Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: catastrophic evolution - reply to Bill Jefferys Message-ID: <639@psivax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 11:52:37 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.639 Posted: Mon Aug 12 11:52:37 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 04:02:08 EDT References: <365@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 149 Summary: In article <365@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > I wouldn't feel > good about publishing in a journal "refereed" by > "scientists" in the case of the creation-evolution > debate. I would prefer well attended debates with > members of the press present as was the case in > Roanoke. I know "scientists" a little bit too well. > And I know the press too well, I have *no* faith in the ability of newsmen to understand science at all! After reading some of the articles on "scinece" innewspapers, and seeing what TV news has done to science, I find myself unable to give any mer credence to anything they say. As for debates before the general public, they are won by speaking ability *not* logic or correctness, and a speech contest is a poor way to determine truth. >> The probability that any of Ron's arguments is >>valid is precisely 0. In science, it is not the number >>of arguments but their correctness that counts. > > This one speaks for itself. It obviously tells an > impartial observer more about the author than > about the subject matter. > But that is the whole *basis* of science, looking for the *fact*, not merely what sounds good, or who can say the most. Mr. Jeffreys is *right*. > Mr. Jefferys seems to have missed the logical point > because the example. Six and five-fingered humans > could interbreed. A change from one species to > another with no possability of interbreeding could > only happen if more than one of the new species > appeared at one time i.e. under catastrophic > circumstances as I described. Or by gradual accumulation of changes in a small, physically isolated population. Under such circumstances there is no reason why the isolate could not develope reprocuctive isolation from the other formerly con-specific populations it is now seperated from. > > > Duplication and rearrangement by who or what > agency? Dr. Frankenstein? My understanding is > that when this occurs naturally, the clinical term > is "cancer". > Wrong! It is called chromosomal mutation, and *some* instances of it *may* lead to cancer, but by no means all. In fact the only result is may well be reproductive isolation! (Though I think such a limited effect is probably rare). To see how some of this works, try locating the various studies on the genetics of *wild* species of Drosophila. There are a number of species and species complexes in which chromosome rearrangement is *typical* and *frequent* without any ill-effect, and in fact what appears to be some adaptive effects. Or read about Oenothera, a flower genus in which rearrangements are so common that Meiosis often results in chromosome *ring* instead of pairs! >>It is well established that the first people in the >>Western hemisphere were responsible for the extinction >>of most of the large mammals in North and South >>America. They had nothing but stone weapons, but their >>methods were extremely effective. > > I love this one! The creatures Mr. Jefferys has in > mind include several which I wouldn't want to face > with anything less than a 50 caliber machine gun. If I were alone, I would agree, but the ancient hunters had a *major* advantage, teemwork and language. A large group of hunters working closely together and *communicating* with on another can do remarkable things. > My favorite ancient animal is the pteratorn, not > really a mammal, but why be strict? Mr. Jefferys > will sooner or later have to account for the > pteratorn's extinction as well. The pteratorn was > a 200 lb. golden eagle with a 30 foot wingspan. An > eagle's ability to kill things is grossly out of > proportion to its size. I am morally certain > that the pteratorn would enjoy the meal as much as > I would enjoy the (brief) spectacle. It wouldn't > be quite fair to say that the guys from UT would > fare as badly or worse than the Neanderthals of > 10,000 years ago; the Neanderthals would know > better than to try it. Since the only danger to > the pteratorn would be indigestion, the SPCA would > probably not object to the event being staged. > But see above. A well organized hunt by a sufficiently well trained group could definately kill a Pteratorn. But then, not *all* extinctions were caused by humanity, only a large number of the more recent ones! The Pteratorn may have become extinct because the large prey it required to live were no longer available due to our hunting them to extinction. (Note, I only said *may* *have*). > > Immanuel Velikovsky was aware of this > but refrained from including it in "Worlds in > Collision, Vol I" specifically because it would > seem too weird to most people. Every book on > dinosaurs I have read mentions the problem of > weight for these animals; most state that > brontosaurs lived in water even though their bodies > show no adaptation for an aquatic life, simply > because rudimentary calculations showed that their > legs would not support them on land. Well, you have not been reading very recent work on this. Those "calculations" were *very* rudimentary, so rudimentary I would call them guesses rather than calculations. *Real* calcualtions have shown that even the largest "brontosaur" had plenty of *extra* support capacity in thier legs! They would have had no more trouble on dry land than an Elephant. This has been accepted for quite a number of years now by the scientific community. In fact the lack of aquatic adaptions in these animals is now held to be conclusive proof that they were *not* aquatic. > The problem > for large birds is more appalling. I have actually > seen books which state that pterosaurs and > pteratorns climbed up mountains and then glided > down again, a hell of a hard way to have to make a > living. The authors were admitting that 200 lb > birds can't fly in our world. Same problem again, these guesses(or assumptions) have been amply dispelled by valid calculations. The larger Pterosaurs have in fact been shown to have a better lift ratio than any airplane. The stall speed of Pteranodon was about 5 mph (and that is *air speed* not ground speed). Such an organism could take off just by facing into the wind!(I believe this was in a recent issue of one of the Linnean Society jornals). The pteratorn is prabably a similar case of jumping to a conclusion before making proper calculations! I see no reason why it could not fly! And I wasn't going to get involve in the Velikovsky debate! I just couldn't let such gross mis-statements pass without comment. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen