miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/13/84)
Two introductory comments: First, this is the last "normal" note I will be posting for a while. I am editing the 2nd edition of the Students for Origins Research creationist pamphlets. As that has a higher priority, I'll be devoting all of my spare time to that project. Not to worry: I've decided to upload them from my p.c. as I get them completed and post them on the net. So the only change is that I won't respond to your net postings temporarily. There will be 5 in the series, and I hope to complete one every two weeks. Topics are: The Creation/Evolution Debate, The Origin of Life, The Fossil Record, The Geological Column, and The Age of the Earth. Comments from *both* sides on these pamphlets are desired. Second, evolutionists on the net seem to assume that since *their* ques- tions didn't get answered, then creationists must be "stupid", "dishonest", "evading", "ignorant", etc. Michael Ward is representative when he writes: >One hesitates to throw out accusations of dishonesty at individuals, but it >begins to look like the only other answer is mental incompetence. Paul DuBois, the current object of such scorn, replies: >My (perhaps inexcusable) delay is due to my current perusal of anti- >creationist literature. Paul is too nice. All of us have other careers/school and net.origins some- times must take a back seat. Not everyone can always get a personal or complete reply. Since net.origins was "created", our site has received 230 evolutionist notes, 63 creationist notes, and 29 neutral or can't tell notes (I've been keeping track). That's almost a 4 to 1 ratio; obviously creation- ists are in the minority on this net. Even a toad could realize with numbers like that, a lot is going to be skipped. Sad, but true. Michael Ward tosses out a lot of sarcasm and rhetoric, but also asks: >Living fossils? I have heard some wild claims, but this is the best yet! >Please, cite the reference. Where can I go to see living stone? The term living fossil is probably a misnomer (like so many other things) but, alas, that's what everyone calls them. The term applies to species once iden- tified as index fossils (i.e., fossils used to date the strata in which they are found) and subsequently discovered to be very much alive! The coelacanth is a prime example and can be found in any large natural history museum. Bill Jefferys (like others this week) writes: >How impressed Ray is with academic degrees! Had he read my original note a tad closer, he would have discovered that I brought the subject up as a reply to challenges of the academic credentials of creationists. Am I to understand that if creationists on the net don't reply then they are criticized for not replying and if they do reply then they are criticized for replying? More double standards. Along similar lines, we hear Michael Ward write that creationism will cause science to "die" and Mark Fishman (from my undergrad school) say that to embrace creationism is "to reject science (and thereby to reject reason)". Now we hear some variation of this every week. That's why I point out so many great scientists of the past and present who accept creationism. Not that authorities prove a position (as many have claimed I suppose) but to show that thousands of competent scientists and founders of disciplines have and do find that the bulk of the scientific evidence supports the creation model. It's absurd to think that Pasteur, Maxwell, Cuvier, ... have caused science to die. If name calling is the best you can do, then students will continue to slip through the evolutionary fingers. Bill Jefferys also brings up the 1982 PBS show. Classic example of yellow journalism. PBS interviewed Doolittle, then Gish (without telling him about Doolittle) and then went and showed Doolittle Gish's interview before taping a second segment with him. No surprise then when we saw Gish say "blah" followed by Doolittle saying "Oh, that's nonsense, blah blah". Now as to the "Origins Research" letter, I can only conclude that Gish was referring to the evolution- ist Dr. Colin Patterson. Speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in NY on Nov. 5, 1981 on the subject of evolution and biochemical similarities, he said "The theory makes prediction, we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely". He had the latest data on molecular homology, amino acid, and nucleotide sequence studies obtained only a month earlier in Ann Arbor. This was for the amino acid sequences for the alpha hemoglobins of a viper, crocodile, and a chicken. (The two reptiles should be closest). But of the amino acids in common, it is the crocodile and chicken (17.5%), next the viper and chicken (10.5%) and last the two reptiles (5.6%). An examination of the amino acids in myoglobin shows crocodiles and lizards share 10.5%, while the crocodile and chicken share only 8.5%. *But* the lizard and chicken also share 10.5% - the same as the reptile/reptile pair. Patterson then questioned the way data has been manipulated by evolutionists. In describing studies of mitochondrial DNA done on men and various primates, he notes the numbers used for comparison are only produced after evolution is assumed to be true and the computer is told to find a phylogenetic tree. In the case of DNA, we should expect a 25% match (since there are only 4 possibilities for each position), yet among 5 presumably closely related species (man, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and gibbon) there was only a 7% match. This is starting to get long, so I'll condense the rest quite a bit: Several people jumped on my discussion of abiogenesis last time. The key phrase in most of that was "steady net production". Sorry Ralph, et al, this does *not* happen. The destruction rate of the components is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than the production rate. Miller's spark chamber had a cold trap to remove what he was looking for, otherwise, it would have quickly been destroyed. But once he removed it from the energy source, no further reactions, and hence progress, could take place. Lew brings up Gould's "The Panda's Thumb", writing: >Said thumb is actually a development of the wrist bone. First of all, that's a evolutionary hypothesis, which Gould uses to prove evo- lution. Once again, the assumption of evolution is the best proof of evolu- tion. Second, Gould (and Lew) presume to know how a Creator *would have designed it if there really was a Creator*. Is Gould suddenly omniscient? Byron Howes quotes from Darwin, thinking he was the first on the net to do so. Well, no, I quoted Darwin just last month, showing that because of evolu- tionary presuppositions he, at least, held ideas we today would call racist. Anyway, Byron doubts whether Darwin ever rejected the notion of a Creator. Allow me to quote Darwin again: "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." (Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol I, p. 274.) Quite a statement from one whose only degree was in theology. Well, make what you will of his agnostic comment... Finally, Ethan Vishniac says he has been "struck by a series of comments by R. Miller" and then goes on to discuss things like overthrusts, plate tectonics, etc. Now I don't know what net he has been reading, but I suggest he pay a bit more attention to this one. I don't recall anyone bringing up those subjects on the net (certainly not me!) Perhaps someone else has, but I haven't seen anything on that for at least 6 months. He asks 6 specific ques- tions, but I must ask him to wait for the SOR pamphlets, as they will answer his questions I hope. All I'll say now is that the creation model is neutral with respect to the various ideas about continental drift in current conditions. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (10/17/84)
[This space intentionally left blank] A few comments on Mr. Miller's latest. First, I'm aware that he and the other creationists have other things to do with their time. However, this doesn't explain a reluctance to address the issue of falsifiability in creationism. One reply would serve as an answer to many different questioners. Clearly if he has the time to answer random flaming at such length then he should have the time to answer serious questions. >Paul is too nice. No, he's trying to carry on a conversation in the midst of a lot of noise. It may be the only thing we agree on. Mr. Miller then quotes Colin Patterson at some length. The attached discussion contains a factual error. Based on the fossil record one would *not* conclude that snakes and crocodiles are more closely related to each other than to chickens. They are *at present* more similar (which is why they are both called reptiles). However, the best reading of the available evidence is that the common ancestors of crocodiles and chickens lived in the early Triassic whereas the lineage of snakes split off in the late Permian. Therefore chickens and crocodiles are marginally more closely related than either is to lizards and snakes. However, the difference is small (on the order of a few percent). The comments on the DNA of the great apes are in contradiction to things I have read elsewhere. I'm going to post something about this when I find time to hunt up the original references. I suggest Mr. Miller do likewise. Referencing a talk is not a useful way of referring to experimental data. The comment on abiogenesis implicitly assumes that their was no way reaction products could be removed from the area they were created in. If one believes that the primeval Earth was covered with a homogeneous ocean about 1 cm deep then I suppose this makes sense. >>Said thumb is actually a development of the wrist bone. >First of all, that's a evolutionary hypothesis, which Gould uses to prove evo- lution. No, it's just careless phrasing. The two bones are homologous. That's comparative anatomy, which predates Darwin. Now we get to my part > Finally, Ethan Vishniac says he has been "struck by a series of comments >by R. Miller" and then goes on to discuss things like overthrusts, plate >tectonics, etc. Now I don't know what net he has been reading, but I suggest >he pay a bit more attention to this one. I don't recall anyone bringing up >those subjects on the net (certainly not me!) Perhaps someone else has, but I >haven't seen anything on that for at least 6 months. He asks 6 specific ques- >tions, but I must ask him to wait for the SOR pamphlets, as they will answer >his questions I hope. All I'll say now is that the creation model is neutral >with respect to the various ideas about continental drift in current conditions Hmm..*possibly* I had Mr. Dubuc or Mr. Bickford in mind, in which case I apologize, and the latter should consider that note addressed to him. I realize "those subjects" have not been brought up. The question of whether it was reasonable to expect strata to become complicated had. It was a while ago, but then I don't think there is a statute of limitations operating here. Besides it gets a little boring waiting for an answer to the same question i.e. falsifiability. I thought I'd go for a little variety. "I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (10/17/84)
> Bill Jefferys (like others this week) writes: >>How impressed Ray is with academic degrees! >Had he read my original note a tad closer, he would have discovered that I >brought the subject up as a reply to challenges of the academic credentials of >creationists. Am I to understand that if creationists on the net don't reply >then they are criticized for not replying and if they do reply then they are >criticized for replying? More double standards. If you say so, Ray. > Bill Jefferys also brings up the 1982 PBS show. Classic example of yellow >journalism. PBS interviewed Doolittle, then Gish (without telling him about >Doolittle) and then went and showed Doolittle Gish's interview before taping a >second segment with him. No surprise then when we saw Gish say "blah" followed >by Doolittle saying "Oh, that's nonsense, blah blah". Sorry, Ray, but since the PBS show, Gish has repeated these claims in public debates. One can hardly excuse him on those occasions on the grounds that he didn't have an opportunity to respond to his challengers. He has been repeatedly asked to produce evidence to support his claims, and in two years has failed to do so. In my opinion, that is ample time for him to "put up or shut up". >Now as to the "Origins >Research" letter, I can only conclude that Gish was referring to the evolution- >ist Dr. Colin Patterson. Speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in >NY on Nov. 5, 1981 on the subject of evolution and biochemical similarities, he >said "The theory makes prediction, we've tested it, and the prediction is >falsified precisely". He had the latest data on molecular homology, amino >acid, and nucleotide sequence studies obtained only a month earlier in Ann >Arbor. This was for the amino acid sequences for the alpha hemoglobins of a >viper, crocodile, and a chicken. (The two reptiles should be closest). But of >the amino acids in common, it is the crocodile and chicken (17.5%), next the >viper and chicken (10.5%) and last the two reptiles (5.6%). An examination of >the amino acids in myoglobin shows crocodiles and lizards share 10.5%, while >the crocodile and chicken share only 8.5%. *But* the lizard and chicken also >share 10.5% - the same as the reptile/reptile pair. Like many of my students over the years who don't know the answer to the question that was asked, Ray tries to gain points by answering a *different* question. To remind you, Gish stated on the PBS show, "If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then - it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee." How do the data you give support *these* claims, Ray? As for the actual data mentioned above, the alleged discrepancy goes away when you realize that genetic distance (as determined by DNA similarity) only estimates the length of time since two organisms had a common ancestor. There is no requirement that two arbitrary reptiles, say, be closer than a reptile and a bird. For example, the hemoglobin data given above are quite consistent with the hypothesis, believed by many, that the common ancestor of crocodiles and snakes is more ancient than that of crocodiles and birds. Similar comments could be made about the myoglobin data. How is this supposed to contradict evolution? >Patterson then questioned >the way data has been manipulated by evolutionists. In describing studies of >mitochondrial DNA done on men and various primates, he notes the numbers used >for comparison are only produced after evolution is assumed to be true and the >computer is told to find a phylogenetic tree. In the case of DNA, we should >expect a 25% match (since there are only 4 possibilities for each position), >yet among 5 presumably closely related species (man, chimpanzee, gorilla, >orangutan, and gibbon) there was only a 7% match. I can't figure out what this is supposed to mean. It makes no sense as stated. Perhaps you would be so good as to post a reference to the original research papers. > Several people jumped on my discussion of abiogenesis last time. The key >phrase in most of that was "steady net production". Sorry Ralph, et al, this >does *not* happen. The destruction rate of the components is a couple of >orders of magnitude higher than the production rate. Miller's spark chamber had >a cold trap to remove what he was looking for, otherwise, it would have quickly >been destroyed. But once he removed it from the energy source, no further >reactions, and hence progress, could take place. Ray's assertion is simply not borne out by the experimental results. In picking on Miller's pioneering experiment, Ray ignores hundreds of later ones, carried out under many different conditions over the past thirty years. All are simulations, of course, and you can be sure that creationists will find something "wrong" with all of them. However, the bottom line, for those whose mind is not already made up, is this: As long as you have a reducing atmosphere, a source of the elements C, H, O and N, and most any energy source, it is hard *not* to produce amino acids. Many experiments produce them in substantial quantity. The cold trap used in Miller's apparatus was only a technical device used in that particular experiment, and is far from a universal feature of these experiments. One recent experiment produced copious quantities of a dry amino acid precursor which simply collected in the bottom of the reaction vessel, from a gaseous mixture of reactants. When the precursor was treated with water, large quantities of amino acids were produced. Even Nature shows us that abiogenetic production of amino acids occurs by providing us with an occasional meteorite which contains amino acids of obvious extraterrestrial abiogenetic origin. > Lew brings up Gould's "The Panda's Thumb", writing: >>Said thumb is actually a development of the wrist bone. >First of all, that's a evolutionary hypothesis, which Gould uses to prove evo- >lution. Once again, the assumption of evolution is the best proof of evolu- >tion. This accusation of circular reasoning is unfair. *Anatomically speaking*, the panda's "thumb" bone and its associated muscles are homologous to bones and muscles in other animals that have other uses. No prior assumption of evolution has to be made. Evolution provides a *logical explanation* of this curious fact, which Creationism is totally unable to provide. >Second, Gould (and Lew) presume to know how a Creator *would have >designed it if there really was a Creator*. Is Gould suddenly omniscient? Baloney. Creationists love to point to the complexity of life as evidence of the superb engineering skills of the Creator, yet when anyone points out a place where the design is obviously faulty, they pull themselves up and haughtily say, "Well, who are you to question the wisdom of the Almighty?" Sorry, Ray, you can't have it both ways. Omniscience isn't needed, only common sense. Let me counter with another example: One doesn't have to be omniscient to know that the basic design of the retina of an octopus eye is considerably better that of the human eye. We have a "blind spot" where the optic nerve enters the eye; octopi do not. Pray tell, if we are at the pinnacle of Creation, how come the Creator got it right with the octopus and then stuck us with a second-rate design? -- "One good horselaugh is worth a thousand syllogisms" 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)