wre00066.htm, by Wesley R. Elsberry
8775e001.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 11 Dec 94 02:51:12
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: All
Subject: Learning, Behavior, and Evolution
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4b9add1e
Discussion of:
Learning, Behavior, and Evolution. D. Parisi, S. Nolfi, and F. Cecconi.
Technical Report PCIA-91-14. Department of Cognitive Processes and
Artificial Intelligence. 1991.
[Quote]
Abstract
We present simulations of evolutionary processes operating on populations
of neural networks to show how learning and behavior can influence
evolution within a strictly Darwinian framework. Learning can accelerate
the evolutionary process both (1) when learning tasks correlate with the
fitness criterion, and (2) when random learning tasks are used.
Furthermore, an ability to learn a task can emerge and be transmitted
evolutionarily for both correlated and uncorrelated tasks. Finally,
behavior that allows the individual to self-select the incoming stimuli
can influence evolution by becoming one of the factors that determine the
observed phenotypic fitness on which selective reproduction is based. For
all the effects demonstrated, we advance a consistent explanation in terms
of a multidimensional weight space for neural networks, a fitness surface
for the evolutionary task, and a performance surface for the learning task.
[End quote]
Parisi et al. present a very interesting series of simulations, and an
even more interesting set of conclusions. Along the way, they note the
existence of what appears to be inheritance of acquired characters. As
the authors point out, though, a consistent Darwinian explanation is
available.
The baseline simulation involves a genetic algorithm operating upon
a population of simulated organisms. The organisms are controlled
by feed-forward multilayer neural networks. The neural networks
accept as input the angle and distance measures to the nearest
bit of simulated food, and also the two outputs from the previous
time step. The outputs are interpreted as stay/move forward and
turn left/turn right. The initial generation of organisms are outfitted
with randomized weights in the neural networks. Each organism
interacts with a simulated environment alone for 5000 time steps.
Each organism has the possibility of encountering 1000 pieces of food
in this lifetime. The genetic algorithm's evaluation function is
simply the number of pieces of food "eaten" by the organism.
Unsurprisingly, the genetic algorithm evolves populations of organisms
which do better at the task of finding food. After 50 generations,
the population food acquisition average is around 250, up from about
10 for the initial population. No weight changes occur during the
organisms' lives; the only changes occur by mutation in copying
the weight values of successful organisms to succeeding generations.
[Parisi et al. are careful to note that speaking of assigning fitness
values to genotypes is inaccurate, but in the context of the simulations
will suffice.]
Then, Parisi et al. changed a few things. The neural networks were
modified to have two more output units, which were trained by
back-propagation to predict the angle and distance to the nearest
food item at the next time step. Weights within the neural network
change over the organisms' lives, but those changes are not used in
copying to further generations; the changes due to learning are not
made available in reproduction. The populations with the prediction
learning task do better over the same number of generations as
compared to the baseline population: after 50 generations, the
population average food acquisition is about 400. Since prediction
of the next sensory input is obviously related to the task of
finding food, it is easy to explain the difference in performance
of the two sets of simulations. If we imagine two organisms represented
as different points on a fitness surface, the effect of the prediction
learning task will be to possibly shift the position of each organism
upon that fitness surface. Even if the two organisms start out with
the same relative fitness, learning will accentuate differences in
the regions of the fitness surface that each occupies. An organism
already at a local maximum will be likely to end up with a lesser
fitness than an organism which starts in a region with a higher local
maximum. The well-correlated task implies that most changes in
weight over the organisms lifetime will tend to explore local areas
of higher fitness on the fitness surface.
Using the same network structure, another simulation run was performed.
This time, however, the network outputs were trained to pseudo-random
numbers. The result: the average food acquisition at 50 generations
was about 330. This falls in between the baseline simulation, where
there was no weight change during life, and the prediction learning
simulation, which had correlated weight change. Parisi et al. explain
this by noting that any perturbation of weights will tend to differentiate
between organisms whose overall fitness starts out as being equal, but
which occupy regions of the fitness surface with differing "potential".
The effect is not so pronounced as when learning is correlated.
Parisi et al. next explored "indirect inheritance of acquired
characters". In this case, they modified the organism's neural
network to have an output, this time trained during life to
compute the exclusive or (XOR) of the sensory inputs. The XOR
problem is assumed not to be correlated with the food acquisition
task. Since the tasks are not correlated, and the fitness evaluation
only looks at food acquisition, Parisi et al. expected that no
improvement in ability to learn the XOR task would be seen over
time. However, the results showed that organisms of later generations
did have an improved capacity for learning the XOR task. How might
this be? Parisi et al. forward the explanation that the performance
surface for the XOR and the fitness surface for the food acquisition
task will have regions which vary in correlation of slope. Those
organisms which have better correlation of the two slopes will be more
likely to end with a high fitness value than those organisms with a
poor correlation of performance and fitness slopes. This explains the
apparent inheritance of an acquired character with a completely Darwinian
mechanism.
Again, though, it should be stressed that organisms do not pass on
the weights as adjusted by lifetime learning. The performance of
new organisms has much the same starting point: descendant organisms
do not acquire the ability to perform the learning task, they acquire
the ability to learn the learning task quicker.
Stepping away from simple description of Parisi et al.'s methods and
conclusions, a few general comments upon the linkage to biology are in
order. With the use of one neural network as the basis for learning
and motor action for each organism, it is easy to see that changes in
weights due to learning at some output units will necessarily change
the feedforward response of the other output units, due to change in
the node output values for hidden layer nodes. In actual biological
organisms, this interaction between systems and consequent perturbation
due to learning would be much more difficult to establish in detail.
However, the mere fact of some learning task having a perturbing
influence upon fitness-defining tasks will set the basis for the mode
of evolutionary change discussed by Parisi et alia, and their
mechanism of evolutionary acquisition of learning capability would
then be ready to go to work.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
87760008.txt
From source file 941212or.to
Article 59286 of talk.origins:
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Subject: Has anyone heard of Clifford Wilson?
Date: 12 Dec 1994 14:41:33 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <3CHNET$G4A@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
941212
I was channel surfing the radio yesterday, and happened to run across
a SciCre radio broadcast, by a group called "Associates for Bible
Research".
Their guest was a Dr. Clifford Wilson, an archaeologist from Australia
as announced. The host's question to Dr. Wilson was, "How old is the
universe?"
Dr. Wilson proceeded to give his arguments for a young earth. Wilson
stated that used to believe in an old earth, but was convinced
otherwise by Thomas Barnes' publications on the decay of the earth's
magnetic field. While relating anecdotes of when he was Barnes'
houseguest, Wilson made a few additional claims concerning Barnes'
work, including that later satellite measurements confirm his
findings, and that scientists cannot show his work to be in error.
Moving on from Barnes, he gave the line that many different estimation
techniques point to a young earth. He included such favorites as size
and rate of deposition of the Mississippi delta, meteoritic dust
accumulation, stalagtite and stalagmite growth rates, ocean
sedimentation, and population growth equations.
Wilson also cited Harold Slusher to close up his portion of the
broadcast.
The host hawked "The Genesis Solution" video. He also offered the ABR
newsletter on biblical archaeology, available by sending a SASE to
ABR, Box 125, /efforta/, PA 17522.
I haven't the foggiest idea what spelling to use for the city name in
the address.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry welsberr@orca.tamu.edu
4160 Pirates' Beach, Galveston, TX 77554
Sysop, Central Neural System BBS, FidoNet 1:386/385 409-737-5222
Back to WRE Archive listing
87770001.txt
From source file 941212or.to
Article 59308 of talk.origins:
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Subject: Re: What's all this about evidence?
Date: 13 Dec 1994 02:03:47 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <3CIVE3$7GS@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <3C07N7$FUJ@TEKADM1.CSE.TEK.COM> <3C4QV2$566@NEWS.IASTATE.EDU> <3CINIL$MK6@TEKADM1.CSE.TEK.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article <3CINIL$MK6@TEKADM1.CSE.TEK.COM>,
Bob Bales wrote:
>In article <3C4QV2$566@NEWS.IASTATE.EDU> danwell@iastate.edu (Daniel A
>Ashlock) writes:
BB> me [Bob Bales, I presume]
BB>I, and others, believe that the evidence indicates that different forms of
BB>life were created. Conclusions drawn from the evidence (even if you do not
BB>share them) do not fall withing the definition of myth.
DA> Okay, the same old lies.
BB>For all the times that Dan has accused me of being a liar, he has
BB>never presented any evidence of my lies. This is nothiing but the
BB>same old baseless name-calling..
DA>Bob, you've never even admitted most of the evidence exists:
BB>Wrong. I have admitted that *all* of the evidence exists. I have
BB>never said any of the evidence -- that is, the characteristics of
BB>present and past life.
The above seems to be garbled. Could you clarify?
DA>how on pluto can you claim to base your conclusions on it?
BB>By having examined the evidence and having used scientific principles
BB>to draw conclusions from it.
BB>Except "evolution" means much more than this. In the broad sense,
BB>evolution is the theory that all forms of life developed from an
BB>original form. This has never been observed.
DA>There is direct, essentially conclusive genetic evidence of common ancestry
DA>for all the currently living organisms
BB>(Notice that my original article was discussing abiogenesis, but the
BB>discussion has now moved to evolution.)
Notice that "evolution" appears in the text to which Dan was responding.
Notice that the concept otherwise known as the theory of common descent
was described in the text to which Dan was responding. Notice that it
wasn't Dan who switched topics.
BB>No there is not. We know the comparisons between the genetic material
BB>of different organisms. This is the evidence. What has happened is
BB>that scientists have reasoned what genetics would look like if
BB>organisms did come from a common ancestor, and have found that what
BB>they see is a match. However, this is not in any way conclusive
BB>evidence.
Science does not work by looking for conclusive supportive evidence.
Dan seems to have misspoken. You here indicate that you accept that
science is proceeding exactly as it should -- a prediction was made,
data gathered, and possible falsification turned out not to falsify.
Prediction confirmed.
BB>Conclusive evidence would require that we have organisms known -- by
BB>means independent of genetics and the theory of evolution -- to have a
BB>common ancestor and not to have a common ancestor. If the genetics of
BB>the organisms whoose ancestry is unknown match the first and not the
BB>second, then we would have the evidence.
In other words, your proposed falsifying test requires that the theory
of common descent already be known to be false before proceeding to
actually do the test. Very clever. But not very plausible.
How about proposing something more interesting, maybe something within
the framework of science?
DA>but Bob says it's never been observed.
BB>Because of the simple and obvious fact that it hasn't.
DA>What Bob means of corse is that. . . .
BB>What Bob means of course is that since we do not have identified
BB>populations of oranisms with known ancestry, we cannot obsevre what
BB>genetics do and do not indicate common ancestry.
Scientists have sought to find disconfirming evidence, thus far without
success.
DA> [Bob goes on to give secondary sources claiming the existence of the
DA> evidence "for" creation which he has never ever been able to produce]
BB>Two of the sources were references. However, one was a direct quote
BB>from a zoololgist who fout little to choose between creation and
BB>evolution. Dan may not agree. He doesn't have to. However, in the
BB>discussion of whether or not there is any evidence for creation, the
BB>viewpoint of an evolutionists that there is is as relevant as the
BB>viewpoints of those in this group who say there isn't.
I guess that what the folks here in t.o. should be asking you to present
circumstantial, as opposed to testimonial, evidence for creation. Those
giving testimony could well be mistaken; present the circumstantial
evidence upon which they form their opinions, and we can discuss whether
the evidence says what your sources think it says.
DA>I see
BB>This comment and the style of what follows indicates that it is to be
BB>a paraphrase of my position. However it is not. It does not resemble
BB>what I've said or what I think.
DA>so if massive amounts of evidence favors our scenario
BB>The point is that massive amounts of evidence favor evolution only in
BB>the opinions of some. I don't see it that way. And I gave references
BB>to present and former adherents to evolution who also don't see it as
BB>Dan does.
That's testimony, and not what the folks here are looking for in the
way of evidence. There are, indeed, massive amounts of physical
evidence which has been collected in failed attempts to disconfirm
various evolutionary mechanism theories, and even some collected
in successful attempts to disconfirm now abandoned EMTs.
DA>but a Judge somewhere says that some guys say there might be evidence for
DA>your proposal, or some other proposal at least vaguely like it,
BB>It's not what the judge said. It's that evolutionists submitted
BB>affidavits that there was evidence for creation.
And maybe they perjured themselves. We won't know until you present
the physical evidence.
DA>then your clinging to pitiful religious nonsense is a rational course.
BB>With respect to my position (which I thought Dan was discussing),
BB>"pitiful religious nonsense" is a meaningless phrase, since I have not
BB>advocated any kind of religious position with respect to origins.
DA>It is all so clear now!
BB>Introducing a straw man never clears things up.
Avoiding looking at the physical evidence doesn't do much to clear things
up, either.
--
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,
URL: http://tam2000.tamu.edu/~elsberry/ | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more
Back to WRE Archive listing
87780006.txt
From source file 941214or.to
Article 59528 of talk.origins:
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Subject: Re: What's all this about no transitionals?
Date: 14 Dec 1994 14:21:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <3CMV17$F1B@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <3CAVFJ$GE@KEA.JPL.NASA.GOV>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article , wrote:
>I've quoted ICR staffers as saying the fossil record "does not show
>any transitional fossils," and I'm sure I've said it myself. I could
>accept an evolutionary scenario, if I thought the physical evidence
>supported such an idea. When I look at the fossil record I see what
>appears to be separately created life forms without a hint of anything
>transitional.
If SciCre-ists are "well-informed" enough to comment on
evolution and evolutionary mechanism theories, why is it
that so few seem to have even a passing familiarity with the
biological evidence?
Look at this reference:
Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of
selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in
Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Now, it is up to you to show why the fossil sequence
described therein fails to show transitional fossils. After
you outline your objections to this sequence, I have another
100 or so sequences showing fine grained transitions ready
to go, one at a time, until either you demonstrate that none
are actually transitional, or you give up your ludicrous
claim.
Consider yourself challenged.
The bibliography comes from the examples in Tables 1 & 2 in
Roger Cuffey's excellent paper, Paleontologic evidence and
organic evolution, which can be found in Montagu's "Science
and Creationism" or the Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation 24(4), just in case you want to get a jump-start
on the rest of the entries.
>Darwin was concerned about the fossil evidence. Sometime after that
>transitional fossils were reported in abundance. Now there's
>punctuated equilibria which, according to Gould, explains the rarity
>of transitional fossils. All of which are part of the theory of
>evolution. To me, it appears we have a theory that can explain
>everything regarding the physical evidence, but cannot be falsified
>with the physical evidence.
You can falsify PE just like you can phyletic gradualism: show that
common descent is false. I won't hold my breath.
--
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,
URL: http://tam2000.tamu.edu/~elsberry/ | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more
Back to WRE Archive listing
87780009.txt
From source file 941214or.to
Article 59530 of talk.origins:
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Subject: Re: What's all this about evidence?
Date: 14 Dec 1994 14:50:41 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 146
Message-ID: <3CN0O1$FOU@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <3C07N7$FUJ@TEKADM1.CSE.TEK.COM> <3C4QV2$566@NEWS.IASTATE.EDU> <3CINIL$MK6@TEKADM1.CSE.TEK.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article <3CINIL$MK6@TEKADM1.CSE.TEK.COM>,
Bob Bales wrote:
>In article <3C4QV2$566@NEWS.IASTATE.EDU> danwell@iastate.edu (Daniel A
>Ashlock) writes:
BB> me [Bob Bales, I presume]
BB>I, and others, believe that the evidence indicates that different forms of
BB>life were created. Conclusions drawn from the evidence (even if you do not
BB>share them) do not fall withing the definition of myth.
DA> Okay, the same old lies.
BB>For all the times that Dan has accused me of being a liar, he has
BB>never presented any evidence of my lies. This is nothiing but the
BB>same old baseless name-calling..
DA>Bob, you've never even admitted most of the evidence exists:
BB>Wrong. I have admitted that *all* of the evidence exists. I have
BB>never said any of the evidence -- that is, the characteristics of
BB>present and past life.
The above seems to be garbled. Could you clarify?
DA>how on pluto can you claim to base your conclusions on it?
BB>By having examined the evidence and having used scientific principles
BB>to draw conclusions from it.
BB>Except "evolution" means much more than this. In the broad sense,
BB>evolution is the theory that all forms of life developed from an
BB>original form. This has never been observed.
DA>There is direct, essentially conclusive genetic evidence of common ancestry
DA>for all the currently living organisms
BB>(Notice that my original article was discussing abiogenesis, but the
BB>discussion has now moved to evolution.)
Notice that "evolution" appears in the text to which Dan was responding.
Notice that the concept otherwise known as the theory of common descent
was described in the text to which Dan was responding. Notice that it
wasn't Dan who switched topics.
BB>No there is not. We know the comparisons between the genetic material
BB>of different organisms. This is the evidence. What has happened is
BB>that scientists have reasoned what genetics would look like if
BB>organisms did come from a common ancestor, and have found that what
BB>they see is a match. However, this is not in any way conclusive
BB>evidence.
Science does not work by looking for conclusive supportive evidence.
Dan seems to have misspoken. You here indicate that you accept that
science is proceeding exactly as it should -- a prediction was made,
data gathered, and possible falsification turned out not to falsify.
Prediction confirmed.
BB>Conclusive evidence would require that we have organisms known -- by
BB>means independent of genetics and the theory of evolution -- to have a
BB>common ancestor and not to have a common ancestor. If the genetics of
BB>the organisms whoose ancestry is unknown match the first and not the
BB>second, then we would have the evidence.
In other words, your proposed falsifying test requires that the theory
of common descent already be known to be false before proceeding to
actually do the test. Very clever. But not very plausible.
How about proposing something more interesting, maybe something within
the framework of science?
DA>but Bob says it's never been observed.
BB>Because of the simple and obvious fact that it hasn't.
DA>What Bob means of corse is that. . . .
BB>What Bob means of course is that since we do not have identified
BB>populations of oranisms with known ancestry, we cannot obsevre what
BB>genetics do and do not indicate common ancestry.
Scientists have sought to find disconfirming evidence, thus far without
success.
DA> [Bob goes on to give secondary sources claiming the existence of the
DA> evidence "for" creation which he has never ever been able to produce]
BB>Two of the sources were references. However, one was a direct quote
BB>from a zoololgist who fout little to choose between creation and
BB>evolution. Dan may not agree. He doesn't have to. However, in the
BB>discussion of whether or not there is any evidence for creation, the
BB>viewpoint of an evolutionists that there is is as relevant as the
BB>viewpoints of those in this group who say there isn't.
I guess that what the folks here in t.o. should be asking you to present
circumstantial, as opposed to testimonial, evidence for creation. Those
giving testimony could well be mistaken; present the circumstantial
evidence upon which they form their opinions, and we can discuss whether
the evidence says what your sources think it says.
DA>I see
BB>This comment and the style of what follows indicates that it is to be
BB>a paraphrase of my position. However it is not. It does not resemble
BB>what I've said or what I think.
DA>so if massive amounts of evidence favors our scenario
BB>The point is that massive amounts of evidence favor evolution only in
BB>the opinions of some. I don't see it that way. And I gave references
BB>to present and former adherents to evolution who also don't see it as
BB>Dan does.
That's testimony, and not what the folks here are looking for in the
way of evidence. There are, indeed, massive amounts of physical
evidence which has been collected in failed attempts to disconfirm
various evolutionary mechanism theories, and even some collected
in successful attempts to disconfirm now abandoned EMTs.
DA>but a Judge somewhere says that some guys say there might be evidence for
DA>your proposal, or some other proposal at least vaguely like it,
BB>It's not what the judge said. It's that evolutionists submitted
BB>affidavits that there was evidence for creation.
And maybe they perjured themselves. We won't know until you present
the physical evidence.
DA>then your clinging to pitiful religious nonsense is a rational course.
BB>With respect to my position (which I thought Dan was discussing),
BB>"pitiful religious nonsense" is a meaningless phrase, since I have not
BB>advocated any kind of religious position with respect to origins.
DA>It is all so clear now!
BB>Introducing a straw man never clears things up.
Avoiding looking at the physical evidence doesn't do much to clear things
up, either.
--
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,
URL: http://tam2000.tamu.edu/~wre2889/ | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more
Back to WRE Archive listing
877be001.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 17 Dec 94 07:18:42
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Len Flank
Subject: problems with Darwinism
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4bec71fc
In a msg on , Len Flank of 1:2607/112 writes:
[...]
LF> I don't find it very helpful to explain the apparent lack of
LF> competition today by asserting that "competition happened in the
LF> past".
LF> This is tantamount to saying that "evolution has happened in the
LF> past,
LF> but it isn't happening now". I prefer to assume that if we
LF> cannot
LF> observe a phenomenon happening, then it probably isn't happening.
LF> And
LF> there are no observations of life-or-death competition between
LF> species;
LF> there are lots of observations of species avoiding competition.
Again, this is not something that was overlooked by Darwinists, nor
was it overlooked by Darwin. Early on in the Origin of Species:
[Quote]
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that
a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings,
on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but
had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such
a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have
been modified so as to acquire that perfection of structure and
coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration. [...]
[End quote -- Charles Darwin, OoS, 1859, p. 2 or thereabouts]
If Darwin had only meant to explain the evolution of species in
isolation or only in the competitive context that you have given,
why does he say "coadaptation" rather than "adaptation" in the
above? The answer, I believe, is that Darwin is well ahead of you
on this issue.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877be002.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 17 Dec 94 07:37:21
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Doug Wagner
Subject: Re: DEFINITIONS...
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4beca358
REPLY: 1:153/7715.0 2ee843e1
In a msg on , Doug Wagner of 1:153/7715 writes:
[...]
DW> No, I don't think so. I believe that evolution SHOULD and MUST
DW> address
DW> the origin of life...otherwise it's a cop out. If evolution does
DW> not
DW> address it ...then why do so many evolutionists on this echo
DW> insist that
DW> creationists address the same issue ( like the dear Dr. Pepper
DW> "now
DW> state the theory of creation").
We can't be held responsible for the misapprehensions of SciCre-ists.
They believe any silly misconception imaginable about evolution and
evolutionary mechanism theories.
We can, however, hold SciCre-ists responsible for their own claims.
[Quote]
The concept of special creation says that matter, energy, stars,
planets, plants, animals, man, and all things were brought into
existence by special creative processes which are no longer
operating. It says that present-day phenomena and processes,
while pointing to the necessity of a primeval creation, cannot
in themselves create anything. Since in this framework, the study
of science forcefully points to past creation, it necessarily implies
a Creator and therefore an orderly, meaningful, and purposeful
universe.
[End quote -- Boardman, Koontz, and Morris, Science and Creation,
1973, p. 5]
Why should we not insist that SciCre-ists really address the issues
that they claim to address?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877be003.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 17 Dec 94 07:44:41
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Joe Morlan
Subject: EVOLUTION DEFINED
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4becaef0
In a msg on , Joe Morlan of 1:161/55 writes:
JM> ***** On 12-06-1994, Len Flank wrote to Doug Wagner *****
LF> Darwin's finches, even if they are phsyically capable of
LF> interbreeding (and I doubt that any of them are--they are
LF> reproductively isolated by such things as mating rituals,
LF> breeding seasons etc) produce offspring that are STERILE.
LF> I.e., they CANNOT exchange genetic material between
LF> populations. Thus, they are NOT the same species, while
LF> dogs ARE. Get it now?
JM> While, I am sympathetic with the point you are trying to make,
JM> you have your facts wrong. Some of Darwin's Finches (valid
JM> biological species) are capable of hybridizing and producing
JM> viable hybrid offspring. For excruciating details, see:
JM> Grant, P.R. & B.R. Grant. 1992. Hybridization of Bird Species.
JM> Science 256:193-197.
One of the apparently flawed species concepts that I got taught
in genetics was that a species wouldd consist of populations
whose offspring were fertile in the F2 generation. Perhaps the
BSC or PSC supercedes such a nit picky, sexual reproducing populations
only kind of concept, but there is still some amount of utility
left in it. The production of viable hybrids is not enough. You
need to show that the hybrids are regularly interfertile. If you
can't do that, then Len's claim that there is no gene flow between
the populations is still fully supportable.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877be004.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 17 Dec 94 07:49:47
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Doug Wagner
Subject: Re: EVOLUTION MAKES SENS
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4becbe8f
REPLY: 1:153/7715.0 2ee843e7
In a msg on , Doug Wagner of 1:153/7715 writes:
DW> Greetings Kelsey,
-=> Quoting Kelsey Bjarnason to Doug Wagner <=- [...] DW>You say it is unevidenced...look around, stop and smell the roses!
DW>Look at the complexity of nature...the design, the perfect conditions
DW>for life on this planet, the absence of life anywhere else....look!
Notice that you claim here that there is an absence of life anywhere
else. I'll come back to this.
KB> "The absence of life anywhere else", eh? A pretty sweeping
KB> statement. Just for the sake of argument, please demonstrate that
KB> there is no life on a planet on the other side of the galaxy. (Note:
DW> There is NO evidence to support life existing elsewhere. There is
DW> only
DW> one way to prove it and that is to be omniscient, which none of
DW> us are.
The Kalki syndrome bags another victim.
Doug, it is your claim of an absence of life which requires omniscience.
To keep an open mind upon the issue of the existence of life outside the
atmosphere of this planet (other than what we've spread ourselves) does
not require omniscience. Nor is omniscience the "only" way to disprove
your claim that life occurs nowhere else. All we have to assume is that
if life exists elsewhere and there is enough time for exploratory
research, we may eventually find one such counterexample and blow your
assertion away. We don't have to have omniscience, just the scientific
method.
[...]
DW> The LAWS of thermodynamics DEMAND an EXTERNAL Creator.
Nope. They demand attention to detail, analysis, and a firm grasp
of mathematics. I haven't seen you demonstrate any of those lately.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877be005.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 17 Dec 94 08:02:18
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Len Flank
Subject: problems with Darwinism
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4becd445
In a msg on , Len Flank of 1:2607/112 writes:
[...]
LF> Ethology shows us
LF> that
LF> organisms do not passively accept their environmental
LF> suyrroundings--they actively alter them through behavior patterns
LF> that
LF> are surprisingly plastic. We can thus profitably view the
LF> organism as
LF> actively determining their own behavior patterns (and thus to at
LF> least
LF> some extent self-directing their own evolution) rather than than
LF> being
LF> passively pushed and pulled by the forces of natural selection.
LF> The
LF> idea that purposeful behavioral changes can alter or even
LF> determine the
LF> future course of evolution is a profound odification, not only of
LF> Darwinian biological theory, but of the entire Western outllok on
LF> science. It would have an effect on biology similar to the
LF> quantum
LF> revolution in physics, which destroyed forever the idea of
LF> impersonal
LF> objective natural laws.
I don't see how the role behavior plays in evolution sets up the
claim that this is a "profound modification" of Darwinian biological
theory. Ethology, which you use as a point in favor of your argument,
is derived from and is completely compatible with Darwinian principles.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877be006.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 17 Dec 94 08:06:34
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Joe Morlan
Subject: EVOLUTION DEFINED
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4becd94a
In a msg on , Joe Morlan of 1:161/55 writes:
JM> ***** On 12-07-1994, Ken Stuckas wrote to Doug Wagner *****
KS> On what basis do you make the claim that Darwin's
KS> finches can interbreed and produce fertile
KS> offspring?
JM> It's a fact. I have the paper right here in front of me.
JM> Hybridization of Bird Species by Grant & Grant (Science 256:
JM> 193-197, 1992)
You said "viable" before. You say "fertile" now.
Which of these statements is actually what Grant & Grant report?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877be007.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 17 Dec 94 08:07:59
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Joe Morlan
Subject: THE THEORY OF CREATIon
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4becdf31
In a msg on , Joe Morlan of 1:161/55 writes:
JM> Here is version 1.1
JM> ----------------------------------------------------------
JM> THE LONG AWAITED THEORY OF CREATIONISM
[...]
JM> Creation - Any event resulting in new biological species.
[Quote]
`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory
for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't --
till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for
you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice
objected.
`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
less.'
[End quote -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass]
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877be008.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 17 Dec 94 08:15:20
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Bruce Riley
Subject: Re: Faq's
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4beceee6
REPLY: 1:208/117 ad00b114
In a msg on , Bruce Riley of 1:208/117 writes:
WR>BR> How does one "get the FAQ's" for these subs? I'm just starting on
WR>BR> this Evolution sub, and I'd like to read up on the basics...
WR>LM> Yo, Wesley, are the FAQ's available on disk by snail mail?
WR>
WR>Yep. Send disks, a return mailer, and postage, and I'll copy the
WR>files you want. Here's the address:
WR>
WR>4160 Pirates' Beach
WR>Galveston, TX 77554
BR> How many 1.44 meg 3.5" floppies do you need? Or if it's a
BR> bunch,
BR> would a QIC-80 tape be better?
The QIC-80 tape would only be better if you sent a tape drive with
the tape. ;-)
There are about 5 megabytes in the EVO_SCI.INF file section, so five
disks should cover that nicely.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877be009.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 17 Dec 94 08:27:35
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Ken Stuckas
Subject: Echolocation
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4bed2afc
REPLY: 1:112/140@fidonet.org c685343c
In a msg on , Ken Stuckas of 1:112/140@fidonet.org writes:
-=>Wesley R. Elsberry screamed "Hoo r u?!" in Bruce Riley's ear as
KS> the police arrived.
KS>
WRE> echolocation in Tursiops truncatus, the bottlenose dolphin.
WRE> I'm an interdisciplinary kind of guy.
KS> You're just the guy I can ask about using sound to
KS> measure water temperature. As you may have heard
KS> there is a move afoot to station a sound transmitter
KS> off the coast of California and by placing receivers
KS> at various places around the Pacific Ocean, measure
KS> the water temperature by sending out sound pulses
KS> and timing their reception at the receivers.
KS> Of course, some are screaming about how this will
KS> interfere with the communications between marine
KS> mammals.
Yep, ATOC sure aroused controversy.
The ATOC folks are a bit miffed that their research caught all this
flak, yet ordinary day to day shipping operations, naval operations,
and other activities in the marine environment routinely cause
noise levels as high, if not higher, than anything ATOC ever proposed.
KS> But, that's not my question even though I would
KS> appreciate your comments. My question is, is that one
KS> of the chief scientists made the statement that as the
KS> water temperature warms up, the speed of sound in it
KS> increases. I always thought that the speed of sound was
KS> proportional to density of the medium it was traveling
KS> in, i.e., steel versus water. But apparently this is not
KS> true as the density of a given medium changes due to
KS> temperature.
KS> I went back to some of my textbooks and found that the
KS> speed of sound is equal to the square root of bulk
KS> modulus, E, divided by the density, or, alternatively,
KS> the square root of delta P divided by delta rho. If the
KS> speed of sound increases with decreasing density of
KS> water then a plot of dP versus d(rho) must be a set of
KS> isothermal lines fanning out from the origin and the
KS> slope
KS> of each isothermal line must increase with increasing
KS> temperature (decreasing density). I have never seen
KS> any data on the compressibility of water and its
KS> variation
KS> with temperature. Where can I find this data? I live in
KS> P-3 Orion territory and I'm sure the Navy has abundant
KS> data
KS> on the subject, but they probably won't let me have it.
KS> 8*(
I don't know about the compressability issue, but quite a lot of
questions about underwater acoustics have answers in Robert Urick's
Principles of Underwater Sound.
Velocity of sound in water
c = 1429.9 + 3*(T-10) - 6E-3*(T-10)^2 - 4E-2*(T-18)^2 + 1.2*(S-35)
- 1E-2*(T-18)*(S-35) + Z/61
c is velocity in meters per second
T is temperature in Centigrade
S is salinity in parts per thousand
Z is depth in meters
"This expression is said to be accurate to 0.1 m/s for T less than 20
[degrees] C and for Z less than 8,000 meters." -- Urick, p.106.
Urick notes that c increases with temperature, salinity, and depth.
KS> The other question is, how they can be sure that the
KS> temperature has actually changed since the variation of
KS> temperature and density over a thousand miles must be a
KS> stochastic function. I can conceive of a situation where
KS> two
KS> signals sent to two different receivers are measured as
KS> having
KS> the same transmission time and yet the temperaure
KS> profiles
KS> would be entirely different. Does that necessarily mean
KS> that
KS> the average water temperatures are the same?
I haven't really kept up with the issue. There are some ATOC posts
by Walter Munk and others that may go into this; I'll have a look in
my archives to see if I kept them.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877ce001.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 18 Dec 94 07:42:04
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Walt Stone
Subject: Glacier Man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4bf9e1a5
REPLY: 1:106/113.0 2ef1ada0
In a msg on , Walt Stone of 1:106/113 writes:
WS> Since the only response from the echo crowd has been either
WS> silence
WS> or idiocy, It'll take me until after the holiday to get and post
WS> the article on the guy from this area who actually is helping to
WS> cut
WS> and photograph on ice man.
WS>
WS> I posted my question about the article from memory, and I hope
WS> that
WS> didn't get it too wrong. My memory had it coming from a recent
WS> Sunday edition of the Galveston newspaper, as I think the guy
WS> doing the research is local. Which puts it local to the
WS> moderator
WS> of the echo, WRE. I thought it might get his attention, but
WS> alas, not to be.
Well, I just yesterday got a little over three hundred messages in
this echo due to a bit of backlog at my feed. I can't respond to
what I don't have.
It's only a stroke of luck that I'm able to respond at all on this
one, for the starving graduate student budget doesn't permit
both operating a BBS and taking a newspaper subscription. However,
I do occasionally pick up the Sunday edition for the comics... ;-)
So I've got the 94/12/11 Houston Chronicle article on the topic of Otzi
and Dr. William A. Murphy's role in research on the corpse.
Variances listed in the articles from modern humans include "a thicker
shin bone with a more triangular shape", "no wisdom teeth", and the
missing 12th rib. However, the article says that modern humans
lacking a 12th rib *usually* have a nub. It doesn't say always.
In fact, the article goes on to give us this information:
"While each of Otzi's differences has been occasionally seen separately,
seldom if ever have they all been seen in one modern man, he said."
-- Milling, quoting Murphy.
Murphy is of the opinion that Otzi's rib fractures occurred after
death, due to glacial movement.
WS> I will go for the holidays, but will be back after the new year.
WS> 4th or 5th, I hope.
Happy holidays...
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877ce002.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 18 Dec 94 07:59:17
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: James Keep
Subject: EVOLUTION TRICK OR TRUTH
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4bfa0e79
In a msg on , James Keep of 1:104/251 writes:
> damn well know about it before hand, otherwise, you are being
> dishonest). Secondly, even though at least three people have now
> identified the process of the exchange of DNA between some bacteria
> as
> CONJUGATION, you STILL can't get it right.
JK> I really guess you do not read all my messages do you. You take
JK> Fragments of what I said and twist it. I know what conjuntion is
JK> and I dont need to explain it agien. Conjuntion, YES, I know what
JK> it is, you keep on calling me ignorant, but you dont read what I
JK> say you just asume it is wrong.
James, I've read your messages. I've also not simply assumed that
you were wrong. I grabbed my genetics and biology textbooks and
looked in the indices. Guess what? There are *no* entries in any
of those for the word "conjuntion". There are no entries in any
of those for the word "conjunction". There are entries in those
for the word "conjugation". You are wrong, and it isn't merely
an assumption.
Why not attempt to demonstrate that someone else agrees with you?
Post your reference that includes the word "conjuntion" so that
we can see the basis for your assertions. Otherwise, we'll just
have to assume that you haven't yet learned how to gracefully
admit error.
> Or even MOST of the time. Frankly, I used to allow some degree of
> the
> benefit of the doubt; but I am less patient about these things.
> Perhaps
> it is my post-baccalaureate work and my major advisors and
> professors
> who insist that one who cannot communicate scientific concepts very
> well
> probably has no understanding of them in the first place.
>
> With most of us in this echo, James, you are dealing with
> heavyweights.
> Many of us hold legitimate credentials in science; and even those
> who
> don't are VERY well informed on the subject.
>
> Again us, you are a rank amateur, and a very ill-informed one at
> that.
JK> I communicate fine. (maby spelling and grammer is not up to parr,
JK> but that is diffrent than communicateing. READ what I am saying
JK> and dont be pickey about it. Second of all I hope remember that I
JK> am 15 years old, and yes I have taken a zoo class at FRCC. And I
JK> comprehend all what you are saying, there has not been one singal
JK> instance that I did not understand 1 subject.
JK> Heavyweights, yea right try bantom-weight. There are a few good
JK> scientist in here that I would like to chalenge my self talking
JK> to. I am here to express my opinion , on this sub-ject and I
JK> will. NO, one , I mean KNOW one has proven me wrong on anything
JK> in here, (what you cant prove a 15 year old wrong.) Tell me why
JK> my thories are wrong, not just "You are wrong I dont know why but
JK> you are." All that I have told is from what I have seen. And you
JK> or know one has proven me wrong. I will admit it if you show me
JK> that I am wrong but you have not.
I've listed my references showing your error. I can't possibly show
you to be wrong *in your own mind* if no standard of evidence is
acceptable to you. However, I think the other echo readers are more
easily persuaded as to who has the right of it.
[...]
JK> I dubbed a-sexual interbreading
JK> the name because a lack of a name for it, not interbreading, more
JK> lack of other protien strands.
Exchange of plasmids has a name... "conjugation". Interbreeding, as
used typically by biologists, implies an exchange or transfer of a
complete genomic complement, i.e., sexual reproduction.
If you want to claim otherwise, you are going to need to cite your
sources.
Which brings up the point, have you located your source for that
funny number that you were brandishing earlier?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877ce003.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 18 Dec 94 08:12:02
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: James Keep
Subject: EVOLUTION TRICK OR TRUTH
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4bfa2ace
In a msg on , James Keep of 1:104/251 writes:
[...]
> You lack complete information. Try Les Orgel's work on the origin
> of
> life, some of which appeared in a recent Scientific American.
>
> UNDERSTAND what you would presume to criticize.
JK> OK, give me the info on how to get it.
1. You go to a library.
2. If you can't read, you get a librarian to help you with the rest of
these steps. ;-) If you can (the operative assumption for you to make
sense of this post), you perform the rest of these steps yourself.
3. You locate recent issues of Scientific American. Either the periodicals
list or the reference librarian will be of great assistance here.
4. You peruse the table of contents of recent issues of Scientific
American for the name, "Les Orgel", listed as an author.
5. Locating such an entry, you flip to the page indicated with that
entry.
6. You read the indicated article.
7. You choose whether to extend cognitive dissonance by reading the
references to "Further reading" at the end of the article.
-OR-
4. Use a literature search technique (Reader's Guide, Current Contents,
FirstSearch, etc.) to locate listings for "Orgel, Les" which were
published in Scientific American.
Then on with steps 5 through 7.
I'll give you a further boost... here's what FirstSearch yields:
AUTHOR: Orgel, Leslie E.
TITLE: The Origin of Life on the Earth.
JOURNAL NAME: Scientific American.
VOL, ISSUE: Volume 271, Number 4
PAGES: 76
PUB DATE: October
YEAR: 1994
TYPE: Article
ISSUE DESCR: Special Issue: Life in the Universe
ABSTRACT: Life emerged only after self-reproducing molecules appeared.
A favored theory proposes that such molecules yielded a
biology based on ribonucleic acids. This RNA system then
invented proteins. As the RNA system evolved, proteins become
the main workers in cells, and DNA become the prime repository
of genetic information.
ISSN: 0036-8733
J ALT NAME: People's journal Scientific American monthly
Please advise if you need further assistance.
> Hardly. I've already defined the term for you. It needn't be
> predicated by "radiation changes" and what-not. It seems that you
> get
> too much of your "science" from bad 50s science fiction movies.
JK> NO true or not ture, radiation causes mutation. It is a fact not
JK> a cheap comic book, and mutation useally means the life form
JK> dies.
Radiation does cause an increased rate of mutation, as H. Muller
discovered some time ago. However, radiation is not the *sole*
cause of mutation, which is what Dave's point was.
[...]
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877d0009.txt
From source file 941219or.to
Article 60190 of talk.origins:
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Subject: Re: Are transitional fossils really a _major blow_ against Creationism
Date: 19 Dec 1994 14:43:39 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <3D466R$O86@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
Summary: Yes and no
In article ,
wrote:
SY>A random, and probably insignificant, thought that struck me on the way to
SY>work this morning:
SY>I often see it claimed that the existence of even one transitional fossil
SY>is a major blow _against_ Creationist theories of life, the universe and
SY>everything, but is this really true? Surely all it represents is good
SY>(very good) evidence _for_ evolutionary theories. I would think that if
SY>it is possible to come up with a scientific theory of Creationism (I won't
SY>hold my breath for that, though), it should be possible to incorporate
SY>transitional fossil series into the theory (and I don't mean just by
SY>denying that they are transitional), particularly with the still remaining
SY>gappiness of the fossil record.
The critical point is that no STOC has yet made its appearance. In the
absence of a STOC, all that we can appraise are the actual claims made
by SciCre-ists. Among these claims, one can often find "There are no
transitional forms." While refuting this trivially false claim may not
have any impact upon an unspecified future instantiation of an STOC, it
does show that SciCre-ists do like to blow smoke.
A major point against a future STOC is precisely the point you make in
your last sentence above: SciCre can be made to be consistent with
*any* phenomena in a post hoc manner. Evolutionary mechanism theories,
however, have had to make their way in the far more hostile environment
of scientific predict-test-{modify|abandon} cycles.
SY>Of course, given that the vast majority of Creationist argument seems to
SY>concentrate on denying evolution, the existence of transitional fossils
SY>is of major importance in the debate.
It is of major importance in demonstrating this one favorite claim of
SciCre-ists false.
It seems to me that modern SciCre owes evolutionary biology a big debt
for whatever "scientific" content they can manage to coerce out of
philosophers these days. They claim "microevolution" as part of God's
plan, and adopt apologetics for the term "kind" which seem to be
based upon the concept of "clade".
One might come to the conclusion that Joe Morlan has shown the future
of SciCre, where eventually what we call "evolutionary biology" will
simply be re-labeled as "creation biology", assuming they SciCre-ists
both continue with the piecewise raiding of concepts and have the
political muscle to force their Orwellian doublespeak into the public
schools.
--
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,
URL: http://tam2000.tamu.edu/~wre2889/ | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more
Back to WRE Archive listing
877d000e.txt
From source file 941219or.to
Article 17373 of comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc:
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Subject: Re: Questions on Game ports?
Date: 19 Dec 1994 15:07:47 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <3D47K3$OUI@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <1994DEC12.165504.25326@WMICHGW.ZER.SUB.ORG>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
Keywords: gameports, game, ports
In article <1994DEC12.165504.25326@WMICHGW.ZER.SUB.ORG>,
<31PHILLIPS@WMICH.EDU> wrote:
BP> Hi I am currently curious about joysticks, and their intricate
BP> workings. I have asked a few tech people and they have been somewhat
BP> unsure of exactly how they work too.
BP> What i would like to know is how they work with out useing any
BP> perceptable DMA's or IRQ's. Diagnostic programs report that i have
BP> active ports, and that they appear to be working fine.
BP> Do the individual games use their own universal drivers for the
BP> joysticks which temporarily use DMA's and IRQ's then release them to
BP> the system? Also why can't the game ports be used for different types
BP> of devices, like a modem, external drives, etc.
BP> The ports don't really make sense to me and I just would like to
BP> know a little more how they operate just for personal knowledge.
BP> If anyone knows why, or at least where I can look for answers it
BP> would be greatly appreciated.
The IBM PC Technical Reference is a good place to start. The port address,
pinouts, and other information is listed there.
Basically, the original joystick port has four inputs for buttons, and
four inputs for resistive values. If I remember correctly, a write to
the port causes a reset of the button values. To get the resistance
values, you need to write to the port address. The write causes a
reset of the timing circuitry in the joystick port. That's right,
there is no A/D circuitry as such in a joystick port. The values of
attached resistors is determined by the timing out of a simply RC
circuit. This means that a program that wants a joystick value has
to somehow accurately time how long it takes between the write to
the port and when the bit of interest at the port changes value.
Usually, this means a tight loop with an incrementing or decrementing
counter. As you note, there are no IRQs or other means provided for
getting the CPU's attention at an appropriate time. Yes, this usually
means that each application has to solve the problem of acquiring
joystick values.
The typical useful range of resistance which can used with the joystick
port is 0 to 100,000 ohms.
--
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,
URL: http://tam2000.tamu.edu/~wre2889/ | evolution, AI, GAs, Alife, & more
Back to WRE Archive listing
877de001.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 19 Dec 94 07:12:28
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: LARRY SITES
Subject: ICR News
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c06bc92
In a msg on , LARRY SITES of 1:202/212 writes:
LS> KEITH KNAPP to LEN FLANK on 12-11-94 17:07 re: RE: LEVELS OF
LS> UNDERSTAND
KK>Howdy. What's an ICR
LS> In Sept. 1993, I picked up the undated ICR pamplet _Introducing
LS> ICR, A
LS> worldwide outreach to families and nations_. The Institure for
LS> Creation
LS> Research address is PO box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021, phone
LS> 619-448-0900.
LS> The pamplet has brief descriptions of the "ICR's many vital
LS> outreaches".
LS> They include graduate school, research, seminars, 'good science'
LS> programs,
LS> books/tapes/videos, radio broadcasts, museum of creation and
LS> earth history,
LS> ICR tours, free publications, stewardship and trust services, and
LS> international outreach.
The ICR now also has its own BBS, run by Don Barber and Jim Johnston.
The software is Searchlight, with a FrontDoor front end mailer, and
the hardware includes a USR Courier Dual Standard 28.8Kbps modem.
The number is 619-448-9082.
File sections include "Impact" and "Days of Praise". The "Research"
file section was empty.
David Rice and Holysmoke were mentioned in local discussion areas.
Some of the folks are looking to clear up the fuss over credentials.
Others call for prayer to bring tribulations to a particular anti-
creationist to lead him to Jesus Christ. Most effort seems to go
into a discussion of witnessing.
My own email to the sysop has gone unanswered for over two weeks
(asking about the redistribution policy on their files). Last
night, I uploaded Rich Trott's reply to a bulletin on their system
authored by Duane Gish, which was highly critical of Trott.
Larry, is there any chance that you could upload the t.o. FAQs
to them, if they are local to you?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877ee001.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 20 Dec 94 06:59:16
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: KEITH KNAPP
Subject: Dean Falk's braindance
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c13ca3b
In a msg on , KEITH KNAPP of 1:301/10 writes:
[...]
KK> Speaking of which, Elaine Morgan's "The Aquatic Ape" has been out
KK> for quite some years now. Has there been any refutation/flame
KK> wars/supporting evidence for that idea lately?
Morgan is on the Usenet now. A message from her supported some claims
of the AAH and withdrew others due to conflicting data found more
recently.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877ee002.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 20 Dec 94 07:03:04
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: John Brawley
Subject: Mont{y|e} {Hall|Carlo}
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c13e0ec
REPLY: 1:100/435.1 6e2e7acf
In a msg on , John Brawley of 1:100/435.1 writes:
JB> Yeah. Much as you might hate it, the boxes retain their
JB> original odds assignments, each as 1 in 3. All that seeing an
JB> empty box does, is transfer that box's odds portion (its 1 in
JB> 3) to another box, and since you have _selected_ a box
JB> already, the one you picked already carries the 1 in 3, so the
JB> other box must carry the 2 in 3. I don't like it either, but
JB> the author says that's the indisputable explanation. (He says
JB> it's backed up with probability math.)
JB> I suspect you could prove it, by running a mess of trials with
JB> a friend and seeing if always choosing the _other_ box lets
JB> you win 66% of the time....
Years ago, I wrote a simple Monte Carlo program to illuminate the
Monty Hall problem for the Science Echo. *If* you choose randomly
between the remaining boxes, you get payoffs 1/2 of the time. *If*
you always switch, you get payoffs 2/3s of the time. Always
switching is the better strategy.
Sometimes it becomes clearer to people if you start with 1000 boxes,
rather than 3. Monty opens up 998 boxes, showing you "no prize",
then asks if you want to keep your choice or switch. It's a no
brainer...
Now, what relation does this thread have with evolution? Was this
just an example of how probability isn't a subject for the faint
of heart?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877ee003.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 20 Dec 94 07:15:51
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Ryan Benjamin
Subject: Steady State/Burst Evolu
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c13f2d6
REPLY: 1:369/55.0 877D492D
In a msg on , Ryan Benjamin of 1:369/55 writes:
RB> Somebody tell me when there has ever been a good mutation.
Every time the Ames test for mutagenicity functions.
Have you noticed the news about that village in Italy, where
some people have a mutation which reduces the production of
plaque-forming cholesterol? I would guess the answer would
be "no".
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877fe001.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 21 Dec 94 09:11:03
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Joe Morlan
Subject: Recombination and recall
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c222d1f
-- 941217, Joe Morlan to George Rudzinski --
***** On 12-15-1994, George Rudzinski wrote to Joe Morlan *****
GR> Was it not you that was a might confused about
GR> recombination? You asked me to explain it to you, and I'm
GR> just a high school grad.
JM> I don't recall asking you any such thing. I do remember you
JM> asking me to explain species concepts and yet you are still
JM> confused about that after having it explained many tims.
941029, Joe Morlan to George Rudzinski, "Correct me if I'm wrong,
but don't all alleles undergo recombination each time there is
sexual reproduction?" Looks like a request for explanation to me.
JM> I don't mind ignorance, it's aggressive ignorance that's that's
JM> problem.
Like never giving objectively quantifiable criteria for "adaptation"
and "diversity", but expecting everybody to bow to a definition
which critically depends upon those terms?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877fe002.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 21 Dec 94 09:11:03
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Joe Morlan
Subject: Recombination and recall
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c222d1f
-- 941217, Joe Morlan to George Rudzinski --
***** On 12-15-1994, George Rudzinski wrote to Joe Morlan *****
GR> Was it not you that was a might confused about
GR> recombination? You asked me to explain it to you, and I'm
GR> just a high school grad.
JM> I don't recall asking you any such thing. I do remember you
JM> asking me to explain species concepts and yet you are still
JM> confused about that after having it explained many tims.
941029, Joe Morlan to George Rudzinski, "Correct me if I'm wrong,
but don't all alleles undergo recombination each time there is
sexual reproduction?" Looks like a request for explanation to me.
JM> I don't mind ignorance, it's aggressive ignorance that's that's
JM> problem.
Like never giving objectively quantifiable criteria for "adaptation"
and "diversity", but expecting everybody to bow to a definition
which critically depends upon those terms?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877fe003.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 21 Dec 94 09:17:50
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Joe Morlan
Subject: Learning to crawl
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c223cbb
-- 941219, Joe Morlan to Marty Leipzig --
JM> Hi Marty,
JM> I see you've accidentally come crawling back here after having
JM> your critique of the Theory of Creation utterly repudiated. I
JM> know you posted in the wrong echo, and Shelby's claim that your
JM> disappearance was because you were out of the country was a
JM> pretty lame excuse.
JM> You are welcome to answer my last series of messages which you
JM> ignored and which rebutted every mistaken point you tried to
JM> make.
JM> If I can refresh your memory we were discussing your somewhat
JM> extraordinary redefinition of evolution. You said "Evolution is
JM> change from the simple to the complex over the span of geologic
JM> time." When asked to define complexity you replied it is "the
JM> number of cells in an organism."
Marty's been morlanized. We should expect it, though.
What Marty said about the definition was that it was used in
paleontology, and that simple organisms still exist. What Marty
said about complexity was that it could be measured in any number
of ways, and that one simple yardstick was the number of cells
in an organism.
JM> Both these ideas and particularly your notion that evolution
JM> encompasses only changes in complexity in one direction were
JM> thoroughly refuted in subsequent dialog. Not one single
JM> evolutionist was willing to support you except Martin Goldberg
JM> who also went slinking off with his tail between his legs.
What was thoroughly refuted, by me, was your misreading of Marty's
posts as advancing the notion of unidirectional change (his reference
to continued existence and development of simple organisms showed you
were wrong there), and taking the proffered "simple yardstick" and
attempting to make an absolute rule out of it.
JM> Now that we have you back, would you care to retract or further
JM> defend your claims.
You kept asking Marty for a quantifiable definition of complexity.
Yet you've refused the much older and more often repeated request
for you to present your objectively quantifiable definitions for
"adaptation" and "diversity", which might help your preferred
definition of evolution attain some level of practical application.
I have also listed a number of variances from reality which you have
advanced without retraction. Can you give us a timetable for when
we might expect to see you admit that you were wrong?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877fe004.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 21 Dec 94 09:18:54
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: All
Subject: The rules
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c223dc4
***************************************************
MicroRules of the EVOLUTION Echomail Conference.
***************************************************
Modified 11 June 1994, ripped off from the SCIENCE Echo Rules
The Evolution Echo exists to provide a forum for discussion of biological
science topics, especially evolutionary mechanism theory topics. Also of
great interest to participants is how to counter the teaching of pseudo-
science in science classrooms. The Evolution Echo is a *science* oriented
echo, and appropriateness of messages will be judged accordingly.
MetaRule 1) DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages with an echo message.
MetaRule 2) DO NOT enter inappropriate messages
Rules:
1) No illegal messages. Posting an illegal message is to be considered
excessively annoying.
2) No obscenity or foul language. There is no need to express a
science message in vulgar language.
3) There are many different echomail conferences. Enter your message into
the *most appropriate* echo.
4) Advertisements should be limited to items of a scientific interest
and should not be posted by those with a vested interest in the item
being sold, unless specifically requested by another echo participant.
5) Appropriate messages will have a scientific component, or at least
an asserted scientific component.
6) There is no Rule 6. ;-)
7) Messages which insult or attack an individual are not appropriate.
Pointing out gaps in fields of reference (otherwise known as
"ignorance") is *not* an attack.
8) Each user is requested to consider the quantity and quality
of his/her messages.
9) Evolution vs Creationism: This long running topic is obviously of
considerable interest. Two points are important for keeping the
discussion appropriate for the EVOLUTION echo. Science makes no claim
to be a source for all truth, i.e. events and activities which are
unobservable and/or untestable are outside the realm of scientific
inquiry. Religious beliefs that are outside the limits of science may
be true or not; science is silent on the issue. *Supporting* or
*attacking* religious belief is inappropriate in the EVOLUTION echo.
10) Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate
in the echo.
Echo Glossary, gleaned from the t.o./Evolution Echo Jargon File:
:Evolution: (n) [FAQA] 1. Change in allele frequency in a population
over time. [den., science] While this denotation is admittedly
reductionist, it represents the minimum phenomenon which biologists
will, when questioned, admit fits the term "evolution" and cannot be
covered completely under "adaptation", "variation", or the like. The
means by which the allele frequency changes occur are the subjects of
a number of {EMT}s, such as {natural selection} and {genetic drift}.
See Chris Colby's Evolution Primer and Larry Moran's essays for
details. 2. The descent of all living organisms from a common
ancestor or a relatively small set of common ancestors. [den.,
science] This is the non-reductionist formulation of {evolution(1)}.
3. The belief that all life originated, complexified, and diversified
via chance {mutation}s and descent as a random process. This
(erroneous) connotation is quite common in the USA. [conn., {TAE}]
:Evolutionary Mechanism Theory: (np) 1. Any one of several
{theories(1)} in biology dealing explicitly with some aspect of
{evolution} or {cumulative evolution}. Examples include Sewall
Wright's "shifting-balance theory", Eldredge and Gould's "punctuated
equilibrium theory", the theory of common descent, Darwin's "descent
with modification", and Henry Fairfield Osborn's "orthogenesis".
While "evolutionary theory" is equivalent, the point that mechanisms
are proposed and tested in {EMT}s is worthy of stress and repetition.
:Macroevolution:* (n) [FAQA] 1. {Evolution} at or above the species
level. [den., science] Speciation events are thus examples of
{macroevolution}. 2. {Evolution} too imperceptible to be observed
within the lifetime of one researcher [conn., Goldschmidt, 1940].
While {SciCre}-ists are fond of quoting Goldschmidt when discussing
his "hopeful monster" conjecture, they show no inclination to accept
Goldschmidt's connotation of the term {macroevolution}. 3. {Evolution}
at a level which is not currently observed. [conn., {TAE}] This is a
common connotation among {SciCre}-ists and {TAE}s, since it is open
ended and easy to adjust with announcements of new observations.
Depending upon the astuteness of {SciCre}-ists and {TAE}s in your
local community, this may be asserted to be at levels ranging from
species to family, with a marked preference for the word {kind}.
Given the manner in which {kind} is defined, this becomes a tautology.
:Microevolution: (n) [FAQA] 1. {Evolution} within the species level.
[den., science] 2. Change in allele frequency in a population over
time. [conn., {SciCre}] Note that this connotation is equivalent to
{evolution(1)}. All {SciCre}-ists so far admit that
{microevolution(2)} is observed. Some {TAE}s may not. 3. Adaptation
or variation. [conn., those {TAE}s who balk at {microevolution(2)}]
:Theistic Anti-Evolutionist: (np) 1. Any person who expresses
opposition to {EMT}s when motivated by religious doctrine, as
contrasted with those who propose alternative hypotheses and theories
within the framework of the scientific method. The {TAE} tends to
confuse {evolution} and {EMT}s, which typically results in the {TAE}
making specific criticisms of a particular {EMT} while asserting that
all {EMT}s are affected. [den., Rob "More Reserved than C-Frog"
Derrick (confirm?)].
:Creationism: (n) 1. The belief in {creation(1)} as having a
supernatural agent, but usually without limiting the range of
mechanisms used by that agent. See {CWACK}, {SciCre}.
:SciCre: contraction, see "Scientific Creationism". [neologism circa
1986, due to Wesley Elsberry]
:Scientific Creationism: (np) 1. The belief that scientific evidence
supports the literal factuality of the first eleven or so chapters of
the book of Genesis in the bible, in contradiction to {EMT}s. [den.,
{SciCre}] {SciCre}-ists are distinguished by two features from the
{TAE}s: {SciCre} is associated only with literal inerrantist
interpretations of Genesis, and {SciCre}-ists take a pro-active stance
on pushing their conjectures into secondary school science classrooms
as science alongside or in replacement of {EMT}s. {SciCre} came about
because of a rift in the American Scientific Affiliation, an
organization of religious scientists. Several ASA members became
disillusioned with the ASA because the predominant Deist sentiments of
the membership, and they then went about setting up several offshoot
organizations (the {CSRC}, the {ICR}, etc.). See {literally(3)}.
***** Signoff ******************
Thanks for your assistance in helping EVOLUTION fulfill its
purpose. It can't happen without your help.
Wesley R. Elsberry, moderator Evolution echo conference
1:117/385 Central Neural System BBS 409-737-5222 welsberr@orca.tamu.edu
John Thompson, moderator Evolution echo conference
1:139/632 Applegate BBS
***** The End (finally) ********
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877fe005.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 21 Dec 94 09:19:18
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: All
Subject: A new year's resolution
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c2255ab
I've been a bit lax lately regarding the tone of messages in the echo.
My apologies.
I'll be taking some backbone stiffener over the holidays, so if you
happen to be fond of denigrating your correspondent's mental capacity
or parentage, rather than arguing over the validity of his or her
ideas, be prepared to spend some involuntary time out of the echo.
To make it clear: this is neither CONTROV nor is it HOLYSMOKE. If
you want to cuss, go to CONTROV. If you want to bash believers or
atheists, go to HOLYSMOKE. Don't bother doing either here... you
won't do it for long, come this new year. Yes, you read that right:
this isn't the "religion is bogus" echo, even if some people do think
that biology is incompatible with theology. Nor is it the "science
is blind" echo. Either way is a good means to an enforced echo
vacation. Please let me know if I am not being clear enough on
these points.
Also to be removed from echo correspondence are "potty mouth" and
hi-bit extended ASCII characters (there is one newcomer whose quote
character appears to be hi-bit).
Happy holidays, and here's looking forward to a kinder (well, perhaps
not) and gentler (at least in expression of arguments, if not in
the force of those arguments) echo.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Moderator, Evolution Echo
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
877fe006.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 21 Dec 94 09:30:06
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: John Brawley
Subject: Echolocation
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 4c226106
REPLY: 1:100/435.1 836144dc
In a msg on , John Brawley of 1:100/435.1 writes:
JB> On (17 Dec 94) Wesley R. Elsberry wrote to Ken Stuckas...
WRE> echolocation in Tursiops truncatus, the bottlenose dolphin.
KS> You're just the guy I can ask about using sound to
KS> measure water temperature. As you may have heard
WR> Yep, ATOC sure aroused controversy.
WR> The ATOC folks are a bit miffed that their research caught all this
WR> flak, yet ordinary day to day shipping operations, naval operations,
WR> and other activities in the marine environment routinely cause
WR> noise levels as high, if not higher, than anything ATOC ever proposed.
JB> A thought occurs: suppose that the echolocation information is
JB> processed in dolphins' brains in a manner similar to what our
JB> own brains do with visual information, such that they get a
JB> "picture" in their heads.... Wouldn't all this noise-making
JB> by man's machinery make the undersea world "brighter" for
JB> them? Increase its "illumination," so to speak? Wouldn't
JB> this constitute an evolutionarily important change in their
JB> environment, one which never existed before man arrived with
JB> his marine technology? Can't echolocating marine organisms
JB> now "see a little better" because of the new increases in the
JB> background "light" (sound)? (*grin*)
I wrote a reply, which Squish promptly ate. Sigh.
Anyway, it is unlikely that the hypothesis you give would be borne
out. Many odontocetes use narrow band echolocation pulses, and some
of those have FM sweeps. A tuned receiver is unlikely to be able to
use noise as illumination.
For broadband echolocators, such as Tursiops, limited evidence indicates
accommodative avoidance of noisy frequencies.
Consider the mechanism of audition as compared to that of vision, and
I think that you'll understand that a major difference in means of
imaging is necessary.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
8789e001.txt
From source file all.txt
Date: 31 Dec 94 06:19:52
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Joe Morlan
Subject: Aggressive ignorance?
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:386/385.0 2f053e58
JM> ***** On 12-18-1994, David Bushard wrote to Stan Zaske *****
DB> ignorance is ignorance. fortunately, it is a correctable
DB> condition.
JM> The exception is aggressive ignorance which is not correctable.
JM> Examples of aggressive ignorance would be continuing to claim
JM> there are billions of DNA molecules in each cell after having
JM> been shown to be wrong.
Or even continuing to assert the superiority of a definition which
depends upon attributes without objectively quantifiable criteria.
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: Central Neural System (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
878ce001.txt
From source file 950103.evc
Date: 01 Jan 95 01:01:00
From: Wesley Elsberry
To: Larry Sites
Subject: Icr News
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:386/385.0 2f06451c
On 12-22-94 LARRY SITES wrote to WESLEY R. ELSBERRY...
WESLEY R. ELSBERRY to LARRY SITES on 12-19-94 07:12 re: ICR NEWS
WR>The ICR now also has its own BBS, run by Don Barber and Jim Johnston.
WR>The number is 619-448-9082.
[...]
WR> Last
WR>night, I uploaded Rich Trott's reply to a bulletin on their system
WR>authored by Duane Gish, which was highly critical of Trott.
LS> Where/what title did you give it? I'll like to see if they try to
LS> quietly
LS> remove it.
T2GISH.ZIP. I sent it via file attach and BinkleyTerm. I'm also
watching their unregistered copy of FrontDoor.
WR>Larry, is there any chance that you could upload the t.o. FAQs
WR>to them, if they are local to you?
LS> I posted in talk.origins that I would be so willing. Rather than spend
LS> my
LS> time uploading all them only to possibly have them removed, I would
LS> prefer
LS> to start with a handfull only. Which would be most appropiate? Perhaps
LS> a
LS> couple that we could discuss here?
I'd recommend the ones by Chris Colby and Larry Moran, possibly followed
by Meritt's FAQ. Certain to cause controversy would be the various
ICR FAQ's and creationist dishonesty FAQs.
___
* OFFLINE 1.56
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: Central Neural System (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
878ce002.txt
From source file 950103.evc
Date: 01 Jan 95 01:01:02
From: Wesley Elsberry
To: Jeff Doles
Subject: Information
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:386/385.0 2f06451e
On 12-23-94 Jeff Doles wrote to All...
JD> DH>It has already been demonstrated that evolution does not violate
JD> DH>"information theory" or thermodynamics.
JD>
JD> Lately, "information" seems to be rivaling thermodynamics as the
JD> creationists top argument against evolution. For example, I ask "What
JD> limits variation within or beyond a species?" and the answer comes
JD> back
JD> "Information! The need for information! Usable information! A
JD> source of information! A reader for information!" etc. Then there is
JD> the repeated assertion that mutations do not produce new or usable
JD> information.
JD>
JD> What is a cogent, concise way to approach this argument?
Genetic algorithms mimic natural selection in solving hard optimization
problems. Useful information arises where such information was
previously absent in much the same manner that information arises
in biological systems. GAs work, and work well, just like the
biological correlates upon which they are premised.
___
* OFFLINE 1.56
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: Central Neural System (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
878ce003.txt
From source file 950103.evc
Date: 01 Jan 95 01:01:04
From: Wesley Elsberry
To: Matt Giwer
Subject: A New Year'S Resolution
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:386/385.0 2f064520
On 12-24-94 Matt Giwer wrote to Wesley R. Elsberry...
MG> WE> To make it clear: this is neither CONTROV nor is it
MG> WE> HOLYSMOKE. If you want to cuss, go to CONTROV. If you
MG> WE> want to bash believers or atheists, go to HOLYSMOKE. Don't
MG> WE> bother doing either here... you won't do it for long, come
MG> WE> this new year. Yes, you read that right: this isn't the
MG> WE> "religion is bogus" echo, even if some people do think that
MG> WE> biology is incompatible with theology. Nor is it the
MG> WE> "science is blind" echo. Either way is a good means to an
MG> WE> enforced echo vacation. Please let me know if I am not
MG> WE> being clear enough on these points.
MG> You are not being clear. I can take it either that
MG> creationism is out by objective determination or that only
MG> reference to the bible, god, creator, whatever is out. OR that
MG> there is something else you have in mind.
Please re-read echo rule #5, which states that appropriate messages
will have a scientific component, or an asserted scientific
component.
SciCre-ist correspondents are free to claim scientific status for
certain claims, and others are free to demonstrate why the assertion
is in error. Neither the assertion nor the rebuttal requires the
use of abrupt Anglo-Saxonisms, ad hominems, or attacks upon a
correspondent's belief system or lack of same.
Claims asserted to be scientific in nature do not require the
use of scriptural support, and scriptural quotation is thus
off-topic here.
MG> If any form of religion is in then it would appear you are
MG> only accepting the "artful insult" are regards those who promote
MG> religion vice evolution.
Certainly, the typical SciCre stance is one of implied insult to
those who have taken the time to actually study biology, but I'm
much more concerned about the overt insults that have been
becoming altogether too frequent in this forum of late. Either
the overt insults will disappear, or their sources will.
___
* OFFLINE 1.56
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: Central Neural System (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
878ce004.txt
From source file 950103.evc
Date: 01 Jan 95 01:01:06
From: Wesley Elsberry
To: Karl Lembke
Subject: Echolocation
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:386/385.0 2f064522
On 12-28-94 Karl Lembke wrote to Wesley R. Elsberry...
KL> Wesley R. Elsberry, citing the Rules of Acquisition to John Brawley,
KL> said:
KL> WRE> Consider the mechanism of audition as compared to that of
KL> vision, and
KL> WRE> I think that you'll understand that a major difference in means
KL> of
KL> WRE> imaging is necessary.
KL>
KL> Dawkins mentions in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" that bat
KL> echolocation seems to make use of the visual cortex of the
KL> brain. This implies that the bats may be forming images based
KL> on the returning echos.
I don't think "image formation" should be considered an exclusive
property of visual systems, just because that is the most commonly
thought about case. I'm not familiar enough with the bat literature
to really comment otherwise on that.
KL> -=IF=- cetacian echolocation works in anywhere near the same way,
KL> there is one property to consider:
KL> Bats are able to ignore spurious echo information, such as would
KL> result from receiving echo information resulting from the chirps
KL> emitted by other bats.
KL> I suspect that even if the ehco information received by cetacians
KL> were in the range that made it look like useful information, it
KL> would have to be filtered out. Unfortunately, even with perfect
KL> discrimination, the presence of such noise would cause problems
KL> due to overlap with "good" data.
This is an area of active speculation, in that some researchers
believe that the position of juvenile dolphins in relation to
their mothers could provide the juvenile with information on
the outgoing echolocation pulse, incoming image, and "appropriate"
response (at least, what did "mom" do?).
In other words, the situation doesn't appear to yet have clarified
to any absolute set of rules.
___
* OFFLINE 1.56
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: Central Neural System (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
878ce005.txt
From source file 950103.evc
Date: 01 Jan 95 01:01:08
From: Wesley Elsberry
To: Jeff Culbreath
Subject: Creation/Evolution
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:386/385.0 2f064524
On 12-22-94 Jeff Culbreath wrote to Dave Horn...
JC> From the looks of this echo, the strongest arguments for evolution
JC> appear to be:
JC> - "Evolution is true because we're super-educated scientists and
JC> you're
JC> a bunch of know-nothing Bible-thumpers."
JC> - "Evolution is true because you don't have any evidence for
JC> creation."
JC> - "Evolution is true because the ICR is a fanatical religious
JC> organization."
JC> - "Evolution is true because it is so complicated it must be true."
JC> - "Evolution is true because creationism is superstitious."
JC> - "Evolution is true because it is scientific." etc.
I don't happen to think that you have adequately perused this echo.
Otherwise, you would know that the strongest argument is that
evolution is true because we observe it happening.
JC> Some points to ponder:
JC> 1. Creation is not a theory -- it is a fact, an assumption of creation
JC> science.
Agreed on point one. SciCre is not science. Disagree on point two.
Assumptions are not necessarily facts. You've got a non sequitur
there.
Evolution is not a theory, it is an observation of physical phenomena.
Observations of physical phenomena fit the description of "fact".
The mechanisms by which those observed phenomena occur are the
substance of various evolutionary mechanism theories.
JC> 2. Evolution is supposedly a conclusion based on scientific evidence;
JC> therefore, evolution, not creation, has the self-imposed burden of
JC> the evidence.
Evolution is a set of observed phenomena, not a "conclusion" or
"inference". The evidence of the observed phenomena say that
evolution happens. This is not a burden, it is what we see when
we look.
JC> 3. Science does not equal naturalism -- requiring naturalistic
JC> assumptions of all science limits access to the truth.
Science is not about the establishment of truth, but rather the
detection of error. Science is not equal to naturalism, but
rather is a constrained subset of naturalism.
JC> 4. All science requires unverifiable postulations, and scientific
JC> conclusions are wholly dependent upon the truth or falsehood of
JC> these postulations.
As does any other non-trivial human intellectual endeavor. What's
your point?
JC> With this in mind, the creation/evolution debate really centers around
JC> the creationistic vs. naturalistic assumptions of both methodologies.
JC> To
JC> ignore this reality is to ignore the heart of the issue. And
JC> creationism
JC> cannot be casually dismissed as "unscientific" because its assumptions
JC> are not naturalistic.
Sure it can. It can also be dismissed because all of its claims
regarding natural processes, whenever examined, turn out to be false.
JC> Creationism holds to the assumption of creation
JC> because it is believed to be =true=, and science is about truth and
JC> knowledge.
Science is about knowledge and the detection of error. If creation
is assumed, and postulates cannot be examined for error, how is
it that you would justify calling SciCre science?
JC> If creationist tenets are true, then evolutionary science
JC> is
JC> done for.
I haven't seen the basis for this. As time goes by, SciCre-ists
find themselves incorporating more and more evolutionary mechanism
theory. Already, you find SciCre-ists claiming credit for
microevolution, natural selection, and the use of key concepts of
"clade" as an approach to defining "kind".
Please show the steps in your logic, or we'll have to assume your
claim is just another non sequitur.
JC> Science, since it does require unprovable and untestable
JC> assumptions, should aim for the assumptions which are most likely to
JC> be
JC> =true= -- and it just may be that creationistic assumptions reflect
JC> reality better than those of evolutionism.
The base assumption of science is that natural phenomena are
independently verifiable. Which part of this do you wish to
replace with what assumption?
JC> Creationists are right to demand concrete evidence for
JC> macro-evolution.
JC> Otherwise there is no debate. If evolution is all about fruitflies and
JC> wallabys then there is nothing to discuss. When confronted with a
JC> request
JC> for evidence, it is a cheap dodge for evolutionists to talk about
JC> fruitflies, or any other examples of micro-genetic change.
No, it is not a cheap dodge.
JC> It is also
JC> a cheap dodge to appeal to the fossil record, since the fossil record
JC> is meaningless without a known natural mechanism for macro-evolution.
This isn't a cheap dodge either.
JC> It is fair to ask evolutionists to provide empirical, observational,
JC> and falsifiable evidence for this mechanism.
JC> From what I have seen so far, the self-identified, super-educated
JC> scientific brains in this echo are capable of little more than
JC> generating
JC> insults and abuse directed at creationists. This is always a sign that
JC> substance is lacking.
I didn't note any evidence for SciCre in your message, but did note
several insulting references. Is there an inference to be made
about the substance of your own post there?
___
* OFFLINE 1.56
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: Central Neural System (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301
Back to WRE Archive listing
