Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1346

PostMaster (Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org)
Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:25:18 -0700

The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org

Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Thursday, March 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1346

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 04:34:54 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Fossil Insects

>
>In the Flood model under consideration, the sequence of events during the
>worldwide water catastrophe (Genesis 7-8) produced an orderly progression
>of layers....
>

Most scenarios imagine the flood to be extremely violent and chaotic; how
could such a catastrophe produce an "orderly progression of layers"? Modern
local floods, even large scale events, lay down a single thick layer
consisting of a jumbled mixture of silts, sand, gravel, rock, debris, etc.,
and not an "orderly progression of layers"; how could a global flood do what
modern local floods could not? Why is it that the geological record often
shows layers of gravel-based sediments overlaying sand-based sediments which
in turn overlay silt-based sediments, when everything we know about
hydrologic sorting tells us to expect exactly the opposit arrangement?

>
>...briefly the lower (Paleozoic) being mostly marine....
>

What about the layers that were clearly formed from dry land sediments? I
don't mean sediments eroded from land that were deposited in water, but
literally a petrified desert layer between two marine layers? Did the flood
dry up long enough for the surface of the earth to dry out and desertify
before being reflooded again?

>
>...the middle
>(Mesozoic) including much land-derived material eroded by rising waters....
>

Again, how do you explain layers that were clearly dry land sediments, such
as deserts or forests, being found between marine layers? Remember, the dry
land sediments were not eroded into water for deposition, but were exposed
to air (I don't know what the proper geological term is that distinguishes
non-water-borne sediments from water-borne sediments).

>
>...and the upper (Cenozoic) mostly resulting from decreasing sea levels and
>subsequent tectonic adjustments.
>

This time, how do you explain marine deposits being found between dry-land
layers above your flood horizon? Did the flood return for short periods
despite God's promise?

The identification of layers as water-borne or dry-land sediments is
independent of your artificial dichotomy between flood/short-age and
evolution/long-age models. In other words, a petrified desert would be
identified as a petrified desert (and not a mass of petrified sand bars)
regardless of whether geological history was considered to be long or short.
Can your flood model explain alternating layers of water-borne and dry-land
sediments?

Kevin L. O'Brien

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:21:23 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: natural selection, mutation, speciation (was peppered moth)

Ami Chopine wrote on Tue, 16 Mar 1999:

> By genetic changes, do you mean a shift in dominant attributes in the gene
> pool, or actual mutations? The difference is very meaningful.
> As we can see by the examples of the moths, the finches, dogs, roses, and
> other species which have been naturally, or intellegently selected, there is
> a very great range of attributes already present in a given species.

I was referring to mutations. Yes, great variations are possible
via natural or artificial selection which are not associated with
mutations and which therefore do not count as evidence for
neo-Darwinism.

> Natural selection is a very real force in determining which genetic traits
> become dominant. Natural selection is not in any way responsible for
> genetic mutations. It does, however, determine if those mutations are
> beneficial, neutral, or harmful.

Agreed.

> Another question is, and the finches contribute to this question much better
> than the moths: What does it take to become a new species?
> Mutations occur in every generation of any given species, and typically do
> not cause the offspring to become a different species. How much mutation
> and selection does it take to preclude a variety of finch from mating with
> another one?

Taxonomists name species - and there is not a consensus as to what
constitutes as species! Since we have plenty of examples of
intra-species and intra-genera hybridisation, the old definition of a
species being reproductively isolated is unworkable. Have we got too
hung up on "species"? To some of us, there are far more interesting
questions about taxonomic relationships to research!

Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 07:54:02 -0800
From: "Arthur V. Chadwick" <chadwicka@swau.edu>
Subject: RE: The young age of Earth

At 10:46 PM 3/16/99 -0800, Pim wrote:
>It does not matter whether it be Darwinian evolution or not. IC systems
can arise in gradual steps.
>So perhaps it is time that the IC people support their ideas that such
systems cannot arise naturally.

What is your scientific basis for this statement? Perhaps it is time that
the evolution people support their ideas that such systems can arise
naturally, after all they are the ones who make such an assertion. Where
is the evidence?
Art
http://geology.swau.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:41:12 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: RE: The young age of Earth

At 07:54 AM 3/17/99 -0800, Art wrote:
>At 10:46 PM 3/16/99 -0800, Pim wrote:
>>It does not matter whether it be Darwinian evolution or not. IC systems
>can arise in gradual steps.
>>So perhaps it is time that the IC people support their ideas that such
>systems cannot arise naturally.
>
>What is your scientific basis for this statement? Perhaps it is time that
>the evolution people support their ideas that such systems can arise
>naturally, after all they are the ones who make such an assertion. Where
>is the evidence?

Hello Art. Good point.

It seems to me that there are individuals on both sides that over
play their hand, so to speak. For example, a creationist might
claim

C1: "It's impossible for IC systems to arise naturally."

to which an evolutionist may reasonably respond

R1: "Please provide support for this claim."

Likewise, an evolutionist might claim:

C2: "IC systems can arise naturally"

with identical response (R1).

I would tend to agree that if this claim cannot be supported
then it is a statement of faith.

OK, my first question is to suppose that neither claim can be
supported at present (yes, there's always hope for the future:).
What conclusion should one draw?

Before attempting to answer this I think its important to
observe that C1 and C2 are not really reciprocal claims.
Reciprocals would be:

R_C1: "It's impossible for IC systems to be intelligently designed."

R_C2: "IC systems can arise by intelligent design."

OK, I don't know many evolutionists who would make the R_C1
claim. The interesting thing is that R_C2 seems to be taken
axiomatically. If an evolutionist is required to support
C2 then why wouldn't an IC'er be required to support R_C2?

Another point to bear in mind is that "arise naturally" and
"intelligently designed" are not automatically mutually
exclusive and so the definition of ID used in support of
R_C2 needs to be such that it *is* mutually exclusive.

OK, now back to my question. Suppose that none of the
claims C1, C2, R_C1, R_C2 can, at present, be supported.
What to conclude?

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:23:15 -0800
From: "Arthur V. Chadwick" <chadwicka@swau.edu>
Subject: RE: The young age of Earth

At 08:41 AM 3/17/99 -0800, Brian wrote:

>OK, now back to my question. Suppose that none of the
>claims C1, C2, R_C1, R_C2 can, at present, be supported.
>What to conclude?

Perhaps that the question is still open. Likely, appeal will be made to
the fossil record as the arbiter. However, the fossil record has to be
interpreted also, and the same criticisms apply there.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 07:02:02 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth

- --------------2B0FE2D3CA3C37041EF094CC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Arthur

Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:

> Perhaps that the question is still open. Likely, appeal will be made to
> the fossil record as the arbiter. However, the fossil record has to be
> interpreted also, and the same criticisms apply there.
> Art
>

Everything is interpreted, not just the fossil record. So what is your
point? You have lost me completely.

God Bless

Jonathan

- --------------2B0FE2D3CA3C37041EF094CC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Arthur

Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:

Perhaps that the question is still open.  Likely, appeal will be made to
the fossil record as the arbiter.  However, the fossil record has to be
interpreted also, and the same criticisms apply there.
Art
 
Everything is interpreted, not just the fossil record.  So what is your point?  You have lost me completely.

God Bless

Jonathan
  - --------------2B0FE2D3CA3C37041EF094CC-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:23:45 -0800 From: Cliff Lundberg Subject: IC Arthur V. Chadwick wrote: >Pim wrote: >>It does not matter whether it be Darwinian evolution or not. IC systems >can arise in gradual steps. >>So perhaps it is time that the IC people support their ideas that such >systems cannot arise naturally. >What is your scientific basis for this statement? Perhaps it is time that >the evolution people support their ideas that such systems can arise >naturally, after all they are the ones who make such an assertion. Where >is the evidence? Haven't we gone through this a few times already? I suggested the forearm as a simple example; which came first, ulna or radius? How could either part arise gradually, functional at every step and attached at both ends? But it's so easy to see when you trace the gradual distortion and loss of the many symmetrical bones in the lungfish limb. IC people rely heavily on the simple-to-complex strawman. Cliff Lundberg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:41:52 +0000 From: Vernon Jenkins Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science) Greetings Tim: Thanks for writing. I believe the recently-discussed 'peppered moth' fiasco underlines what we all know already, viz that atheists (such as Dawkins and Crick) are desperate to find hard evidence supporting evolution. From the examples of Haeckel and Kettlewell we see that such desperation can lead even "reasonable people" to act wickedly (entirely in keeping with biblical principles!). I therefore stand by my suggestion that evolution, as a theory, is unique in being one that would never be allowed to fail. On the basis of it being true, much money, time, and effort is being expended in detecting highly-developed forms of extraterrestial life. Clearly, whether evolution is true or false, this 'daughter theory' (viz that such life forms exist) is unfalsifiable. Yet, if firm evidence of an alien civilization were to be found as a result of these ongoing investigations, wouldn't that be hailed as a comprehensive vindication of terrestial evolution? The possibility that it might represent another of God's creative acts would, I suggest, be brushed aside. In my view, this universalisation of the theory leads, logically, to the conclusion I proposed, viz in extremis, the basis of evolution is unfalsifiable in the true Popperian sense. You suggest that this argument leads to a situation in which "... all scientific theories can be similarly amended so as to make them unfalsifiable." I've tried to think of an example. Do you have one? > Note: Vernon, on one hand you seem to agree that evolution can be > falsified. You write: "Kevin, you list several events which, were any > to occur, should kill evolution stone dead." In fact I get the > impression that you think evolution is false or already falsified. Yet > later you argue that it cannot be falsified. I don't see how it can be > both. Either it cannot be falsified, in which case prudent dissenters > should stop wasting their time trying to disprove it, or it is > falsifiable, in which case counter-arguments are worth making. As far as I am concerned, evolution is a false doctrine - a conclusion arrived at essentially from theological considerations. Regarding the tangible falsification scenarios suggested by Kevin, each seems to be watertight; yet, if one should arise, experience informs me that it would immediately be 'interpreted' by the atheist lobby, and explained away. In other words, the strongly-presented view that evolution is science, is an illusion; it is, de facto, nothing more than metaphysics. > Aside - In a later reply to Brian, Vernon suggests that birds > were created on the 5th day and land animals on the 6th day. > Let me comment that this hypothesis about the order of creation > can be examined as a scientific question. Yet whether the "days" > in question were 24-hours or longer periods of time, there is > little evidence to support this hypothesis and much more that > argues against it. If we are to use Popper's arguments, then > we should conclude that this creation-order hypothesis is > falsified. And if as Vernon claims, the existence of God is > truly co-dependent on the creation-order hypothesis, then > we should conclude that Vernon's God has likewise been falsified. > I think this illustrates Brian's and Howard's concerns about > rashly overconfident Biblical literalists driving people away from > Christianity. Tim, I hardly think my understanding of Genesis 1 constitutes a 'hypothesis'! The fact that you think it does raises questions about your attitude to the scriptures in general. Can I ask on what basis you decide what passages to believe, and what to discard? I seems clear to me that your regard for evolution is greater than for God's word - a situation which takes us to the Lord's warning concerning 'two masters' (Mt.6:24). If the created order is 'birds, then land animals', (your reference to the meaning of 'day' is clearly irrelevant!) as I believe it is, where does that leave the theistic evolutionist? With regards, Vernon Vernon Jenkins [Musician, Mining Engineer, and Senior Lecturer in Maths and Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan), 1954-87] http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:19:09 -0800 From: "Donald Frack" Subject: RE: Fossil Insects Karen, > -----Original Message----- > From: evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu > [mailto:evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Karen G. Jensen > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 5:15 PM > To: dcfrack@sowest.net > Cc: evolution@calvin.edu > Subject: RE: Fossil Insects > > > > Dear Mr. Frack, > > Thank you for the information you sent on Mesozoic insects. You're welcome. I see that you found a creative boomerang use for the data, considering I was responding to your claim about the lack of Mesozoic insects. I was disappointed to find you citing Hughes _Palaeobiology of Angiosperm Origins_. I assume you have (or have easy reference to) this book. The very section you cite has a discussion indicating that what you said to Steve isn't true. Your "predictions" in your reply reek of ad-hocness (especially "water-resistant"), your use of "kind" at the superfamily or suborder level makes that term even more useless than that of most creationists, and the actual fossil record of insects (as with other organisms), according to your scenarios, leaves the amazing coincidence that fossils are sorted stratigraphically, or, in your view, ecologically AND in phylogenetic order (based on morphology). I'm sorry to be blunt. I have been in discussions before where I wasted my time correcting someone who was using an authoritarian tone on others, as I perceived you were doing to Steve, then have that person shift the discussion and respond, using information I provided to correct errors, as "evidence" of something else. Then I find the person had references all along that showed he/she was not stating things accurately. From this past experience, such discussions become black holes. I wish you well in your "research", but I don't find it worth discussing. Don Frack ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:18:37 -0800 From: "Arthur V. Chadwick" Subject: Re: IC At 11:23 AM 3/17/99 -0800, you wrote: >Arthur V. Chadwick wrote: >>Pim wrote: >>>It does not matter whether it be Darwinian evolution or not. IC systems >>can arise in gradual steps. >>>So perhaps it is time that the IC people support their ideas that such >>systems cannot arise naturally. > >>What is your scientific basis for this statement? Perhaps it is time that >>the evolution people support their ideas that such systems can arise >>naturally, after all they are the ones who make such an assertion. Where >>is the evidence? > >Haven't we gone through this a few times already? I suggested the forearm >as a simple example; which came first, ulna or radius? How could either part >arise gradually, functional at every step and attached at both ends? But it's >so easy to see when you trace the gradual distortion and loss of the many >symmetrical bones in the lungfish limb. What is the scientific basis for your example? If you choose to believe that the "phylogenetic lineages" are in fact that, at least be willing to acknowledge you do so on the basis of an a priori assumption of a specific interpretation of the fossil record and not on the basis of empirical data. On what basis are you "see"ing and "trac[]"ing the process you infer? You should also be willing to acknowledge that it makes just as much sense biologically or probably more, to have things going in the opposite direction (i.e. degeneration), were it not for the fossil record. If you concede that the fossil record is the court of last appeal, I rest my case.. >IC people rely heavily on the simple-to-complex strawman. So do evolutionists. Art http://geology.swau.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:16:55 -0800 From: "Ami Chopine" Subject: Re: IC Cliff: >the forearm as a simple example An example of what is not IC is not evidence that there is no IC. Every case where IC is claimed must be weighed on its own merits. Ami Chopine amka@vcode.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:17:58 -0600 From: "Cummins" Subject: RE: Shh! - a quiet admission > [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Vernon Jenkins > SCIENTISTS PICK HOLES IN DARWIN MOTH THEORY > > > Some fear that the new theories will be seized on by creationists to > fuel "sensationalist" claims questioning all evidence for Darwin. > Richard Dawkins, the professor of the public understanding of science at > Oxford University and author of The Selfish Gene, said: "The details of > any experiments done 40 years ago are bound to be vulnerable to detailed > criticism. But, in any case, nothing momentous hangs on these > experiments." It was obvious from the start that Evolutionists were trying to present the peppered Moths as something that they weren't. The story even as normally told is not the kind of change that can add up and turn a monkey into a man. Now, with the revelations of errors made by Evolutionists concerning the peppered moths, we have yet another example of how Evolutionists create "just so" stories with little regard for reality or science. If they can't get a living textbook example right, how are we to trust them with bone fragments dug up from the ground? What makes this whole debate so silly is that Evolutionists are interested in making up myths, not in science. To them, "Science" is only a false appeal to authority. Get back to me when Evolutionists come up with an mechanism that can be observed to indefinitely create complexity in a closed system. Until the time that such a mechanism is found, "evolution" is a concept foreign to science. BTW, real science stands up to time -- there is no 40 year limit of reliability. Today's Evolutionist beliefs will be 40-years-old in 40 years. If history is any track record, get an early start and just assume that all their stories are false. Even Gould knows that Time is the enemy of Evolution stories. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:09:52 -0600 From: "Karen G. Jensen" Subject: RE: Fossil Insects Dear Mr. Frack, Ok, we don't really have that much more to say about this now anyway. I'm sorry I came across with an "authoritarian tone". Actually, I was discovering some data that I hadn't seen (and should have said so). I have both Hughes' 1976 book and the 1994 one, but hadn't really explored the latter yet. In it (I see now) he dropped his earlier complaint of Cretaceous paucity. Thanks again for your input, even the bluntness. I need to be more humble. Karen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:56:39 -0500 From: Tim Ikeda Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science) Hello again, Vernon. You wrote: >Thanks for writing. I believe the recently-discussed 'peppered moth' >fiasco underlines what we all know already, viz that atheists (such as >Dawkins and Crick) are desperate to find hard evidence supporting >evolution. Don't forget to add Brian Harper and Howard Van Till to that list of desperate atheists... (or are they Christian crypto-atheists?) > From the examples of Haeckel and Kettlewell we see that such >desperation can lead even "reasonable people" to act wickedly (entirely >in keeping with biblical principles!). I therefore stand by my >suggestion that evolution, as a theory, is unique in being one that >would never be allowed to fail. Odd, considering that it rose out of the ashes of natural theology... >On the basis of it being true, much money, time, and effort is being >expended in detecting highly-developed forms of extraterrestial life. A pittance actually, compared to other scientific research programs. SETI is probably staffed more by amateurs than professional scientists. Aside: Funny you should mention SETI. With the old, large satellite antennas becoming pretty cheap, I've considered joining part of the SETI network by putting up a dish antenna and scanner. Perhaps I could work moonbounce and satellite Ham radio modes on the side... For more info see: http://seti1.setileague.org/homepage.html >Clearly, whether evolution is true or false, this 'daughter theory' (viz >that such life forms exist) is unfalsifiable. Yet, if firm evidence of >an alien civilization were to be found as a result of these ongoing >investigations, wouldn't that be hailed as a comprehensive vindication >of terrestial evolution? The possibility that it might represent another >of God's creative acts would, I suggest, be brushed aside. That's not what many creationists said when confronted with the possibility of life on Mars. Therefore, I disagree with that conclusion. That question would turn more on what the ETs had to say about there own condition and history. >In my view, this universalisation of the theory leads, logically, to the >conclusion I proposed, viz in extremis, the basis of evolution is >unfalsifiable in the true Popperian sense. Let's see: Positions held by extremists tend not to be abandoned by extremists when confronted with contradictory evidence. That's practically a truism. Where does that take you? I'll repeat what others have said: Are you certain you're not conflating evolution (a collection of scientific theories) with scientism? There is a difference. The notion of a flat earth is a hypothesis; flat-earthism is something else. Still, if you get a kick out of storming the castle of "scientism", go ahead and knock yourself out. Just remember that the ramparts are vacant; the front door, unlocked; the people inside, passed out from mead; and the maiden, a streetwalker who'll sleep with any dogma with a pulse. So don't be too confounded if few people here yell "Huzzah!" when you come back the victor. >You suggest that this argument leads to a situation in which "... all >scientific theories can be similarly amended so as to make them >unfalsifiable." I've tried to think of an example. Do you have one? Many, actually. Let's take the problem of Mercury's orbit from the perspective of Newtonian mechanics. For many cases, Newton's ideas of planetary motion worked quite well on the assumption of a mutually attractive force between masses. But problems were encountered with fitting Mercury's orbit to the theory. Did that mean the theory was wrong, or could other additional and previously uncharacterized forces have been at work besides gravity? Perhaps this mystery force only worked on materials of which Mercury happened to be made. Perhaps, there was an exchange of particles and energy between Mercury and the sun. Perhaps there was a force generator on Mercury, left by visiting extraterrestrials, that moved Mercury out of its Newtonian orbit. We can postulate hundreds of potential obfuscating interactions that might allow Newtonian gravity to be preserved. In fact, many amendments were proposed. Even today, there are those trying to fit observations to theoretical constructions that specifically do not include Einstein's theories of relativity. Examples "closer to home" for this group include attempts to fit the observations to a model of a young universe. Why does radiodating suggest an old cosmos? Perhaps decay rates were greater in the past. Light from stars millions & billions of light years away? Perhaps the speed of light was greater back then. Etc... Basically, all one need do to preserve a theory from falsification is to add a few more auxiliary propositions to the bundle and voila, an unfalsified theory. [...my previous comments deleted...] >As far as I am concerned, evolution is a false doctrine - a conclusion >arrived at essentially from theological considerations. Regarding the >tangible falsification scenarios suggested by Kevin, each seems to be >watertight; yet, if one should arise, experience informs me that it >would immediately be 'interpreted' by the atheist lobby, and explained >away. In other words, the strongly-presented view that evolution is >science, is an illusion; it is, de facto, nothing more than metaphysics. Again, and in a single paragraph, you're saying that evolution is potentially falsifiable yet not falsifiable. It either is or it isn't. Is this confusion possibly a result of conflating "evolution" (a series of scientific theories) with "evolutionism" (a metaphysical system of belief)? Evolution is supported by people other that atheists. So just possibly, maybe, with the tiniest of chances, is it conceivable that evolution has something slightly more than mass hallucination going for it? [...my previous comments deleted...] >Tim, I hardly think my understanding of Genesis 1 constitutes a >'hypothesis'! Correct. It is not your understanding of Genesis 1, but what you claim it says about the history of the world that constitutes a hypothesis. Vernon, I was subjecting your claim to analysis (Popperian?). Your claim about the relative times of origin for birds and land animals makes a specific statement about the history of life. As such, it can potentially be subjected to testing by observation. What is the problem with that? My suggestion is: "Don't invoke Popper unless you're willing to see him turned around and used to milk your sacred bull." (Pardon the jumbled metaphors) > The fact that you think it does raises questions about >your attitude to the scriptures in general. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. ***Chorus: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Cardinal, fetch the comfy chair! > Can I ask on what basis you >decide what passages to believe, and what to discard? I seems clear to >me that your regard for evolution is greater than for God's word - a >situation which takes us to the Lord's warning concerning 'two masters' >(Mt.6:24) I perceive that opinion as a potential stumbling block to fruitful discussions about the nature of science and scientific theories. >If the created order is 'birds, then land animals', (your reference to >the meaning of 'day' is clearly irrelevant!) as I believe it is, where >does that leave the theistic evolutionist? Most strategies I've seen have been to: 1) Suspect that the passage is allegorical rather than historically factual. 2) Examine the text to see if the original words for "birds" and "land animals" really refers to the classes of animals we think of today (Ancient zoology being rather ambiguous and confused about which organisms belong to which groups). Note that old-earth creationists employ similar arguments. Regards, Tim Ikeda tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:13:27 -0500 From: Tim Ikeda Subject: Re: IC Ami writes: >Cliff: > >>the forearm as a simple example > >An example of what is not IC is not evidence that there is no IC. Every >case where IC is claimed must be weighed on its own merits. What the does the term, "IC" stand for in this discussion thread? I though it was short for "irreducibly complex". However, in recent discussions I've seen it used as if "IC" = "Can't have evolved", which is not the proper use of the term "irreducibly complex" as it has been discussed in the past on this list. "IC"ness a description about a functional interdependance, not evolvability, per se. Fact: IC systems (pace Behe) exist in organisms. One question is whether they can evolve. (Some certainly can. Big deal. I've posted on this before.) The latest focus seems to be whether certain "really complex" IC systems can evolve. An interesting question but not one likely to be resolved in many cases (Resolvability decreases with increasing ages of the systems). Regards, Tim Ikeda tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:39:44 -0500 From: "Bodester" Subject: Re: Shh! - a quiet admission >Now, with the revelations of errors made by Evolutionists concerning the >peppered moths, we have yet another example of how Evolutionists create >"just so" stories with little regard for reality or science. If they >can't get a living textbook example right, how are we to trust them with >bone fragments dug up from the ground? Be very careful there to not throw out someone's work because of one mistake. I'm not saying I dis/agree with evolutionistic theorizing, but be careful to not entirely abandon a field that may have at least a grain of truth in it. >BTW, real science stands up to time -- there is no 40 year limit of >reliability. Today's Evolutionist beliefs will be 40-years-old in 40 >years. If history is any track record, get an early start and just assume >that all their stories are false. Even Gould knows that Time is the enemy >of Evolution stories. History may be a track record, but where would we be if we always focused on what history told us? Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo never would have bothered to propose their ideas. Lets go back a bit farther. Jesus would be considered simply a religious fanatic who CLAIMED to be the Christ as others had done before and have been since. This may sound outrageous, but judging theories by the failures that came before them goes against science! Science IS the adjustment of theories that 'don't work' to fit new discoveries, not the total abandonment of a good idea. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:52:50 -0800 From: Pim van Meurs Subject: RE: The young age of Earth At 10:46 PM 3/16/99 -0800, Pim wrote: >It does not matter whether it be Darwinian evolution or not. IC systems can arise in gradual steps. >So perhaps it is time that the IC people support their ideas that such systems cannot arise naturally. Art: What is your scientific basis for this statement? Perhaps it is = time that the evolution people support their ideas that such systems can arise naturally, after all they are the ones who make such an assertion. = Where is the evidence? =20 How often do I have to post the reference ? = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/ Follow the link to Keith Robinson's article. SO perhaps it is time for = the IC proponents to support their ideas that IC can not arise = gradually. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 02:03:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Wesley R. Elsberry" Subject: Auld lang syne, perhaps "Cummins" wrote: C>What makes this whole debate so silly is that Evolutionists are C>interested in making up myths, not in science. To them, C>"Science" is only a false appeal to authority. Andrew? Is that you? The completely groundless, but sweeping, claims made concerning the integrity of others fits my recollection pretty well. Wesley ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 02:29:52 -0600 From: "Cummins" Subject: RE: Auld lang syne, perhaps > [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Wesley R. > Andrew? Is that you? The completely groundless, but sweeping, > claims made concerning the integrity of others fits my > recollection pretty well. > > Wesley Yes, it's me. And, I'm still waiting for an emperical example of an indefinite increase of complexity in a closed system (evolution). So far you've hypothesized the equivalent of an invisible pink unicorn (evolution)and you say it's running around because you can see its tracks in the ground (the circumstantial evidence). Present the unicorn -- I say those are just horse tracks. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 00:54:40 -0800 From: "Ami Chopine" Subject: Re: The young age of Earth snipping dictionary def. Pim says: >Now wouldn't it be cool if there was a more scientific definition as >well. It sure would. So, why don't we all put our heads together and come up with one? snip Pim, refering to genetic code arising from natural interactions: >Of course there are two problems here 1) are these interactions >random There could have been a chemical tendancy in the codons to be attracted to certain amino acids, and/or the protein interface between those amino acids and tRNA. Has this been shown? 2)are there any inherent problems why this could NOT have happened ? Unless there is that molecular tendancy I spoke about, How do you get from static information (the molecular structure of itself), to dynamic information, that is being able to store the molecular structure of independent proteins as well as the ability to create those proteins. Not only do you have a set of molecules which are symbolic for other molecules, but you have a mechanism by which to convert those symbols into their representations. Pim: >And yet I have still not seen any coherent argument why information >is an issue here. me: There has been no obervation of symbols used to represent objects that I am aware of outside of intellegent behavior. The advent of the genetic code is unobserved. me previously: >It takes more evolution, IMO, to come from simple chemicals to >single celled animals than from those single celled animals to >humans or other complex organisms. Pim: >The data suggest that this might not be correct. Abiogenesis had >only a 0.5 billion years to happen. This is not a very sound conclusion. Let me use an analogy here. Lets say Bob, who lives in San Francisco, is visiting me in Portland. He forgot to say what mode of transportation he would be using, but I know that he left 2 1/2 hours ago. Seeing him drive up, I comment that driving here would have taken him 12 hours. To which you reply: The data suggests that this might not be correct. Bob had only 2 1/2 hours to drive here. Your reasoning is based on the assumption that abiogenesis is fact. It is not. It is a theory. The time factor may falsify it. We do not know enough yet to make any conclusions. Ami Chopine amka@vcode.com ------------------------------ End of evolution-digest V1 #1346 ********************************