Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: various replies Message-ID: <657@utastro.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 10:15:04 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.657 Posted: Wed Oct 17 10:15:04 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Oct-84 19:06:01 EDT References: <32500005@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 67 [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