lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (09/08/84)
[There's no intelligent life here, Scotty.] In view of > 1000 lines of response to a ~100-line article, I cannot hope to reply to everything. Fortunately (maybe unfortunately), much of it was of the knee-jerk type. For this reason, I am posting a separate article reproducing part of G.A.Kerkut's _Implications of Evolution_ (besides part 2 of this one). Author's quotes are grouped together. imsvax!rcc: "Supporters of evolution believe that it is the best theory to operate by seeing as it does ... not necessitat[e] a large change in the present world-view." Rejection is philosophical, not scientific. utastro!bill: > First, picking a given protein (e.g., insulin) and showing that > the probabilities of evolving one of a particular group of insulin > molecules is small (however large the group), fails because probability > theory tells us nothing about what *has* been observed, only about > what *may be observed in the future*. This *assumes* the evolution of insulin (or any other protein) as an accomplished fact. More circular reasoning. In a later article, Bill uses his uniqueness as a result of mixing his parents' genes as an analogy. If such an analogy were valid, we might as well eliminate probability studies. (So what if a bridge player were dealt 13 spades - big deal, it's just as probable as any other hand! And of course we shouldn't be suspicious when all of the other players have 13 cards of the same suit...) Now if the probability that the Jefferys' genes would have formed a non-viable entity were quite high, then I might view Bill as something special. (If such were the case, I'm sure the National Enquirer would also have found a way to report on him... :-) voder!gino (until further notice): "The earlier model is creationism, now challenged by evolutionism." I have neither seen nor heard of any *scientific model* for creation that existed before the 1960's. ">> the two models are mutually exclusive and exhaustive... No other models allowed? All possible explanations are here? Convince me." Yawn...either *all* the processes *were* natural, or *at least one* *wasn't*. Simple logic. "...uniformitarian changes are visible today." Where are fossils being formed? "Thermodynamics fits both [models]..." Gimme a break... There is no natural source for the initial infusion of matter/energy into the cosmos, and the evolutionary model begs a decrease in entropy. "The inter-specific gaps are not systematic. Some are large, some are very small." With the possible exception of the species level, I have heard of little difficulty in taxonomic assignments, implying clear-cut gaps. Further, the higher taxonomic divisions indicate systematic gaps. "New kinds (creationists often refuse to say 'species') are arising and have arisen in historic times." *Species* is avoided as an artificial term; the concept itself is undergoing a distinct review. "Kinds" may find approximation at either the species or genus level. In his notes in _Creation: A Scientist's Choice_, Michigan State Professor John N. Moore notes: "True, creationists cannot identify created Genesis kinds (or baramins: bara="created"; min="kind"), but *all* the fossil, plant, and animal breeding records can be used to support conclusively that *real gaps* have existed, and continue to exist, between 46 different kinds of organisms, i.e., *fixity of kinds*." "The gaps in the fossil record are not systematic." In preparing testimony for the Louisiana legislature, Luther Sunderland wrote to Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, asking for even artist's drawings of the transitional forms. Patterson's reply: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary tranisitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. ...It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reason why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." The efforts of Goldschmidt, Gould, et al., further indicate that the gaps are systematic. "Nothing in evolution theory requires fossils to be confined to a single layer - except those species that only live during a short span of time (and guess how that comes to be known)." Living fossils disprove it. By evolutionary chronology, the most recent coelacanth fossil is 70 million years old; the most recent tuatara fossil is 135 million years old. Both are still alive. "The strata do appear in a particular order; that's how the geological and paleontological time scales were deduced. Jumbled strata are caused by (uniformitarian and catastrophic) geological events and are accompanied by the evidence for them." Repeating, the geologic column is nowhere complete. Further, it is out of order too often in too many places to just be dismissed with Gino's hand-waving. And where is the evidence for the movement of massive amounts of rock for miles (space and time prohibit reproducing _Genesis Flood_ on-line). " >> ...accepting a supernatural model ... can only occur when the >> naturalistic model fails - which the evolution model has. As for the `can only' clause, I bet you meant to say something else." If you insist on slinging mud, get out of the debate. "As for the evolutionary model failing, well, when a scientist see that his ideas don't quite fit reality, he modifies his ideas." The "modifications" being used are secondary assumptions on the basic model. The test of the models is which needs fewer such assumptions. watgcl!drforsey: "...the process of evolution is a documented phenomenon that is occurring around us all the time (e.g., pesticide resistant insects)." The example given doesn't even qualify as micro-evolution (variation within a kind), much less macro-evolution (change from one kind to something different). The insects are still insects. No new traits have developed; those that had a certain trait replaced those that didn't. " >...the evolutionary model has a multitude of secondary assumptions" Okay I give up, what are those assumptions?" Overthrusts, continual (and convenient) sedimentary buildup and erosion, accumulation of micromutations to create new kinds, initial infusion of matter/energy into the cosmos, disappearance of large groups of transitional forms and initial cosmogony (preceding the "bang" or whatever") are a few of the assumptions. "I would like the reference to (fossils extending through more than one sedimentary layer) please." In _Scientific Creationism_, Morris cites F.M.Broadhurst's article in _American Journal of Science_ Vol. 262 (Summer 1964) pp 865-66: "In 1959 Broadhurst and Magraw described a fossilized tree, in position of growth, from the Coal Measures at Blackrod near Wigan in Lancashire. This tree was preserved as a cast and the evidence available suggested that the cast was at least 38 feet in height. The original tree must have bee surrounded and buried by sediment which was compacted before the bulk of the tree decomposed so that the cavity vacated by the trunk could be occupied by a new sediment which formed the cast. This implies a rapid rate of sedimentation around the original tree... "It is clear that trees in position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956, reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen Coal Measures), and presumably in all cases there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation." Further references obtainable from Rupke in the Quarterly of the Creation Research Society, Vol 3 (May 1966) pp16-37 and Nevins in _Symposium on Creation III_ (Baker Book House, 1971) pp44-46. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (09/17/84)
[Me] > > First, picking a given protein (e.g., insulin) and showing that > > the probabilities of evolving one of a particular group of insulin > > molecules is small (however large the group), fails because probability > > theory tells us nothing about what *has* been observed, only about > > what *may be observed in the future*. [Larry Bickford] > This *assumes* the evolution of insulin (or any other protein) as an > accomplished fact. More circular reasoning. > In a later article, Bill uses his uniqueness as a result of mixing his > parents' genes as an analogy. If such an analogy were valid, we might as > well eliminate probability studies. (So what if a bridge player were > dealt 13 spades - big deal, it's just as probable as any other hand! And > of course we shouldn't be suspicious when all of the other players have > 13 cards of the same suit...) Now if the probability that the Jefferys' > genes would have formed a non-viable entity were quite high, then I > might view Bill as something special. (If such were the case, I'm sure > the National Enquirer would also have found a way to report on him... :-) There's nothing circular in my reasoning, Larry just misses the point. I was responding to an article that alleged to show that the insulin we observe today could not have evolved by chance. My point is that you cannot argue, from the fact that we observe a particular molecule today, that it did *not* evolve by chance, any more than you can argue that my gene complement did not arise by chance processes involving my parents' genes. No assumption about the fact of the evolution of insulin is involved at all in my argument. Larry's second point is very important. A crucial problem of the probability arguments is their unstated assumption that of all possible genetic combinations, anly a vanishingly small proportion actually code for biologically active polymers. This assumption is totally without experimental foundation, and in fact is contradicted by the evidence, some of which I cited in my article. Unfortunately, Larry did not see fit to respond to that evidence. It is a fact that the genetic material in life as we know it on Earth represents only a very small fraction of the total set of possibilities. The fact that life on Earth uses this particular gene pool is not grounds to believe that it is a nearly unique solution to the problem of life. Indeed, the evidence I cited is strongly to the contrary. Thus, to argue about the probability of obtaining this or that molecule known on Earth is simply not valid or even relevant to the question of abiogenesis. -- 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)