dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (05/21/85)
[] As promised, I will now review the creationist notes on isolated species that have come in since the first time I posted my "isolated species again" note. After combing through my files I find two such notes, both by Dan Boskovich. The first reads as follows (for a summary of the discussion which preceded this, see my previous note - I also quote Jeff Sonntag's last note, which Dan responds to): >> I see. And all of the species which are found in isolated habitats and >> nowhere else just got off the ark, traveled halfway around the world or so, >> directly to their isolated habitats (building boats if need be), leaving no >> offspring anywhere else, and established themselves where they were supposed >> to be. Sounds real likely to me. > > Much more likely than the animals coming from an amoeba. More likely > than all the right elements of the SOUP coming together at just the > right time in just the right environment to form life. > > Please, don't be silly! Animals can't build boats! Well, sorry Dan, but in my personal opinion this note would have to be raised several levels just to qualify as an evasion. The other note deals mostly with defense of Noah's ark, but does mention some stuff which could be interpreted as an explanation of how some species could have become isolated after the ark landed: > As for the animals leaving the Ark, many animals have been known to > migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", Mathews. > I would suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into > different parts of the world into places that were better suited for them > to live. Or, many animals may have migrated because of an over abundance > in one particular area. > [several references on how animals can migrate long distances] which essentially repeats the explanation Dan gave before (see the next to last quote in my previous note). But this completely misses the point the objection that Jeff and I raised to this explanation, so I'll repeat it. What are the odds of all those isolated species migrating from the ark (or, if you are a creationist who doesn't believe the ark existed, from wherever they were created) to "their" islands without leaving any trace on the mainland, and without some members of the species also winding up on other, faraway islands. Also, why should the amount of time isolated have any correlation with the number of unique species? Or, if you are a recent creationist, as Dan is, why should the amount of time isolated, estimated using evidence you dispute but which is independent of biology, have any correlation with the number of unique species? Finally, Dan, I hope you don't get the wrong idea from this note. I appreciate the fact that you wrote about this topic, even if I disagree with your notes. It shows that you are confident enough in your opinion to defend it, instead of ignoring contrary evidence. I just wish I could say the same for the other creationists in this group. Isaac Dimitrovsky
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/31/85)
In article <3570029@csd2.UUCP> dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) writes: >[] > >As promised, I will now review the creationist notes on isolated >species that have come in since the first time I posted my >"isolated species again" note. After combing through my files I >find two such notes, both by Dan Boskovich. The first reads as >follows (for a summary of the discussion which preceded this, >see my previous note - I also quote Jeff Sonntag's last note, >which Dan responds to): > > >which essentially repeats the explanation Dan gave before (see the next >to last quote in my previous note). But this completely misses the point >the objection that Jeff and I raised to this explanation, so I'll >repeat it. What are the odds of all those isolated species migrating >from the ark (or, if you are a creationist who doesn't believe the ark >existed, from wherever they were created) to "their" islands without >leaving any trace on the mainland, and without some members of the >species also winding up on other, faraway islands. Also, why should >the amount of time isolated have any correlation with the number of >unique species? Or, if you are a recent creationist, as Dan is, why >should the amount of time isolated, estimated using evidence you >dispute but which is independent of biology, have any correlation >with the number of unique species? > This is a dead-end question! The amount of time that has transpired after the flood is not enough time to account for the development of unique species. Unless one assumes an old age for the earth, there is no correlation to speak of. As far as the odds argument, let me first state that I never use the odds argument against the formation of life. As a certain evolutionist pointed out, odds are relative. The example was that if you tossed 10 million dice simultaneously, the result would be one of amazing odds. If calculated beforehand it would be considered impossible. The odds of animals migrating and leaving behind no offspring in particular places, becomes irrelevant if in fact they did so! Dan
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (06/02/85)
> >Also, why should > >the amount of time isolated have any correlation with the number of > >unique species? Or, if you are a recent creationist, as Dan is, why > >should the amount of time isolated, estimated using evidence you > >dispute but which is independent of biology, have any correlation > >with the number of unique species? > > > > This is a dead-end question! The amount of time that has transpired > after the flood is not enough time to account for the development > of unique species. Unless one assumes an old age for the earth, there > is no correlation to speak of. > Dan seeks to avoid answering Dimitri's question by denying that the conventionally determined ages are in fact *ages*. He cannot get off the hook so easily. Let us put it in terms only of the observations: There is a strong correlation between such things as the Uranium/Lead ratio in rocks, the Strontium/Rubidium ratio in rocks, the position of the rocks in the Geological Column (which, I remind everyone, was established in the days prior to evolution without using evolutionary assumpions), and the time in the past that isolated land-masses would have been in contact with each other if one extrapolates their present rate of continental drift back in time. The correlation is very strong and very tight. Conventionally scientists determine a number, which they call "age", and the "age" determined from one of these measures on a particular stratum agrees well with the "age" determined independently from another measure on that stratum. Creationists may deny that this number actually measures a time in the past, but they cannot deny this strong correlation between these numbers determined by various independent means. To avoid offending them, let us call the number the stratum's "level", measured in units of a "Gish". Thus, we find that if a stratum's U/Pb "level" is 100 million "Gish"'s, then it's stratigraphic "level" will be, say, between 85 and 115 million "Gish"'s. Now the odd fact is that if you look in the fossil record to determine the position at which two particular groups of animals first appear to separate as groups, and determine the "level" associated with this position, we find that there is a very close correlation between this number and the Hamming distance between the DNA sequences of genes coding for fixed but arbitrary proteins (e.g., alpha-Hemoglobin) in living relatives of those fossils. For example, the "level" at which birds and reptiles seem to separate is, say, 100 million "Gish"'s, while that at which cats and bears seem to separate is, say, 35 million "Gish"'s. In this example the Hamming distance between the alpha-Hemoglobin DNA of contemporary relatives of those birds and reptiles would be about three times that between contemporary cats and bears. The question for Creationists is, how do they explain these strong and obvious observed correlations? -- "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)
tet@uvaee.UUCP (Thomas E. Tkacik) (06/06/85)
> This is a dead-end question! The amount of time that has transpired > after the flood is not enough time to account for the development > of unique species. Unless one assumes an old age for the earth, there > is no correlation to speak of. > > As far as the odds argument, let me first state that I never use the > odds argument against the formation of life. As a certain evolutionist > pointed out, odds are relative. The example was that if you tossed > 10 million dice simultaneously, the result would be one of amazing odds. > If calculated beforehand it would be considered impossible. The odds > of animals migrating and leaving behind no offspring in particular places, > becomes irrelevant if in fact they did so! > > > Dan Close, but not quite. The problem with the odds argument is that there are many combinations that are possible, not just one. As used here, this argument would have to be argueing that the chances of all of these animals appearing where they are now is very low. Actually this is just one of many possibilities, and one of them had to occur. This is different from questioning where there offspring are. If the offspring appeared somewhere, then it could be argued that this is just one of many possibilities for them to be located. BUT THEY SHOULD BE SOMEWHERE. Where are they? Tom Tkacik ...!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!tet