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!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: various replies Message-ID: <663@utastro.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 11:11:10 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.663 Posted: Wed Oct 17 11:11:10 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Oct-84 19:08:38 EDT References: <32500005@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 133 > 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)