wre00123.htm, by Wesley R. Elsberry
8a32e019.txt
From source file 96111101.evo
Date: 11 Nov 96 06:53:34
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Ed Haynes
Subject: Re: Science rules ou god
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70550125
REPLY: 1:161/910@fidonet.org 937c5bb0
In a msg on , Ed Haynes of 1:161/910@fidonet.org writes:
EH> "Re: Science rules ou god !" shouted silently by WESLEY
WR>In a msg on , Ed Haynes of 1:161/910@fidonet.org writes:
WR>[...]
EH> I have no idea. But I don't see where this would be relevant to
EH> this discussion. Just about everybody in public schools have had a
EH> better formal education than Charles Darwin. Would you hold him in
EH> esteem than a student receiving his BA in science today?
WR>Better in what sense, and where are your supporting references?
WR>I think that you are speaking outside your field.
EH> Being a layperson, most of what I speak about in this conference
EH> is outside my field. Sara was asking about Peter Ankins; "Ed, I didn't
EH> ask if he *had* scientific training; I asked what you knew *about* his
EH> scientific training. Eg, where he recieved his degrees from, who he
EH> studied under, etc."
EH> That's what's my reply was about.
Then why toss in the gratuitous claim about Darwin, which appears
to be ludicrous on its face?
EH> As far as the statement about Darwin, I've read several accounts
EH> about his formal education. One I have in hand, "The Encyclopedia of
EH> Evolution" by Richard Milner [claimed to be a recognized authority ont he
EH> life of Charles Darwin]. It states on p108, "A reclusive semi-invalid who
EH> shunned social functions, Darwin spent his days writing, reading,
EH> strolling his grounds, dissecting barnacles or orchids, talking with local
EH> pigeon and hog breeders, checking botanical experiments in his greenhouse
EH> or observing the activities of bees in his garden. ... Conservative in
EH> lifestyle, Darwin dutifully contributed to the village church, helped
EH> organize local philanthropies and served on the local magistrate's bench
EH> as a justice of the peace. ... Despite this penchant for privacy, Darwin
EH> was world famous as a prolific (and popular) author, naturalist,
EH> philosopher, botanist, geologist, explorer and zoologist. Yet he had no
EH> professional training in biology, never passed a doctoral exam, accepted
EH> no formal students and became nauseated at the thought of delivering a
EH> public lecture."
I see nothing here that would lend support to your claim that
"almost everybody in public schools have had a better formal
education than Darwin". "No professional training in biology"
is decidedly different from "no training". "No doctorate" is
decidedly different from "no training". The points concerning
taking students and delivering lectures say *nothing* concerning
formal education, and I have not the slightest idea why you
think they would.
Will you get around to supporting or retracting this claim?
Barry G. Gale's "Evolution Without Evidence" (not the most
sympathetic of biographers, as you'll note) indicates that Darwin
attended Dr. Butler's school in Shrewsbury (1818), which was
"strictly classical", but that Darwin did collecting and reading
in natural history outside the classroom. At Edinburgh University
(1825), Darwin went through a typical pre-med curriculum, which
included natural history, anatomy, physiology, pathology, geology,
and zoology. Darwin did not like most of the coursework at Edinburgh,
but still kept his hand in, presenting two papers to the Plinian
society on biological topics. Darwin became a member of the Royal
Medical Society and attended Wernerian Society meetings. At
Cambridge (1828), Darwin had coursework in botany. Gale does
note that Darwin had not *sytematically* studied natural history,
but that doesn't mean that it was absent from his instruction.
Also, the general claim concerning formal education would appear
to be in great jeopardy given Gale's description of Darwin's
education.
Darwin's formal education includes everything through Cambridge
University. I think it is time to retract that losing claim
about "better" formal education, Ed. How many modern bachelor's
students graduate with two papers in biology on their CV's? Is
that "almost everybody"?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a32e020.txt
From source file 96111101.evo
Date: 11 Nov 96 06:57:10
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Ed Haynes
Subject: Evidence
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 7055076c
REPLY: 1:161/910@fidonet.org 8875873b
In a msg on , Ed Haynes of 1:161/910@fidonet.org writes:
EH> "Evidence !" shouted silently by WESLEY
WR>In a msg on , Keith Knapp of 1:301/45 writes:
WR>[...]
KK> Eldredge and Dawkins mean one thing when they say there are two
KK> possibilities because their view includes a very wide definition
KK> of 'creation.' But the YECs have twisted this around by implying
KK> that if we disagree with one of Darwin's obvious mistakes, this
KK> supports the idea that snakes can talk.
WR>I'm aware of "pangenesis" as an example of a now-obvious mistake.
WR>I'd like to learn about others that Charles made. Can you list
WR>some, and the references to where he made them?
EH> Didn't Darwin give a possible explanation of a cow becoming a
EH> whale? I'll try to find the reference if you like.
The passage you misremember makes reference to "bears", not cows,
and does *not* claim that bears could *become* whales. In other
words, no, Darwin did not make a mistake there.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a32e021.txt
From source file 96111101.evo
Date: 11 Nov 96 07:03:12
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Lenny Flank
Subject: Piltdown Man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 705513a8
REPLY: 1:2607/112.0 8A31EA6B
In a msg on , Lenny Flank of 1:2607/112 writes:
CC>Can you give me a documented instance were a
CC>creationist has made a false statement; knowing at that
CC>time that it was false?
LF> --"Dr" Richard Bliss, who develops curriculum materials for the
LF> Institute for Creation Research, has a doctorate in education
LF> from the University of Sarisota in Florida, an unaccredited diploma mill
LF> that is located in a hotel.
"developed" and "had". Bliss is dead.
LF> --"Dr" Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his
LF> doctorate from the University of Physical Sciences in Arizona,
LF> which consists of a post office box at an unaccredited institute in
LF> Phoenix.
Dead, too, IIRC.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a33000b.txt
From source file 9611120.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,talk.origins
Subject: Re: No transitional links ever found... (was:Re: Modern Christians...)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 14:13:59 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <56A0N7$FIS@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <328751FE.5AF6@HOME.COM> <56901O$6MA@CANOPUS.CC.UMANITOBA.CA> <328896BA.6700@HOME.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article <328896BA.6700@HOME.COM>, wrote:
>Don Cates wrote:
AdrianTeo@home.com wrote:
DC> [snip]
>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
DC> [snip a lot]
WRE> I haven't claimed compatibility of PE and PG. I don't have an
WRE> integrated version. I haven't postulated the existence of an
WRE> integrated version. What I have said, and what G&E 1977
WRE> *explicitly* says, is that PE and PG do *not* contradict.
WRE> Contradiction is a very specific concept. Adrian has not shown
WRE> that E&G intended to state or even imply contradiction. Does
WRE> Adrian know what contradiction means? Adrian's posts do not
WRE> argue in the affirmative.
DC> [snip again]
AT>Wesley said that PE and PG do not contradict each other. Doesn't that
AT>necessarily imply that they are compatible?
DC> [snip]
AT>Incredible use of words here. The theories are not contradicting but are
AT>incompatible. If both Pe and PG are claimed to be the mode of change,
AT>and clearly only one can be so, aren't they therefore contradicting?
AT>Webster Definition for "incompatible"
DC> [snip definition and a lot more]
DC> You looked up "incompatable" but you should also have looked up
DC> "contratiction". I think I know what Wesley means here and I agree with
DC> him. "Contratiction" means "inconsistent", not "incompatable".
DC> I also think a further problem. Wesley is using the term "mode"in the
DC> statistical sense, ie. "the most common". You are using it to mean "the
DC> way it actually happens". Wesley's usage is correct from the evidence
DC> given.
DC> The best thing about mistakes is the joy they bring others.
AT>Thanks Don for attempting to clear things up. I looked up
AT>incompatible because that was the term I originally used.
Why is Adrian telling untruths about things that can be looked
up and verified?
[Quote]
By presenting PE together with point (1) which argues for
gradualism, you are in fact contradicting yourself. PE and
gradualism are at odds with one another. Which do you support?
[End quote -- AT, Message-ID: <32710DB0.146B@MAILHOST.NET>]
I see "contradiction", not "incompatible". What does everybody
else see?
AT>I used mode in the same way also. The issue had to do with the
AT>definition of PG, which Wesley and I disgree. BUt that
AT>discussion with him is over, since he has refused to engage
AT>constructively but instead chose to resort to character
AT>attacks.
Oh, I've been constructive. Adrian is just taking the
opportunity to duck out without retracting his false claims
concerning PE.
The issue is whether PE and PG contradict, as Adrian claimed,
or whether Adrian was presenting the formulation of PE that E&G
did. If phrased as questions, the answer to both is "no".
Do PE and PG contradict? Let's hear from Gould and Eldredge.
[Quote]
II.. What Eldredge and Gould Did Not (And Did) Say
[...]
1. Some critics (e.g. Harper 1975) have seen our work as
restrictive in scope -- as an attempt rigidly to exclude
gradualism by establishing a new dogma for evolutionary tempos.
Lesperance and Bertrand (1976, p. 610) charge that we have, "in
effect, denied the existence of phyletic gradualism in
speciation." We have never understood punctuated equilibria in
this light. We see it as fundamentally expansive -- as a more
adequate picture that should extend the range of
paleontological activity by valuing types of data previously
neglected. We never claimed either that gradualism could not
occur in fact (Eldredge 1971, Eldredge and Gould 1974, p. 307).
Nature is far too varied and complex for such absolutes;
Captain Corcoran's "hardly ever" is the strongest statement
that a natural historian can hope to make. Issues like this
are decided by relative frequency. [...] The fundamental
question is not "whether at all" but "how often." [...]
[End quote -- G&E 1977, pp.118-119]
It's interesting that Adrian is still holding out on retraction
of his claim of contradiction, even though that error takes top
billing in G&E's "we didn't say *that*" parade. Adrian claims
to have read this paper now; what in the above did he not
comprehend?
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"like a comet bearing death in the loop and flick of its tail" - archy
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a330039.txt
From source file 9611121.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution does not exist (was god does not exist...)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:14:42 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <56AIB2$QC2@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <3272F544.1B2C@MAILHOST.NET> <3285A84D.119956@NNTP.IX.NETCOM.COM> <328898DA.2265@HOME.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article <328898DA.2265@HOME.COM>, wrote:
>Paul S. Person wrote:
>> Adrian Teo wrote:
>>>[lost attribution wrote]
?> Scientists (as individuals) might not be 100% perfect at exhibiting
?> these fundamentals (they are human after all.) However, these
?> fundamentals are completely incompatible with (and should not be
?> confused with) the majority of Christian fundamentalist belief.
AT>Interesting dichotomy. So a fundamentalist scientist is one who adhere
AT>to scientific fundamentals, and therefore seen as positive, but a
AT>Christian fundamentalist, who adheres to Christian fundamentals are not?
AT>Smells of a double standard to me.
AT>The second point you made is that scientific fundamentals are
AT>incompatible with Christian fundamentals. Hmmm... supports the known
AT>evidence, predicts new results accurately... include honesty,
AT>objectivity, and diligence in the preparation, execution, and
AT>recordkeeping .... sounds pretty much like Christianity to me.
AT>Care to elaborate on the differences?
PSP> Perhaps if you actually knew what "fundamentalism" referred to in
PSP> Christianity, you would understand the difference. They have *nothing*
PSP> to do with "supports the known evidence, predicts new results
PSP> accurately... include honesty, objectivity, and diligence in the
PSP> preparation, execution, and recordkeeping" -- nor should they: since
PSP> Christianity is not science, what is "fundamental" to each of them is
PSP> quite different (which should not be interpreted as asserting that
PSP> "fundamentalism" adequately or accurately reflects the fundamentals of
PSP> Christianity, although that was undoubtedly the intent of the people
PSP> who started it).
AT>In the common culture, there are many ideas of fundamentalism flaoting
AT>around. It is interesting to note that you consider those qualities like
AT>"supports the known evidence, honesty... so forth" as the exclusive
AT>domain of science. But it happens in everyday life, for nonscientists as
AT>well. It happens in the court of law. It happens in the schools.
AT>Good science may include objectivity and recordkeeping for example, but
AT>honesty and diligence are qualities that should be encouraged in
AT>everybody. These are not intrinsic in science, they are intrinsic in the
AT>person doing science.
There are five fundamental beliefs in Christian fundamentalism.
Can Adrian name them? If not, then I suggest that Adrian is,
as Paul perspicaciously points out, well out of his depth in
this discussion.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"i am going to start a revolution" - archy
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a34000c.txt
From source file 9611130.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionist lloking for help
Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:31:47 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <56CM4J$5NN@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <32895A0B.3FCC@AOL.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article <32895A0B.3FCC@AOL.COM>, John Nottham wrote:
[Slight resequencing ahead]
JN>All,
JN>I have tried to argue with my friends, but I have been unable to find
JN>good books to back me up. Are there any litirature whcih can help me
JN>address these arguments. You know books which try to shoot down the
JN>creationist bable.
For debunking SciCre goobledegook, the one single book to lay
your hands on is Arthur Strahler's "Science and Earth History".
It is rare that a SciCre-ist will spout an assertion that isn't
demolished within its pages. (Duane Gish *totally* ignored
Strahler in his "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics".)
It's available from the NCSE (http://www.natcenscied.org).
For learning about evolution, Douglas Futuyma's "Evolutionary
Biology" is excellent.
Online, be sure to visit the t.o. FAQ archives at
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080
JN>I'm a newbie here so please bear with me. I'm a firm believer in
JN>evolutionary theory and have frequent debates with my unenlightened :)
JN>religious friends. However, they have stymied me with a number of
JN>claims that I am unable to refute. How should I go about arguing with
JN>these people about the following topics.
I've got to ask: why would you be a "firm believer" in
evolution? Evolution is a class of phenomena, not a subject
for "belief".
JN>1) The chances of life occuring are extermely unlikely since life needs
JN>to be so complex.
Two points:
A) Abiogenesis != evolution. Evolutionary theories deal with
self-replicating systems that exhibit imperfect heredity. It
doesn't matter to evolutionary theories how the self-replicating
system came into being.
B) In abiogenesis, nobody (except perhaps Perian Senapathy)
postulates the de novo construction of modern complexity
organisms from raw materials. While there are significant
research problems to be solved in abiogenesis, the current
state of the science is not such that SciCre-ists should feel
complacent about it. Note especially the work done on simple
self-replicating systems; the smallest self-replicator so
far found (AFAIK) is three molecules in length. As one wag
noted, the current improbability of life just dropped to
1 in 6.
JN>2) Recent examinations of evidence from st Helens shows good evidence
JN>that structures like the grand canyon could have been created in a
JN>cataclism such as a flood like the bible says.
Except for one thing: the structures at Mt. St. Helens are not
like the Grand Canyon.
JN>3) One doesn't find clear transitional fossils in the record.
Correction: one can't find transitionals clear enough to change
the minds of those committed to ignoring the evidence. Roger
Cuffey published a very good article some time back listing
over 100 references to fine-grained transitional sequences.
Please don't let your correspondents waffle: they made a
universal claim, so they get to support it. The presence of
existing links is a far harder problem for SciCre than "missing
links" ever was for biology.
Refer to 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).
JN>4) Life originating spontaneously and evolving over time defies the law
JN>of thermodynamics
The originating part is abiogenesis, as mentioned before. Ask
your friends to identify the chemical or energy transfer
mechanism which is thermodynamically barred, which evolutionary
process also depends upon. You see, the only mechanisms that
evolutionary process needs are the ones that are already
observed in the normal development and reproduction of living
organisms. What the "2nd Law" argument boils down to is an
absurd assertion that living things cannot develop and
reproduce as we see them do.
There is a very good FAQ on this in the t.o. archive.
JN>5) Lots of educated people have expressed doubts about evolution and
JN>many new observations seem to make it less likely.
Evolution is the class of phenomena with the diagnostic
characteristic of allele frequency change in populations over
time. Many such instances have been observed. Evolution
exists. Speciation has been observed. Refer to the speciation
FAQs in the t.o. archive. What remains is figuring out *how*
the observed phenomena of evolution occur, which is the role of
evolutionary mechanism theories.
JN>Hoping that you can help me:
JN>John N.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"i wish there was something i wanted as badly as he wanted to fry himself" - a.
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a34001e.txt
From source file 9611130.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution does not exist (was god does not exist...)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 16:10:40 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <56CRU0$91K@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <3272F544.1B2C@MAILHOST.NET> <3285A84D.119956@NNTP.IX.NETCOM.COM> <328898DA.2265@HOME.COM> <3289FC73.601B@HOME.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article <3289FC73.601B@HOME.COM>, wrote:
>AT@home.com wrote:
AT> In the common culture, there are many ideas of fundamentalism flaoting
AT> around. It is interesting to note that you consider those qualities like
AT> "supports the known evidence, honesty... so forth" as the exclusive
AT> domain of science. But it happens in everyday life, for nonscientists as
AT> well. It happens in the court of law. It happens in the schools.
AT> Good science may include objectivity and recordkeeping for example, but
AT> honesty and diligence are qualities that should be encouraged in
AT> everybody. These are not intrinsic in science, they are intrinsic in the
AT> person doing science.
AT>I agree with everything I wrote, but here's an addition:
AT>It appears that at least one person in t.o. has made it his personal
AT>mission to challenge every statement I made, including reasonable ones
AT>like the above (see his followup to my above post). He knows who he is,
AT>and I am seriously beginning to think that he needs professional
AT>counseling.
Does this sound more like "reasoned discourse" or "character
attacks" to the readers?
I don't know what Adrian is complaining about, since the public
can comment on publicly offered commentary. Or perhaps Adrian
doesn't like the concept of free speech?
AT>But a commonly accepted definition of fundamentalism is needed here:
AT>1.the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures (the Bible);
AT>2.the complete deity of Jesus Christ;
AT>3.the virgin birth;
AT>4.the substitutionary atonement (i.e., that Jesus Christ died,
AT>sacrificing his life for the sins of the world);
AT>5.the (literal) physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and his future
AT>bodily return (Second Coming) to the earth.
AT>(BTW, I got this from a antiChristian, atheist, web site)
It scores 4 out of 5. Point 2 should be "the miracles of Christ".
AT>But wait a minute! This is what all orthodox Christians believe,
AT>Catholics and Protestants! (liberal Christians are excluded, because
AT>their orthodoxy is questionable)
AT>Therefore, if this definition is accepted, then anybody who
AT>categorically criticizes fundamentalists, are in effect criticizing all
AT>Christians, even those who accept evolution. If this is in fact the
AT>case, then I would urge all Christians (those who proclaim to believe
AT>the above five points) to stand up and defend what they know to be true.
All this is entertaining, but blows right by the fact that
Adrian originally asserted some very different concepts as the
fundamentals:
[Quote]
The second point you made is that scientific fundamentals are
incompatible with Christian fundamentals. Hmmm... supports the
known evidence, predicts new results accurately... include
honesty, objectivity, and diligence in the preparation,
execution, and recordkeeping .... sounds pretty much like
Christianity to me.
[End quote]
And also the fact that Adrian's original correspondent claimed
incompatibility betwen scientific fundamentals and Christian
fundamentalism, while Adrian brings up this "criticizing all
christians" argument out of who-knows-where.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"freddy is no more but he died game" - archy
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a34e008.txt
From source file 96111302.evo
Date: 13 Nov 96 22:47:22
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Lenny Flank
Subject: Re: feathered dino
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70781928
REPLY: 1:2607/306 9e113a8e
In a msg on , Lenny Flank of 1:2607/306 writes:
WR> LF> And then look at all those court cases that the cretinists
WR> LF> LOST--every
WR> LF> one of them. They've never won a court case yet. Not a single
WR> LF> solitary one. Nada. Zippo. Zilch.
WR> I'm not sure which case the firm of Nada, Zippo, and Zilch were
WR> associated with, but Darrow, Hays, and Malone lost Tennessee
WR> vs. Scopes.
LF> Nope. The case was reversed on appeal.
The appellate court overturned the case on the technical matter
of the amount of the fine levied, and avoided any review of
the Butler Act. Since that review was precisely the point of
the ACLU challenge, and the Butler Act remained on the books
until the late 1960's, I fail to see how that can be regarded
as a "loss" for the creationists without much gnat-straining and
camel-swallowing.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a34e009.txt
From source file 96111302.evo
Date: 13 Nov 96 22:51:30
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Jim Hansen
Subject: Population growth
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70782a7f
REPLY: 1:342/5011.0 3287c718
In a msg on , Jim Hansen of 1:342/5011 writes:
-=> Quoting Wesley R. Elsberry to Jim Hansen <=- LF> A better answer would have been to provide your population figures and
LF> tell us why they show the earth to be only 6,000 years old, to explain
JH> It would be hard to provide the population figures, Lenny, because they
JH> weren't kept to well. But a simple bit of math makes it entirely
JH> possible. If you start with 8 people and double the population every
JH> generation it takes only 31 generations to reach our resent population
JH> base. A 2.1% growth rate doubles the population every 41 years, I
JH> believe, so even if you halved it you could still reach our population in
JH> 3000 years.
WRE> I'm not sure how this distinguishes evolution and creation. Nobody
WRE> denies exponential population growth that I know of. Where's the
WRE> differentiation?
JH> I wasn't trying to show differentiation. Lenny asked me to
JH> provide population figures to show that the world was only 6,000 years
JH> old. I merely showed that it could be done in that time frame.
This shows that the modern population figure can be achieved
within 6000 years from an initial population of eight. It does
nothing to show that 6000 years represents something approaching
an *upper* bound on time -- which the "only" qualifier would
seem to indicate. Can you answer Lenny's actual question?
WRE> I'm intrigued. Can you give an approximate year BCE for the
WRE> 8 person bottleneck, and the gender distribution of that population?
JH> No I can't, because the data isn't there. You would need to know
JH> how long the average generation is over the time period to calculate the
JH> date.
That assumes that the population is monotonically increasing at some
particular rate of increase -- a most difficult assertion to
establish, probably even harder than the one this bit of arcana
is being called in to support.
JH> As for the gender distribution, that too is impossible to show based
JH> on the data given. My guess is that since the world is about 52/48
JH> female, the percentages would remain the same, but that is only a guess.
JH> The eight people, though, wer Noah, his three sons and their
JH> wives. 50/50 split there. Lenny had said something about the Flood and
JH> the population having to start at 8, not 2. That is where my calculations
JH> began.
If you have no idea of when The Flood(TM) happened, and have
no means of establishing an upper bound on time, how does
any amount of number-juggling help?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a34e010.txt
From source file 96111302.evo
Date: 13 Nov 96 23:02:11
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Keith Knapp
Subject: Evidence
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70784804
REPLY: 1:301/45 0016dea5
In a msg on , Keith Knapp of 1:301/45 writes:
WRE> KK> Eldredge and Dawkins mean one thing when they say there are two
WRE> KK> possibilities because their view includes a very wide definition
WRE> KK> of 'creation.' But the YECs have twisted this around by implying
WRE> KK> that if we disagree with one of Darwin's obvious mistakes, this
WRE> KK> supports the idea that snakes can talk.
WRE>I'm aware of "pangenesis" as an example of a now-obvious mistake.
WRE>I'd like to learn about others that Charles made. Can you list
WRE>some, and the references to where he made them?
KK> Unfortunately all my reference works live at the public library,
KK> so I can't quote chapter and verse.
KK> Probably the other big mistake he made -- also relating to
KK> genetics -- was his retreat in later editions of the _Origin_ back in the
KK> general direction of Lamarckism. The problem, of course, was that nobody
KK> had any coherent idea of how inheritance actually worked (except
KK> Mendel, but nobody was aware of Mendel's paper).
Yep, that's a mistake all right, but one I tend to fold in with
"pangenesis", as that was his own version of Lamarckian
inheritance.
KK> Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, we can also note that Darwin
KK> had a thoroughly upper-class-British attitude about the "savage"
KK> races, but then so did most everybody else in Europe at that time.
KK> I'm recalling this from "Evolution: A History of an Idea," by
KK> that famous author, Somebody or Other.
Peter Bowler?
KK> The points I was trying to make above were:
KK> 1) Darwin is not "dead diety Darwin, once-and-forever king of all
KK> the evologians," but rather a brilliant man whose mistakes
KK> have been clarified;
My point is that the number of mistakes that it is claimed that
Darwin made is almost always exaggerated. After a while, this
tends to get on my nerves when I see it.
KK> 2) There is nothing valid about the binary logic of "Any argument
KK> against Evolution is an argument for Creation." By that logic,
KK> Darwin's pangenesis mistake supports the idea that snakes are
KK> capable of conspiracy.
I agree with the intent of both of these points, even if I have
quibbled over the implementation.
KK> I think the central rhetorical trick in the YEC argument is to
KK> ignore the fact that "creation" is left undefined. When Dawkins et al.
KK> use that "evolution or creation" idea, they are not necessarily
KK> referring strictly to a 5,000-year-old story told by preliterate nomads.
KK> They could just as well be referring to a postulated super-material
KK> divine Something that somehow influences physical events -- or any of
KK> dozens of other semi-definitions.
Actually, the central trick is to avoid definitions altogether.
Phillip Johnson's "Darwin On Trial" is a great example of this.
KK> That rhetorical trick also:
KK> 1) Allows them to imply that you are either a Biblical literalist
KK> or an atheist. This conveniently excludes the vast majority of
KK> Christians, who see no reason to assume that inaccuracies in an
KK> ancient creation story (one of hundreds) somehow invalidates the
KK> enlightenment of Joshua ben-Joseph.
KK> 2) Allows them to carefully ignore the fact that they have not one shred
KK> of empirical evidence for a young earth. By this rhetorical trick,
KK> they don't _have_ to support their tale. All they have to do is
KK> fire all bow tubes at evolutionary theory and claim that any problems
KK> with it support the idea that snakes can talk.
KK> That was my point.
Quite worthy, but you happened upon a sensitive spot.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a34e011.txt
From source file 96111302.evo
Date: 13 Nov 96 23:11:26
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Lenny Flank
Subject: FEATHERED DINO
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70784fce
REPLY: 1:2607/112.0 8A33EA65
In a msg on , Lenny Flank of 1:2607/112 writes:
WR>In a msg on , Roger Hunter of 1:104/251 writes:
WR> -=> Quoting Wesley R. Elsberry to Lenny Flank <=- WR> WRE> I'm not sure which case the firm of Nada, Zippo, and Zilch
WR>were WRE> associated with, but Darrow, Hays, and Malone lost
WR>Tennessee WRE> vs. Scopes.
WR> RH> But that case was not about Creationism per se. Scopes
WR>violated RH> a state law against teaching evolution. He was guilty.
WR>Ah... Lenny's statement was that creationists had always lost
WR>in court, which has not always been the case. I think
WR>that it smacks of data selection to exclude TvS from the list
WR>of cases.
LF> I point out again that the creationists lost the Scopes trial on
LF> appeal. The conviction was thrown out.
I point out again that the Butler Act outlawing the teaching
of evolution in Tennessee remained on the books until the
late 1960's. That's a curious definition of "lost" for
the Creationists, or "won" for the scientists.
LF> But I will clarify my statement---every attempt by the creationists to
LF> insert their silly "science" into the public school system has been
LF> defeated in court. The Scopes case did not try to insert creation
LF> "science" into the schools--it tried to get evolution OUT.
From what I've seen in my years of online interaction, it
succeeded beyond Butler's wildest hopes.
LF> In every court case in which the creationists have attempted to argue
LF> that their viewpoint was "science", they lost. Every single solitary
LF> time. Not surprising since they simply have nothing scientific
LF> to say.
I agree on the clarification.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a360005.txt
From source file 9611150.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionist lloking for help
Date: 15 Nov 1996 11:32:24 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <56HKC8$DQT@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <32895A0B.3FCC@AOL.COM> <56CM4J$5NN@NEWS.TAMU.EDU> <328A821C.7B1C@AOL.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
Apparently, I've been trolled.
In article <328A821C.7B1C@AOL.COM>, John Nottham wrote:
>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>> In article <32895A0B.3FCC@AOL.COM>, John Nottham wrote:
WRE> [Slight resequencing ahead]
JN>All,
JN>I have tried to argue with my friends, but I have been unable to find
JN>good books to back me up. Are there any litirature whcih can help me
JN>address these arguments. You know books which try to shoot down the
JN>creationist bable.
WRE> For debunking SciCre goobledegook, the one single book to lay
WRE> your hands on is Arthur Strahler's "Science and Earth History".
WRE> It is rare that a SciCre-ist will spout an assertion that isn't
WRE> demolished within its pages. (Duane Gish *totally* ignored
WRE> Strahler in his "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics".)
WRE> It's available from the NCSE (http://www.natcenscied.org).
John, please do try reading this one.
WRE> For learning about evolution, Douglas Futuyma's "Evolutionary
WRE> Biology" is excellent.
WRE> Online, be sure to visit the t.o. FAQ archives at
WRE> http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080
JN>I'm a newbie here so please bear with me. I'm a firm believer in
JN>evolutionary theory and have frequent debates with my unenlightened :)
JN>religious friends. However, they have stymied me with a number of
JN>claims that I am unable to refute. How should I go about arguing with
JN>these people about the following topics.
WRE> I've got to ask: why would you be a "firm believer" in
WRE> evolution? Evolution is a class of phenomena, not a subject
WRE> for "belief".
JN>Well alot of scientists seem to think its true so they must be right.
It is true that evolutionary phenomena have been observed. They
are certainly right in that regard. Where does "belief" play any
role, though?
JN>1) The chances of life occuring are extermely unlikely since life needs
JN>to be so complex.
WRE> Two points:
WRE> A) Abiogenesis != evolution. Evolutionary theories deal with
WRE> self-replicating systems that exhibit imperfect heredity. It
WRE> doesn't matter to evolutionary theories how the self-replicating
WRE> system came into being.
WRE> B) In abiogenesis, nobody (except perhaps Perian Senapathy)
WRE> postulates the de novo construction of modern complexity
WRE> organisms from raw materials. While there are significant
WRE> research problems to be solved in abiogenesis, the current
WRE> state of the science is not such that SciCre-ists should feel
WRE> complacent about it. Note especially the work done on simple
WRE> self-replicating systems; the smallest self-replicator so
WRE> far found (AFAIK) is three molecules in length. As one wag
WRE> noted, the current improbability of life just dropped to
WRE> 1 in 6.
JN>What does a small self replicator have to do with primitive life.
Why do you think that small self-replicators aren't primitive
life?
JN>And where is the liturature for this.
I'd say that odds are that it is in a library, which is a big
building with books in it. You might ask someone in your area
for instructions on finding one.
Check out the abiogenesis FAQ at the t.o. archive for
bibliographic references.
JN>2) Recent examinations of evidence from st Helens shows good evidence
JN>that structures like the grand canyon could have been created in a
JN>cataclism such as a flood like the bible says.
WRE> Except for one thing: the structures at Mt. St. Helens are not
WRE> like the Grand Canyon.
JN>How are they different? I heard they show layers and everything.
Others have expanded upon the differences. Not all "layers"
are equivalent.
JN>3) One doesn't find clear transitional fossils in the record.
WRE> Correction: one can't find transitionals clear enough to change
WRE> the minds of those committed to ignoring the evidence. Roger
WRE> Cuffey published a very good article some time back listing
WRE> over 100 references to fine-grained transitional sequences.
WRE> Please don't let your correspondents waffle: they made a
WRE> universal claim, so they get to support it. The presence of
WRE> existing links is a far harder problem for SciCre than "missing
WRE> links" ever was for biology.
WRE> Refer to Tables 1 & 2 in Roger Cuffey's excellent paper,
WRE> Paleontologic evidence and organic evolution, which can be
WRE> found in Montagu's "Science and Creationism" or the Journal of
WRE> the American Scientific Affiliation 24(4).
JN>I've read this stuff. It seems rather speculative. Besides
JN>I've heard that many of the fossils like lucy were collected
JN>over a wide area and re not very complete.
I seriously doubt that you have read Cuffey's article, nor that
you have examined any of the references that Cuffey cites.
Check out http://www.gly.fsu.edu/article_3.html.
JN>4) Life originating spontaneously and evolving over time defies the law
JN>of thermodynamics
WRE> The originating part is abiogenesis, as mentioned before. Ask
WRE> your friends to identify the chemical or energy transfer
WRE> mechanism which is thermodynamically barred, which evolutionary
WRE> process also depends upon. You see, the only mechanisms that
WRE> evolutionary process needs are the ones that are already
WRE> observed in the normal development and reproduction of living
WRE> organisms. What the "2nd Law" argument boils down to is an
WRE> absurd assertion that living things cannot develop and
WRE> reproduce as we see them do.
WRE> There is a very good FAQ on this in the t.o. archive.
JN>Doesn't evolution require abiogenises to exist, isn't that
JN>one of its primary >assertions.
No.
JN>But I still don't get it. Isn't it impossible for order to
JN>arise from disorder?
No.
JN>Yes I know about snow flakes and such but
JN>that isn't the same as a cell?
Are you asking a question or making an assertion? Please
make up your mind.
JN>5) Lots of educated people have expressed doubts about evolution and
JN>many new observations seem to make it less likely.
WRE> Evolution is the class of phenomena with the diagnostic
WRE> characteristic of allele frequency change in populations over
WRE> time. Many such instances have been observed. Evolution
WRE> exists. Speciation has been observed. Refer to the speciation
WRE> FAQs in the t.o. archive. What remains is figuring out *how*
WRE> the observed phenomena of evolution occur, which is the role of
WRE> evolutionary mechanism theories.
[...]
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"myself i would rather have half the happiness and twice the longevity" - archy
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a36e009.txt
From source file 96111501.evo
Date: 15 Nov 96 03:44:17
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Ed Haynes
Subject: Evidence
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70880a77
REPLY: 1:161/910@fidonet.org 192ec1bc
In a msg on , Ed Haynes of 1:161/910@fidonet.org writes:
EH> "Evidence !" shouted silently by WESLEY
EH> ...
EH> Dave Horn offered his definition of the creation model, then torn
EH> it down while implying that "I" should defend it when I've made i
EH> that I don't have a scientific creation model.
WR>No, Dave wasn't implying that. You seem to have confused Dave's
WR>call for you to support your critique of "assumptions" for a defense
WR>of a creation model.
EH> First of all, Dave didn't seem to have any complants about my
EH> replies.
So?
EH> Second, Dave started his message talking about the creation model and
EH> ended this same message with, "Evolution accepts those sorts of challenges
EH> and provides explanations for the things that are claimed. Creationism
EH> doesn't do that. Creationists don't do that. Unless and until you guys
EH> start doing that, your creationism is just so much pathetic whining
EH> against the advances of science."
"These sorts of challenges" had a referent, and that referent concerned
your assertions concerning "assumptions".
EH> Dave wanted scientific solutions to support creationism. I do not have a
EH> creation model with scientific solutions and told Dave as much [again]. We
EH> talked about fossils, assumptions and other subjects in this same message.
EH> It all related to a scientific creation model.
This is quite beside the point. Dave critiqued a commonly understood
creation model. You claimed that Dave had called upon you to defend
*your* presentation of a creation model, but that you had not given
one, therefore his commentary was irrelevant. Dave had *not* asked
you to do so, though. His commentary was relevant. There really
isn't anything that you can say now that is going to change that
post in the archives.
WR>Look, Ed, while I was gone my echomail stacked up at the MOCHINE BBS.
WR>When I got things online again, it got downloaded. I've gone over
WR>that particular stretch of messages quite carefully, and Dave has
WR>*not* done what you said in regard to a "creation model". Sorry,
WR>the archives do not support your curious revision of history.
EH> Obviously we disagree. But then, Dave should be the one to complain and
EH> let us know what he meant if any replies didn't seem to address his
EH> questions.
Since Dave is taking an echomail hiatus at the moment, he isn't going
to be offering commentary on this. I'm just noting a false claim
of "irrelevancy" that was leveled at Dave.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a37000b.txt
From source file 9611160.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ABiele on "Lack of Transitonal Series".
Date: 16 Nov 1996 15:42:11 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <56KNCJ$CI7@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <55E9F4$LNU@NEWSBF02.NEWS.AOL.COM> <19961116042300.XAA06900@LADDER01.NEWS.AOL.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
What about Barnard's example, Arthur? One existing
transitional series is quite sufficient to blow away the
universal assertion that none exist.
In article <19961116042300.XAA06900@LADDER01.NEWS.AOL.COM>,
wrote:
> welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry) writes:
WRE>The Challenged:
WRE>The people whose names appear below all made a claim or implication
WRE>of absence of transitional sequences, and were served up with a
WRE>version of the Transitional Sequence Challenge. This is a roster
WRE>of who they were, when they were challenged, where they were, and
WRE>how they responded to the challenge.
WRE>Date Name Forum Response
WRE>950514 Arthur Biele t.o. None
AB>Now, now Mr. Elsberry, I have responded in great detail to the
AB>Hunt FAQ which I posted numerous times.
Yes. It is quite tiresome that you chose to post voluminous
irrelevancies many times over.
AB>The narrowness of mind belongs to those dogmatic evolutionists
AB>who remain in denial of the clear absence of transitional
AB>sequences in the fossil record.
Evidence, Arthur, evidence. Some people have looked at it.
Some people know about it. The TFC is designed to figure out
whether you are one of them. So far, the answer has been, "Not
hardly".
AB>Oh, and you must excuse my limited knowledge and resources, I do
AB>not have access to those great works of science that you have readily
AB>at your fingertips, the works of Kitcher, Berra, Godfrey, Coffey, the
AB>Creation/Evolution newsletters, and the Skeptical Enquirer; I could only
AB>reference the worlds leading paleontologists, geologists, and curators
AB>of the worlds leading fossil museums.
None of them to the point of the evidence presented by Barnard.
AB>According to evolution theory, all species, extinct or living, (except
AB>those that were the last of an extinct phylogeny) are transitional.
AB>An evolutionists may point to any fossil and call it transitional, for
AB>from their standpoint as evolutionists, evolution is a continuing
AB>process and all species have been or are in the process of transition.
Which means, Arthur, that you'll have to look at each case to
decide if it meets your connotation of "transitional".
AB>The correct observation, derived from an extensive and exhaustive
AB>review of the fossil record, is that there are no known transitional
AB>series clearly linking any of the natural groups of animals or plants
AB>above the species level.
This "extensive and exhaustive review" would, indeed, be
necessary, since the claim of "no transitional fossils"
requires *omniscience* regarding the fossil record. All I'm
asking for are your reasons why you rejected Barnard's example,
which you ought to have perused in your "exhaustive" review.
AB>Today it is known by leading evolutionary scientists, though not talked
AB>about publicly, that the gaps of the alleged macro-evolutionary
AB>transitions are huge, and not a question of filling in a few minor
AB>speciation events. Further, the trend has been that the more fossils
AB>found, the more fossils species discovered, the clearer the gaps and the
AB>inconsistencies become. This is contrary to the prevailing rumour that
AB>new fossil finds are closing the gaps in the fossil record. Fossil finds
AB>are clarifying the gaps in the fossil record.
What about Barnard's example, Arthur? One existing
transitional series is quite sufficient to blow away the
universal assertion that none exist.
AB>For example, with a few fossils, evolutionists were able to fill the
AB>gaps with their imagination. Niles Eldredge once wrote of what appeared
AB>to be a significant transition in lineage. The fossil record had recorded
AB>a certain trilobite species as lasting for millions of years and then
AB>becoming extinct, only to be replaced in higher strata by a similar, but
AB>significantly different trilobite species of the same family. Evolution
AB>in action? Well not quite. As more fossils were found, these two species
AB>turned out to be contemporaries at their point of origin in the
AB>geological strata.
That's nice. The reference, please.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the example given by
Barnard.
AB>The following is my response to the Hunt "Transitional Fossil FAQ"
AB>that I have posted on numerous forums dealing with Creation vs,
AB>Evolution.
Which also has nothing to do with Barnard's example.
[snipped]
I'd say that it is pretty obvious that Arthur's "exhaustive"
review wasn't exhaustive enough for his claim of omniscience
concerning the fossil record.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"freddy is no more but he died game" - archy
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a37000c.txt
From source file 9611160.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ABiele on "Lack of Transitional Series"
Date: 16 Nov 1996 15:48:19 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <56KNO3$CLR@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <328B2844.5E07@DAAC.GSFC.NASA.GOV> <19961116042400.XAA06917@LADDER01.NEWS.AOL.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article <19961116042400.XAA06917@LADDER01.NEWS.AOL.COM>,
wrote:
>In article <328B2844.5E07@DAAC.GSFC.NASA.GOV>, rob simmon
> writes:
>>ABiele 7000 wrote:
AB> If you feel that the forams are a solid example of the fossil record's
AB> establishment of a phylogeny showing a macro-evolutionary trend,
AB> please present your case.
RS>So you're saying that phytoplankton, even if drastically
RS>different physically and genetically, (say more varied
RS>than primates) are the same kind?
AB>Well actually, I was saying that I did not have the source on
AB>the forams referred to by Elsberry via Coffey's Article and I
AB>requested that someone familiar with this alleged transition
AB>present their case.
This is prima facie evidence that Arthur's claimed "exhaustive"
review of the literature was nothing of the sort, and that
Arthur is not entitled to claim the omniscience necessary to
assert that no transitional fossils exist.
Arthur has claimed that omniscience, so let him make his case
for it.
[...]
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"oh gayly let me strangle what is gayly given" - mehitabel
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a37001a.txt
From source file 9611160.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ABiele: A Reply to Mr. Hershey
Date: 16 Nov 1996 16:39:36 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <56KQO8$E19@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <32822B92.6994@INTREPID.NET> <328889B8.735E@DAAC.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article , Mark Isaak wrote:
>In article lamoran@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca
>(L.A. Moran) quotes Eldredge:
LAM> The very term *macroevolution* is enough to make an ultra-
LAM> Darwinian snarl.
MI>It will make me snarl, or at least grimace, until I see a decent definition
MI>of it.
The earliest use of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" that
I have found so far is in Dobzhansky's 1937 "Genetics and the
origin of species" (or something similar to that, I'm working
from memory here). D. did not establish a demarcation between
the two, but merely used the terms to refer to the ends of what
he saw as a scale of evolutionary phenomena. D. seemed to be
using a "fuzzy" classification: phenomena of intermediate scale
would have more or less macroevolutionary or microevolutionary
character.
The next critical use of macroevolution that I found was
Goldschmidt's definition in his 1940 "Material basis of
evolution". G. proposed that macroevolution refer to
the establishment of the good species and higher taxa.
Microevolution would then refer to everything below the species
level.
For many modern biologists, Goldschmidt's demarcation is
still the preferred one. For many others, including Gould
and Mayr, the demarcation of choice is to include speciation in
microevolution, and denote as macroevolution only the formation
of higher taxa.
Among biologists, virtually no one will agree that
macroevolution includes phenomena of intraspecific evolution.
Also, very few will accept the notion that microevolution
includes genus-level change. In between, there is room for
disagreement.
My personal opinion is that Goldschmidt came up with the most
useful demarcation criterion. Since higher taxa are human
inventions, I prefer to include some real-world phenomena in
"macroevolution". Speciation is the only thing that fits the
bill.
[...]
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"plenty of it he answered but at times we get tired of using it" - archy
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a37002a.txt
From source file 9611160.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ABiele on "Lack of Transitonal Series".
Date: 16 Nov 1996 17:01:20 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <56KS10$E9K@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <56F7N3$195C@NODE2.FRONTIERNET.NET> <19961116042400.XAA06911@LADDER01.NEWS.AOL.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article <19961116042400.XAA06911@LADDER01.NEWS.AOL.COM>,
wrote:
>In article <56F7N3$195C@NODE2.FRONTIERNET.NET>, Elmer Bataitis
><"NYLICENS@FRONTIERNET.NET/NYLICENCE"@AOL.COM> writes:
>>abiele7000@aol.com wrote:
[...]
Quoting Eldredge:
AB> "I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the
AB> textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most
AB> famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American
AB> Museum of Natural History) is the exhibit on horse evolution
AB> prepared 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal
AB> truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is
AB> lamentable, particularly because the people who propose
AB> these kind of stories themselves may be aware of the
AB> speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it
AB> filters down into the textbooks, we've got science as truth
AB> and we got a problem."
[...]
Quoting Eldredge on TV:
AB>"Sylvia Chase: "Dr. Niles Eldredge, Curator of the Department
AB> of invertabrates of the American Museum of Natural History,
AB> one of many scientists vigorously opposed to the creationists.
AB> I asked him for evidence (on evolution)."
AB>Dr. Eldredge: "Ahh, the horse is a good example. Here's an
AB> effectively modern horse which is one miilion years old, but we
AB> can all recognize it as a horse. And as we go deeper in lower
AB> layers of rock, back further in time, we excavate successively
AB> more primitive horses. Here is one that is two million years old.
AB> They are obviously becoming less and less obviously horselike
AB> till we get 60 million years ago, and here is the ancestor of the
AB> horse. The really interesting thing about this is that it is also the
AB> ancestor of the rhinceros - or vey close to the nacestor of the
AB> rhinceros. So when the creationists tell us that we have no
AB> intermediates between the major groups, we point to a creature
AB> like dawn horse and say, 'here we have 60 million years ago
AB> an exact intermediate between the horse and the rhinos."
AB>So in 1981, after joining the anti-creationist campaign, Dr.
AB>Eldredge repeated a scenario before a nation wide audience
AB>that in 1981 he called "lamentable". " (p. 82-83 Luther D.
AB>Sutherland, Darwins Enigma, Master Books, 1987).
AB>Wake up, Wake up, Ye who inhabit T.O., come to grips with
AB>reality. Still, most evolutionists here on t.o. will continue to vote
AB>for the position that lacks character, simply because it delivers
AB>the evolutionary goods you crave.
Hey, Arthur, did you ever hear of "orthogenesis"? The museum
exhibit on horses was produced to specifically illustrate
orthogenesis. That's the reason that Eldredge found it
"lamentable" that it continued to be reproduced in textbooks,
even though orthogenesis is long dead as a theoretic concept.
The horse fossils, though, are not themselves "lamentable", and
they do provide very nice examples of evolution in the fossil
record. That evolution, though, was not "orthogenesis".
Eldredge is not a hypocrite, and was not contradicting himself.
That Luther Sunderland wasn't either informed enough, bright
enough, or honest enough to present this surprises no one.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"shakespeare and i are frequently coarse" - archy
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a37e020.txt
From source file 96111602.evo
Date: 16 Nov 96 00:51:11
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Ed Haynes
Subject: Darwin mistakes?
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 709398ba
REPLY: 1:161/910@fidonet.org e4aaff06
In a msg on , Ed Haynes of 1:161/910@fidonet.org writes:
EH> "Evidence !" shouted silently by WESLEY
[...]
EH> Blush! I don't know how I came up with "cow" when I knew it was
EH> a bear. I think it's about time to be looking for a new brain. :-(
EH> But as far as Darwin claiming that a bear could become a whale,
EH> "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural
EH> selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with
EH> larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a
EH> whale." ORIGIN OF SPECIES (first edition, 1859) - from a third party
EH> source.
EH> So Darwin didn't claim that a bear could become a whale, only
EH> that it might become something as monstrous as a whale. Was that a
EH> mistake by Darwin?
Unless you have the means to exclude that possibility, no.
EH> I'd have to wonder also about those "10,000 additional pages of
EH> revisions" which Darwin made. Where those revisions ALL new material or
EH> did he correct some mistakes with a few of those revisions? [thinking
EH> out loud]
Oh, it's entirely possible that Darwin did make a lot of mistakes.
However, I'm not satisfied with just the assertion that he did.
So that's the reason I'm asking for the particulars on mistakes.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38000a.txt
From source file 9611170.nws
Article xkx
From: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Micro and Macroevolution, definitions of
Date: 17 Nov 1996 17:23:10 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <56NHLU$SVB@NEWS.TAMU.EDU>
References: <328C3E73.52B6@INTREPID.NET> <1996NOV16.131839.89143@CC.USU.EDU> <328EA895.5545@INTREPID.NET>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu
In article <328EA895.5545@INTREPID.NET>,
Wayne M. Hollyoak wrote:
[...]
WMH>In theory, but the fact is "macroevolution" by both definitions has
WMH>never been witnessed. So, I would consider this a significant barrier
WMH>to it's acceptance as objective science. Nothing has been shown to
WMH>demonstrate that macroevolution, or the formation of higher taxa
WMH>actually proceeds in any case from speciation.
Never been witnessed? You've never heard of Triticale, I take
it.
Also, the definition of macroevolution given by Goldschmidt in
1940, as the evolution of the good species and higher taxa,
means that observed speciation is observed macroevolution.
If you review the literature on speciation, you will find that
quite a lot of biologists use macroevolution in that way.
[...]
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"plenty of it he answered but at times we get tired of using it" - archy
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e001.txt
From source file 96111700.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:09:57
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Curt Tabor
Subject: Old Earth and the FR
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a55e43
REPLY: 1:202/1207.0 328adea2
In a msg on , Curt Tabor of 1:202/1207 writes:
WRE>Now, *if* there is an "old earth" viewpoint that is expressed
WRE>with the intent that it be taken as being scientific, then there
WRE>is no difficulty in discussing that concept here.
CT> One Old Earth explanation is still that "God did it" but it
CT> relies upon recent studies of the K/T boundary done by Samuel Bowring and
CT> another independant team from the far east which has the Cambrian
CT> Exposion happening within 0-10 million years.
Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but it looks like you
are saying that the K/T boundary tells us something about
the Cambrian Explosion.
Molecular data published recently seems to point to an earlier
date for the common ancestor of metazoans, making that about
1BYA. The Cambrian Explosion would then seem to be more of
a deflagration than a detonation.
CT> Hence, the order is not denied at all, but the rapid change is
CT> looked upon as divine intervention so that is what is played on by them.
CT> I don't think old earthers care about the order. I know I don't.
CT> They are not so literal that they need to deny death before sin, etc etc.
Playing on rapidity looks like it may turn out to be a risky
strategy.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e002.txt
From source file 96111700.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:25:31
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Jim Hansen
Subject: Population growth
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a58301
REPLY: 1:342/5011.0 328ccf76
In a msg on , Jim Hansen of 1:342/5011 writes:
-=> Quoting Wesley R. Elsberry to Jim Hansen <=- LF> A better answer would have been to provide your population figures and
LF> tell us why they show the earth to be only 6,000 years old, to explain
<...>
JH> I wasn't trying to show differentiation. Lenny asked me to
JH> provide population figures to show that the world was only 6,000 years
JH> old. I merely showed that it could be done in that time frame.
WRE> This shows that the modern population figure can be achieved
WRE> within 6000 years from an initial population of eight. It does
WRE> nothing to show that 6000 years represents something approaching
WRE> an *upper* bound on time -- which the "only" qualifier would
WRE> seem to indicate. Can you answer Lenny's actual question?
JH> No I can't, because population figures don't exist.
So you agree that population growth is *compatible* with either
evolutionary scenarios or SciCre?
WRE> I'm intrigued. Can you give an approximate year BCE for the
WRE> 8 person bottleneck, and the gender distribution of that population?
JH> No I can't, because the data isn't there. You would need to know
JH> how long the average generation is over the time period to calculate the
JH> date.
WRE> That assumes that the population is monotonically increasing at some
WRE> particular rate of increase -- a most difficult assertion to
WRE> establish, probably even harder than the one this bit of arcana
WRE> is being called in to support.
JH> No, I am speacking of averages over time, which allows for great
JH> fluctuations in actual rates.
Again, this would imply that you agree that the population
argument is compatible with evolutionary theory or SciCre
conjecture.
JH> As for the gender distribution, that too is impossible to show based
JH> on the data given. My guess is that since the world is about 52/48
JH> female, the percentages would remain the same, but that is only a guess.
JH> The eight people, though, wer Noah, his three sons and their
JH> wives. 50/50 split there. Lenny had said something about the Flood and
JH> the population having to start at 8, not 2. That is where my calculations
JH> began.
WRE> If you have no idea of when The Flood(TM) happened, and have
WRE> no means of establishing an upper bound on time, how does
WRE> any amount of number-juggling help?
JH> It merely shows that population growth could happen in a short
JH> period of time, and does not require an extremely large amount of time to
JH> go from 2 to 6 Billion.
Nor does it imply that deep time is not involved. By your own
statements, the population argument cannot be used to distinguish
evolutionary theory from SciCre conjecture.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e003.txt
From source file 96111700.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:44:03
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Lenny Flank
Subject: Piltdown Man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a5a994
REPLY: 1:2607/112.0 8A35EA72
In a msg on , Lenny Flank of 1:2607/112 writes:
[...]
WR>"developed" and "had". Bliss is dead.
LF> Yep, I think you're right. didn't Wilder-Smith just kick the
LF> bucket recently too?
Yes.
[...]
LF> Maybe--don't recall hearing about "Dr" Burdick going to meet
LF> Yahweh, though . . . .
It didn't happen recently. Apparently, Lammerts was not one
of Burdick's supporters, and actually urged the ICR not to
accept Burdick's claims.
LF> Nevertheless, these claims were deliberate lies made by
LF> creationists, as per Chuckie's request. . . .
Have you seen the side-stepping that Chuck is willing to do
to excuse these kinds of untruth-mongering?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e004.txt
From source file 96111700.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:50:24
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Charles Creager Jr
Subject: Piltdown man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a5b5c9
REPLY: 1:3639/3 8A34112F
In a msg on , Charles Creager Jr of 1:3639/3 writes:
CJ> I don't know; were you got this from; but it is
CJ> clearly untrue. The perpetrator of the hoax was
CJ> Professor Sollas of Oxford Univ. His guilt was
CJ> established by his successor Professor J. A.
CJ> Douglas. Douglas named Sollas as the perpetrator in
CJ>a tape-recording made just before Douglas' death.
JT>This is merely an assertion of guilt, and the accuser
JT>can no longer be questioned on any of it's details.
JT>How convenient.
CCJ> Douglas succeeded Sollas' at Oxford. He was in
CCJ> a position to have some knowledge of what Sollas did.
CCJ> Yes, it is only an accusation of guilt. It is
CCJ> the best documented accusation I have seen.
Your description of it makes it about the flimsiest that
I've seen, excepting the Holmes/Moriarty one. It relies
solely upon one piece of testimonial evidence.
Not very convincing, especially in comparison to other
conjectures.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e005.txt
From source file 96111701.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:09:57
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Curt Tabor
Subject: Old Earth and the FR
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a55e43
REPLY: 1:202/1207.0 328adea2
In a msg on , Curt Tabor of 1:202/1207 writes:
WRE>Now, *if* there is an "old earth" viewpoint that is expressed
WRE>with the intent that it be taken as being scientific, then there
WRE>is no difficulty in discussing that concept here.
CT> One Old Earth explanation is still that "God did it" but it
CT> relies upon recent studies of the K/T boundary done by Samuel Bowring and
CT> another independant team from the far east which has the Cambrian
CT> Exposion happening within 0-10 million years.
Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but it looks like you
are saying that the K/T boundary tells us something about
the Cambrian Explosion.
Molecular data published recently seems to point to an earlier
date for the common ancestor of metazoans, making that about
1BYA. The Cambrian Explosion would then seem to be more of
a deflagration than a detonation.
CT> Hence, the order is not denied at all, but the rapid change is
CT> looked upon as divine intervention so that is what is played on by them.
CT> I don't think old earthers care about the order. I know I don't.
CT> They are not so literal that they need to deny death before sin, etc etc.
Playing on rapidity looks like it may turn out to be a risky
strategy.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e006.txt
From source file 96111701.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:25:31
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Jim Hansen
Subject: Population growth
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a58301
REPLY: 1:342/5011.0 328ccf76
In a msg on , Jim Hansen of 1:342/5011 writes:
-=> Quoting Wesley R. Elsberry to Jim Hansen <=- LF> A better answer would have been to provide your population figures and
LF> tell us why they show the earth to be only 6,000 years old, to explain
<...>
JH> I wasn't trying to show differentiation. Lenny asked me to
JH> provide population figures to show that the world was only 6,000 years
JH> old. I merely showed that it could be done in that time frame.
WRE> This shows that the modern population figure can be achieved
WRE> within 6000 years from an initial population of eight. It does
WRE> nothing to show that 6000 years represents something approaching
WRE> an *upper* bound on time -- which the "only" qualifier would
WRE> seem to indicate. Can you answer Lenny's actual question?
JH> No I can't, because population figures don't exist.
So you agree that population growth is *compatible* with either
evolutionary scenarios or SciCre?
WRE> I'm intrigued. Can you give an approximate year BCE for the
WRE> 8 person bottleneck, and the gender distribution of that population?
JH> No I can't, because the data isn't there. You would need to know
JH> how long the average generation is over the time period to calculate the
JH> date.
WRE> That assumes that the population is monotonically increasing at some
WRE> particular rate of increase -- a most difficult assertion to
WRE> establish, probably even harder than the one this bit of arcana
WRE> is being called in to support.
JH> No, I am speacking of averages over time, which allows for great
JH> fluctuations in actual rates.
Again, this would imply that you agree that the population
argument is compatible with evolutionary theory or SciCre
conjecture.
JH> As for the gender distribution, that too is impossible to show based
JH> on the data given. My guess is that since the world is about 52/48
JH> female, the percentages would remain the same, but that is only a guess.
JH> The eight people, though, wer Noah, his three sons and their
JH> wives. 50/50 split there. Lenny had said something about the Flood and
JH> the population having to start at 8, not 2. That is where my calculations
JH> began.
WRE> If you have no idea of when The Flood(TM) happened, and have
WRE> no means of establishing an upper bound on time, how does
WRE> any amount of number-juggling help?
JH> It merely shows that population growth could happen in a short
JH> period of time, and does not require an extremely large amount of time to
JH> go from 2 to 6 Billion.
Nor does it imply that deep time is not involved. By your own
statements, the population argument cannot be used to distinguish
evolutionary theory from SciCre conjecture.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e007.txt
From source file 96111701.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:44:03
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Lenny Flank
Subject: Piltdown Man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a5a994
REPLY: 1:2607/112.0 8A35EA72
In a msg on , Lenny Flank of 1:2607/112 writes:
[...]
WR>"developed" and "had". Bliss is dead.
LF> Yep, I think you're right. didn't Wilder-Smith just kick the
LF> bucket recently too?
Yes.
[...]
LF> Maybe--don't recall hearing about "Dr" Burdick going to meet
LF> Yahweh, though . . . .
It didn't happen recently. Apparently, Lammerts was not one
of Burdick's supporters, and actually urged the ICR not to
accept Burdick's claims.
LF> Nevertheless, these claims were deliberate lies made by
LF> creationists, as per Chuckie's request. . . .
Have you seen the side-stepping that Chuck is willing to do
to excuse these kinds of untruth-mongering?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e008.txt
From source file 96111701.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:50:24
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Charles Creager Jr
Subject: Piltdown man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a5b5c9
REPLY: 1:3639/3 8A34112F
In a msg on , Charles Creager Jr of 1:3639/3 writes:
CJ> I don't know; were you got this from; but it is
CJ> clearly untrue. The perpetrator of the hoax was
CJ> Professor Sollas of Oxford Univ. His guilt was
CJ> established by his successor Professor J. A.
CJ> Douglas. Douglas named Sollas as the perpetrator in
CJ>a tape-recording made just before Douglas' death.
JT>This is merely an assertion of guilt, and the accuser
JT>can no longer be questioned on any of it's details.
JT>How convenient.
CCJ> Douglas succeeded Sollas' at Oxford. He was in
CCJ> a position to have some knowledge of what Sollas did.
CCJ> Yes, it is only an accusation of guilt. It is
CCJ> the best documented accusation I have seen.
Your description of it makes it about the flimsiest that
I've seen, excepting the Holmes/Moriarty one. It relies
solely upon one piece of testimonial evidence.
Not very convincing, especially in comparison to other
conjectures.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e009.txt
From source file 96111702.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:09:57
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Curt Tabor
Subject: Old Earth and the FR
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a55e43
REPLY: 1:202/1207.0 328adea2
In a msg on , Curt Tabor of 1:202/1207 writes:
WRE>Now, *if* there is an "old earth" viewpoint that is expressed
WRE>with the intent that it be taken as being scientific, then there
WRE>is no difficulty in discussing that concept here.
CT> One Old Earth explanation is still that "God did it" but it
CT> relies upon recent studies of the K/T boundary done by Samuel Bowring and
CT> another independant team from the far east which has the Cambrian
CT> Exposion happening within 0-10 million years.
Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but it looks like you
are saying that the K/T boundary tells us something about
the Cambrian Explosion.
Molecular data published recently seems to point to an earlier
date for the common ancestor of metazoans, making that about
1BYA. The Cambrian Explosion would then seem to be more of
a deflagration than a detonation.
CT> Hence, the order is not denied at all, but the rapid change is
CT> looked upon as divine intervention so that is what is played on by them.
CT> I don't think old earthers care about the order. I know I don't.
CT> They are not so literal that they need to deny death before sin, etc etc.
Playing on rapidity looks like it may turn out to be a risky
strategy.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e010.txt
From source file 96111702.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:25:31
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Jim Hansen
Subject: Population growth
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a58301
REPLY: 1:342/5011.0 328ccf76
In a msg on , Jim Hansen of 1:342/5011 writes:
-=> Quoting Wesley R. Elsberry to Jim Hansen <=- LF> A better answer would have been to provide your population figures and
LF> tell us why they show the earth to be only 6,000 years old, to explain
<...>
JH> I wasn't trying to show differentiation. Lenny asked me to
JH> provide population figures to show that the world was only 6,000 years
JH> old. I merely showed that it could be done in that time frame.
WRE> This shows that the modern population figure can be achieved
WRE> within 6000 years from an initial population of eight. It does
WRE> nothing to show that 6000 years represents something approaching
WRE> an *upper* bound on time -- which the "only" qualifier would
WRE> seem to indicate. Can you answer Lenny's actual question?
JH> No I can't, because population figures don't exist.
So you agree that population growth is *compatible* with either
evolutionary scenarios or SciCre?
WRE> I'm intrigued. Can you give an approximate year BCE for the
WRE> 8 person bottleneck, and the gender distribution of that population?
JH> No I can't, because the data isn't there. You would need to know
JH> how long the average generation is over the time period to calculate the
JH> date.
WRE> That assumes that the population is monotonically increasing at some
WRE> particular rate of increase -- a most difficult assertion to
WRE> establish, probably even harder than the one this bit of arcana
WRE> is being called in to support.
JH> No, I am speacking of averages over time, which allows for great
JH> fluctuations in actual rates.
Again, this would imply that you agree that the population
argument is compatible with evolutionary theory or SciCre
conjecture.
JH> As for the gender distribution, that too is impossible to show based
JH> on the data given. My guess is that since the world is about 52/48
JH> female, the percentages would remain the same, but that is only a guess.
JH> The eight people, though, wer Noah, his three sons and their
JH> wives. 50/50 split there. Lenny had said something about the Flood and
JH> the population having to start at 8, not 2. That is where my calculations
JH> began.
WRE> If you have no idea of when The Flood(TM) happened, and have
WRE> no means of establishing an upper bound on time, how does
WRE> any amount of number-juggling help?
JH> It merely shows that population growth could happen in a short
JH> period of time, and does not require an extremely large amount of time to
JH> go from 2 to 6 Billion.
Nor does it imply that deep time is not involved. By your own
statements, the population argument cannot be used to distinguish
evolutionary theory from SciCre conjecture.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e011.txt
From source file 96111702.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:44:03
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Lenny Flank
Subject: Piltdown Man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a5a994
REPLY: 1:2607/112.0 8A35EA72
In a msg on , Lenny Flank of 1:2607/112 writes:
[...]
WR>"developed" and "had". Bliss is dead.
LF> Yep, I think you're right. didn't Wilder-Smith just kick the
LF> bucket recently too?
Yes.
[...]
LF> Maybe--don't recall hearing about "Dr" Burdick going to meet
LF> Yahweh, though . . . .
It didn't happen recently. Apparently, Lammerts was not one
of Burdick's supporters, and actually urged the ICR not to
accept Burdick's claims.
LF> Nevertheless, these claims were deliberate lies made by
LF> creationists, as per Chuckie's request. . . .
Have you seen the side-stepping that Chuck is willing to do
to excuse these kinds of untruth-mongering?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e012.txt
From source file 96111702.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:50:24
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Charles Creager Jr
Subject: Piltdown man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a5b5c9
REPLY: 1:3639/3 8A34112F
In a msg on , Charles Creager Jr of 1:3639/3 writes:
CJ> I don't know; were you got this from; but it is
CJ> clearly untrue. The perpetrator of the hoax was
CJ> Professor Sollas of Oxford Univ. His guilt was
CJ> established by his successor Professor J. A.
CJ> Douglas. Douglas named Sollas as the perpetrator in
CJ>a tape-recording made just before Douglas' death.
JT>This is merely an assertion of guilt, and the accuser
JT>can no longer be questioned on any of it's details.
JT>How convenient.
CCJ> Douglas succeeded Sollas' at Oxford. He was in
CCJ> a position to have some knowledge of what Sollas did.
CCJ> Yes, it is only an accusation of guilt. It is
CCJ> the best documented accusation I have seen.
Your description of it makes it about the flimsiest that
I've seen, excepting the Holmes/Moriarty one. It relies
solely upon one piece of testimonial evidence.
Not very convincing, especially in comparison to other
conjectures.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e013.txt
From source file 96111703.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:09:57
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Curt Tabor
Subject: Old Earth and the FR
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a55e43
REPLY: 1:202/1207.0 328adea2
In a msg on , Curt Tabor of 1:202/1207 writes:
WRE>Now, *if* there is an "old earth" viewpoint that is expressed
WRE>with the intent that it be taken as being scientific, then there
WRE>is no difficulty in discussing that concept here.
CT> One Old Earth explanation is still that "God did it" but it
CT> relies upon recent studies of the K/T boundary done by Samuel Bowring and
CT> another independant team from the far east which has the Cambrian
CT> Exposion happening within 0-10 million years.
Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but it looks like you
are saying that the K/T boundary tells us something about
the Cambrian Explosion.
Molecular data published recently seems to point to an earlier
date for the common ancestor of metazoans, making that about
1BYA. The Cambrian Explosion would then seem to be more of
a deflagration than a detonation.
CT> Hence, the order is not denied at all, but the rapid change is
CT> looked upon as divine intervention so that is what is played on by them.
CT> I don't think old earthers care about the order. I know I don't.
CT> They are not so literal that they need to deny death before sin, etc etc.
Playing on rapidity looks like it may turn out to be a risky
strategy.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e014.txt
From source file 96111703.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:25:31
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Jim Hansen
Subject: Population growth
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a58301
REPLY: 1:342/5011.0 328ccf76
In a msg on , Jim Hansen of 1:342/5011 writes:
-=> Quoting Wesley R. Elsberry to Jim Hansen <=- LF> A better answer would have been to provide your population figures and
LF> tell us why they show the earth to be only 6,000 years old, to explain
<...>
JH> I wasn't trying to show differentiation. Lenny asked me to
JH> provide population figures to show that the world was only 6,000 years
JH> old. I merely showed that it could be done in that time frame.
WRE> This shows that the modern population figure can be achieved
WRE> within 6000 years from an initial population of eight. It does
WRE> nothing to show that 6000 years represents something approaching
WRE> an *upper* bound on time -- which the "only" qualifier would
WRE> seem to indicate. Can you answer Lenny's actual question?
JH> No I can't, because population figures don't exist.
So you agree that population growth is *compatible* with either
evolutionary scenarios or SciCre?
WRE> I'm intrigued. Can you give an approximate year BCE for the
WRE> 8 person bottleneck, and the gender distribution of that population?
JH> No I can't, because the data isn't there. You would need to know
JH> how long the average generation is over the time period to calculate the
JH> date.
WRE> That assumes that the population is monotonically increasing at some
WRE> particular rate of increase -- a most difficult assertion to
WRE> establish, probably even harder than the one this bit of arcana
WRE> is being called in to support.
JH> No, I am speacking of averages over time, which allows for great
JH> fluctuations in actual rates.
Again, this would imply that you agree that the population
argument is compatible with evolutionary theory or SciCre
conjecture.
JH> As for the gender distribution, that too is impossible to show based
JH> on the data given. My guess is that since the world is about 52/48
JH> female, the percentages would remain the same, but that is only a guess.
JH> The eight people, though, wer Noah, his three sons and their
JH> wives. 50/50 split there. Lenny had said something about the Flood and
JH> the population having to start at 8, not 2. That is where my calculations
JH> began.
WRE> If you have no idea of when The Flood(TM) happened, and have
WRE> no means of establishing an upper bound on time, how does
WRE> any amount of number-juggling help?
JH> It merely shows that population growth could happen in a short
JH> period of time, and does not require an extremely large amount of time to
JH> go from 2 to 6 Billion.
Nor does it imply that deep time is not involved. By your own
statements, the population argument cannot be used to distinguish
evolutionary theory from SciCre conjecture.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e015.txt
From source file 96111703.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:44:03
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Lenny Flank
Subject: Piltdown Man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a5a994
REPLY: 1:2607/112.0 8A35EA72
In a msg on , Lenny Flank of 1:2607/112 writes:
[...]
WR>"developed" and "had". Bliss is dead.
LF> Yep, I think you're right. didn't Wilder-Smith just kick the
LF> bucket recently too?
Yes.
[...]
LF> Maybe--don't recall hearing about "Dr" Burdick going to meet
LF> Yahweh, though . . . .
It didn't happen recently. Apparently, Lammerts was not one
of Burdick's supporters, and actually urged the ICR not to
accept Burdick's claims.
LF> Nevertheless, these claims were deliberate lies made by
LF> creationists, as per Chuckie's request. . . .
Have you seen the side-stepping that Chuck is willing to do
to excuse these kinds of untruth-mongering?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
8a38e016.txt
From source file 96111703.evo
Date: 17 Nov 96 09:50:24
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Charles Creager Jr
Subject: Piltdown man
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 70a5b5c9
REPLY: 1:3639/3 8A34112F
In a msg on , Charles Creager Jr of 1:3639/3 writes:
CJ> I don't know; were you got this from; but it is
CJ> clearly untrue. The perpetrator of the hoax was
CJ> Professor Sollas of Oxford Univ. His guilt was
CJ> established by his successor Professor J. A.
CJ> Douglas. Douglas named Sollas as the perpetrator in
CJ>a tape-recording made just before Douglas' death.
JT>This is merely an assertion of guilt, and the accuser
JT>can no longer be questioned on any of it's details.
JT>How convenient.
CCJ> Douglas succeeded Sollas' at Oxford. He was in
CCJ> a position to have some knowledge of what Sollas did.
CCJ> Yes, it is only an accusation of guilt. It is
CCJ> the best documented accusation I have seen.
Your description of it makes it about the flimsiest that
I've seen, excepting the Holmes/Moriarty one. It relies
solely upon one piece of testimonial evidence.
Not very convincing, especially in comparison to other
conjectures.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-737-5222 (1:124/1301.47)
SEEN-BY: 124/1301 386/999
Back to WRE Archive listing
