Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; 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: catastrophic evolution - reply to Bill Jefferys Message-ID: <510@utastro.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 17:38:15 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.510 Posted: Thu Aug 8 17:38:15 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 06:37:11 EDT References: <365@imsvax.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 148 I have submitted another article on Pseudoscience, which addresses parts of Ted Holden's recent submission. In this article I address some other specific points he raised. >>These days, debates between Creationists and >>Evolutionists are regularly won by evolutionists. > > Where? When? I mean in a reasonably well attended > setting , not Rhetoric 101 at UT. Like I say, I > haven't heard about it. For example, at the University of Minnesota last February 18th, where Duane Gish, Creationism's most formidable debater (and one has to give him every bit of respect for his debating skills), was soundly defeated. He was challenged publically, as he has been for the past several years, to give references for his amazing claims that proteins in human blood are more similar to those in bullfrog blood than they are in chimpanzee blood. When he repeatedly avoided answering this question, the audience gave him an well-deserved hard time. One scientist who has debated Dr. Gish recently, Emanuel Sillman, reported after his experience (in Creation/Evolution Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 4), "No scientist *who prepares well* should overlook the opportunity to debate Gish or Morris. It may well be that you don't make any converts, but you certainly can raise questions in the minds of any group of people...The arguments [Gish and Morris] raise are familiar, and easily rebutted." I might mention that in Sillman's debate with Gish, the audience was "stacked" against him, because the debate was sponsored by four fundamentalist churches and the local Teens for Christ. Sillman, at least, isn't afraid of the big bad Creationists! >> 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. Ron has not defended a single one of his arguments. If any of them had had any validity, he would certainly have done so, but he hasn't. He doesn't even have the excuse of claiming that net.origins is a refereed journal, and that the evolutionist conpiracy would reject his article! So Ron himself has shown us by his eloquent silence that his arguments are not credible. >>Groups of humans with six fingers are known. The trait >>breeds true. There is one such group in (I believe) >>Appalachia. > > Like I said, these people are fortunate to be > living in the 20'th century. Being burned at the > stake was never much fun. But six-fingered humans > seems to have been the wrong example to use. > 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. This is a strawman argument. An incorrect mechanism for speciation is proposed as if that is what evolutionists believe. Then the strawman is demolished. No evolutionist claims that new species arise from a single mutation. Speciation is believed to occur after a breeding population becomes isolated, and as a result of the cumulative effects of many genetic changes. It is easy to find examples of this. For one, there are "ring species" of birds, which is a chain of bird populations, extending entirely around the globe. Each population interbreeds freely with its neighbors, yet at the two ends of the chain, (where they join up) the populations are reproductively isolated, and are in fact different species. This situation probably arose as members of the population migrated around the globe, maintaining their interbreeding with neighboring members of the population; yet when the migrating population eventually met up with the original population , they were so different that they had to be classified as different species. In general, given time, a reproductively isolated population will evolve into a new species. If six-fingered humans were to be isolated from the general population for long enough, they would also eventually evolve into a distinct species. >>Finally, mutation is probably a minor (though >>important) mechanism in evolution. Duplication and >>rearrangement of genetic material are thought to be >>much more important, and they are experimentally well >>documented. > > Duplication and rearrangement by who or what > agency? Dr. Frankenstein? My understanding is > that when this occurs naturally, the clinical term > is "cancer". You are misinformed. This process goes on all the time in the production of the gametes. Look up "meiosis" in any elementary biology book. >>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. > My favorite ancient animal is the pteratorn, not > really a mammal, but why be strict? ... How is this relevant? How can humans cause the extinction of a species that died out 60 million years before there were any humans? Ted later gives a long quotation about ancient legends, but I will pass on it. For one thing,I am not competent to discuss ancient legends. For another, I question that such legends can seriously be considered in evidence of any kind of astronomical events. Carl Sagan remarked that when he discussed *Worlds in Collision* with someone who was competent in the area of Semitic Studies, the latter remarked that although the Assyriology, Egyptology, Biblical scholarship and all of that Talmudic and Midrashic *pilpul* was, of course, nonsense, he was impressed by the astronomy. Sagan remarked that his view was quite the opposite. By the way, I would like to know if the more sensible Creationists on the net, such as Paul Dubois, appreciate this "help" they are getting from the Velikovskyites. It seems to me that by making the Creationist cause look even more ridiculous, the Velikovkyites are doing more harm to the Creationist cause than good. Am I right? -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal 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)