Area: Evolution
Msg: #284
Date: 10-19-94 14:15 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: Our "discussion"
------------------------------------
Today, at long last, you finally respond. I note that you sent me a series
of posts titled "Larry's pegs" in both Evolution and HolySmoke. I also note
that you posted to all in Evolution that I had misrepresented you by
posting an InterNet talk.origins criticism of one of your quotes. I further
note that in a message to someone else, you claim that you were not
receiving mail in Evolution. If that is true, then you missed most of my
factual criticisms and may have only seen my HolySmoke posts leaning more
to criticism of your character. To get our "discussion" back on track, I
will summarize it from my perspective and repost 6 previous messages to you
under the subject "Repost". I will make an identical set of posts in both
Evolution and HolySmoke in hopes that you receive them somewhere. You are
free to reply in either forum.
First to your charge that the talk.origin post is a form of cheep shot.
Maybe you are right. I did not follow the specifics of the originating
thread and I am not prepared to argue what your intention was with the
specific quote in question. I accept full responsibility for any
misrepresentation I may have caused by my uncritical reposting. I have
plenty of issues that I am more familiar with that I wish to pursue with
you and I am most interested to see how willing YOU are to accept
responsibility for YOUR posts.
Now let's review. In July, I questioned you on the 2nd law of
thermodynamics in HolySmoke [HS]. While I don't remember personally
receiving your reply, I captured a post about it from Karl Lembke that I
sent to you once before without response. I repost that in this packet as
"Repost 1". Please address the issues he raises.
On 9-9 I sent you a series of posts in HS asking you to define "abrupt" as
it pertains to the geological record, commenting on "Baramins" and showing
that Gish appears to be inconsistent it explaining the concept, questioning
you on your source and understanding of Popper's philosophy position, and
asking you to backup your assertation that "many" scientists "completely
abandon" evolution. Why did you wait till today to address some of these in
your "Larry's pegs" series? Why did you not reply to each of these 9-9
issues? Shall I refresh your memory on the details?
On 9-15, after you repeated your assertations in Evolution [Evo], I
challenged you in Evo again on Popper, as well as Nilsson, mosaics, claimed
scientific suppression, and began to question your sources as you were
presenting reference quotes AS IF you personally did the research work and
should stand accountable for any deliberate misrepresentation. I can repost
those messages if you like but the following are much more specific.
On 9-21 I made several posts to you in Evo including a question on why we
should expect "thousands" of transitional fossil series and a wise crack
asking if the dropping of horse series displays falsify evolution as you
suggest, then did the ICR dropping of their mantrack display falsify
creation. Repost available on request. On that date I asked you a bunch of
specific questions designed to determine if you did the research work
implied by your choice of quotes to support your conclusions. That I repost
today as "Repost 2". I also questioned the motivation of one of your quote
sources, Sunderland, and I believe, showed that his objectivity was
questionable. I repost as "Repost 3". Lastly, I suggested that your
Patterson quote in your closing summary of your criticism of evolution was
a gross misrepresentation and was still being deliberately promoted by
creationists. That is "Repost 4". Please respond to these posts.
On 9-24 in Evo, I reaccused you of plagiarism. That I post as Repost 5.
Please respond.
On 10-7 and 10-8 I posted to you in HS, accusing you of being a hypocrite
regarding Sunderland and showing how your Grasse quote was most likely a
deliberate misrepresentation. Did you receive them? If so, why did you not
reply or ask what they were about if you were truely not getting the Evo
mail where they were explained? Again I can repost these if requested as
the Grasse item is particularly telling.
In reviewing my file on you, I see that David Bloomberg posted on 9-23 in
Evo a reply to you from Ms Hunt in response to your criticisms. I repost
that as "Repost 6", assuming that since you most likely did not see it, you
would be interested. I post this one purely as an information service, and
while in my limited understanding, I tend to believe that she has also
correctly "pegged" you, I am not prepared to defend it in detail.
Now, I ask you specifically, did you do all the research implied by your
quotes? Is not taking credit for the work of others a form of stealing? If
a quote or quotes is submitted as support of a conclusion other than that
intended by the author, is that not a deliberate misreprentation? Are not
deliberate misreprentations, lies? Is it ok to steal and lie in the service
of your god?
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * Choosy modemers choose GIF
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
Area: Evolution
Msg: #285
Date: 10-19-94 12:17 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: Repost 1
------------------------------------
Area # 233 HOLYSMOKE 07-12-94 17:14 Message # 642
From : KARL LEMBKE
To : ARTHUR BIELE
Subj : "CONCEDE THIS ???" 2/2
-=> Quoting Arthur Biele to Larry Sites <=-
AB> What is needed is an engine, a converting mechanism, some sort of
AB> coupling mechanism that will convert the negative entropy associated
AB> with energy flow into negative entropy associated with configurational
AB> entropy and the corresponding information. This is the problem the
AB> second law presents to evolution. Until such an engine is found,
AB> evolution is in violation of the second law.
Actually, "coupling mechanisms" are not that hard to come across.
The energy that runs a water wheel, for example, comes indirectly
from the sun. The heat evaporates water from the surface of the
ocean. The vapor rises into the atmosphere, moves around a bit,
and condenses as rain.
If the rain falls on a mountain top, the water will run downhill,
converting potential energy to kinetic, all the way down.
What has happened is that energy has gone from the sun, into the
water vapor, and then been re-radiated out to space as heat, released
when the water condenses.
The increased potential energy of the water flowing down the mountain
is energy that was extracted from the difference between the energy
density of the sunlight and the energy density of the infra-red
light radiating back into space.
Thus, water acts as a conversion mechanism to turn heat into
mechanical energy.
Any other case where a substance changes phase can act similarly
as a conversion mechanism.
Furthermore, we don't even need changes in phase. Wind is driven
by the difference in temperature over different parts of the
globe. Heat energy is converted into kinetic energy, capable of
running a windmill, pushing a boat across the water, or moving
sand from place to place.
Many chemical reactions will store energy at one temperature, and
release it under other conditions. This is because the equilibrium
constant for many reactions will shift with temperature. The
mechanism for this shift may not be clear (or it may be very clear
-- to a physical chemist!), but it is an observed property of the
reaction. Once energy is trapped in one molecule, it can transfer
to other molecules to drive further reactions.
In living things, this coupling of reactions is called "metabolism".
All of these are mechanisms by which heat energy from the sun is
diverted and made to do other work on its way from the sun to
outer space.
AB> According to renowned Information Theory expert & evolutionist
AB> Hubert Yockey:
AB> " An uninvited guest (Schroedinger, 1955; du Nouy,1947; Prigogine,
AB> and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz,
AB> 1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life
AB> and evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is
AB> the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the
AB> universe which it predicts. The universe should in every way go
AB> from states which are less probable to those which are more
AB> probable. Therefore, hot bodies cool; energy is conserved but
AB> becomes less available to do work. According to this uninvited
AB> guest, the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbable (
AB> Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babyloyantz, 1972). The uninvited guest
AB> will not go away nor will the biological evidence to the contrary
AB> notwithstanding."
It would be interesting to read the rest of the book and see what
he says this point leads him to. Did he conclude anything based
on this point?
AB> Evolutionist and anti-creationist John Patterson puts it this way,
AB> "It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster
AB> uphill processes by tapping downhill processes, but how did the
AB> required internal organization come about in the first place?
AB> Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill
AB> processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles,
AB> especially when compared to the dispersed arrays from which they
AB> assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by
AB> natural processes remains a challenging one."
Notice, though, the word used is "challenging", not "impossible"
or "unanswerable". Calculus is challenging, especially for those
first approaching the study of the subject. This does not mean
that it can't be mastered.
AB> In your example of photosynthesis, the question to be asked is not
AB> 'does entropy prevent the energy of the sun from being converted via
AB> photosynthesis for sustaining life and variation thereof? but rather,
AB> the question is - How do chemicals self-organize naturally to produce
AB> the energy conversion engine known as photosynthesis, a process which
AB> violates the second law as it requires the chemicals to go from a
AB> probable state to a highly improbable state.
Actually, it is no violation of the Second Law of Thermo for
improbable events to occur, otherwise roulette would be much
too boring to muster the interest and attention it does.
In statistical thermodynamics, it is understood that aggregates
of particles will assume average values based on macroscopic
variables such as temperature, pressure, and so forth. But not
all the particles in the system will be at the same value.
For example, in a gas at a given temperature, we can calculate the
average speed of the gas molecules, based on equipartition of energy.
Most of the gas molecules will be moving at or near this speed.
Some will be moving much slower at any given time, having an
effective temperature near absolute zero. Others will be
moving much faster, with no real upper limit. (Practically
speaking, you can calculate one, a temperature so high that
there is only a very small chance that any one molecule is
at or above it, but that's another story...)
Thus, molecules will be doing improbable things all the time.
It's just that the less probable the thing, the smaller the
population of molecules engaged in it.
This month's Scientific American has an article on
self-replicating molecular systems that might make
interesting reading.
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * The wages of Peace are Life.
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
Area: Evolution
Msg: #286
Date: 10-19-94 12:19 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: Repost 2
------------------------------------
Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-21-94 09:13 Message # 1
From : LARRY SITES
To : ARTHUR BIELE RCVD
Subj : TRANSITIONALS, PART 7.
ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-19-94 00:10 re: TRANSITIONALS, PART 7.
Since you note ONLY the original source and since I have previously accused
you of taking credit for the research work of others and how that is
decidely a non-christian thing to do, and since you appear to be motivated
to pursue your evolionary critisms only to forward your religious agenda, I
assume that YOU did the original research work to find these interesting
quotes and that it is YOU who are willing to stand accountable for their
correct presentation. Did YOU personally find each of these quotes in the
originals or did you plagerize them? Who is YOUR actual source? If one of
your religious persusasion resorts to stealing (plagerism) and lying by not
revealing true sources when asked directly, why would anyone be inclinded
to give any credulance to the religious philosophy represented by such a
person?
AB>As is often the case in evolution theory, hopeful confirmations along
AB>new lines of inquiry often end up to be bitter disappointments
So what? Is that not the case in ALL areas of SCIENTIFIC inquiry? How does
that invalidate evolution as THE reason for life as it now exists? How does
any number of false starts in evolutionary theory do one whit toward
promoting acceptance of your only other acceptable alternative, 6 day
instant creation a few thousand years ago? Breaking your own religious
rules to attack evolution does more harm to your religious proselytizing
than it ever will to evolutionary theory.
AB>Evolutionist Norman Macbeth gives yet another example.
AB>" No phylogenies have been established and the pursuit of
AB> them has fallen into dispute."
AB>Evolutionists E. Saiff and Norman Macbeth. Evolution, 1985.
Tell us if he said WHY they were not established? Was he concerned? Why or
why not? Why did you choose THIS PARTICULAR quote to illistrate your point
that "often" science finds deadends? What SPECIFICALLY about this ENTIRE
article makes you think it is something MORE than just scientists
describing the workings of science? What is the title of the article
anyway? Surely you REMEMBER if YOU PERSONALLY went to the EFFORT the find
and analize it?
AB>Francis Hitchings in his book, 'The Neck of the Giraffe' (1982) points
AB>out:
AB> "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the
AB> fossil gaps; they are missing in all the important places."
What page or even chapter did YOU find this? Also answer the same questions
as above. Why do YOU think this quote is representative of something
significant in the OVERALL point of the book?
AB>" Because of all these problems, it is rare to find paleontologists
AB> offering ancestral species,
AB> raises yet another problem, for groups can not evolve- species are th
AB> largest units capable of change."
AB>Colin Patterson. 'Cladistics and Classification', 94 New Scientist,
AB>1982.
What are "all these problems"? Since "these problems" would be a key piece
of evidence in your arguments against evolution, you can surely remember
some, can't you? Why can't groups evolve and why is that "another problem"?
You do understand all this significant evidence, don't you?
AB> " This interplay of data and interpretation is the achilles heel
AB> of the second meaning of evolution." Evolutionist L. Thomson,
AB> Marginalia: The Meanings of Evolution, 70 Am. Scientists, 1982.
Did he not give any reason why this "achilles heel" was no big deal? Why do
you think his reasoning should be discounted? Why is "Marginalia" part of
the title?
AB> "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
AB> punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the
AB> theory of evolution as opposed to special creation..." Mark Ridley,
AB> "Who Doubts Evolution", New Scientist, Vol. 90, No: 1259, June 25,
AB> 1981.
What evidence DO they use? Why do you think THAT is so illrelivant that you
can totally ignore it?
AB>Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the
AB>University of London, writes:
AB> "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit
AB> that there is nothing in the geological record that runs
AB> contrary to view of conservative creationists, that God created
AB> each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth."
And in just what august SCIENTIFIC publication might we find this "writing"
of such a renounded authority?
AB> þ OLX 1.52 þ For I am nothing, if not critical.
It certainly APPEARS that you are NOT critical.
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * Hugh today, Borg tomorrow...
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
Area: Evolution
Msg: #287
Date: 10-19-94 12:22 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: Repost 3
------------------------------------
Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-21-94 11:02 Message # 4
From : LARRY SITES
To : ARTHUR BIELE RCVD
Subj : Sunderland agenda
ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-19-94 00:06 re: TRANSITIONS, PART 6. 1/
AB>As I have posted,
[In 1979, Creationist Luther D Sunderland, on behalf of the NYS Board
of Regents and the NYS board of Education, was requested to conduct
taped interviews
Mr. Sunderland explicitly asked each of these officials if they were
aware of any transitional forms from fish to amphibians, and in
particular,the crossopterygian to Ichthyostega, they each indicated that
they were unaware of any confirming evidence for such a transition.]
researcher Luther Sunderland, Interviewed top paleontology experts from
AB>five of the world's greatest fossil museums. They were Dr. Raup of the
AB>Chicago Field Museum; Dr. Niles Eldredge of the New York City Museum of
AB>Natural History; Dr. David Pilbeam of, Curator of the Peabody Museum of
AB>Natural History at Yale; Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of
AB>the British Museum of Natural History in London, England; and Dr.
AB>Fisher of the New York State Museum of Natural History. The Result:
AB> "No museum official offered any real fossil evidence that any one of
AB> the various invertebrates evolved into vertebrate fish" P. 63
AB> "None of the museum officials could produce any fossil evidence of an
AB> intermediate ancestor connecting the amphibians with with fishes." p 6
AB> "None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a
AB> transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the
AB> transformation of one basically different type to another." p. 88
AB>Luther Sunderland, 'Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and other Problems', Master
AB>Books, 1988.
Talk about someone with an agenda, Sunderland is it. Master Books is the
old publishing arm of the ICR. Say, since you appear to have read
Sunderland's book, does he still mis-represent Patterson's AMNH speech like
this:
LS> From : Dave Mullenix 03-25-93 03:38
LS>
LS> 'Colin Patterson
LS> made some statements that taken out of the context of cladistic
LS> taxonomy, might sound anti-evolutionary. The Institute for Creation
LS> Research published a tract, "Evolution? Prominent Scientist
LS> Reconsiders" in 1982, claiming that at the AMNH speech, Patterson
LS> "confessed" that he no longer "believed" in evolution. This claim has
LS> been widely circulated due to a clandestine tape transcript of the
LS> session.
This tract by Sunderland is apparently STILL available from the ICR at
Impact Reprints, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 as it is listed as #108 on
a recent order list, even though according to the following posts, that is
NOT Patterson's position:
From : Dave Mullenix 03-25-93 03:38
To : All
Subj : Colin Patterson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just got the Winter 92 issue of NCSE Reports, the journal of the National
Center for Science Education and it has an interesting article that bears
on that Colin Patterson quote we were discussing a while ago. It's
"Tracking Those Incredible Creationists", a regular column and this issue
it's written by Eugenie C. Scott. I quote:
'In Patterson's own words, from a 1982 letter to teacher Steven Binkley,
I was asked to talk on "evolutionism and creationism," and
knowing the meetings of the group as informal sessions where
ideas could be kicked around among specialists, I put a case
for difficulties and problems with evolution, specifically in
the field of systematics.
(Commentary by Scott deleted)
I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk
was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland ...
Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked
Sunderland to stop circulating the transcript, but of course to
no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article
point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought
off the record _and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized
field_. (italics not in original) I do not support the creationist
movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts
to modify school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly
represent my views.
Scott then goes on:
'So Patterson was tossing around ideas to a group of students and
specialists about a specialized subfield, transformed cladistics. The
specialized nature of the discussion and the particular philosophical
context of the statements were ripe for taking words out of context.
Patterson has not "reconsidered" whether evolution has taken place, he is
arguing about how to work out relationships between organisms.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So eight or nine years ago, Patterson told Sunderland that the quote was
out of context, concerned a field other than evolution and that it did not
represent Patterson's views on evolution. Yet I purchased an ICR book with
this quote in it three years ago at a "Back to Genesis" seminar. Shameful!
***************************************************************************
*
Message # 5852 Area : 53 BIOGENESIS
From : Scott Faust 04-07-93 03:13
To : Steve Geller
Subj : Re: Colin Patterson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Eugenie Scott explained in the article that Dave was quoting,
Patterson adheres to a particular school of taxonomy called
"transformed cladistics". I have never really come across a
sufficiently detailed account of what this "transformed" cladistics
actually is, but my understanding is that these folks hold that the
classification of biological organisms should be stripped of any
assumptions supplied by evolutionary theory. This, of course,
could be easily misinterpreted by our creationist friends: To say
that taxonomy should not be -informed- by evolutionary theory, but
should instead be based on independent assumptions, is nothing like
saying that evolution hasn't occurred, or that evolutionary theory
is hogwash.
But this is what strikes me as odd... So far as I can tell from
the very little I have read about it, "transformed" cladism makes
no significant modification to the methodology of cladism. And the
cladistic methodology is certainly thoroughgoing evolutionary, in
the sense that it is explicitly intended to create classifications
that correspond on a one to one basis with phylogenetic branching
events. In fact, the system was initially called "phylogenetic
systematics," but the name was changed to avoid confusion with a
more standard approach called by the same name (even though this
other is actually less phylogenetic!).
I can't see how it is possible to strip cladism of evolutionary
assumptions, unless one does so by means that amount to little more
than mere declaration. My guess (admittedly made without adequate
background knowledge) is that this "transformed cladism" deal is a
tempest in a teapot, concerned more with issues of semantics than
genuine substance.
However this may be, cladism only works because there are very
particular patterns of homology (similarities and dissimilarities
among corresponding features of different organisms) which do
obtain in nature; and these patterns do obtain because evolution
has occurred. Thus, cladism works because evolution has occurred.
Patterson's own attempts to decouple classification from evolution
apparently led him to recognize this. The following is from a
letter he wrote in response to inquiries from the editor of the
_Creation/Evolution Newsletter_ (v5,n5 Sept-Oct 1985):
[Luther Sunderland, the creationist who taped and transcribed
Patterson's talk, said...] "He [Patterson] changed his position
[to that of an "anti-evolutionist"] because of the dramatic
fossil evidence" -- rubbish. I got myself tangled because of
six months cogitating about homology, the central concept of
comparative biology. Five years later, I know of no alternative
to common ancestry as an explanation for homology. The efforts
I have made to find an alternative convince me that there isn't
one.
So... It seems fairly clear to me also that Patterson's describing
himself as a "non-evolutionist" or even an "anti-evolutionist," are
to be understood in terms of the approach that he was advocating
toward taxonomy. Its very clear that he was never opposed to
evolutionary theory, but only to its supposedly undesirable
intrusions into the task of classifying living organisms.
Anyway, I can understand how this all might be misinterpreted by a
layperson, and particularly by a creationist.
************************************************************************
From: PHIL NICHOLLS To: ANDREW CUMMINS
Subj: Re: Quotes Area: BIOGENESIS Date: 93/09/02
This is in response to your recent posting about Colin Patterson and
his so-called "anti-evolution" statements. Last year on GENIE I got
involved in a debate with someone who made this claim. I decided that
the best way to approach this was to go straight to the horses mouth,
so to speak. I placed a long distance call to the British Museum of
Natural History and asked to speak with Dr. Patterson. Unfortunately,
Dr. Patterson was vacationing at the time of my call. I did talk with
one of his assistants, whose name escapes me at present. I was told
that these often quoted remarks were a constant source of irritation
to Dr. Patterson and that it was perhaps best that I hadn't been able
to reach him. Dr. Patterson made those remarks IN ORDER TO GET HIS
AUDIENCE TO THINK ABOUT EVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS AND NOT JUST
RECITE WHAT THEY HAD BEEN TAUGHT. It is a tactic that many good
teachers take in order to get students to think critically. Dr.
Patterson's assistant assured me that Dr. Patterson was definitely not
an anti-evolutionist, that he was in fact in the midst of editing a
new book on evolutionary biology and cladistics.
Phil Nicholls
---end of reposts
Some of these posters are still here maybe they have more to say about
Sunderland. Also here is another snippet of his work:
Area # 53 BIOGENESIS 03-31-94 21:32 Message # 258
From : SCOTT FAUST
To : BERNIE WILT
Subj : Origin of races!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jim Lippard:
Tom McIver, an anthropologist who has written several articles for
_Creation/Evolution_, _NCSE Reports_, and the _Skeptical Inquirer_, as
well as the book _Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography_, has a book
on creationism that will be published by the Univ. of California Press.
Chapter 15 of the book is titled "Creationism and Racism," and the
history of connections between creationism and racism. A shorter
version of the chapter will be published in a future issue of _Skeptic_
magazine (probably the issue after next, i.e., vol. 2, no. 4).
Anyway, I wanted to share some of it here. McIver begins with a bunch
of quotes from creationists who maintain that racism comes from belief
in evolution--Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Bert Thompson, Malcolm Bowden,
etc.--it's a pretty long list. This part really caught my eye, though:
"Evolution and racism are the same thing," declares Jerry Bergman
(McIver 1990:21; see Bergman's "Evolution and the Development of Nazi
Race Policy" in _Bible-Science Newsletter_ [1988] and articles in
_Creation Research Society Quarterly_ [1980], _CSSHQ_ [1986], and
_Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_ [1991, 1992]).[2]
[2] Bergman has been featured in many creationist publications for
his complaint that he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling
Green State University "solely because of my beliefs and publications
in the area of creationism"; a cover story, for instance, in the
Creation Science Legal Defense Fund's magazine _Creation_ ("The Jerry
Bergman Story," 1984). In Bergman's _The Criterion_ (preface by
Wendell Bird, foreword by John Eidsmoe), Luther Sunderland said
Bergman was fired "solely" because of his religious beliefs--his
creationism (1984:64). But in a signed letter published in David
Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, Bergman
stated that "reverse [racial] discrimination was clearly part of the
decision"--i.e., that it was *not* solely religious discrimination
(Bergman 1985:2).
---end of second repost
I have not personally checked these, nor do I have the complete references.
I am however quite willing to write Jim Lippard for answers to any
questions you might have.
Now you tell me, who is misrepresenting what?
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * How's Hitler & Limbaugh different? Rush uses a script.
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
Area: Evolution
Msg: #288
Date: 10-19-94 12:24 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: Repost 4
------------------------------------
Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-21-94 11:59 Message # 5
From : LARRY SITES
To : ARTHUR BIELE RCVD
Subj : TRANSITIONS, PART 8.
ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-19-94 00:25 re: TRANSITIONS, PART 8.
AB>As can be seen from my posts, the fossil record, as detailed in the
AB>evolutionary literature, provides substantial support for Creation
AB>theory.
AB> 3. The record shows that new biological designs typically make
AB> abrupt appearances,
Define "abrupt".
AB>This is not at all what Evolution theory predicts. This is very
AB>consistent and supportive of creation theory!
Explain just exactly how the appearance of increasingly complex lifeforms
over the course of MILLIONS of years is consistant with and supports the
creation theory when the reference book for creation theory claims that ALL
lifeforms were created in a mere 6 DAYS and by deduction this happened a
mere few thousand years ago.
AB>I offer the following as a conclusion.
AB> "I feel that the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics ha
AB> not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think i
AB> has been positively anti-knowledge. ...
AB> Well, What about evolution? It certainly has the function of
AB> knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the
AB> question I have been putting to people, "Is there one thing you
AB> can tell me about evolution?" The absence of answers seem to
AB> suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any
AB> knowledge." Paleontologist Colin Patterson in a Speech given at
AB> the Am. Museum of Natural History, Nov. 1981.
AB> Patterson blame[s] evolution for the lack of
AB>progress in Paleontology.
BUNK! This IS the quote that Sunderland TOTALLY misrepresents! See my
message to you titled with his name. If you were at the speech YOU would
know that. Since, to my knowledge, this has NEVER been published outside
creationist circles, it appears that you stold it from some creationist
author. Who did you steal it from? Is it ok to steal and lie for your god?
AB>In light of these 8 posts I've just posted, and that FAQ's such as Ms.
AB>Hunt's are still widely circulated and believed by evolutionists
AB>is evidence that Academia does suppress the spread of knowledge of the
AB>scientific inadequacy of the materialistic, atheistic, naturalistic
AB>evolution.
BUNK! Your misrepresentation of out of context quotes is evidence of no
such thing. But the fact that this misquote is still widely circulated by
creationist organizations such as the ICR is evidence that the creation
"theory" must rely on lies in an attempt to win out by appearing to tear
down evolution.
AB> þ OLX 1.52 þ You Shall Know Them by Their Fruits.
When a religion bears lies and theft in promoting it's creation "theory"
what kind of a religion will it be known as? Now that you know that this
Patterson quote is a misrepresentation, you can no longer present it
without being guilty of the sin of false witness. Are you willing to
deliberatly lie for your lord? Do you think he will grant you eternal life
for such efforts? What if he lied to you so that he could steal YOUR life?
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * THE ROAD TO SUCCESS IS ALWAYS UNDER CONSTRUCTION......
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
Area: Evolution
Msg: #289
Date: 10-19-94 12:26 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: Repost 5
------------------------------------
Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-24-94 08:53 Message # 2
From : LARRY SITES
To : ARTHUR BIELE RCVD
Subj : Plagerism
ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-19-94 21:44 re: A CREATIONISTS IDEA 1/
AB>Eisely, has stated that Darwin plagiarized Blyth in some of Darwin's
AB>early writings, and failed to give Blyth the credit due him for his
AB>ideas on natural selection.
Perhaps you have failed to receive my mutiple posts indicating that YOU are
doing the exact same thing. Did YOU personally research all the 150+ year
old documents you reference? If not, why did you not give proper credit to
the person who EARNED it? Is it ok for those of your religious beliefs to
pick and choose the commandments they observe?
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet ... any thing that is thy neighbour's.
If you can not observe your own religions rules, what makes you qualified
to critize a creation philosophy that is different from yours?
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at
her.
AB>In creation theory, natural selection acts as a conservative force for
AB>preserving a created kind, i.e. a baramin, and maintaining its fitness.
AB>Natural selection works with an organisms ability to change, within
AB>genetic limits, so that plants and animals can multiply and fill every
AB>possible area of the earth with variations on a theme perfectly suited
AB>for that area. An intelligent Creator designed the creation so that all
AB>necessary components were there to provide the balance we see in nature
AB>and He also provided the genetic information necessary to give each
AB>baramin adaptability to changing environments to enhance its survival.
AB>At the time of each baramin was created, their genes were in excellent
AB>condition and were very rich in information.
AB> [For instance, Adam and Eve's offspring would be free of genetic
AB> defects (as harmful mutations would not have yet occurred) and they
AB> contained all the genetic information necessary to produce all the
AB> known human characteristics we observe today in the human races (minus
AB> the defects).]
Did YOU fomulate this idea all by your self? Or did you steal (plagerize)
it?
If natural selection acts as you suggest, why did it not eliminate the
human behavioral characteristics known as sin that creationists commonly
explain as being the result of the same degenerative effect you claim in
"your" work that natural selection prevents? If natural selection failed in
this respect on such a grand scale that the entire human population (less
Noah and crew) had to be eliminated to put things back into order, why
would you expect it to work in other areas? If natural selection works to
maintain the original species all created in the first 6 days, how does
"your" theoritical work account for the absence of the majority of current
and extinct species from the early fossil record?
It appears the YOU will have many things YOU will have to account for, both
in this life and the next. Why don't you repent from your sinning and tell
us whose ideas you have been posting so we can read then directly
ourselves?
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * Creationists: Road kill on the Information Superhighway.
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
Area: Evolution
Msg: #290
Date: 10-19-94 12:28 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: Repost 6
------------------------------------
Area # 231 EVOLUTION 09-23-94 07:00 Message # 568
From : DAVID BLOOMBERG
To : ARTHUR BIELE
Subj : TRANSITIONS
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Arthur Biele of 1:278/108
writes:
DB>But, here is some info about transitional forms:
DB>======================================================================
>Author: Kathleen Hunt (jespah@u.washington.edu)
> Title: Transitional Fossils FAQ
>======================================================================
AB> I've come across Ms. Hunts Transitional Fossil FAQ before and I
respond
AB> fully herewith and direct your attention to my posts addressed to
`ALL'
AB> under this topic.
I forwarded your response to Kathleen Hunt, and she sent me back the
following:
From: u.washington.edu!jespah (Kathleen Hunt)
To: David Bloomberg
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 16:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
I started out writing you a short note in reply, but this ended up being
rather long, as I thought over Arthur's points more and more. If you
want to pass this on to the Fidonet group, please do. You can give out my
e-mail address, too, if anyone should want to reply directly to me.
Arthur's comments hinge primarily on:
1) A subtle and continual re-definition of "transitional". Shown a fine
transitional sequence linking one species to another (e.g. Dinohippus to
Equus, or Merychippus to its 19 hipparion descendents), he says that no
real, large-scale evolution has occurred.
Then, when shown a much larger-scale transition, such as reptiles
to mammals, he states that since the fine-scale, species-to-species fossils
are lacking, the fossils are not truly transitional and in fact might not
even be in the correct ancestral sequence (this is indeed true for
"cousin" fossils such as _Archeopteryx_, related to but not ancestral to
modern groups. But nonetheless it is still a transitional form that has
traits of both birds and of reptiles!). *sigh* In other words, shown a
fine-scale transition, he switches to his large-scale definition of
"transitional"; shown a large-scale transition, he switches to his
small-scale definition of "transitional".
(I was particularly interested when he said that no real evolution
had occurred in the Merychippus lineage because they were all horses.
Well, actually, they were NOT horses. They were non-horse equids that
gave rise to horse equids. That was supposed to be the whole point!
BTW, does the Fidonet group have access to the horse-evolution FAQ? It
discusses this in more detail.) [Yes, I have it here, and will post it for
you in the next messagess. -- D.B.]
I think he would say that he would only be satisfied by a
large-scale transition involving major morphological change (across, say,
classes of vertebrates, e.g. fish-amphibian), *with* known fine-scale
species-to-species sequences for every speciation across the entire
transition. For (say) the reptile to mammal transition, there were
probably at least hundreds of speciations over several million years.
Now...to get one good species-to-species sequence, you need a very
fine-grained temporal series (covering, say, 500,000 years in detail)
from the particular location where the speciation occurred. To get
a record of a large-scale transition, you need fossils from widespread
areas covering several million years. It's really beyond hope that we
would get a record of every speciation covered in a large-scale
transition. Arthur pooh-poohed my admittedly dramatic account of how
unlikely it is to find good fossils; but I really believe it to be true.
To get a documented speciation, you need a really spectacular series of
fossils from exactly the right geographic location. This *has* happened
many times. But it doesn't happen enough to cover an *entire* large-scale
morphological change...just parts of the change.
Virtually all of his objections to particular fossils are due to
this constant shifting between scales, and to his rejection of any
transitional fossils that are not accompanied by documented speciations.
Maybe I should make that clearer in the faq -- that most of the
evidence I'm presenting is *either* a fine-grained species-to-species
transition, with many fossils showing the change, *or* a series of rather
isolated fossils across a huge time span, without speciations, but
showing how some of the intermediates between very different groups lived
and functioned. (e.g. _Archeopteryx_ for what a bird-reptile
intermediate looked like, and _Ambulocetus_ for a semi-aquatic whale.)
But not both. If people think that is not a good enough fossil
record...well, they're entitled to their opinion. Personally I think it
takes a great deal of mental rigidity to look at the reptile-mammal
intermediates and *not* see how easily they must have evolved from one to
the next. And what sort of creation model explains the presence of those
intermediates?
Arthur also doesn't like "cousin" fossils -- fossils that are not
direct ancestors of modern groups, but that clearly show how the modern
group was derived from a different group. _Archeopteryx_ is the classic
"cousin" fossil; it was probably not ancestral to any surviving birds.
However, it was clearly a bird that was derived from reptiles, and thus
shows us quite clearly how at least one branch of bird evolution (not the
surviving branch, but a branch nonetheless) came about.
He has a few other objections to particular fossils that I think
are unfounded. For example, he clearly hasn't studied middle-ear and jaw
anatomy in vertebrates, or it would be very apparent to him how the
reptile jaw joint could easily become the mammal middle ear. He also
presents a laughably naive list of reptilian and mammalian features,
presumably to emphasize how different they are. There are many reptiles
that do not have his "reptilian" traits (e.g. live-bearing reptiles and
warm-blooded reptiles; both are actually fairly common, reptiles being
more diverse than most people imagine), and likewise there are reptile-like
mammals that do not have his "mammalian" traits (e.g. egg-laying mammals,
mammals that are not really homeothermic [ex. edentates]). The two
classes are really not as far apart as he tries to show.
2) He also relies heavily on the Argument from Authority, and takes
particular pride in quoting evolutionary biologists who say the
fossil record, for the most part, shows stasis. All these quotes are
taken from the debate over gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, and
the scientists he quoted are, of course, in favor of punk-eek. In my
opinion they overstated their case some; they were correct in pointing
out the strong tendency toward evolutionary stasis seen in the fossil
record, but went overboard stating that no transitions at all can be
seen. In the flurry of research during and following this debate, it's
become clear that many species-to-species transitions *are* documented in
the fossil record, in fine-grained detail, showing change within and
among species. (I'll be including info from some of these studies in
the faq update.)
In essence he spends a lot of time knocking down gradualism, and stating
that gradual evolution is not supported by the fossil record. He is
essentially presenting one side of the punk-eek vs. gradualism conflict,
stating only the evidence against gradualism. He notably does *not*
present any of the newer evidence for gradualism, and *also* does not
present any of the evidence for punk-eek (!), thus leaving the impression
that creationism is the only alternative.
I think those are the main two areas of contention: 1) disagreement
about what constitutes a True Transitional Fossil, and 2) much
discussion from eminent authorities about the lack of gradualism in the
fossil record. It was really a very thorough critique on Arthur's part,
and
though I think most of his points are unfounded, I will look up some of
the specific morphological points he raised -- particularly regarding the
fish-amphibian transition and the details of Diarthrognathus's ear. I
suspect he was copying much if not all of those points out of some
creationist book, since those sections showed an apparent sophistication
in vertebrate anatomy that was completely unequaled anywhere else in his
critique.
I was baffled by his insistence that a single transitional fossil would
NOT be powerful evidence for evolution. Why on earth not?
And finally, wasn't it funny that Arthur spent so many pages quoting
evolutionists who were criticizing evolutionary theory -- evolutionists
who have gotten a lot of press, have *very* successful careers, have
published many books, etc. -- and then, after all that, he concluded by
saying essentially that evolutionists ignore all evidence against their
theories. For heaven's sake, the one thing that is crystal clear from
the punk-eek debate is that evolutionists are constantly modifying their
theories in light of new evidence and new (valid) objections. There's
an entire new model of macroevolution out there now!
I'm also very curious as to what model he would erect *instead* of
evolution. I suppose he favors a model of creation in which God created
each species separately, but *in series*? For instance, God first
creates Hyracotherium, then Epihippus, then Orohippus, etc., etc., then
Dinohippus, then Equus. (I wonder why he created such a nice series of
intermediate species first, instead of just doing Equus right away.)
There's that sad sentence at the end where he refers to evolution as
atheistic. That's just not true.
Anyway...thanks for sending that all on to me. I'm not sure if I have
room in the faq to respond in detail without getting into a long
discussion about gradualism and punk-eek. I think I should at least put
in a paragraph about what I mean by "transitional" and whether or not the
fossils in the list are ancestors or "cousins", and whether the
speciations involved are preserved or not.
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * Creationists explain one thing by unexplaining everything
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
Area: Evolution
Msg: #291
Date: 10-19-94 19:20 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: LARRY'S PEGS
------------------------------------
ARTHUR BIELE to LARRY SITES on 10-17-94 00:17 re: LARRY'S PEGS
AB>I've seen from your numerous posts that you are a leader in applying th
AB>anti-creationists `scientific method' of Ridicule, Browbeating, and
AB>Insults.
Whine, whine, whine. What is it with you misguided religious types. Rather
than address the issues raised, you whine about being "persicuted". Does
that make you feel like you are following in your mythical martyrs
footsteps?
LS>I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE quote from ANY of the people you
>quote where they explain why this disproves evolution.
AB>Of course you put me in a no win position.
BUNK! As we shall see. I am putting you in no such position, though you are
accurate in describing your strawman alternatives below. But first, read
what I wrote and pay attention while I explain it. I am not asking for new,
addational or different sources, I am asking you to SUPPORT your
implication that the quotes YOU ALLREADY PROVIDED actually mean what you
say. You quote people AS IF they intended to conclude, as you apparently
do, that evolution in general is false. IF that is the conclusion your
sources reach, and your are as familiar with the quoted source as your
posts indicate (ie your read the original rather than "borrowing" from some
unidentified actual source), then you SHOULD be able to quote the sources
EXPLAINING how the quote supports YOUR conclusion.
To "win", you merely need to illistrate how the quoted authors explain the
conclusion YOU imply they came to. If you can not, then one of 2 likely
posibilities exist. One, that the quoted author does NOT reach the
conclusion you imply meaning that you are attempting to DELIBERATLY
misrepresent. Second, you ACCEPTED the quote as evidence of the conclusion
from SOMEONE else who you have not identified.
Now, if you understand my challenge and how to win, will you show me how
the quotes support the conclusion? If not, why not?
If I quote Creationists, you
AB>brand them all in numerous derogatory terms and reject off hand what
AB>they have to say.
That is BECAUSE they have been shown to be simply wrong or deliberatly
misleading on these very forums in the past. Just because this is YOUR
first experience at being shown that doesn't mean that it hasn't been done
many times before.
AB>So I quote evolutionary scientists with regard to the factual data as
AB>they see it, I show how this data supports Creation and/or undercuts
AB>evolution, then you accuse me of falsely applying this data because the
AB>evolutionary scientists whom I'm quoting are evolutionists. Your
AB>reasoning is twisted.
No, I and others accurately show HOW SOMEONE has MISREPRESENTED
evolutionary scientists by taking portions of their work and using that to
imply support for a conclusion that the authors never intended. Scientists
attempt to discredit some aspect of evolutionary theory in order to promote
some other aspect of their own liking. While one may find numerious
examples of this that can be taken out of context, few of them ACTUALLY
reach the conclusion implied by their misquoters.
AB>The point you are making, that it is unethical to use the testimony of
AB>an evolutionist to validate scientific data or a scientific principle
AB>which I believe to be supportive of creation theory, is absurd to the
AB>highest degree.
No, that is NOT the point I am making, if in fact the quoted source REACHES
YOUR CONCLUSION. Misrepresenting the sources CONCLUSIONS is unethical.
Someone has done EXACTLY that with at least 2 of your quoted sources,
Petterson and Grasse.
LS>Second you claim that archy is a mosaic and a "true bird". Please ex
>the difference between a "mosaic" and a transational.
AB>Archy has some characteristics that are not typical of birds living
AB>today, such as claws and teeth. Many mammals commonly have claws and
AB>teeth, Archy shares these mammalian features with mammals.
AB>If you believe in evolution, then any species that is not the last of
AB>it's evolutionary line is transitional.
That is true in only the most simplistic manner. I believe that has been
pointed out to you before. Evolutionary theory does NOT require that every
species change over time.
I'm interested only in
AB>transitional series. Especially any that demonstrate major morphologica
AB>changes.
I think you are only interested in defining evidence to fit your religious
superstitions. Read Hunt's response to your critisms.
My statement is that the Fossil record has failed to establish
AB>any such phylogenies. Evolution requires millions of phylogenies and th
AB>fossil record didn't record even one. A very inexplicable coincidence.
Who, besides you, says evolution REQUIRES these "millions of phylogenies"?
AB>Archy is not part of any transitional series on two accounts: the first
AB>because there is no scientific demonstration of any particular ancestra
AB>species (of reptile or whatever) making it's transition through descent
AB>and modification up to archy, and second, there is no scientific
AB>demonstration that Archy itself was ancestral to any non-archy
AB>descendants (e.g. modern birds).
As I said, you demonistrate that you are interested in defining away
things. So since Archy doesn't meet YOUR transational requirent, that makes
it a "mosaic" by default? How do you account for Archy's inability to meet
your own definational requirements for "baramins"? Since it contains
features of two created kinds, birds and nonbirds, does that mean that
there is a third kind, combos? If so how can any of the three be said to
reproduce after it's "own" kind?
LS>Third, you claim that the frenchman Grasse is contempary to the auth
>the transational list you presume to critize. Unless I am mistaken,
>wrote about 100 years ago while the list is relatively recent. Pleas
>explain where I am wrong.
AB>Yes, you are mistaken. Pierre-Paul Grosse wrote his stinging attack on
AB>Darwinian evolution `Evolution of Living Organisms' in the 1970's.
AB>Grosse was not yet born 100 years ago.
Yep, you are right. I had him confused with someone else. I have since got
that straight. Since then, I posted to you showing that his "stinging
attack" on ___Darwinian___ evolution is in fact a promotion of his own
neo-Lamarkian inheratiance of acquired charastics form OF EVOLUTION. Did
you get that post? Perhaps the infamious Plannet Connect censorship of 4
letter worded posts caused it to be electronically "burned". More
self-rightious religious morality at work, eh. If you did NOT get it, I
will take out the offending words and resend it. Then you can explain how
his "stinging attack" leads to the conclusion that your religious
superstition is correct.
LS>Fourth, you seem to believe that life must have jumped from non-exis
>to protein complexity similar to that of the present. Who, besides
>creationist liars, ever claimed this?
AB>I've never made any such statement. I have stated that it is very
AB>implausible that the pre-biotic earth could have ever produced
AB>life at all solely via naturalistic means.
I must have confused you with Robert Rice because of your support for
Hoyles ideas.
And I have refuted the
AB>arguments of those who tried to explain why biochemical evolution is
AB>very probable and highly plausible solely via naturalistic means.
Your opponents seem to have just the oppsite opinion. I believe them.
If yo
AB>have a scientific demonstration of how biochemical evolution is highly
AB>plausible, please let me know. We'll discuss it.
Chemistry. Care to explain why naturalistic means for life origination are
"very implausible"?
LS>Fifth, how old do you think the earth and universe are? What scienti
>methods support that age?
AB>I do not know how old the earth and the universe are. The Creation
AB>Theory I proposed does not insist on any particular age for the earth o
AB>the universe. It is not scientific to insist on a particular age of the
AB>earth and/or universe. Do you believe that the earth and the universe
AB>must be a certain age?
I believe that all scientific evidence converges to suggest that the
universe is 10-20 billion years old, the earth around 5 billion, and that
increasingly complex lifeorms lived and died for millions of years before
the apperance of humanity. Got any evidence to the contrary? Yet Henry
Morris, head of one of the largest creation organizations, makes it plain
that if everything wasn't created as it now is in 6 days a few thousand
years ago, then the central tennant of christianity, that death was the
result of HUMAN sin and that belief in a mythical saviour is required for
eternal salvation from that sin, is false. So which does the evidence
support, an old earth and millions of years of death before humanity, or
your religious superstition?
LS>I hope that you plan to stick around and see how the author you plag
>is a liar and has grossly deceived you.
AB>I will `stick around'. Lets see if you make good on any of your
AB>accusations.
Talk to Mark Fox. He said the same thing before being shown a liar and
thief for your god and running away rather than confessing and repenting.
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * Listen up, serve God, and live! John 5:24
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
Area: Evolution
Msg: #292
Date: 10-19-94 20:13 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: LARRY'S PEGS 1
------------------------------------
ARTHUR BIELE to LARRY SITES on 10-17-94 00:17 re: LARRY'S PEGS 1
LS>ARTHUR BIELE to FREDRIC RICE on 09-05-94 01:03 re: "THEORY"
Why did you wait for over a month to reply?
LS>AB> many other
>AB>accredited scientists have completely abandoned evolution.
LS>Name these "many" scientists, and quote their documented "abandoning
>forever be known as a liar.
AB>I can't name all of them Larry. I do not know even most of them. Plus
AB>their are numerous scientists who do not express their anti-evolutionar
AB>views because they value their jobs and careers and would like to avoid
AB>the many mudslingers like yourself.
BUNK! Urban creationist legend or people holding to religious superstitions
that have nothing to do with their field of "science".
AB> There are leading scientists, non-creationists, who reject
AB> macro-evolution strictly on scientific grounds, though they have
AB> nothing to replace it with. These include Denton,
Totally discredited by the reviews I've read. I'd be happy to post
some, though I'm not willing to explain or defend the criticisms.
Lipson, Kerkut,
AB> Sermonti, Hull, Fleischmann, Fondi, Vernet, Ball, Ambrose,
Quote thier documented "abandoning evolution".
AB> Nilsson,
See below and then explain why he is a "leading scientist".
AB> Bounoure, Koop, Olson, etc..
Get to quoting.
AB>"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothin
AB> in the progress of science. It is useless."
AB> Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of research at the French National
AB> Center for Scientific Research, Director of the Zoological Museum,
AB> and former President of the Biological Society at Strassbourg.
AB> (Quoted on a televised debate of Creation vs. Evolution, 1986)
"He's wrong", Larry Sites, self educated debunker of creation.
AB>"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest
AB> growing controversial minorities. ... Many scientists supporting this
AB> position hold impressive credentials in science." Science Digest:
AB> `Educators against Darwin', winter, 1979.
Usually in fields other than those they critize. Find ONE practicing
creationist paleontoligist.
AB>N. Heribert Nilsson, the famed botanist, "My attempts to demonstrate
AB> Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have
AB> completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having
AB> started from a preconcieved anti-evolutionary standpoint. ... It may b
AB> firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of
AB> an Evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil material is now
AB> so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and th
AB> lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the
AB> scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
AB> filled." As quoted in Arthur C. Custance,'The Earth Before Man', Part
AB> II, Doorway Publications (1984).
From a post by Scott Faust:
Tom McIver has an entry on this book in his _Anti-Evolution: An
Annotated Bibliography_. Nilsson was a geneticist, and apparently
worked as a botanist. McIver reports that he was director of the
"Botanical Institute" of Lund, Sweden. But Nilsson also seems to
have been a bit of a loon! He had some weird ideas about genes
(even for the time), including the claim that enzymes were also
genes. In this book he also advocated Hans Horbiger's "cosmic ice
theory", a pseudoscience of repeated planetary catastrophes which
obtained a cult following in Germany and Austria under the Nazis.
The cosmic ice theory is similar in flavor and evidentiary basis
(though not in specifics) to Velikovsky's planetary pinball scheme.
It involves the claim that the orbits of the planets and moons are
gradually slowing down. The earth has had a number of different
moons -- small planets that the earth has sequentially captured and
which eventually disintegrate and fall to the earth. Mythological
evidence (supposedly) indicates that our present moon was captured
13,500 years ago. One of the past moons was made of ice (thus
"cosmic ice"), and its disintegration caused Noah's flood. As with
Velikovskism, "cosmic ice" theorists were often big on "proving"
the accuracy of the bible.
Nilsson's views on "synthetic speciation" were even stranger. Here
is McIver's summary:
During these catastrophic periods, new organisms are created by
"emication" -- a drastic alteration or production of gametes. A
few survive as totally new forms. Inspired by Oparin's theory
of spontaneous origin of life, Nilsson argues that these
gametes, of entirely new organisms, could form spontaneously and
polyphyletically, out of the mix of biocatalytic substances
engendered during the catastrophic episodes. "During
paleobiological times whole new worlds of biota have been
repeatedly synthesized." Nilsson declares that organisms such
as orchids and elephants were "instantly created out of
non-living material."
AB>"I'm part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a
AB> good number of these are creationists. Many don't actively belong to
AB> any creationists organization. Based on proportions and knowing the
AB> membership of the Creation Research Society, it's probably a
AB> conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000
AB> practising scientists who are biblical creationists." Dr. Russel
AB> Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, Physicist at prestigious Sandia National
AB> Laboratories, Alberquerque, New Mexico, In a 1993 interview with Dr.
AB> Carl Wieland. Creation Ex-Nihilo, Summer, 1993.
The guy is an ICR adjunt prof. and his non-science has been throughly
debunked. From the talk.origins faq file:
Author: Tim Thompson (tjt@jpl.nasa.gov)
Title: Creation Science and Magnetic Fields
I draw your attention to the paper "The Creation of Planetary
Magnetic Fields", by D. Russell Humphreys, Quarterly Journal of the
Creation Research Society, vol. 21, December, 1984. Recieved 3
January, 1984, revised 14 August, 1984. This is a refereed, scientific
journal. It says that Humphreys has a PhD in physics, and is (was) a
physicist at Sandia National Laboratories. Here is the abstract of the
paper:
"God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a
very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with
many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small
magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough
to account for the magnetism of the planets. Within seconds after
creation, ordinary physical events would convert the alignment of
nuclei into a large electric current circulating within each planet,
maintaining the magnetic field. The currents and fields would decay
steadily over thousands of years, as Barnes has pointed out. The
present magnetic field strengths of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets
agree very well with the values produced by this theory and a
6000-year age for the solar system. The theory is consistent with all
the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled
evolutionists."
Humphreys presumes that God made the sun, and all of the planets
out of water, which has a strong dipole. Line up enough dipoles, get a
big field, then God changes everything from water to the silicate/iron
type stuff we see now, leaving behind decaying magnetic fields.
For those of you who still think scientific creationism is
scientific, I leave you with a paragraph from Humphreys' "conclusions"
section:
"The Bible is scientifically accurate. A straightforward reading of
Scripture supplied the essentials of this theory: the possibility of
initial alignment, the water composition, and the short time scale.
The fact that the theory fits the facts shows that the scientist can
rely on the Bible for new insight into the natural world.
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot Universe ? (Y/N/Q)
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
Area: Evolution
Msg: #293
Date: 10-19-94 21:25 (Public)
From: LARRY SITES
To: ARTHUR BIELE
Subject: LARRY'S PEGS 2
------------------------------------
ARTHUR BIELE to LARRY SITES on 10-17-94 00:17 re: LARRY'S PEGS 2
AB>Scientists are abandoning Evolution.
And your source for all these interesting quotes is? Given your track
record, why should anyone take your word that these are not gross
misrepresentations?
AB>In a Newsweek article, 1985, "The great body of work by Charles Darwin
AB>is under increasing attack and not only by Creationists, but by all
AB>sorts of other scientists."
Why is it that you note neither the specific issue date nor the title of
the article? Are you deliberatly making it difficult for anyone to check
this source, expecting that no one will bother to look through a whole YEAR
of magazines to find this mystery article? Would it suprise you to know
that your religious twin Mark Fox used the same techniques to avoid being
checked on? He seems to have favored many of the same creationist authors
you do.
AB> "Today, a hundred and twenty years after it was first promulgated, the
AB> Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before.
It is
AB> interesting, moreover, that most of these `experts' have abandoned
AB> Darwinism, not are the basis of religious faith or biblical
AB> persuasions, but strictly on scientific grounds, and in some
AB> instances, regretfully, as one could say."
AB> J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Telhardism an
AB> the New Religion" 1988, Tan Books and Publishers Inc..
Quote something that shows he is not just arguing a different aspect of
evolution against ___Darwinism___ aspect of evolution, rather than entirely
"abondoning" evolution as you imply.
AB>Lipson writes in his published paper 'A Physicist Looks at Evolution'
AB>(31 Physics Bulletin 38, 1980) rejects macro-evolution. He says:
AB> "I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution
AB>Lipson, an agnostic physicist, goes on to show that the scientific
AB>discoveries not only failed to support macro-evolution, but that, at
AB>the same time, the evidence also supports creation theory:
AB> "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that
AB> the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is
AB> anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not
AB> reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence
AB> supports it."
First off, why is a ___physicist___ qualified to judge evolutionary theory?
Evolution as it is generaly known in the layman sense is in the rhelm of
biology and palentology. Physicists, however, are qualified to talk about
the origin of the universe and many believe that its beginning while,
descriable in scientific terms, is indicative of a created beginning. Is
that what he really says? Quote him claiming that the universe is young or
that all life was created in 6 days.
Second that is another strange looking reference. Later on you refer to the
same apparent source again:
AB>If I may add one more Lipson quote:
AB>"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all
AB>scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their
AB>observations to fit in with it." (Physics Bulletin, "A Physicist Looks
AB>at evolution," 1980, Vol. 31,p. 138.)
So which is it, if either? Mark Fox also "mistyped" a similar reference.
One that when found, showed quite clearly that the author intended the
exact oppsite of his implication. Are you willing to certify that this
author is in fact "abandoning" evolution as you imply or merely putting his
own religious spin on the ultimate origin of the universe? Did you verify
this article yourself? What would you think if some author mislead you?
AB>Biochemists and noncreationist Professor G.A. Kerkut systematically
AB>examines the evidence for macro-evolution in his book, 'Implications of
AB>Evolution' and shows that in case after case, the evidence for
AB>macro-evolution is weak and can not be extrapolated from microevolution
AB>Kerkut sums up his books thesis, namely that:
AB> "What conclusions, then, can one come to concerning the validity of
AB> the various implications of evolution? If we go back to our initial
AB> assumptions it will be seen that the evidence is still lacking for
AB> most of them."
So what is his explaination for why things are the way they are?
AB>Dr. Guiseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics at the University of
AB>Peruvia, former director of the Genetics Institute of the University of
AB>Palermo, Senior Editor of the Biology Forum, and co-author and
AB>paleontologist Dr. R. Fondi (Dopo Darwin, 1980) stated that:
AB> "The result we believe must be striven for can therefore only be the
AB> following: Biology will receive no advantage from following the
AB> teachings of Lamarck, Darwin, and the modern hyper-Darwinists;
AB> Indeed, it must as quickly as possible leave the narrow straits and
AB> blind alleys of the evolutionistic myths and resume its certain
AB> journey along the open and illuminated paths of tradition."
Quote the part where they explain just what this "tradition" is. BTW, is
this book in english? I'd be really impressed if you read it in Portaguse
or whatever they use Peruvia. What does the Dopo in the title mean? This
could also be your chance to document a paleontologist creationist! Just
quote some of his scientific works that show the earth is young.
AB>Besides the anti-evolutionists,
Who, the unspecified Newsweek, 2 physicists, and your word on a biochemist
and two south americans? That's the "many scientists completely abandoning"
evolution? That's good for a RBI if I ever saw one!
their are also the anti-Darwinians, who
AB>believe in macro-evolution on philosophical grounds but concede that
AB>there is no known mechanism for how it may have occurred. Among them ar
AB>Hoyle, Lovtrup (who wrote a stinging refutation of all Darwinistic
AB>approaches entitled 'Darwinism, Refutation of a Myth'), Grasse, Lemoine
AB>Macbeth, Saunders, Ho, Ambrose, Russell, and Hsu.
SO WHAT! They sure are not "completely abandoning" evolution. And just how
does their disagrement upon the specifics of evolution provide evidence
that your religious superstition is anywhere near correct?
AB>In fact Hsu, a prominent geologist at the Geological Institute at
AB>Zurich, Stated: (Darwin's Three Mistakes, Geology, Vol.14 (1986))
AB> "We have had enough of of this Darwinian Fallacy.
AB> It is time we cry: 'The Emperor has no clothes.'"
Oh, really. I'd say it is your assertation that "many scientists completely
abandoning" evolution that is pretty scantily clad.
Peace, Larry
___
* WR # 398 * I know, I know. It's off to work I go!
--- FMail/386 0.98a
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
