over this echo. If you > leave me an address, I can send you a copy for the database. Sure thing. Wesley R. Elsberry P.O. Box 1187 Richland, WA 99352 Thanks! --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Message filename: 911024__.ms! Date: 24 Oct 91 21:24Ä From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: CNS is moving EID:c29b 1758ab31 Public message 383 NEURAL_NET Area 21:20 Thursday 24-Oct-91 From: WESLEY R. ELSBERRY To: ALL Re: CNS makes its move! Central Neural System is moving and changing its number. The old number, 817-551-9363, that has brought you the most complete artificial neural network resource available via public access dial-up will become obsolete on or about October 28, 1991. The new number, 509-946-1267, will become operational somewhere around October 30, 1991. Note that new number, 509-WIN-1CNS... Wesley R. Elsberry Sysop, Central Neural System BBS 1:347/303, 509-946-1267 (509-WIN-1CNS) P.O. Box 1187 Richland, WA 99352 Voice lines: 509-375-6421 (work) 509-943-9894 (home) --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Message filename: 911026_1.ms! Date: 25 Oct 91 19:37 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Warren York on 0/0 Subject: Identity transfer EID:e43d 175a175b > In message 46/28/8871, Wesley > R. Elsberry writes: > > > > > 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 > > to the credibility of the Warren / Matt postings. > > > It is a posting from Matt on my message area. Matt is > working on the > project here and just wanted to jump in and say a few > words. That > is why my name is after my words and Matts is after his. > Sorry for > the confusion. Your comments on me are personal and have > nothing to > do with science. Excuse me for breathing, Warren. My "comments" are observations, you know. I observed that a message supposedly from you included a signoff from Matt Campbell. Since "Matt" has consistently pursued an even harder approach to ad hominem attacks on people who have had the temerity to doubt your pronunciamentos on real science, having his name included as a signoff should be treated as a possibly significant bearing on the reliability of both personas. Science operates on credibility, Warren. There is nothing personal in that. I don't know who you are, or who Matt is. Nor have I had any personal interest in the argument at hand. I am not "for" anybody in this thread. I am, however, keenly interested in seeing that folks tuning into the Echo see precisely what is going on. My "comments" speak to that matter, are not personal attacks (unless you are into the psychological stuff concerning transferrence, etc., in which case that is your own 'personal' problem), and should have been simply considered a "request for information". You have provided that information, but along the way felt it necessary to impugn my motives. In my opinion, your lack of credibility is now verified by your ad hominem response. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Message filename: 911026_2.ms! Date: 25 Oct 91 19:47 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Marc Bir on 0/0 Subject: BuckyBall EID:be6d 175a1764 > I am a sophomore in Chemistry > in San Antonio, Tx. I have decided to > do a ience project on buckyballs or Buckminsterfullerene > or C-60. I > have read two articles on it and need more information. Unfortunately > I have no articles telling who, or when the discovery was > made. Any > and all information that you can get me would be GREATLY > APPRECIATED. The October issue of Scientific American should get you started. Then go to the library and get the reference person to show you how to use the Citation Index, if you don't already know how, using the names from the SciAm article and references. The SciAm article does include a history of the discovery. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Message filename: 911026__.ms! Date: 25 Oct 91 19:18 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Maury Markowitz on 0/0 Subject: Ontogeny etc. EID:1d2b 175a1755 > WRE> Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton. > WRE> > WRE> End of entry. > WRE> > WRE> Note the question mark in the copyright date field. I don't have > WRE> the book in front of me, so I can't verify the last digit. > > ... The book you > mention (and other such as The Panda's Thumb, The > Mismeasure of Man etc.) are from a series of papers that > had been collected. A rather good series IMHO. "The Mismeasure of Man" and "Ontogeny And Phylogeny" are single-topic books, not collections from the "This View of Life" articles in Natural History. The essay collections include "Ever Since Darwin", "The Panda's Thumb", "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" (well worth the purchase price for the essay, "Phyletic size decrease in Hershey's bars"), "The Flamingo's Smile", and "An Urchin in the Storm". I agree on the worth of Gould's books. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Message filename: 911027_1.ms! Date: 26 Oct 91 08:00 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: SciCre vs. cre EID:efcc 175b4739 > Recently Wesley wrote this to me regarding a definition of macroevolution: > > >I've seen the SciCreMacroEvolution taxon threshold creep occur within > > the last five years from species to genus. I predict that the ... > > threshold will creep again within twenty years. > > Now I had already addressed this matter to JOhn thompson > sep-09-91 after John had claimed Linnaeus, who everyone > should recognize (but don't), as a doctrinaire > creationist, essentially recognized the continuity of > nature in his classification scheme: > > cm >"Linnaeu, in 1735, tried to identify the species as > a natural, > > stable interbreeding unit, which he assumed to be > identical with >the Genesis kind. Many years later , > after much further research, > he decided that this > was too narrow a definition, so he then > > defined the genus as more or less equivalent of > the kind. > > that was from a 10 year old creationist book, quoting a > 250 year old creationist position. cm. If you can't discriminate between "creationist" and "scientific creationist", Chuck, you are worse off than even I suspected. There are no 250 y.o. SciCre books. And what do "kinds" have to do with the definition of "macroevolution", a biological phrase? Surely you don't expect biologists to base one of their concepts on your terminology. In my experience, the SciCre'ers I've encountered were using the species level transition as the starting point for "macroevolution"... since they didn't realize that there were speciation events recorded. I'm not talking about Linnaeus, I'm talking about folks like Norman Geisler (who gave a talk at UTA in 1987 where he mentioned macroevolution with the taxon threshold at species, and who was one of the SciCre star witnesses in Alabama back in 1982), David Worthington (a very dedicated quoter, like yourself, of the SciCre literature who hung out on the Crystal Cavern BBS in Fort Worth back in 1988), and others who have gotten in my face concerning SciCre. It was my experience, and I don't think I can quote from a book of my experiences to "prove" it to you. You, of course, don't have to believe me... but I do know what I have had stated to me as fact on the SciCre stand. Why don't you go teach Geisler, Worthington, et alia to "get it right" and stop pestering me about it? But please do let me know when the SciCreMacroevolution (tm) does go through its next upward creep. ---- Golly, Chuck, what do you do all day? There were over ten messages (with some fodder for the DB, I note) by you in the Echo today. Sure wish I had that much spare time. Or do you get funded by the ICR? If you don't, maybe you should suggest it to them. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Message filename: 911027__.ms! Date: 26 Oct 91 07:40 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre EID:36b7 175b4739 > Wesley writes: > > WRE> In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us: > WRE> > WRE> > He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny > WRE> recaps. > WRE> > phylogeny'). > WRE> > WRE> Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". > > Note carefully, that I did not say " coined the phrase > " , you and thompson correctly pointed out the Haeckel > gets credit for coining the phrase. However, Von Baer was > a promoter of this idea before Haeckel as evolutionary > embryologist Lovtrup points out: ... but we're not interested in the discredited opinions of Lovtrup, Chuck. If you wished to credit Von Baer, you should have said he was the "originator of the concept that is summarized by Haeckel's phrase, 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'". Instead, you put quotes around the phrase, indicating that you were referencing the phrase "O.R.P." to Von Baer. No dice, Chuck, and no weaseling out of it. This is a classic set of events: you state something as fact, have it pointed out that either it isn't fact or your original statement was too sloppy to be considered accurate, you plead that you should be given the benefit of the doubt, then turn around and hold that everyone on the opposite side of the fence should be held to standards that you can't approach yourself. This, my friend, is the end of the one-way extension of trust. The reliability and accuracy of a source of information is an issue in scientific contexts. We are well on the way to demonstrating that you are not accurate and that you will not learn from your errors. "Will not learn" is, of course, the more serious of the two charges. I and others have had enough of your tactics. Expect the Release 1.0 version of the Chuck Maier Whopper Database to premiere in the next few days. Your misattribution of Haeckel's phrase to Von Baer remains in it. If the reader finds your explanation plausible, so be it... but the decision can be made by the reader only when the evidence is put forward. That's what the database is for. Other C.M. data: I'm collecting detailed rebuttals and requests for information to Chuck in the file R2CHUCK.ARJ, and Chuck's postings for those who wish to develop entries for the CMWDB into CHUCK.ARJ, both available on Central Neural System BBS, 509-946-1267, 1:347/303. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303 PATH: 347/303
Message filename: 911028_k.!fm Date: 27 Oct 91 06:25:20 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/301 To: Maury Markowitz on 930/303 Subject: Ontogeny etc. EID:1d2b 175a1755 > WRE> Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton. > WRE> > WRE> End of entry. > WRE> > WRE> Note the question mark in the copyright date field. I don't have > WRE> the book in front of me, so I can't verify the last digit. > > ... The book you > mention (and other such as The Panda's Thumb, The > Mismeasure of Man etc.) are from a series of papers that > had been collected. A rather good series IMHO. "The Mismeasure of Man" and "Ontogeny And Phylogeny" are single-topic books, not collections from the "This View of Life" articles in Natural History. The essay collections include "Ever Since Darwin", "The Panda's Thumb", "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" (well worth the purchase price for the essay, "Phyletic size decrease in Hershey's bars"), "The Flamingo's Smile", and "An Urchin in the Storm". I agree on the worth of Gould's books. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (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 SEEN-BY: 990/901 PATH: 347/8 1/217 13/13 8/0 930/1 301 303
Message filename: 911029_j.!fm Date: 28 Oct 91 06:50:45 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/301 To: Chuck Maier on 930/303 Subject: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre EID:36b7 175b4739 > Wesley writes: > > WRE> In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us: > WRE> > WRE> > He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny > WRE> recaps. > WRE> > phylogeny'). > WRE> > WRE> Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". > > Note carefully, that I did not say " coined the phrase > " , you and thompson correctly pointed out the Haeckel > gets credit for coining the phrase. However, Von Baer was > a promoter of this idea before Haeckel as evolutionary > embryologist Lovtrup points out: ... but we're not interested in the discredited opinions of Lovtrup, Chuck. If you wished to credit Von Baer, you should have said he was the "originator of the concept that is summarized by Haeckel's phrase, 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'". Instead, you put quotes around the phrase, indicating that you were referencing the phrase "O.R.P." to Von Baer. No dice, Chuck, and no weaseling out of it. This is a classic set of events: you state something as fact, have it pointed out that either it isn't fact or your original statement was too sloppy to be considered accurate, you plead that you should be given the benefit of the doubt, then turn around and hold that everyone on the opposite side of the fence should be held to standards that you can't approach yourself. This, my friend, is the end of the one-way extension of trust. The reliability and accuracy of a source of information is an issue in scientific contexts. We are well on the way to demonstrating that you are not accurate and that you will not learn from your errors. "Will not learn" is, of course, the more serious of the two charges. I and others have had enough of your tactics. Expect the Release 1.0 version of the Chuck Maier Whopper Database to premiere in the next few days. Your misattribution of Haeckel's phrase to Von Baer remains in it. If the reader finds your explanation plausible, so be it... but the decision can be made by the reader only when the evidence is put forward. That's what the database is for. Other C.M. data: I'm collecting detailed rebuttals and requests for information to Chuck in the file R2CHUCK.ARJ, and Chuck's postings for those who wish to develop entries for the CMWDB into CHUCK.ARJ, both available on Central Neural System BBS, 509-946-1267, 1:347/303. --- 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 SEEN-BY: 990/901 PATH: 347/303 8 1/217 13/13 8/0 930/1 301 303
Message filename: 911029_k.!fm Date: 28 Oct 91 06:50:45 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 930/301 To: Chuck Maier on 930/303 Subject: SciCre vs. cre EID:efcc 175b4739 > Recently Wesley wrote this to me regarding a definition of macroevolution: > > >I've seen the SciCreMacroEvolution taxon threshold creep occur within > > the last five years from species to genus. I predict that the ... > > threshold will creep again within twenty years. > > Now I had already addressed this matter to JOhn thompson > sep-09-91 after John had claimed Linnaeus, who everyone > should recognize (but don't), as a doctrinaire > creationist, essentially recognized the continuity of > nature in his classification scheme: > > cm >"Linnaeu, in 1735, tried to identify the species as > a natural, > > stable interbreeding unit, which he assumed to be > identical with >the Genesis kind. Many years later , > after much further research, > he decided that this > was too narrow a definition, so he then > > defined the genus as more or less equivalent of > the kind. > > that was from a 10 year old creationist book, quoting a > 250 year old creationist position. cm. If you can't discriminate between "creationist" and "scientific creationist", Chuck, you are worse off than even I suspected. There are no 250 y.o. SciCre books. And what do "kinds" have to do with the definition of "macroevolution", a biological phrase? Surely you don't expect biologists to base one of their concepts on your terminology. In my experience, the SciCre'ers I've encountered were using the species level transition as the starting point for "macroevolution"... since they didn't realize that there were speciation events recorded. I'm not talking about Linnaeus, I'm talking about folks like Norman Geisler (who gave a talk at UTA in 1987 where he mentioned macroevolution with the taxon threshold at species, and who was one of the SciCre star witnesses in Alabama back in 1982), David Worthington (a very dedicated quoter, like yourself, of the SciCre literature who hung out on the Crystal Cavern BBS in Fort Worth back in 1988), and others who have gotten in my face concerning SciCre. It was my experience, and I don't think I can quote from a book of my experiences to "prove" it to you. You, of course, don't have to believe me... but I do know what I have had stated to me as fact on the SciCre stand. Why don't you go teach Geisler, Worthington, et alia to "get it right" and stop pestering me about it? But please do let me know when the SciCreMacroevolution (tm) does go through its next upward creep. ---- Golly, Chuck, what do you do all day? There were over ten messages (with some fodder for the DB, I note) by you in the Echo today. Sure wish I had that much spare time. Or do you get funded by the ICR? If you don't, maybe you should suggest it to them. --- 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 SEEN-BY: 990/901 PATH: 347/8 1/217 13/13 8/0 930/1 301 303
Message filename: 911103_1.ms! Date: 3 Nov 91 10:41 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Response to the odd ad hominem EID:400b 1763566a First, a little "substantive" commentary concerning mutation. The Ames test for mutagenic properties of chemicals relies upon the expression of a new, advantageous mutation in a population of bacteria. The original culture does not contain a gene for the production of an essential amino acid. Bacteria are exposed to the chemical being studied, then cultured on media which contain all necessary amino acids save the one the original culture can't synthesize. Growth of bacteria in this media only occurs where the advantageous mutation of a gene for amino acid synthesis occurs, and the number of colonies indicates the level of mutagenic properties of the chemical being tested. This is a standard test, in use for quite some time. It is a direct spinoff of evolutionary theory. Not too shabby a demonstration, eh? Since I am working from memory, I could be wrong on some of the details, so if anyone wishes to give a detailed description of the Ames test, I'd be happy to update my source files. Now, on to the subject topic: > WRE> Golly, Chuck, what do you do all day? There were over ten messages > WRE> (with some fodder for the DB, I note) by you in the Echo today. > WRE> Sure wish I had that much spare time. > > Yes, I realize this is almost a complete waste of my > time, especially talking to people like you whose main > contribution here is to occasionally pollute the echo with > that long list of the skeptic's top 10 book list. It's interesting that you don't recall that I have been the person who has done the most to demonstrate that you are all wet on interpreting what biologists mean when _they_ say "macroevolution", who provided many examples of observed speciation when you wanted references, who has unflaggingly tried to keep you on topic rather than digressing. Good of you to remind me about the bibliography, I need to post that again soon for the newcomers. > I try to keep up my end with the knowledge I have, but > your comments here and deliberate attempts to avoid any > substantive discussion and make an issue out of my > citations says plenty. Now you say that your citations aren't substantive. Why do you make them, then? It would have been simpler if you had stated your lack of confidence in your sources to begin with. > Furthermore, look at how many of you ask " how come > there's no evidence that 5000 years ago there was a > worldwide flood?" That shows how well you understand > flood catastrophists now doesn't it? So now you wish to put words in my mouth, Chuck? Don't you get a bit upset when someone does that to you? I think it's obvious that you're getting desperate when you resort to this strategy. > You also made some comments on a diagram I put in > here from Denton's book, which was taken right from the > book. I looked at it afterward . There was nothing wrong > with it. If you have so little integrity as to do nothing > but spend what little time you do here in these ridiculous charades > , why bother? There are plenty of people here to catch my > substantive errors, who are worth talking to. Nice of you to put me in my place like that, Chuck. The problem comes when I try to locate where I've made a comment upon any diagram that Denton has produced. My BBS software saves all the messages originating here, and a text search of those has turned up nada to support your complaint. Before I accuse you of yet another prevarication, though, I'll admit the possibility that my memory and software aren't up to the task at hand, and request that you quote me the offensive message. Of course, if you can't manage that, then it seems that the point is arguable about _who_ is engaging in meaningless charades. While you may disagree with the method, pointing out the little, seemingly insignificant points where you are totally off-base does have a bearing on your credibility as a "scientific" commentator. Otherwise, why would you be so upset over these "ridiculous charades"? It seems that, in your own estimation, I am a threat. I know a compliment when I see one. Thanks, Chuck. > And it can be said with the utmost > rigor that there is not a stitch of evidence for the > notion of general evolution (that make you happier?) Yes, given that that "rigor" is the rigor mortis of the fully closed mind. It demonstrates handily why you seem to get so little respect here, since you won't trouble yourself to understand the theories you critique. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Message filename: 911103__.ms! Date: 3 Nov 91 08:48 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Michael H. Schneider on 0/0 Subject: What is science? EID:4334 17635663 > The question of metascience, or philosophy of > science, or 'what is science' seems to have been unduly neglected. > I thought there were at least two principles (axioms > perhaps) which define science: (1) the principle of > parsimony, or Occam's > razor - i.e. that absent compelling evidence additional > causal agents or mechanisms shall not be > postulated; and (2) uniformatarianism - i.e. that the way > things happened in the remote past is the same way they > happen today and > will happen tomarrow - e.g. gravity was the same in > Newton's day as it is in ours, even if we may > think we recognize more aspects of it. Following Kuhn and Ruse (with a nod to Popper as well), my own formulation of what qualifies as a "scientific hypothesis or theory" is that said hypothesis or theory will display three distinguishing characteristics: 1) it will propose natural mechanisms of action, 2) it will be falsifiable, and 3) it will have predictive and/or explanatory power. Note that these three conditions are more fundamental than either parsimony or uniformitarianism. There may be valid theories which do not exhibit adherence to the rules of parsimony or uniformitarianism. Whether or not those theories would stand up to extended scrutiny is a moot point; testing those theories would remain a scientific endeavor. Note that this does not open the door for SciCre, since that conjecture fails all three criteria for a scientific theory that I outlined. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Message filename: 911107__.ms! Date: 7 Nov 91 07:09 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Ames test? Where? EID:ffad 176739ab No reference to the Ames test from Chuck in his reply. Maybe that's coming later. Stay tuned... > WRE> It's interesting that you don't recall that I have been the person > WRE> who has done the most to demonstrate that you are all wet on > WRE> interpreting what biologists mean when _they_ say "macroevolution", > > ... If evolutionists insist on > calling the formation of isolated noninterbreeding > populations - speciation - macroevolution, instead of just > speciation, I can't help it. You could, however, recognize it and use the term the way it ought to be used -- that is, as the biologists use it. > We're looking for a mechanism to build whole new > novel structures into organisms - crossopterygian fish to > Dr. Duane Gish sorts of things. Evolutionist Schwabe whom > I've cited says this mechanism is a problem for all > theories of evolution. Wolfgang Schmidt says there is not > a shred of objective evidence in the support of the thesis > that " macroevolution " has ever occurred. There are lot's of eminent folks who have offered up evidence that differs with Schmidt. Ho-hum, so evolutionary biologists are engaged in science, what else is new? > And , again, to take your few experiences with > 3rd-graders or whomever you're citing as creationists - if > you're accurately citing them-and make it sound as though > mainstream creationist are backing away from the > centuries-old position on kinds is not particularly > accurate. You still don't get it. There is a difference between "creationist" and "scientific creationist". > Mostly a pest ... most people sending me your type > of gadfly remarks or insults I can ignore. Or if I'm in > an ongoing discussion, I can deal with corrections > directly. Really? You're ready to use "macroevolution" in the manner which biologists have defined it, going to stop referring to mechanisms of evolution as "pure chance", going to stop making reference to "kinds" without providing a definition, etc.? You shown no inclination to correct yourself in the past, which makes a collection of your delusions a valuable benchmark. > And if I do make mistakes (Euglena, hip > embryological development , etc.), I will admit them. The last message I recall seeing from you on hip displacement made comments about the ethics of the person performing the limb bud research. Didn't sound like an admission of error there. You more often simply ignore your own errors, while holding that any error by the other side is simply fatal. > However, you are parading around collecting comments > outside of well-developed and direct discussion. Seems > very cheap to me. Kind of like your quotation of Darwin on eye development, eh? Does it surprise you that more than one person can quote? > If you really want me to have more spare time, as I > would, you could end this foolishness and nit-picking and > answer Denton's arguments on the pattern of difference in biomolecules. I don't happen to feel that I need to answer that, for 1) Denton isn't worth responding to and 2) Jeff Otto has already done a great job on the topic. Just like you referred someone here recently to my posts on macroevolution. BTW, Tom Ray has released his Tierra simulation source code. This is a genetic algorithm package that has been written up in Science News and various other publications. I would suggest you get your hands on it and run it. It rather handily demonstrates that natural selection is a lot better than "pure chance". --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
Message filename: 911109_1.ms! Date: 9 Nov 91 20:15 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Ames test EID:b147 1769bf7b > Wesley enters the Ames > test, which is right up there with penicillin, resistance, > as remarkable evidence for general evolution: Chuck then recaps my exposition on the Ames test, quotes a textbook confirming my description (thanks for the reference, it will come in handy in the future debating other third-graders), and basically admits that evolutionary theory actually has a predictive result and that mutations can have positive effects. Then Chuck goes off into the weeds raging about how this doesn't explain transitions between higher taxa. Wow. I don't recall claiming that the Ames test would shed light on those topics. I simply put it forward as a positive result of evolutionary theory and a neat demonstration that positive effects from mutations are possible, no more. So, ignoring the non-sequiturs and straw-men, it appears that the description of the Ames test has been illuminating. It's so nice to be substantive, after all. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303 PATH: 347/303
Message filename: 911109__.ms! Date: 9 Nov 91 19:33 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Marty Leipzig on 0/0 Subject: Minor nit EID:7b63 1769bf74 At the end of a really well-done debunking of Chuck Maier, Marty Leipzig said: > ML> anastomosing laterally over time? Chuck, I'm a petroleum > CM> ^^^^^^^^^^^ > ML> geologist, so I don't expect you to know about isopach and > CM> > CM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Are you familiar with the creationist insults of > CM> petroleum geolgists' batting average when it comes to striking oil :) > > Are they as good as Creationists' batting averages in the > courts of this land? Nahhh...we occasionally find oil > and gas. > Creationists have a perfect score. They have LOST > EVERY TIME! > And you're still batting .000 Unfortunately, this is not the case (concerning the creationists. You have accurately stated Chuck's personal batting average.). The forces of regimented ignorance won in Dayton, Tennessee in 1926. The Scopes trial was intended by the defense to bring the anti-science law to higher courts, where it would hopefully be overturned. The judge, however, fined Scopes $100 for the violation of the law, and the conviction was automatically overturned since the amount of the fine exceeded the limitations of the law's enforcement. Thus, no appeal of Scope's conviction was possible, and the law in Tennessee prohibiting the teaching of evolutionary theories remained on the books until it was repealed in 1968. Popular culture indicates that reason won in Dayton, but it just isn't so. However, the SciCre crowd haven't managed to follow up on that auspicious start, and are performing as well as Chuck. I've got a transcript of the Scopes trial. It makes fascinating reading. If I had two copies, I might forward one to Chuck and then make comments about successive sections. Perhaps in a year or so, we would then have a machine transcription to work with. Of course, the non-sequiturs and side commentary would be really wearing thin by then. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911114__.ms! Date: 14 Nov 91 07:25 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Andrew Laska on 0/0 Subject: Any idea? EID:2e07 176ebf74 > hmmm interesting Maury.. > MM> difference... we KNOW that evolution occurs, we > MM> KNOW that balls roll down hills. The WHY is the > > There is a big difference in those "observational" > statements, Maury. > I would say that one cannot make an observational > statement about evolution. (in the manner you did.) Well, that just shows that you have a little more study to do. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population, and this has been observed many times. The mechanisms by which this change occurs remain theoretical, but the phenomenon of evolution is observed. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911115__.ms! Date: 14 Nov 91 07:35 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Ames test EID:7d81 176ebf7a > Wesley, who has never > attented the Henry Shaw school of honest presentation of > data , says: Let's see, I made some statements. You confirmed them, but claimed a different context. I rejected your attempt to maneuver the context around (a poor argumentative device on your part, Chuck). And you have the chutzpah to claim I am not honestly presenting these concepts? Nice bit of irony there. > WRE> shed light on those topics. I simply put it forward as a positive > WRE> result of evolutionary theory and a neat demonstration that positive > WRE> effects from mutations are possible, no more. So, ignoring the > WRE> non-sequiturs and straw-men, it appears that the description of the > WRE> Ames test has been illuminating. > > It certainly has. It shows how utterly desperate > evolutionists are to come up with anything. You mean like reliable clinical means of evaluating chemicals through a mechanism other than looking up references in Genesis? Why don't you post some positive clinical results of laboratory processes derived from SciCre concepts? Is it because those don't exist? That could put a crimp in your day. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911116_1.ms! Date: 15 Nov 91 20:13 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Information theory EID:684e 1770281a Having raised the issue of entropy in information, I'd like to pose a question to assess your astuteness concerning this bit of theory. I'll even make it so that you have a 50% chance of being correct. Suppose that I take two bit strings derived from English text and perform an approximation to H, the entropy of the bit strings, of both of them using the principles outlined by the acknowledged founder of the field, whose initials are C.E.S. H = limit(F sub n, n -> infinity) F sub n = - sum (over i, j) ( p(b sub i, j) log2 (p sub b sub i (j)) ) = - sum (over i, j) ( p(b sub i, j) log2 p(b sub i, j) + sum (over i) ( p(b sub i) log2 p(b sub i) Let us postulate that we determine different values of H for these bit strings. One of these bit strings has higher information content than the other bit string. Is it the one with the higher H (entropy), or the one with the lower H (entropy) that has the greater information content? For extra credit, you could attempt to explain your answer, as well. I've got the answer and the reference awaiting your reply. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911116__.ms! Date: 15 Nov 91 19:18 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Mike Vest on 0/0 Subject: Conspiracy? Get Real! EID:5276 17702814 > Hmmm. Wasn't there something > about the editor of Amatear Scientist in Scientific > America being fired for just being *SUSPECTED* of being a > creationist, when in his own words he just had doubts > about the hard evidence for general evolution. And so do > I. Actually, I remember some mail by him being posted on usenet. Mike, how about checking your refs before posting things like this? Forrest W. Mims III, author of numerous mini-books on electronics for Radio Shack and widely published in various electronics magazines and journals, was being _considered_ for a regular spot as author of SciAm's Amateur Scientist column. When asked about his views on evolution, Mims told the interviewers that he thought evolutionary theory was invalid (look up the AP report from last year, when Mims held a press conference and discussed this). SciAm did not extend an offer. I happen to believe that SciAm is well within its rights to make a hire/no hire decision based on all the info available. SciAm did not go out and announce to the world, "Mims is a creationist!" Mims, however, felt the need to publicize the incident. Unless AP totally wrecked quotes from Mims, Mims was much more forthright in stating his position than you have indicated here. I post things on Usenet, too. Is there some special significance that you attach to that? --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911117__.ms! Date: 17 Nov 91 12:24 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Andrew Laska on 0/0 Subject: Any idea? EID:2e07 177169a4 > WRE> Well, that just shows that you have a little more study to do. > WRE> Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a > WRE> population, and this has been observed many > WRE> times. The mechanisms by which this change > WRE> occurs remain theoretical, but the phenomenon > WRE> of evolution is observed. > > If thats ALL that evolution is then of course you OBSERVE evolution. I'm glad that's settled, then. > Go back and READ all the messages on the subject (which is > not the subject I am speaking of. I am concerned with > "what is an observational statement?") of evolution. I assure you, I am most assiduous in this. You asserted that "evolution cannot be observed". Now you admit that it can. Subject integrity remains uncompromised, though your original assertion has taken a pounding. By using the example of evolution in your description of what is or is not observable, you must accept that demonstrations that you are mistaken on this point do speak to your topic of interest. > IF all that evolution is is (your above defintion), then ^^^^^^^^^ definition > you are correct. Evolution can be observed. BUT if you > read past messages you will see that the authors imply > more to evolution than is covered by your defintion [sic] and > WITHOUT reason. They imply that evolution is more than > [your defintion [sic] above]. So? The definition I gave above is the standard basis of agreement in the professional community. If others care to ramble on using their own connotations, I can't stop them. But I can point out the basic concept. There is some amount of controversy, of course, concerning whether that basic statement is too reductionistic. However, given your reaction to it, it appears that attempting to render the debate in terms within your realm of experience would prove fruitless. > To expand on my past analogy.... Just because I see an > object pushed by a force this does not prove F=ma. LIke ^^^^ > wise a ball falling to the ground does not prove anything ^^^^ Likewise, > about Newton's theory of gravity. > To say that evolution (not as you defined it but how it is > USED in conversation here and elsewhere) can be observed > is analagous to saying F=ma just because an object is ^^^^^^^^^ analogous > moved by a force. > Your arguements amount to nothing more than a straw man. ^^^^^^^^^^ arguments I am not arguing anything here. And I plainly reject the use of analogy when direct examination is not only possible, but indicated. Besides which, how can I trust your analogies when you can't even make a proper recognition of what a "straw man" is? A "straw man" argument is when a debater uses some secondary topic with some marginal relationship to the main topic as a means of attempting to discredit his opponent's arguments regarding the main topic. I have here attempted, instead, to redirect your attention to the main topic. You weren't using fallacious arguments, just fallacious assumptions. When your assumptions fold, it does not discredit you to cease argument. But attempting to substitute an analogy to physics does seem to give your arguments some flaxen attributes... even if your accusation of a straw man had not already so colored your response. Go forth and look up Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology". Then come back and abjectly apologize. Or even just learn from your errors. An apology would be nice, though. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911120_1.ms! Date: 19 Nov 91 06:41 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Mike Vest on 0/0 Subject: An infamous dichotomy EID:c297 1774281b > Why don't you post an estimate > of the chance of evolution occuring. Theres been many > papers on it, and there just isn't any known way that it > could have happened as it is proposed to. Post something > I can critize or shut up.. As indicated in my correspondence with A. Laska (hmmmmm...), that probability is unity since we do observe "a change in allele frequency in populations". What sort of verb is "critize"? Can't seem to find it in the dictionary... --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911120_2.ms! Date: 19 Nov 91 06:54 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: More pseudo-factoids? EID:f238 17742824 > My comment is to point out the fact that the > half-dozen or so of you who continually hound me are > essentially committed to atheism/skepticism. Pointing out your errors is not hounding you. It is being responsible to those reading who may not know better than to take you seriously. Additionally, you are way off-base with your pronouncement of "fact" if you are including myself and at least one other regular correspondent in your "half-dozen". Besides which, your entire assertion is perhaps an archetype of ad hominem response. > If anyone had the scientific evidence to prove God didn't > exist, surely Asimov would be the man. Therefore, to > claim that you can only do science based on naturalistic > presuppositions regarding origins, is simply a statement > based on *EMOTION* , on faith, not any evidence of > science. No, it is based on the definition of science. Science cannot consider supernatural mechanisms. It is just part of the basic assumptions one accepts in order to do science. This doesn't mean that science invalidates fields of study where supernatural mechanisms are assumed to be active; it just means that science can't comment upon them. > And to demand that God had to use naturalistic , > continuing processes to get this all going and bring about > man is , again, just an opinion. But who has been stating this opinion? It certainly wasn't me. (Can you say "straw man"? I thought you could.) --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911120__.ms! Date: 19 Nov 91 06:34 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: David Wells on 0/0 Subject: Renunciate? EID:9c76 17742814 > Evolutionists > are always trying > to get some kind of wild evidence (however inconclusive it > may be) to support > theirbeliefs. It's bad enough that they must believe in a > system that was > renounced. Would you please explain this last statement? Provide some references that support your assertion here? --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911120_3.ms! Date: 20 Nov 91 08:38 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Mike Vest on 0/0 Subject: Conspiracy? Get Real! EID:d21b 1774bf77 > It is riduculas to assert that > I should post references to messages I post as questions... Yeah, it sure would be. What, though, does that have to do with our conversation? I asked you to check your references, not post them. Once you start spewing misinformation, I think it is well advised for you to start performing some reality checks. And your spelling is "ridiculous" without a doubt. :-0 --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911122_1.ms! Date: 22 Nov 91 20:50 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Andrew Laska on 0/0 Subject: Any idea? EID:e988 1776a8c3 -continued from a previous message- WRE> I am not arguing anything here. And I plainly WRE> reject the use of analogy when direct WRE> examination is not only possible, but indicated. AL> I use analogy for ease of communication. I do not use it as AL> strict argument. Obviously, your attempt at communication has failed. Why not try to use the concepts directly? Is it because you are basically clueless concerning biology as practiced by biologists? WRE> is? A "straw man" argument is when a debater WRE> uses some secondary topic with some marginal WRE> relationship to the main topic as a means of WRE> attempting to discredit his opponent's arguments WRE> regarding the main topic. I have here AL> Thats not the definition of "straw man" with which I am AL> familiar. What do you do with a straw man (a real one. not AL> `straw man' fallacy.)? You build him up and knock him down. AL> Tou take another evidence or arguement. Represent or AL> interpret then incorrectly. Then you say, "Of course this AL> person is full of it. Look at those foolish arguments and AL> irrelevant evidence!" That is a straw man. And that is AL> exactly what you have done. If you would take the time to look over my definition, you will find a great degree of conceptual congruence to your own exposition here. However, you will then have to admit that I did not use a straw man in my post of 11/17. I stated that your assertion (the one from 11/12) concerning evolution was erroneous. This is not "another evidence or arguement [sic]". (Pardon me for caring.) This is directly challenging your main argument, and demolishing it. If you wish to insist that your main argument was a straw man, be my guest. AL> You have said "Evolution is [this and that] therefore, it AL> has been observed." I say it is a "straw man" because you AL> "represented incorrectly" [to use my phrase from above] the AL> use of the word "evolution." The word "evolution" is NOT AL> used in the manner on this echo. Even if I was incorrect concerning the definition of evolution (the way biologists define it), my post would not utilize a "straw man" because the argument concerned is the main argument, and not a side issue. As you said, AL> Tou take another evidence or arguement. Represent or AL> interpret then incorrectly. In order for my statement to be a straw man even under your own formulation, my statement would have to be "another evidence or argument". No, my statement deals directly with your main argument. But I'm not incorrect concerning evolution's definition, and I am not incorrect about my own non-use of straw man arguments. AL> Also, The message to which this message is reply to FAILS on AL> the same grounds. You picked and chose my statements. You AL> plugged non sequential sentences together. You quoted AL> portions of my arguments. Of course IF (there is that word AL> again) IF your representation of my statements was correct, AL> then I would be spouting foolish nonsense. BUT (I say AL> again) BUT you have totally disregarded context and meaning AL> of my statements and therefore, you have commited a "starw AL> man." I did not pick and choose, nor did I do any resequencing, nor did I quote only portions of your arguments from 11/16. My representation of your statements was precisely as those statements were received here. Your conditional conclusion is thus in effect. And in addition to "spouting foolish nonsense", you are now making unfounded and untrue accusations. That's not particularly astute of you. WRE> does not discredit you to cease argument. But WRE> attempting to substitute an analogy to physics WRE> does seem to give your arguments some flaxen WRE> attributes... even if your accusation of a WRE> straw man had not already so colored your response. AL> Again.. I use it for communication. Not as argument. Your analogy is specious and deserves no further consideration. WRE> Go forth and look up Futuyma's "Evolutionary WRE> Biology". Then come back and WRE> abjectly apologize. Or even just learn from WRE> your errors. An apology would be nice, though. AL> Im not apologizing for anything. The reasons above should AL> be clear. Your book is irrelevent. I am concerned with how AL> the word is used on THIS echo and I seriously doubt that AL> Futuyma speaks of this echo.. Clear, but unfounded, just like your assertion of 11/12. As I said before, without reality checks you have no credibility. And as I said before, apologies from you to me are in order. AL> Have a nice day. I will, thanks. Nota bene (Andrew: that's Latin for "note this well"): The entirety of Andrew Laska's diatribe of 11/19 is quoted and responded to here, with all original context and sequencing preserved. Just like the context and sequencing of Laska's previous quotes have been preserved in all my posts. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303 PATH: 347/303
Message filename: 911122_2.ms! Date: 22 Nov 91 20:52 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Information theory EID:84b0 1776a8c4 > WRE> Let us postulate that we determine different values of H for these > WRE> bit strings. One of these bit strings has higher information > WRE> content than the other bit string. Is it the one with the higher H > WRE> (entropy), or the one with the lower H (entropy) that has the > WRE> greater information content? > the one w/higher entropy. So far, so good. Why don't you explain to us now why one would expect a higher entropy bit string to contain more information? What relationship does information entropy have to thermodynamic entropy? --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911122__.ms! Date: 22 Nov 91 20:46 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Andrew Laska on 0/0 Subject: Any idea? EID:e988 1776a8ba Andrew Laska spews forth on 11/19: WRE> You asserted that "evolution cannot be observed". Now you admit WRE> that it can. Subject integrity remains WRE> uncompromised, though your original assertion WRE> has taken a pounding. AL> I asserted NO such thing. I asserted IF (read the IF AL> carefully. You do read dont you?) I assert IF your AL> definition was a good defintion for evolution THEN (IF-THEN AL> get it??) evoulution can be observed. I read just fine, else we would not be having this pleasant little chat. I, however, seem to be able to keep track of references and make proper inferences. For instance, you will note that I stated "your original assertion." I know you read that, since you disavow having made an assertion. When I said "original", though, I was not making reference to your conditional statement in the message of 11/16, but rather to your incendiary comments which started this thread. Let me take you back to November 12, in a message from you to Maury Markowitz: AL> I would say that one cannot make an observational statement AL> about evolution. And later in the same post: AL> You cannot see evolution occur. Looks like an assertion to me. Of course, I might not be using "assertion" the way you have seen it used in the Science Echo. On the other hand, you didn't make any qualifying remarks like, "You cannot see evolution-as-used-or-abused-in-the-Science-Echo occur." When one encounters the term "evolution", is it ever incorrect to assume that it should mean what the folks who define it intend it to mean? No, it is not incorrect to so regard it. AL> May I make also a point about how pick and choose lines to AL> quote. This completely bastardizes my arguements. AL> SOme of the lines where quite dependent on context. My opinion is that your reckless use of unsupported assertions renders your arguments invalid. Selective quoting has nothing to do with it. Besides which, in my message of 11/17, the only editing I did of your message of 11/16 to me was to omit your final paragraph, which I also did not comment upon. Otherwise, nothing was left out or resequenced. Thus, if your argument was "bastardized", it arrived here that way. I've responded to your whole message, context and all, and the only means you seem to be able to come up with to respond is to make a false charge of "quoting out of context". That is pathetic and pitiable, but doesn't really engender much sympathy for you on this end. Just so you don't try claiming that the last paragraph from 11/16 provided all the context for your arguments, I will quote it here: AL> Let me say lastly I am NOT a creationist, but I am sick of AL> people being dogmatic about this evol/cre business. To AL> actually buy into fallacious or irrelevent arguments AL> regardless of whether you believe creation or evolution AL> leads to nothing more than dogma. Right... so why are you opposed to learning what biologists say about evolution? Back to your 11/19 post: AL> Also, please do something more productive than point out my AL> spelling errors and typos. I plan on intentionally AL> misssspelling words in the future, so this will not be a AL> conseideration. I have seen studies which indicate that good spelling and grammar correlate with higher pay and quicker promotion. Ooops, I forgot that those weren't published in the Echo, and thus don't matter. And, yes, it does appear to be unproductive to try to correct your errors, whether spelling or more substantive issues of scientific definitions. AL> Anyhow, In reference to the first paragraph... I assert AL> that your given defintion is NOT a good working defintion AL> because nobody ususe it in practice. My evidence is past AL> messages on this echo and I am fairly sure future messages AL> will be evidence in my favor also. Yes, who cares what those working biologists use as a definition? It's not likely that they would agree with a ill-informed physics student about the meaning of the core concept of biology, so it is definitely worth ignoring their opinion on the matter. At least, it is if you've made an assertion that you can't support and you don't have the guts to admit that you might be wrong. WRE> So? The definition I gave above is the standard WRE> basis of agreement in the professional WRE> community. If others care to ramble on using AL> I am not concerned with the "professional community." I am AL> concerned with the definition AS USED IN PRACTICE on this AL> echo. This attitude ill becomes someone working in a technical field. No reality check, no credibility. -continued in next message- --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911123__.ms! Date: 23 Nov 91 23:35 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Chuck Maier Whopper DB EID:0900 1777bf74 I have just finished updating the CMWDB through November 11th's posts, and it now stands at about 32 kilobytes. My thanks to Marty Leipzig, Maury Markowitz, Dave Knapp, Dave Horn, and everyone else who has helped contribute to the database. However, it seems a little large to dump on the echo all at once. It is available for download from CNS BBS as CHUCK.DB (or File Request, or diskette transfer) currently. Should I post selections from the DB from time to time, or simply split it into six to ten chunks and post it that way? Give me some suggestions... [Yeah, Chuck, right... anyone else have a suggestion?] --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911124_1.ms! Date: 24 Nov 91 09:44 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Mike Vest on 0/0 Subject: An infamous dichotomy EID:42fa 17785525 MV> I suppose your a big believer MV> in pounding the pulpit and yelling spelling error whenever MV> you can't answer the argument. MV> MV> Lie to me, and tell me you didn't know what I was saying. MV> This dogatism of spelling is relatively recent, and MV> belongs in the same class of rhetoric as pretending to be MV> dumb. MV> MV> Unless you really are not pretending.. MV> MV> Mike Vest MV> MV> This is a table. MV> 'What table? I don't see any table'.. Let's take a look at the message to which this is a reply: Date: 19 Nov 91 06:41 From: Wesley R. Elsberry To: Mike Vest on 0/0 Subject: An infamous dichotomy EID:c297 1774281b MV> Why don't you post an estimate MV> of the chance of evolution occuring. Theres been many MV> papers on it, and there just isn't any known way that it MV> could have happened as it is proposed to. Post something MV> I can critize or shut up.. As indicated in my correspondence with A. Laska (hmmmmm...), that probability is unity since we do observe "a change in allele frequency in populations". What sort of verb is "critize"? Can't seem to find it in the dictionary... [End of quoted message.] It sure looks to me like I answered your argument before I made any mention of words. And I really can't find "critize" in the dictionary. Given the fine sensitivity to implications that you have displayed in the past, I certainly wouldn't want to assume that you meant some word I happen to associate with the word you post. Comprende? Evolution, as defined by biologists, is a change in allele frequency in a population. This has been observed, and that means the probability is 1.00, or unity. WRE: This is an answer to your question. MV: What answer? I don't see any answer to my question. So I answer your argument, and you then simply claim that my answer doesn't exist. I don't claim to know what "class" of rhetoric ignoring substantive responses falls into, but it's worse than trying to clear up glitches in communication. Oh, and thanks, but your pal Andrew Laska has already filled my ad hominem quotient for some time to come. I really don't need to be the recipient of any more of those type arguments. You may stop now. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911124_2.ms! Date: 24 Nov 91 10:36 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Leslie Rhorer on 0/0 Subject: Alaskan humor EID:b5b5 1778552c Leslie, I note that Andrew Laska has accused you of quoting out of context and misrepresentation. This seems to be getting out of hand, since I cannot find anywhere that either you or I have presented less than complete quotes, or shuffled order, or "misrepresented" what Mr. Laska has said. I would like you to confirm this independently at your site, so that neither of us is reduced to singly witnessing our own innocence in this matter. It is always so much easier to accuse than to defend against such claims. I can predict the sequence this will go through: my rebuttal against Laska's charges will be met with a "Tain't so" response, reposting the original messages will elicit a "You've faked those" response, and so on. By analogy, it is like trying to deal with paranoia. I've got the original messages, as seen here, for Andrew's posts since the 12th of November. Let me know if you need any of them. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911124__.ms! Date: 24 Nov 91 08:48 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Marty Leipzig on 0/0 Subject: Please don't ptouch the Pterosaur. EID:51a7 1778551c In a message to Terry Horton, Marty Leipzig says things leading up to this: > ML> Thus, _Hylonomus_ was indeed a reptile. > TH> > TH> And I'll never let anyone tell me different. > > That's the spirit! > > ML> Aren't you glad you asked? > TH> > TH> I most sincerely am. Thanks for education, Marty. > > No problem...next week..the reptile/mammal > transition. Please read > chapters 4-143, inclusive. Take notes, there may be a > quiz later... Marty & Terry, I just wanted to thank you for this series of posts. These are the kind of discussions I keep hoping to find on the Echo, but instead keep finding messages of misinformation from the CMs, MVs, and ALs that come and go. It is nice, though, that when the signal comes through over the noise, it is as terrific as this. Keep up the good work. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911126_1.ms! Date: 26 Nov 91 04:24 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Context? CM doesn't believe in it. EID:ee95 177a246d WRE> (Can you say "straw man"? I thought you could.) CM> Yes, and I think ... WRE> No, it is based on the definition of science. Science cannot WRE> consider supernatural mechanisms. It is just part of the basic CM> ... I see one here. Creationists are not trying to comment CM> on any supernatural mechanisms anymore than evolutionists. It is now time for a reality check. Let's see what Chuck said on 11/17, which led to the response Chuck claims is flaxen: CM> Therefore, to claim that you can only do science based on CM> naturalistic presuppositions regarding origins, is simply a CM> statement based on *EMOTION* , on faith, not any evidence of CM> science. Contradiction alert! Well, Chuck, which stance do you _really_ take: SciCre'ers want to incorporate supernatural mechanisms into science (as you indicate in the quote just previous) or SciCre'ers don't need to incorporate supernatural mechanisms into science (as in quote from your more recent post of 11/24)? Please pick one or the other. Since you haven't bothered to attempt to refute how science is defined (a wise choice, since Kuhn, Ruse, and Popper would likely disagree with you), instead inserting non-sequitur comments about the history of science, and the quote I was responding to at least strongly implies that SciCre involves the inclusion of supernatural mechanisms, I conclude that my response was not a straw man at all, though your charge of such is one. And, just to give everyone a nice bit of context, here's where you got the first line you quoted, right from the bottom of my post: CM> And to demand that God had to use naturalistic , continuing CM> processes to get this all going and bring about man is , CM> again, just an opinion. WRE> But who has been stating this opinion? It certainly wasn't WRE> me. (Can you say "straw man"? I thought you could.) Looks like I was right on target. When are you going to substantiate your claim that I hold the various opinions you gave there, or stop using ad hominem polemics, straw men, and non-sequiturs? That's what I thought. (Can you say "cheap, empty, unsubstantiated rhetoric"? Yeah, I thought so.) [Yes, Chuck, I can and will provide context where you refuse to. You might bear that in mind as you make future responses. Someone has to take the moral high ground in this exchange, and you don't seem the likely candidate when considering your past behavior. Looks like this whole post is an eminent candidate for inclusion in the CMWDB.] --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911126__.ms! Date: 26 Nov 91 02:45 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Chuck Maier on 0/0 Subject: Non-sequiturs: Your basic Maierism EID:5b4b 177a2466 CM> that in no way means that creationist ... have CM> never made any contribution to science. Please substantiate your claim that I have stated that "creationists have never contributed to science". Until such time as you can do that, I consider your synopses to be non-sequitur. Since I haven't made such a statement, that means that the topic is closed. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911128_1.ms! Date: 28 Nov 91 09:26 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Mike Vest on 0/0 Subject: Semantics, semiotics, etc. EID:dab8 177c4f17 From 11/22, MV to WRE: MV> I suppose your a big believer in pounding the pulpit and MV> yelling spelling error whenever you can't answer the MV> argument. I'm glad that Mike's post to me on 11/26 indicates that he now realizes that I did answer his argument. But since I didn't capitulate, Mike now wishes to change the basis of his argument: MV> Since your the second one to mention it, evolution, as MV> 'defined' by the biologist, is NOT how its being used on MV> this echo.. Its being used in a wonderfull mix of double MV> meanings, to mean everything from creation of life, to MV> breeding.. What I have talked about in my messages has MV> nothing to do with this, it has to do with the way it is MV> being used in the echo.. Let's see... so far, myself, Leslie Rhorer, and Marty Leipzig have stated that the definition I have posted is the operative one. It is the only _definition_ I have seen in the Echo, so point the first is that Echo usage does follow the biological definition, at least by those folks who have a grasp of biological science. You wouldn't want to take your lead from the usage of the uninformed, would you? But is Mike being truthful in his claim of Echo context? From 11/17, MV to ML: MV> Why don't you post an estimate of the chance of evolution MV> occuring. Theres been many papers on it, and there just MV> isn't any known way that it could have happened as it is MV> proposed to. Post something I can critize or shut up.. and... From 11/17, MV to Keith Augustine: MV> Science is based on reproducable evidence. Since "papers" and official presentation of "reproducible evidence" are not attributes of Echo discourse, it claim of Echo context? From 11/17, MV to ML: MV> Why don't you post an estimate of the chance of evolution MV> occuring. Theres been many papers on it, and there just MV> isn't any known way that it could have happened as it is MV> proposed to. Post something I can critize or shut up.. and... From 11/17, MV to Keith Augustine: MV> Science is based on reproducable evidence. Since "papers" and official presentation of "reproducible evidence" are not attributes of Echo discourse, it sure looks like Mike is arguing for wider application of his assertions than intra-Echo semantics. But if all that Mike expects to accomplish is saying that "evolution-as-abused- in-the-Science-Echo" has a different probability of occurrence and observation than evolution in the real world, well, then, I won't argue with that. Mike, please qualify your use of "evolution" as "evolution- as-abused-in-the-Science-Echo" (EAAITSE) in the future to avoid this confusion of terms. Statements, assertions, and pronouncements concerning EAAITSE would then be known up front to have no applicability to real-world evolution, and you would catch far less flak since everyone would then know unambiguously what you were talking about. (Your friend Andrew Laska is also invited to avail himself of this new acronym.) MV> I never saw you correct these messages, I wonder why? Could MV> it be, in the words of Marty Martian, you have a hidden MV> agenda? One that must attack anyone that points out the MV> probability fallacy? I do make responses to the _use_ of the probability fallacy. I try not to "attack anyone" [yes, sometimes even I fail in this, but at least I keep my eyes on the goal], since arguments based upon ad hominem polemics do not say anything about the issues. (Ad hominems I've seen recently: "...pretending to be dumb... Unless you really are not pretending..", "You're an idiot.", "Sir, are you really that stupid?". All from Mike Vest, and all from the period 11/19 to 11/26.) I have this aversion to leaving fallacies unpunctured. Also, I have a real life to lead (outside the Science Echo, that is) and only have time to reply to a few of the more grossly incorrect postings that fly by here. From 11/26, MV to Marty Leipzig: MV> You're an idiot. This is why I prefer usenet. It still has MV> flamewars, but at least it is INTELLIGENT, sometimes. Mike, I haven't seen any postings from you in talk.origins. Perhaps you could experiment, and see what response you get from JWM and others by insisting that arguments use "evolution as used in talk.origins". Of course, I do suspect that my news feed isn't passing all of t.o. MV> Look, be useful.. Go write a computer program to construct MV> anouther one by a 'glitch' rate.. Then come back and tell MV> us why it didn't work, because the glitch rate was too MV> slow.. Mike, just for your benefit I will point out work that does precisely this, and does it well. Note that source code is available, so you can verify the results yourself. Next message, please. MV> ... also selling land cheap in Florida. My native state... got any acreage in the Gainesville or Ocala areas? Micanopy, Archer, Two Egg, Cedar Key, Opalaka? Wimauma or Fort Lonesome? I'll pass if you only have Belle Glade or Arcadia... --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911128_3.ms! Date: 28 Nov 91 09:41 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Evolving Programs (2 of 4) EID:5d36 177c4f26 - continued from previous message - **** BEGIN ABSTRACT **** Synthetic organisms have been created based on a computer metaphor of organic life in which CPU time is the ``energy'' resource and memory is the ``material'' resource. Memory is organized into informational patterns that exploit CPU time for self-replication. Mutation generates new forms, and evolution proceeds by natural selection as different genotypes compete for CPU time and memory space. Observation of nature shows that evolution by natural selection is capable of both optimization and creativity. Artificial models of evolution have demonstrated the optimizing ability of evolution, as exemplified by the field of genetic algorithms. The creative aspects of evolution have been more elusive to model. The difficulty derives in part from a tendency of models to specify the meaning of the ``genome'' of the evolving entities, precluding new meanings from emerging. I will present a natural model of evolution demonstrating both optimization and creativity, in which the genome consists of sequences of executable machine code. From a single rudimentary ancestral ``creature'', very quickly there evolve parasites, which are not able to replicate in isolation because they lack a large portion of the genome. However, these parasites search for the missing information, and if they locate it in a nearby creature, parasitize the information from the neighboring genome, thereby effecting their own replication. In some runs, hosts evolve immunity to attack by parasites. When immune hosts appear, they often increase in frequency, devastating the parasite populations. In some runs where the community comes to be dominated by immune hosts, parasites evolve that are resistant to immunity. Hosts sometimes evolve a response to parasites that goes beyond immunity, to actual (facultative) hyper-parasitism. The hyper-parasite deceives the parasite causing the parasite to devote its energetic resources to replication of the hyper-parastie genome. This drives the parasites to extinction. Evolving in the absence of parasites, hyper-parasites completely dominate the community, resulting in a relatively uniform community characterize by a high degree of relationship between individuals. Under these circumstances, sociality evolves, in the form of creatures which can only replicate in aggregations. The cooperative behavior of the social hyper-parasites makes them vulnerable to a new class of parasites. These cheaters, hyper-hyper-parasites, insert themselves between cooperating social individuals, deceiving the social creatures, causing them to replicate the genomes of the cheaters. The only genetic change imposed on the simulator is random bit flips in the machine code of the creatures. However, it turns out that parasites are very sloppy replicators. They cause significant recombination and rearrangement of the genomes. This spontaneous sexuality is a powerful force for evolutionary change in the system. One of the most interesting aspects of this instance of life is that the bulk of the evolution is based on adaptation to the biotic environment rather than the physical environment. It is co-evolution that drives the system. **** END ABSTRACT **** - continued - --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911128_4.ms! Date: 28 Nov 91 09:42 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Evolving Programs (3 of 4) EID:8c37 177c4f2d - continued from previous message - 3) List of related publications and upcoming lectures The recent publicity about my work (Technology Review, April 1991; Science News, August 10, 1991; New York Times, August 27, 1991; Computerworld September 30, 1991) has generated a lot of interest. I wanted to list the relevant publications, and also the upcoming seminars. Ray, T. S. 1991. ``Is it alive, or is it GA?'' Proceedings of the 1991 International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Eds. Belew, R. K., and L. B. Booker, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 527--534. Ray, T. S. 1991. ``An approach to the synthesis of life.'' Artificial Life II, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, vol. XI, Eds. C. Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer, & S. Rasmussen, Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, 371--408. Ray, T. S. 1991. ``Population dynamics of digital organisms.'' Artificial Life II Video Proceedings, Ed. C. G. Langton, Redwood City, CA: Addison Wesley. Ray, T. S. 1991. ``Evolution and optimization of digital organisms.'' Scientific Excellence in Supercomputing: The IBM 1990 Contest Prize Papers, Eds. Keith R. Billingsley, Ed Derohanes, Hilton Brown, III. Athens, GA, 30602, The Baldwin Press, The University of Georgia. Publication date: December 1991. I will be at the Santa Fe Institute Feb. 1 thru Aug. 31, 1992. This work will also be presented in the following upcoming seminars: University of Maryland, Zoology, October 29, 1991 University of Kentucky, Lexington, Biology, October 31, 1991 University of Delaware, Entomology, November 5, 1991 Stony Brook, Department of Ecology and Evolution, November 6, 1991 Drexel University, Electrical Engineering, November 8, 1991 The University of the Arts, Philadelphia, Design in Cyberspace lectures, November 12, 1991 IBM, T. J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, November 13, 1991 Thinking Machines Corp., Cambridge, November 14, 1991 Digital Equipment Corp., Hudson, MA, November 15, 1991 American Society of Information Science, New Jersey, November 19, 1991 Texas Instruments, Dallas, November 21, 1991 Harvard University, Biology (Lewontin's lab), December 2, 1991 Boston University, Computational Sciences Center, December 3, 1991 MIT Nanotechnology Study Group, December 3, 1991 University of Massachusetts Boston, Biology, December 5, 1991 Yale University, Biology, December 6, 1991 University of Arizona, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, March 10, 1992 Cornell University, Mathematical Sciences Institute, CA Workshop, May 1992 Gordon Conference on Theoretical Biology, New Hampshire, June 8--12, 1992 4) Some interesting new and unpublished results - continued - --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911128_5.ms! Date: 28 Nov 91 09:45 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Evolving Programs (4 of 4) EID:3b36 177c4f34 - continued from previous message - Below is a report of an interesting result that is not described in any of the publications listed above: A COMPLEX ADAPTATION The adaptation described below is a classic example of intricate design in evolution. One wonders how it could have arisen through random bit flips, as every component of the code must be in place in order for the algorithm to function. Yet the code includes a classic mix of apparent intelligent design, and the chaotic hand of evolution. The optimization technique is a very clever one invented by humans, yet it is implemented in a mixed up but functional style that no human would use (unless perhaps very intoxicated). The arms race described in the manuscripts took place over a period of a billion instructions executed by the system. Another run was allowed to continue for fifteen billion instructions, but was not examined in detail. A creature present at the end of the run was examined and found to have evolved an intricate adaptation. The adaptation is an optimization technique known as ``unrolling the loop''. The central loop of the copy procedure performs the following operations: 1) copies an instruction from the mother to the daughter, 2) decrements the cx register which initially contains the size of the parent genome, 3) tests to see if cx is equal to zero, if so it exits the loop, if not it remains in the loop, 4) increments the ax register which contains the address in the daughter where the next instruction will be copied to, 5) increments the bx register which contains the address in the mother where the next instruction will be copied from, 6) jumps back to the top of the loop. The work of the loop is contained in steps 1, 2, 4 and 5. Steps 3 and 6 are overhead. The efficiency of the loop can be increased by duplicating the work steps within the loop, thereby saving on overhead. The creature from the end of the long run had repeated the work steps three times within the loop, as illustrated below. The unrolled loop is an example of the ability of evolution to produce an increase in complexity, gradually over a long period of time. The interesting thing about the loop unrolling optimization technique is that it requires more complex code. The resulting creature has a genome size of 36, compared to its ancestor of size 80, yet it has packed a much more complex algorithm into less than half the space. Below I include the assembler code for the central copy loop of the ancestor (80aaa) and decendant after fifteen billion instructions (72etq). Within the loop, the ancestor does each of the following operations once: copy instruction (51), decrement cx (52), increment ax (59) and increment bx (60). The decendant performs each of the following operations three times within the loop: copy instruction (15, 22, 26), increment ax (20, 24, 31) and increment bx (21, 25, 32). The decrement cx operation occurs five times within the loop (16, 17, 19, 23, 27). Instruction 28 flips the low order bit of the cx register. Whenever this latter instruction is reached, the value of the low order bit is one, so this amounts to a sixth instance of decrement cx. This means that there are two decrements for every increment. The reason for this is related to another adaptation of this creature. When it calculates its size, it shifts left (12) before allocating space for the daughter (13). This has the effect of allocating twice as much space as is actually needed to accomodate the genome. The genome of the creature is 36 instructions long, but it allocates a space of 72 instructions. This occurred in an environment where the slice size was set equal to the size of the cell. In this way the creatures were able to garner twice as much energy. However, they had to compliment this change by doubling the number of decrements in the loop. nop_1 ; 01 47 copy loop template COPY LOOP OF 80AAA nop_0 ; 00 48 copy loop template nop_1 ; 01 49 copy loop template nop_0 ; 00 50 copy loop template mov_iab ; 1a 51 move contents of [bx] to [ax] (copy instruction) dec_c ; 0a 52 decrement cx if_cz ; 05 53 if cx = 0 perform next instruction, otherwise skip it jmp ; 14 54 jump to template below (copy procedure exit) nop_0 ; 00 55 copy procedure exit compliment nop_1 ; 01 56 copy procedure exit compliment nop_0 ; 00 57 copy procedure exit compliment nop_0 ; 00 58 copy procedure exit compliment inc_a ; 08 59 increment ax (point to next instruction of daughter) inc_b ; 09 60 increment bx (point to next instruction of mother) jmp ; 14 61 jump to template below (copy loop) nop_0 ; 00 62 copy loop compliment nop_1 ; 01 63 copy loop compliment nop_0 ; 00 64 copy loop compliment nop_1 ; 01 65 copy loop compliment (10 instructions executed per loop) shl ; 000 03 12 shift left cx COPY LOOP OF 72ETQ mal ; 000 1e 13 allocate daughter cell nop_0 ; 000 00 14 top of loop mov_iab ; 000 1a 15 copy instruction dec_c ; 000 0a 16 decrement cx dec_c ; 000 0a 17 decrement cx jmpb ; 000 15 18 junk dec_c ; 000 0a 19 decrement cx inc_a ; 000 08 20 increment ax inc_b ; 000 09 21 increment bx mov_iab ; 000 1a 22 copy instruction dec_c ; 000 0a 23 decrement cx inc_a ; 000 08 24 increment ax inc_b ; 000 09 25 increment bx mov_iab ; 000 1a 26 copy instruction dec_c ; 000 0a 27 decrement cx or1 ; 000 02 28 flip low order bit of cx if_cz ; 000 05 29 if cx == 0 do next instruction ret ; 000 17 30 exit loop inc_a ; 000 08 31 increment ax inc_b ; 000 09 32 increment bx jmpb ; 000 15 33 go to top of loop (6 instructions per copy) nop_1 ; 000 01 34 bottom of loop (18 instructions executed per loop) Tom Ray University of Delaware School of Life & Health Sciences Newark, Delaware 19716 ray@tierra.slhs.udel.edu ray@life.slhs.udel.edu ray@brahms.udel.edu 302-451-2281 (FAX) 302-451-2753 --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911128__.ms! Date: 28 Nov 91 08:02 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Julee Dunekacke @ 963/10 on 0/0 Subject: LIGHT EID:3852 177c4f10 > DOES LIGHT REALLY MOVE IN > WAVES? IF SO PROVE IT. IF YES, WHY CAN WE > SEE IN THE SHADOWS? Make two slits in an opaque board, and the slits should be extremely narrow. Now, place a point-source light (mercury vapor or arc-light behind a pinhole should do) at some distance from your slitted board. Beyond the other side of the board, you will find that a pattern of light and dark bands is projected upon the surface of a plane (assuming you have a wall or another board there). This is an interference pattern, and is a typical property of wave interaction. "Seeing in shadows" is due to diffuse reflection, and is not dependent upon the mode of propagation of light. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911129__.ms! Date: 29 Nov 91 13:08 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: All on 0/0 Subject: Vestian disinformation EID:1a5b 177d695d In looking over some past messages from Mike Vest, I've found another bit of Vestian disinformation. 11/17, MV to Lance Parsons: MV> There is no continuty possiable between the species. No MV> matter how you hypothesis a change from one to anouther, MV> there is a point where a 'jump' is needed, where many MV> mutations must occur at once.. Mike obviously hasn't looked into polyploidy in orchids, where new species are observed to occur via one mutation resulting in a tetraploid offspring (Wallbrunn, 1981, personal communication). The tetraploid offspring are fertile in the F2 generation, which means the viability criterion is met, and the offspring are not interfertile with the parent stock, which indicates that the new population is, indeed, a new species with 2x the chromosome number of the parent stock. Reflecting upon another Vestian pronouncement, 11/17, MV to AL: MV> The issue is one of the most complex ones to understand yet, MV> and it takes real egotism to claim complete knowledge. one wonders about why Mike posted what he did to Lance Parsons. It certainly looks like Mike did not obtain "complete knowledge" before commenting here in absolutist terms. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
Message filename: 911202__.ms! Date: 2 Dec 91 08:11 From: Wesley R. Elsberry on 347/303 To: Don Peters on 0/0 Subject: Paper EID:ce2d 1782bf75 > What kind of photgraphic paper > lasts the longest? I have never owned a camera and one of > my main concerns in buying one is the long-term > survivability of the paper used in making the final > product. This might even have a bearing on the type of > camera that I would buy. Doesn't really matter about the camera. Fiber-based black-and-white paper will have the longest stable image quality, if processed archivally. This means that particular attention is paid to use the minimum complete fixing time, proper wash times (with testing for residual silver halides and fixer by-products), and a protective toning step (selenium or gold toners are popular). With matting on acid free board and good storage, such a print may last a couple of thousand years. For color, dye-transfer printing methods produce the most stable images, followed, I believe, by Ilford's Cibachrome process. The best stability for negatives is with black-and-white, so an especially valuble color image should be stored as a color separation set of negatives. --- TPBoard 6.1 * Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303) SEEN-BY: 347/17 303