rlp@cbosgd.UUCP (Bob Platt) (08/16/85)
>From: ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) >The nastiest problem which Darwinists face, in my estimation, >explaining the development of ancient animals INTO a >situation of size and weight which would totally prohibit >their very existence on this planet >The basic manner in which this problem is now >handled by "scientists" like Mr. Jefferys is to hope that it >goes away or that nobody notices it. A rich analogy for dealing with supposed problems like this comes from hydrodynamics. Water follows the principle of always seeking the lowest level, yet a stream's course is determined solely by local conditions. A stream does not "know" if the valley it is flowing into is actually rising (due to plate tectonic forces). Moreover once a course is taken, it becomes ingrained. Likewise, as a species courses through "fitness space" always seeking the highest fitness, its evolution also follows a local determinism. It doesn't know if by going through a slightly less fit intermediate form, it may end up more fit in the end, or if the very evolutionary ground it is relying on may break up due to some cataclysm. In this light, many anti-Darwinian arguments become isomorphic to silly statements like "Lake Tahoe is compelling evidence that water does not tend to flow downhill." If this were the main problem with evolutionary theory, we would be fortunate, but many more serious ones need to be tackled. P.S. I'm looking forward to your article on legendary sources of information that bear on evolution. Joe Knapp (cbosgd!nscs!jmk)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/19/85)
In article <369@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > >2. Mr. Jefferys claims that every single one of Ron Kukuk > and Walter Brown's 116 points are invalid, because they > have not taken the time to defend them on net.origins. > This is a logical falicy. As stated, I agree, it is a logical fallacy. However there is another reason why the 116 points are invalid. That is that when those who understand the evidence evaluate these points they have found them to be invalid! I and the few others here on the net who have a real background in science have found no merit in any of them. Did you see the tally that was being kept of the validity of the 116 points?(Unfortunately the person who was doing it found he did not have the time to continue). The basic results of this were that most of the points were basd on invalid reasoning. > > >Mr. Jefferys replied: > >>Finally, mutation is probably a minor (though important) >>mechanism in evolution. Duplication and rearrangement of genetic >>material are thought to be much more important, and they are >>experimentally well documented. > >Here I assumed Mr. Jefferys was talking about something other than >mutation, which I take to be any abnormal difference between a >child and its parent. At least, that's what it sounds like. I >replied: This is a rather poor definition of mutation. Mutation is any change in the genetic material affecting offspring. It may or may not be visible. In fact it may be almost any sort of difference at all. Many common variants are continually recreated by means of mutatuion, so the resulting features need not even be previously unknown! > >Mr. Jefferys now replies: > >>You are misinformed. This process goes on all the time in the >>production of the gametes. Look up "meiosis" in any elementary >>biology book. > > You mean that the gametes are changed so that the children >come out looking different from their parents? Isn't that >mutation? I mean, why play games with words? I prefer straight >talk to semantical games myself. > O.K. straight talk, Mr Jefferys is saying that processes of change are normal, and occur every day. And he is not playing games with words, he is using standard scientific terminology! > > begin to sink in. These huge expanses of time exist only in > the imaginations of some scientists. Kukuk and Brown provide > ample documentation of the fact that dinosaur and human > footprints have been found together, not only in America, but > in the Soviet Union as well. There is also the case of "The > Doheney Scientific Expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon, > Northern Arizona, 1925" (1927) by S. Hubbard. There, scenes > depicting humans, modern animals, AND DINOSAURS, were found > on the walls of caves, the entire walls being covered with > the natural 'desert varnish', indicating great age. Sixty > million years? Bullshit. Kukuk and Brown give compelling > evidence that most of the systems which scientists have > used to date past ages are logically circular. The ones > which aren't make the tacit assumption of uniformity, > that present processes can be extended backwards in time > forever. Even one catastrophy of a global nature, and > there have been several, ruins all of those assumptions. > And I say BULL right back. Kukuk and Brown have provided ample documentation of *nothing*. Thier supposed evidence for circularity in dating methods is based on a complete misunderstanding of how these things are really done. And what sorts of catastrophes would restructure physics without leaving clear signs of thier occurance? >5. Mr. Jefferys claims: > >>Speciation is believed to occur after a breeding population >>becomes isolated, and as a result of the cumulative effects of >>many genetic changes. > > Such processes could account for the difference between >a wolf and a collie, but not for the differences between a wolf >and a kangaroo. Again, my original argument, chance mutations are >too few and far between. Despite all chance mutations, How did you demonstrate this? What mechanism limits mutation plus natural selection to such small changes? Once a speciation event has occured the process simply starts over again with the new species. > no new sp. of mammals has appeared since the ice ages. > Serious scientists gave >up on this aspect of Darwinism many years ago. V.L. Kellog of >Stanford wrote the following in 1907: > > "The fair truth is that the Darwinian selection > theories, considered with regard to their claimed > capacity to be an independantly sufficient mechanical > explanation of descent, stand today seriously > discredited in the biological world." > And this paper has been seriously discredited since then! In 1907 Dr Kellog simply did not have the evidence we have today. You are entirely wrong about this whole matter. Serious scientists *do* still accept the basic tenets of Darwin's theories. And there may well have been several new species of mammal formed since the Ice Ages, there are a number of locally endemic species of small mammal in various parts of the world which show signs of recent origin. It is immensely concieted to say you know for sure that none of these forms is of recent origin. In fact, I consider the domestic dog to be a new species, different from its wild ancestors. >6. The nastiest problem which Darwinists face, in my estimation, > is explaining the development of ancient animals INTO a > condition of size and weight which would totally prohibit > their very existence on this planet, at least as this planet > exists now. The basic manner in which this problem is now > handled by "scientists" like Mr. Jefferys is to hope that it > goes away or that nobody notices it. I don't regard that as > science. David Talbott, formerly of the Pensee journal, the > old Student Academic Freedom Forum, presents a rational > picture of the archaic world, including the conditions > necessary for pteratorns and brontosaurs to exist. What animals existed that cannot now exist? Every case of supposedly impossible animals that I know of was a case of ad hoc guessing without proper analysis. In *every* case, when the proper analysis was made the idea that these animals would be impossible today has proven to be *wrong*. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen