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