ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (08/06/85)
I don't normally reply to responses to my own articles on the net; they are too many and varied and I don't have the time. In this case it seems necessary because someone who didn't know any better could get the impression that the article had been refuted point by point. Let's examine some of the highlights of Mr. Jefferys article. >These days, debates between Creationists and >Evolutionists are regularly won by evolutionists. Where? When? I mean in a reasonably well attended setting , not Rhetoric 101 at UT. Like I say, I haven't heard about it. My own training was in science (math) and not religion. I wouldn't feel good about publishing in a journal "refereed" by "scientists" in the case of the creation-evolution debate. I would prefer well attended debates with members of the press present as was the case in Roanoke. I know "scientists" a little bit too well. > The probability that any of Ron's arguments is >valid is precisely 0. In science, it is not the number >of arguments but their correctness that counts. This one speaks for itself. It obviously tells an impartial observer more about the author than about the subject matter. >Groups of humans with six fingers are known. The trait >breeds true. There is one such group in (I believe) >Appalachia. Like I said, these people are fortunate to be living in the 20'th century. Being burned at the stake was never much fun. But six-fingered humans seems to have been the wrong example to use. Mr. Jefferys seems to have missed the logical point because the example. Six and five-fingered humans could interbreed. A change from one species to another with no possability of interbreeding could only happen if more than one of the new species appeared at one time i.e. under catastrophic circumstances as I described. >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. Duplication and rearrangement by who or what agency? Dr. Frankenstein? My understanding is that when this occurs naturally, the clinical term is "cancer". >It is well established that the first people in the >Western hemisphere were responsible for the extinction >of most of the large mammals in North and South >America. They had nothing but stone weapons, but their >methods were extremely effective. I love this one! The creatures Mr. Jefferys has in mind include several which I wouldn't want to face with anything less than a 50 caliber machine gun. My favorite ancient animal is the pteratorn, not really a mammal, but why be strict? Mr. Jefferys will sooner or later have to account for the pteratorn's extinction as well. The pteratorn was a 200 lb. golden eagle with a 30 foot wingspan. An eagle's ability to kill things is grossly out of proportion to its size. 20 Pound Berkut eagles on the USSR kill foxes and wolves by crushing their skulls in their 11 inch talons and deers by DRIVING THEIR TALONS IN AROUND THE DEER'S SPINE AND SNAPPING IT. In a way, it's a shame pteratorns are extinct. I really feel the guys at the UT astronomy department deserve a shot at trying to kill one with their spears. I am morally certain that the pteratorn would enjoy the meal as much as I would enjoy the (brief) spectacle. It wouldn't be quite fair to say that the guys from UT would fare as badly or worse than the Neanderthals of 10,000 years ago; the Neanderthals would know better than to try it. Since the only danger to the pteratorn would be indigestion, the SPCA would probably not object to the event being staged. >Really? And what mechanism do you propose to change >the force of gravity on the earth? I can forgive Mr. Jefferys for this one. This one involves a radical departure from present thinking. Immanuel Velikovsky was aware of this but refrained from including it in "Worlds in Collision, Vol I" specifically because it would seem too weird to most people. Every book on dinosaurs I have read mentions the problem of weight for these animals; most state that brontosaurs lived in water even though their bodies show no adaptation for an aquatic life, simply because rudimentary calculations showed that their legs would not support them on land. The problem for large birds is more appalling. I have actually seen books which state that pterosaurs and pteratorns climbed up mountains and then glided down again, a hell of a hard way to have to make a living. The authors were admitting that 200 lb birds can't fly in our world. The evidence from ancient life forms is that the force of gravity on earth changed somewhere along the line. I posted an article on this about a month ago and Mr. Jefferys apparently missed it. For his sake, I will repeat some of the arguments involved. The best recommendation I can make to someone who wants to understand this phenomenon is to read David Talbott's "The Saturn Myth", still available from Doubleday. The following brief description of the archaic world will sound strange; remember, there was a time when cars and trains seemed strange, and a time when forks seemed strange to the English nobility. ......................................................... Velikovsky's long promised "Worlds in Collision, Chapter II", dealing with the nature of the world prior to the flood, was essentially published in 1980 in the form of "The Saturn Myth" by David Talbott, available from DoubleDay. Articles on the same and similar topics appear regularly in the Kronos Journal, subscriptions ($15/year) from: Kronos P.O. Box 343 Wynnewood, PA 19096 The ancients believed that Jupiter and Saturn had been live stars within the memory of man. Greeks and Romans described the planetary systems of Jupiter and Saturn as the dual systems of dieties, Olympian gods under Zeus (Jupiter), and Titans under Kronos (Saturn). Egyptians described the same thing as a "double Ennead", the systems of Set and Horus. They believed there had been an ORBITING mantel of water, not clouds, high over the world; that one hadn't needed be but so much of a prophet to know it was going to fall some day. They described the sky as the primeval watery abyss. The first paragraph of Genesis refers to the sky as a firmamemt built to seperate the waters above from the waters below. The great hymns to Osiris in the Egyptian Book of the Dead refer to Osiris as having fashioned man and the primeval watery abyss of the sky. Nearly identical language concerning the sky can be found in Snorri Sturleson's Prose Edda, not because of any early contacts between Skandanavia and Egypt, but because these peoples obviously saw the same sky. These stories are fragments of racial memory, bits and pieces of a picture which can be put together with just a little bit of effort. Prior to the flood, we were a planet of Saturns. This sounds crazy at first, but the pictures inside the pyramids depict this repeatedly. The idea definitely didn't sound crazy to Akhnaten. The North pole faced Saturn directly, and we hung perilously close to the small star. The gravitational interaction between the star and planet was intense; particals and debris were trapped in between permanently and picked up the glow of the star, resembling a great mountain rising straight from the North Pole to the star, the myth of the god on the mountain, Zeus on Olympus, Jahveh on Zion etc. Creatures living in the gravitational tug of war which <------ existed then got big, 200 pound birds which couldn't fly today, Brontosaurs and Ultrasaurs which couldn't even walk today, even in water since their feet, having no adaptation for water, would sink hopelessly into the mud on river bottoms. You haven't heard of the ultrasaur, you say? The people at Penn State apparently have acquired him rather recently. He could swallow a brontosaur. The brontosaur's problem with weight would have seemed minor compared to his. Why couldn't a 200 lb. bird fly? When animals get bigger, their weight goes up in proportion to volumn, a cubed figure. Strength only goes up in proportion to cross sections of bones and muscles, a squared figure; that is why you never see 200 lb. gymnists even though you do see splendid athletes over 200 lbs, they simply don't have the power-to-weight ratio. Every other measure of the bodies efficiency goes up in proportion to other squared figures: your ability to breathe goes up in proportion to surface area of lungs, to cool yourself in portion to total body surface area, and, of course, surface area of wings is vital to birds. The largest birds which fly in OUR world hang in around 12 to 25 pounds and all have major difficulties with takeoffs and landings, the worst case being albatrosses which sailors call goonie-birds for that reason. The heiroglyphs for Ra, Atum, Osiris etc., names at various time periods for the elder god of Egypt, are basically just pictures of a star inside a ring, pictures of Saturn. Usually the ringed star sits on either a pyramid shaped mound or, as in the case of the loop at the top of the ankh symbol, atop the Egyptian symbol for a pillar or structural support. In E. A. Wallis Budge's The Book of the Dead (1895), Dover paperback version available cheaply, several different versions of these pictures can be seen. One symbol is nearly exactly what I have described, a dot inside a circle supported by three lightning forks in the form of a triangle which appears in any word meaning "to brighten" or "illuminate". The glyph for Ra takes the form of a humanized god sitting on his haunches and either a dot inside a circle or a hoop snake with a dot inside the coil. The word Khut (mound of glory) is a circle atop a mound. A five point star inside a circle appears on page 10, the word tuat. Often these pictures take the form of a star inside a half-circle or crescent, all atop a pyramid, indicating that Saturn's ring showed phases, since the crescent is variously to one or the other side, or above or below the star. The term "paut neteru" (substance of the gods) recurs in the book; it is pictured as a ring with one side widened, the other side narrowed to a point. The Moslem symbol of a star inside a crescent is basically this picture, not a picture of the sun inside a crescent moon (which no one has ever seen). Hesiod, in "Works and Days" and Ovid, in "The Metamorphoses" use identical language in describing a "Golden Age of Man" when Kronos (Saturn) was king of heaven (the sun). The ancient world was of one mind in believing that age to have been a far better one than theirs. However, that age came crashing down with a stellar blowout INSIDE our solar system followed, seven days later, by the Noachian deluge. Twice in Genesis in the story of Noah (Genesis 7-4 and 7-10) the seven days prior to the flood are mentioned. The only other reference to these days in the old testament occurs in Isiah 30:26 "Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of the seven days...". This was the basis for the seven day light festivals of the ancient world, Hannukah, the Roman Saturnalia etc. The solar system was a long time settling into its present state after the flood. Part of the story of these times is told in Velikovsky's major book, "Worlds in Collision" which is worth reading. Saturn was still visible for a long time afterwards and was worshipped as Osiris, god of the dead, by the Egyptians, the prototypical ressurection story. Lest anyone have any doubts that these Egyptians saw a different sky than ours, the following are direct quotes from the various hymns to Osiris in the Dover paperback version of Budge's "Egyptian Book of the Dead": page 250 "..thou risest, coming forth from the god Nu. Thou hast come with thy splendors and thou hast made heaven and earth bright with thy rays of PURE EMERALD LIGHT" page 251 "...thou dost arise in the horizen of heaven and shed upon the world beams of emerald light;..." page 254 "..Through thee the world waxeth green before the might of Neb-er tcher.... Thy body is of gold, thy head of azure, and emerald light encircleth thee.." The pictures of Osiris in human form on the pyramid walls were, of course, green.
peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (08/07/85)
> proportion to its size. 20 Pound Berkut eagles on > the USSR kill foxes and wolves by crushing their > skulls in their 11 inch talons and deers by 11 inch talons? Have you ever seen an eagle? Have you any idea how ludicrous this is?
heller@shell.UUCP (Don Heller) (08/07/85)
> >It is well established that the first people in the > >Western hemisphere were responsible for the extinction > >of most of the large mammals in North and South > >America. They had nothing but stone weapons, but their > >methods were extremely effective. > > I love this one! The creatures Mr. Jefferys has in > mind include several which I wouldn't want to face > with anything less than a 50 caliber machine gun. Killing a mastodon is actually pretty easy. Get about 20 people and throw rocks at it. Eventually you can force it over the edge of a cliff. Now if this could only work on <fill in the blank yourself>, we'd all be a lot better off. -- Don Heller Computer Science Dept. Shell Development Company P.O. Box 481 Houston, Texas 77001 713-663-2341 {ihnp4, pur-ee, ut-sally}!shell!heller
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/07/85)
I realize that Ted Holden is merely as facet of my own subconscious, created only for my amusement, by I am forced to respond anyway. In article <365@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > I don't normally reply to responses to my own >articles on the net; That is because you do not really exist, by that's okay! >>These days, debates between Creationists and >>Evolutionists are regularly won by evolutionists. > Where? When? I read one is Scientific American magazine about four years ago. The creationist really got smashed. Honest. > I wouldn't feel > good about publishing in a journal "refereed" by > "scientists" in the case of the creation-evolution > debate. Yeah, you might be subjected to FAIRNESS! > I would prefer well attended debates with > members of the press present as was the case in > Roanoke. The press has never been known for its scientific accuracy in anything. >>Groups of humans with six fingers are known. The trait >>breeds true. There is one such group in (I believe) >>Appalachia. > > Like I said, these people are fortunate to be > living in the 20'th century. Being burned at the > stake was never much fun. Actually, the tribe mentioned is in the Himalayas where they have never burned anybody at the stake for witchcraft. Not everybody grew up with the same pea-brained western culture you did. > Mr. Jefferys > will sooner or later have to account for the > pteratorn's extinction as well. The pteratorn was > a 200 lb. golden eagle with a 30 foot wingspan. Hmmmmm. I think it might have trouble finding something to eat. >>Really? And what mechanism do you propose to change >>the force of gravity on the earth? > > I can forgive Mr. Jefferys for this one. This one > involves a radical departure from present > thinking. And present fact as well! Very amusing! Well done! > I have actually > seen books which state that pterosaurs and > pteratorns climbed up mountains and then glided > down again, a hell of a hard way to have to make a > living. That might explain why they died. > archaic world will sound strange; remember, there > was a time when cars and trains seemed strange, and > a time when forks seemed strange to the English > nobility. And now science seems strange to educated people. How odd. > They described the sky as the primeval watery >abyss. The first paragraph of Genesis refers to the sky >as a firmamemt built to separate the waters above from >the waters below. The great hymns to Osiris in the >Egyptian Book of the Dead refer to Osiris as having >fashioned man and the primeval watery abyss of the sky. >Nearly identical language concerning the sky can be >found in Snorri Sturleson's Prose Edda, not because of >any early contacts between Skandanavia and Egypt, but >because these peoples obviously saw the same sky. These >stories are fragments of racial memory, bits and pieces >of a picture which can be put together with just a >little bit of effort. The Book of the Subgenius describes shopping malls as an attempt to subvert a super-race of beings that will come to life in 1998. I find that a little easier to swallow. > Prior to the flood, we were a planet of Saturns. >This sounds crazy at first, I've read it twice and it still sounds crazy. >Saturn directly, and we hung perilously close to the >small star. Saturn's a planet. >You haven't heard of the ultrasaur, >you say? The people at Penn State apparently have >acquired him rather recently. No, the CREATIONISTS at Penn State acquired him. Of course, they will immediately send it up to their doubting colleagues at Harvard and it will be lost in the mail. > Why couldn't a 200 lb. bird fly? I suppose for the same reason a ten ton jet can't fly. > The heiroglyphs for Ra, Atum, Osiris etc., names at >various time periods for the elder god of Egypt, are >basically just pictures of a star inside a ring, >pictures of Saturn. Wrongo. The dot inside the ring represented the Sun, specifically. A ring without a dot was the moon. Any self-respecting symbol dictionary will tell you that. The symbol for Saturn is radically different. >Usually the ringed star sits on >either a pyramid shaped mound or, as in the case of the >loop at the top of the ankh symbol, atop the Egyptian >symbol for a pillar or structural support. Actually, the circle in the ankh represented the female moon goddess, fertility of the sky, and the cross represented the earth, terrestrial fertility. The ankh never had anything to do with saturn. >page 250 "..thou risest, coming forth from the god Nu. > Thou hast come with thy splendors and thou > hast made heaven and earth bright with thy > rays of PURE EMERALD LIGHT" >page 251 "...thou dost arise in the horizon of heaven > and shed upon the world beams of emerald > light;..." > >page 254 "..Through thee the world waxeth green before > the might of Neb-er tcher.... Thy body is of > gold, thy head of azure, and emerald light > encircleth thee.." > > The pictures of Osiris in human form on the pyramid >walls were, of course, green. This is metaphorical, or do you insist Saturn burned green? The green light was Aural in nature, a spiritual and unseen force. The green symbolize growth and love. Stay away from shopping malls. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I was going to say something really profound, but I forgot what it was." -Rev. Wang Zeep
morse@leadsv.UUCP (Terry Morse) (08/08/85)
At least Velikovsky had one inkling of a good notion, that of evolutionary
change coming from catastrophe. If present theories are to be believed,
mammals never would have gained dominance over this planet, had it not been
for the catastrophe (comet collision, asteroid collision) some 65 million
years ago that all but wiped out the great reptiles.
As for the rest of his assertions, they are just too wild and
unsubstantiated for any serious scientist to believe.
--
Terry Morse (408)743-1487
{ seismo!nsc!cae780 } | { sun!sunncal } !leadsv!morsebill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/09/85)
I have submitted another article on Pseudoscience, which addresses parts of Ted Holden's recent submission. In this article I address some other specific points he raised. >>These days, debates between Creationists and >>Evolutionists are regularly won by evolutionists. > > Where? When? I mean in a reasonably well attended > setting , not Rhetoric 101 at UT. Like I say, I > haven't heard about it. For example, at the University of Minnesota last February 18th, where Duane Gish, Creationism's most formidable debater (and one has to give him every bit of respect for his debating skills), was soundly defeated. He was challenged publically, as he has been for the past several years, to give references for his amazing claims that proteins in human blood are more similar to those in bullfrog blood than they are in chimpanzee blood. When he repeatedly avoided answering this question, the audience gave him an well-deserved hard time. One scientist who has debated Dr. Gish recently, Emanuel Sillman, reported after his experience (in Creation/Evolution Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 4), "No scientist *who prepares well* should overlook the opportunity to debate Gish or Morris. It may well be that you don't make any converts, but you certainly can raise questions in the minds of any group of people...The arguments [Gish and Morris] raise are familiar, and easily rebutted." I might mention that in Sillman's debate with Gish, the audience was "stacked" against him, because the debate was sponsored by four fundamentalist churches and the local Teens for Christ. Sillman, at least, isn't afraid of the big bad Creationists! >> The probability that any of Ron's arguments is >>valid is precisely 0. In science, it is not the number >>of arguments but their correctness that counts. > > This one speaks for itself. It obviously tells an > impartial observer more about the author than > about the subject matter. Ron has not defended a single one of his arguments. If any of them had had any validity, he would certainly have done so, but he hasn't. He doesn't even have the excuse of claiming that net.origins is a refereed journal, and that the evolutionist conpiracy would reject his article! So Ron himself has shown us by his eloquent silence that his arguments are not credible. >>Groups of humans with six fingers are known. The trait >>breeds true. There is one such group in (I believe) >>Appalachia. > > Like I said, these people are fortunate to be > living in the 20'th century. Being burned at the > stake was never much fun. But six-fingered humans > seems to have been the wrong example to use. > Mr. Jefferys seems to have missed the logical point > because the example. Six and five-fingered humans > could interbreed. A change from one species to > another with no possability of interbreeding could > only happen if more than one of the new species > appeared at one time i.e. under catastrophic > circumstances as I described. This is a strawman argument. An incorrect mechanism for speciation is proposed as if that is what evolutionists believe. Then the strawman is demolished. No evolutionist claims that new species arise from a single mutation. Speciation is believed to occur after a breeding population becomes isolated, and as a result of the cumulative effects of many genetic changes. It is easy to find examples of this. For one, there are "ring species" of birds, which is a chain of bird populations, extending entirely around the globe. Each population interbreeds freely with its neighbors, yet at the two ends of the chain, (where they join up) the populations are reproductively isolated, and are in fact different species. This situation probably arose as members of the population migrated around the globe, maintaining their interbreeding with neighboring members of the population; yet when the migrating population eventually met up with the original population , they were so different that they had to be classified as different species. In general, given time, a reproductively isolated population will evolve into a new species. If six-fingered humans were to be isolated from the general population for long enough, they would also eventually evolve into a distinct species. >>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. > > Duplication and rearrangement by who or what > agency? Dr. Frankenstein? My understanding is > that when this occurs naturally, the clinical term > is "cancer". You are misinformed. This process goes on all the time in the production of the gametes. Look up "meiosis" in any elementary biology book. >>It is well established that the first people in the >>Western hemisphere were responsible for the extinction >>of most of the large mammals in North and South >>America. They had nothing but stone weapons, but their >>methods were extremely effective. > > I love this one! The creatures Mr. Jefferys has in > mind include several which I wouldn't want to face > with anything less than a 50 caliber machine gun. > My favorite ancient animal is the pteratorn, not > really a mammal, but why be strict? ... How is this relevant? How can humans cause the extinction of a species that died out 60 million years before there were any humans? Ted later gives a long quotation about ancient legends, but I will pass on it. For one thing,I am not competent to discuss ancient legends. For another, I question that such legends can seriously be considered in evidence of any kind of astronomical events. Carl Sagan remarked that when he discussed *Worlds in Collision* with someone who was competent in the area of Semitic Studies, the latter remarked that although the Assyriology, Egyptology, Biblical scholarship and all of that Talmudic and Midrashic *pilpul* was, of course, nonsense, he was impressed by the astronomy. Sagan remarked that his view was quite the opposite. By the way, I would like to know if the more sensible Creationists on the net, such as Paul Dubois, appreciate this "help" they are getting from the Velikovskyites. It seems to me that by making the Creationist cause look even more ridiculous, the Velikovkyites are doing more harm to the Creationist cause than good. Am I right? -- "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)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/12/85)
In article <365@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > I wouldn't feel > good about publishing in a journal "refereed" by > "scientists" in the case of the creation-evolution > debate. I would prefer well attended debates with > members of the press present as was the case in > Roanoke. I know "scientists" a little bit too well. > And I know the press too well, I have *no* faith in the ability of newsmen to understand science at all! After reading some of the articles on "scinece" innewspapers, and seeing what TV news has done to science, I find myself unable to give any mer credence to anything they say. As for debates before the general public, they are won by speaking ability *not* logic or correctness, and a speech contest is a poor way to determine truth. >> The probability that any of Ron's arguments is >>valid is precisely 0. In science, it is not the number >>of arguments but their correctness that counts. > > This one speaks for itself. It obviously tells an > impartial observer more about the author than > about the subject matter. > But that is the whole *basis* of science, looking for the *fact*, not merely what sounds good, or who can say the most. Mr. Jeffreys is *right*. > Mr. Jefferys seems to have missed the logical point > because the example. Six and five-fingered humans > could interbreed. A change from one species to > another with no possability of interbreeding could > only happen if more than one of the new species > appeared at one time i.e. under catastrophic > circumstances as I described. Or by gradual accumulation of changes in a small, physically isolated population. Under such circumstances there is no reason why the isolate could not develope reprocuctive isolation from the other formerly con-specific populations it is now seperated from. > > > Duplication and rearrangement by who or what > agency? Dr. Frankenstein? My understanding is > that when this occurs naturally, the clinical term > is "cancer". > Wrong! It is called chromosomal mutation, and *some* instances of it *may* lead to cancer, but by no means all. In fact the only result is may well be reproductive isolation! (Though I think such a limited effect is probably rare). To see how some of this works, try locating the various studies on the genetics of *wild* species of Drosophila. There are a number of species and species complexes in which chromosome rearrangement is *typical* and *frequent* without any ill-effect, and in fact what appears to be some adaptive effects. Or read about Oenothera, a flower genus in which rearrangements are so common that Meiosis often results in chromosome *ring* instead of pairs! >>It is well established that the first people in the >>Western hemisphere were responsible for the extinction >>of most of the large mammals in North and South >>America. They had nothing but stone weapons, but their >>methods were extremely effective. > > I love this one! The creatures Mr. Jefferys has in > mind include several which I wouldn't want to face > with anything less than a 50 caliber machine gun. If I were alone, I would agree, but the ancient hunters had a *major* advantage, teemwork and language. A large group of hunters working closely together and *communicating* with on another can do remarkable things. > My favorite ancient animal is the pteratorn, not > really a mammal, but why be strict? Mr. Jefferys > will sooner or later have to account for the > pteratorn's extinction as well. The pteratorn was > a 200 lb. golden eagle with a 30 foot wingspan. An > eagle's ability to kill things is grossly out of > proportion to its size. I am morally certain > that the pteratorn would enjoy the meal as much as > I would enjoy the (brief) spectacle. It wouldn't > be quite fair to say that the guys from UT would > fare as badly or worse than the Neanderthals of > 10,000 years ago; the Neanderthals would know > better than to try it. Since the only danger to > the pteratorn would be indigestion, the SPCA would > probably not object to the event being staged. > But see above. A well organized hunt by a sufficiently well trained group could definately kill a Pteratorn. But then, not *all* extinctions were caused by humanity, only a large number of the more recent ones! The Pteratorn may have become extinct because the large prey it required to live were no longer available due to our hunting them to extinction. (Note, I only said *may* *have*). > > Immanuel Velikovsky was aware of this > but refrained from including it in "Worlds in > Collision, Vol I" specifically because it would > seem too weird to most people. Every book on > dinosaurs I have read mentions the problem of > weight for these animals; most state that > brontosaurs lived in water even though their bodies > show no adaptation for an aquatic life, simply > because rudimentary calculations showed that their > legs would not support them on land. Well, you have not been reading very recent work on this. Those "calculations" were *very* rudimentary, so rudimentary I would call them guesses rather than calculations. *Real* calcualtions have shown that even the largest "brontosaur" had plenty of *extra* support capacity in thier legs! They would have had no more trouble on dry land than an Elephant. This has been accepted for quite a number of years now by the scientific community. In fact the lack of aquatic adaptions in these animals is now held to be conclusive proof that they were *not* aquatic. > The problem > for large birds is more appalling. I have actually > seen books which state that pterosaurs and > pteratorns climbed up mountains and then glided > down again, a hell of a hard way to have to make a > living. The authors were admitting that 200 lb > birds can't fly in our world. Same problem again, these guesses(or assumptions) have been amply dispelled by valid calculations. The larger Pterosaurs have in fact been shown to have a better lift ratio than any airplane. The stall speed of Pteranodon was about 5 mph (and that is *air speed* not ground speed). Such an organism could take off just by facing into the wind!(I believe this was in a recent issue of one of the Linnean Society jornals). The pteratorn is prabably a similar case of jumping to a conclusion before making proper calculations! I see no reason why it could not fly! And I wasn't going to get involve in the Velikovsky debate! I just couldn't let such gross mis-statements pass without comment. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/12/85)
In article <565@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: > >>[Ted Holden] >>You haven't heard of the ultrasaur, >>you say? The people at Penn State apparently have >>acquired him rather recently. > >No, the CREATIONISTS at Penn State acquired him. Of course, they will >immediately send it up to their doubting colleagues at Harvard and it >will be lost in the mail. > Actually for once Mr Holden is more or less correct, "ultrasaurus" is the informal name of a recently discovered Sauropod(or as Mr Holden calls them "brontosaur") which is larger than any previously known. Of course this does not invalidate the calculations that Sauropods *could* support themselves on land. I am curious though, how did Mr Holden find out about such a recent find and still miss all the calculations about the *actual* support capacity of Sauropod legs? BTW Mr Forsythe, some of your comments on Velikovsky's (mis)treatment of ancient myths and religious writings were quite good. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen