[net.origins] Catastrophic Evolution: reply # 2 to Wm. Jefferys

ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (08/12/85)

     Okay,  as  Ronald  Reagan  says,  here  we  go  again.  Let's
examine the points Mr. Jefferys  is  attempting  to  make,  one by
one.

1.   Have evolutionists  been winning  any serious debates against
     creationists lately?   Possibly, if  the later  have taken to
     claiming  humans  are  closer  to bullfrogs than chimpanzees;
     crippled science versus crippled religion could  break either
     way on a given afternoon.  I'll concede this one.

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.   In  reality,  some  people take
     net.origins more  seriously than  others and I could think of
     at least five reasons why  Kukuk  and  Brown  might  not have
     defended some of these theses.

          a.   They might have died.
          b.   They might have moved to Bolivia.
          c.   Their computer might be on the fritz.
          d.   Same  might  have  been  replaced  with  a non-Unix
               system.
          e.   They might regard debating  Mr. Jefferys  as  a bad
               usage of time.

3.   This one  you have  to follow over time to try to judge.
     I originally wrote:

>    If Ron's 116 aren't good enough, I've got  several more.  The
>one that  really kills  Darwinism as far as I'm concerned goes as
>follows: chance mutations  are mostly  harmful or  fatal and even
>these  are  rare.   The  ones  which aren't harmful are extremely
>rare and are isolated  in time  and local  e.g. a child  with six
>fingers  may  be  born  in  Paris  in 1725 A.D. and the next such
>child in Chicago in 1912 A.D.  What are the chances  of these two
>marrying  and   having  six-fingered   children?   Further,  many
>higher animals will  simply  kill  mutants.   Amongst  humans, in
>every century  prior to  this one,  this phenomenon took the form
>of the witchcraft trial.  

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:

>Duplication   and   rearrangement   by   who   or   what  agency?
>Dr. Frankenstein?   My  understanding  is  that  when this occurs
>naturally, the clinical term is cancer.

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.


4.   The  question   of  whether  humans  could  have  caused  the
     extermination of the mega-fauna  of North  America or whether
     catastrophies are  needed to  explain this phenomenen, I have
     dealt with in another  article which  is on  the net  at this
     time.  As  to Mr. Jeffery's claim that pteratorns died out 60
     million years ago, I come back to Mr. Reagan's  famous quote,
     "there he  goes again".  Maybe if this point gets hammered at
     our present generation of  scientists  long  enough,  it will
     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.

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,
(Mr. Jefferys can  call it  whatever he  wants), no new species 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."

Where have you been since 1907, Mr. Jefferys?

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.
     Mr. Jeffery's reply  to my  short attempt to give net.origins
     readers a flavor  for  the  thesis  of  David  Talbott's "The
     Saturn  Myth",   was  another  one  of  Carl  Sagan's  cutsey
     comments.  Sagan, apparently, is driven by guilt over his own
     past  indulgences   in  what  he  would  now  call  crank  or
     pseudo-science;  these  included  published  articles  on the
     probability that  aliens were using the dark side of the moon
     as a staging area for  an  imminent  invasion  of  the earth.
     ANYBODY FEEL  LIKE TALKING ABOUT PSEUDO-SCIENCE?  Sagan seeks
     to atone  for all  of this  by his  present crusading against
     anything even  a little  bit off the beaten path, or unusual.

     Readers will notice that I don't use the terms pseudo-science
or  pseudo-scientist.   If I  had some reason to insult or degrade
someone  who  I  thought  was  making a  bogus  claim to  being  a
scientist, I would call him an astronomer.

     Have human beings ever seen a pteratorn?  You wouldn't expect
an eye-witness account in the Ninevah Times or anything, and there
is no mention of them in the Old Testament.  But the Old Testament
is laconic; it seems to have been intended largely as a kind of an
index to what  the  Jews  call  Midrashim,  or  the  full  body of
rabbinical lore.   Consider Louis Ginzberg's seven volumn "Legends
of the Jews", 1909, available from the Jewish  Publication Society
of America.   This is  the closest thing there is to a translation
of any really large body of  Midrashim into  English.  From Volumn
I, "The Creation to Jacob":

page 4

     "Again, in  Tishri, at  the time of the autumnal equinox, the
     great bird ziz flaps his wings  and utters  his cry,  so that
     the birds  of prey,  the eagles and the vultures, blench, and
     they fear to swoop down upon  the others  and annihilate them
     in their greed."

page 28

     "As Leviathon(the whale) is the king of fishes, so the ziz is
     appointed to rule over the birds."

     I intend  shortly to  publish an  article on  the net dealing
with  the  nature  of  evidence  from  the  realm of mythology.  I
believe that  scientists  ignore  and  ridicule  such  evidence at
their peril.

peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/14/85)

Irellevent digression time:

>      Such  processes  could  account  for  the  difference between
> a wolf and a collie, but  not for  the differences  between a wolf

A wolf and a collie are the same species genetically. They're
differentiated taxonomically, but that doesn't mean anything.
There are any number of cases where taxonomy falls down.

My favorite is Tursiops Truncatus and Steno Bredanensis. Taxonomically
they're different genera, but are capable of mating & producing viable
offspring.

Actually I'd classify the chiuahuah and great dane as different species,
since they can't crossbreed in nature :->.
-- 
	Peter da Silva (the mad Australian)
		UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
		MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076

bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/14/85)

I don't want to waste my time in a shouting match with
Mr. Holden.  I stand by what I wrote, and would be
happy to debate the points I made with anyone who wants
to discuss them on the basis of reason and evidence.

Thank you for listening.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)

dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (08/16/85)

[]

> Actually I'd classify the chiuahuah and great dane as different species,
> since they can't crossbreed in nature :->.

As Bette Midler said, "There's no such thing as bad sex -
there's just people who don't fit together."

Isaac Dimitrovsky
allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov   (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1)
251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012

... Hernandez steps in to face ... Orl ... HERchiiiser ... and it's a liiine
driive, deeeeep to the gap in left center ...	- Bob Murphy, Voice of the Mets