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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on several topics
Message-ID: <840@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 16:16:16 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.840
Posted: Wed Nov  6 16:16:16 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 03:34:10 EST
References: <452@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 262

In article <452@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>
>
>>        Interesting, but what mechanism would produce speciation at
>>the rate required? None is known,
>
>    Read the section on catastrophic evolution in "Earth in Upheaval".  It
>turns out, this is the ONLY plausible mechanism for speciation.

	You and I seem to mean something different by "mechanism of
speciation". You are talking about distal/general causes, I am talking
about the immediate genetic and ecological *processes* by which
*reproductive isolation* and *ecological differentiation* come about.
I repeat, I know of *no* *process* by which reproductive isolation
between two populations could develope in less than 500-1000 years(at
the very minimum)! Could you at least *summarize* Velikovsky's ideas
on how this comes about.
>
>>        What axioms? The only axioms I am really aware of are the
>>axioms of the scientific method.
>
>     I am here using the term axiom to mean any unprovable proposition which
>serves as a necessary prop or foundation for a body of theories, as the article
>describes.
>
	Again, I do not want a definition of axiom, I want a list of
axioms that are not *intrinsic* in the scientific paradigm which you
think paleontologist use in analyzing the fossil record.
>
>
>>        Why are astronomical measurements so much more reliable than
>>geological? Astronomical measurements are based largely upon
>>*extrapolation*, a nototiously unreliable method. They are also based
>>on a very strict form of Uniformitarianism.
>
>  I have never
>claimed that such things as RATES of radioactive decay or properties of
>light vary over space and time.  We can figure distances accurately,

	Ah, here's the problem, you actually think astronomical
distances can be determined accurately! Wrong! Astronomical distance
are all rather crude estimates based on *extrapolations* of *estimated*
stellar and galactic properties. Notice the *double* estimation
involved. Even the distance to near-by stars(the ones for which we can
measure a paralax) are only approximate, due to uncertainties in the
method of measuring paralaxes.

>>        And also every scheme by which scientist try to estimate the
>>distances and ages of stars and galaxies! You have really mis-stated
>>the axiom. It is more correctly stated as: The *laws* and *processes*
>>in effect are the same everywhere and in every time throughout the
>>universe. Catastrophic event are allowed, *if* they are observable as
>>occuring today somewhere in the universe.
>
>     Again, do not confuse a law of physics, such as the speed of light
>or of radioactive decay for some substance, with something like the earth's
>present rate of sedimentation or accumulation of cosmic dust.  There is no
>rational reason to assume that the later have been stable indefinitely
>into the past, yet most scientists concerned with origins do exactly that.
>
	You misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that no
scientist really assumes that the *overall* rate of sedimentation has
been constant over time, that would indeed be an insupportible axiom!
What is assumed is that under *similar* environmental conditions the
sedimentation rate is approximately the same. The only way this could
be false is if the laws of physics *have* changed. it is quite
possible to determine the environment under which old sediment was
laid down simply by examining the structure of the sedimnentation in
detail! This then allows a *local* estimate of sedimentation rate to
be made. You really seem to think that scientist assume alot more than
they actually do.
>>
>>        Garbage! During the time Darwin was first learning about
>>biology Catastrophism was one of the seriously considered theories
>>about the history of the Earth. To say that he had not thought about
>>it would be a grave insult to Darwin's intelligence!
>
>     Velikovsky's theory of evolution, first published in 1955, requires
>some knowledge of radioactivity.  I say again, Darwin had not heard of it.
>
	I never said he had heard Velikovsky's *particular* version of
catastrophic geology, but rather that a very similar theory was well
known at the time and had been rejected on grounds that apply to
Velikovsky's theory as much as to the older versions. Namely that in
order to account for the great number of stages and faunal turnovers
for *too many* seperate catastrophes had to be assumed(yes assumed,
there is no direct evidence for more than one or two). I went over my
geologic wall chart using very consertative assumptions and counted
well over a hundred stage boundries, each of which would require a
catastrophe under Velikovsky's theories. And remember that was based
on a very consertative count, the real value is likely to be quite a
bit higher! A value of 300 is quite possible.
>
>    Ever wonder why nearly all the cities of the ancient near and middle
>east are found underneath numerous layers of such "sediment", while cities
>like Paris and Rome, built after 700 BC and the stabilization of the solar
>system are not?  Ever heard of a Paris 3G, or a Berlin 7F?
>
	You are still addressing the matter of *overall* rates, which
is simply irrelevent. Unless you can show that the *type* of sediment
covering these old cities is different than that in more recent cities
yoy have shown nothing.
>
>     The context of Plato's dialogue "Timaeus" forbids any such interpretation.
>Read it;  it speaks of world-wide disasters caused by "a declination in the
>bodies which move around the earth".

	Where does it say this, in which translation, and what was the
original Greek so translated? (The last is the most important)
>
>>        This is not quite what is being claimed by archaeologist and
>>anthropologists. A better example might be Paul Bunyan, or Billy the
>>Kid as he is popularly believed to have been, or even Robin Hood. Such
>>stories *grow* with time. It is like the fish that got away!
>
>     Bad analogy.  The story of the flood is too grandiose a story to fit
>this model,

	Too grandiose??? Compared to a man digging the *Grand Canyon*
single-handedly!! I don't see how you arrive at that!

>especially since it occurs in all cultures, even though separated
>by oceans and vast distances.

	Actually only in cultures that lived in or along river flood
basins or other frequently flooded areas.

>  Such
>a tale, if fictitious, would even violate the (very real) principle set forth
>by Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf that, whereas most people will lie occasionally
>in small matters, almost nobody tells really BIG or grandiose lies.
>
	You seem to have confused a gradually developed exageration
with a deliberate lie! The fish that got away is *real* and the teller
often really does *remember* it larger than it was. A lie, at least in
my book, is a *deliberate* falsification. The conversion of a story
into a myth is quite a differewnt thing, and may not involve any
deliberate falsification.

>
>     Again I say, read the Phaeton legend in Ovid's Metamorphoses.  It is very
>obviously a tale of cosmic disaster, swift and sudden, and the story itself
>absolutely forbids such an interpretation (as draught).  Your reply indicates
>that you haven't read the story.
>
	Actually, I wasn't interpreting the story, I was suggesting
several possible explanations which need to be checked out before
accepting a more extreme one.

>>        To add some real evidence, I saw some vultures circling last
>>weekend. I watched them for a few minutes and they were flying in
>>*circles* without *ever* flapping their wings and without losing any
>>altitude.
>>Whatever the mechanism, it *works*, I saw it happen.
>
>     I'm beginning to wonder what on earth it will take not to be mis-
>understood on this one.  Geesh!  Did you see any of the vultures take off
>from low ground without flapping their wings?  According to Adrian
>Desmond (whom you and I both like to use as a source), the pterosaur HAD
>to;

	Hmm, well that is not what you said, this last time, you had
just finished talking about how they could not turn around and fly
home upwind! But in fact there is no problem with a standing start, in
fact I see little difference between this and flying in circles
without losing altitude(or even gaining altitude). As long as the
*air* *speed* is above the stall speed the organism(or mechanism) has
enough lift to fly. Thus as long as the wind speed is over stall speed
a take-off is quite *easy*, since facing into the wind *immediately*
makes the air speed equal to the wind speed! Wind tunnel experiments
have shown that the stall speed of the Pteranodon was *very* *low*, a
wind enough to ruffle your hair would allow them to take off!!

>I said that, IF THE PTEROSAUR HAD SOME MAGICAL WAY OF GETTING AIRBORN FROM
>LOW GROUND, assuming also that he was unlucky enough to live in our gravity,
>that by the time he got high enough to even think of gliding home
>against the wind,  he'd be in China or some-place.  He'd never find
>home again and his children would starve.
>
	Here it is again, the bit about not being able to fly home
agoinst the wind, this is what my observations of circling Vultures
contradict most emphatically. Birds that can circle without any
flapping can easily get anywhere they want any time thay want with no
trouble at all.

>    The vulture's kids, like those of the pterosaurs, have to be fed EVERY day.
>That includes all kinds of weather, days when the wind is wrong, and days when
>there is NO wind or thermals.

Have you ever seen a day on the beach with *no* wind - it doesn't
happen.

>  The quote from
>Desmond again, in case you missed it:
>
	Oh, I didn't miss it, I just read the next paragraph or two
where he essentially contradicts everything he appeared to say in your
quote. Remember, the exaggerated claims are just his means of catching
your attention, the passage you quote is only a literary device!
>
>>        How do you equate "catatrophic evolution" with "punctuated
>>equilibria"? The only similarity I see between them is that they both
>>postulate periods of rapid change alternating with relative stasis.
>>However, the nature and causes of the rapid change are totally
>>different in the two "theories". In P.E the change is driven by the
>>speciatian process itself, and is essentially unrelated to external
>>events, while Velikovsky's theory is based on periodic global
>>catastrphes driving the change, with little importance given to
>>speciation. Under P.E the periods of rapid change are *asynchronous*
>>between the various lineages, while under Velikovsky's "theory" the
>>periods of rapid change should be essentially simulataneous among all
>>life forms.
>>        Besides which P.E is largely an extension of the ideas of
>>Ernst Mayr, who started writing in the *40's*, before Velikovsky.
>
>     Like I say, I prefer Velikovsky's version of it since he provides a
>rational explanation for the whole thing.  Consider your phrase: "is driven
>by the speciation process itself".  Stripped down and rendered into plain
>English, this means "it just happened". 

	Well, I think there *is* a rational explanation of speciation,
it is called the Ernst Mayr model of Speciation by means of Peripheral
Isolates! In fact the mechanism are quite well understood, the main
debate now being the relative importance of the various factors
controlling the process. Besides the Velikovskyan "theory" fails to
explain the large nimber of species that appear and disappear in the
*middle* of a geologic stage, without synchronization with *any* other
speciation/exctinction events! Examples include the earliest know
primate, which appears in the upper *third* of the Upper Maestrichtian
substage of the Cretaceous Era, as well as several other mammals that
start appearing, one by one, during the Upper Maestrichtian.
>
>>        Wrong, this is *not* what Gould, or anyone else, says. There
>>are many intermediates, but there are often discontinuities in the
>>chain of intermediates. These discontinuities are *not* restricted to
>>the epoch boundries, they occur regularly throughout the fossil
>>record. New forms may appear at almost any point, and old forms my
>>disappear at almost any point.
>
>     Velikovsky quotes Darwin (from The Origin of Species) on this one.
>The quote (Darwin's) goes:
>
>     "Scarcely any paleontological discovery is more striking than the fact
>     that the forms of life change almost simultaneously throughout the world."

	A "fact" that has been superceded by more recent data!
Remember, the detail data in Darwin's book are hopelessly out of
date.
>
>The Cosmic Serpent, Faber and Faber, 1982, by V. Clube, and B. Napier,
>professional astronomers with the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh.

	Hmm, how does being astronmers qualify them for antropological
or archaeological studies? What research have they done in the latter
areas? What evidence do they have otehr than thier interpretation of
some ancient myths?
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa