arachne-digest Tuesday, January 28 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2037
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:33:17 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Science, Opinion & Dogma On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:04:44 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > Just a minimal note here on "scientific" and "prevailing" ... > For a process to be scientific, you must be able to have 3rd, 4th, > multiple-party replications of the experiment/process which give the > same results. In real-life geological time spans, "same results" would > be within a certain number of centuries "plus or minus" ... > "Prevailing," almost by definition, applies to theory or belief rather > than to proven/proveable fact. > For instance, the prevailing explanation for fossils and geological > formations -- shown to date back millenia using scientific method -- by > "Young Earthers" is that everything found & studied was somehow > "pre-aged" and placed in situ by the Creator a few thousand years ago. > However, none of the arguments the "Young Earthers" come up with seem to > offer any reason why a Creator would pull that sort of BS on creatures > S/He loved and made guardians of said Earth. According to the beliefs of the "Young Earthers" and the "Creation Scientists", God likes to play games with them to test their faith. According to them, God deliberately created things in such a way so as to see if they would be tempted into trusting more in their logical reasoning faculties than in trusting in their faith that everything in the Bible is literally true. They support this belief about how God likes to test their faith by pointing out certain stories in the Bible, notably the story of Job and the story about Abraham and Isaac, which do in fact, according to most interpretations, present the view that God does indeed like to test the faith of all who would want to believe in Him. Whether one is inclined to trust more in science than in religious faith, or vice-versa, he will certainly at times get the impression that the very foundations of his belief system are being subjected to testing and that they are open to question. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:12:35 +0000 From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Lost...? Hi Folks, On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:01:02 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: > One liners: > As a rule I don't drink; it's a habit. > I drink to relax. The other night I got so relaxed I couldn't stand. > I've never reached my limit. I've always passed out first. > I don't drink and drive. I might hit a bump and spill it. Or: I don't have a drinking problem. I drink. I get drunk. I fall down. No problem ! Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:58:15 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Science, Opinion & Dogma Sam, You didn't read *all* I said ... On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:33:17 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:04:44 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: <snip> >> However, none of the arguments the "Young Earthers" come up with seem to >> offer any reason why a Creator would pull that sort of BS on creatures >> S/He loved and made guardians of said Earth.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ One who loves you does not tease, does not set tests of faith with the hope that you should fail. As far as Job goes, he asked for it ... He was bound and determined to be "holier than just about anyone" and if I were god he would have pixxed me off too! As for Abraham and Isaac, I'm surprised the ram showed up because that particular IQ test was badly flunked. ==== > According to the beliefs of the "Young Earthers" and the "Creation > Scientists", God likes to play games with them to test their faith. > According to them, God deliberately created things in such a way so > as to see if they would be tempted into trusting more in their logical > reasoning faculties than in trusting in their faith that everything in > the Bible is literally true. They support this belief about how God > likes to test their faith by pointing out certain stories in the Bible, > notably the story of Job and the story about Abraham and Isaac, which > do in fact, according to most interpretations, present the view that > God does indeed like to test the faith of all who would want to believe > in Him. > Whether one is inclined to trust more in science than in religious > faith, or vice-versa, he will certainly at times get the impression that > the very foundations of his belief system are being subjected to testing > and that they are open to question. > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ - -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:26:00 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation Hi Sam, I agree that some, if not all, of what Darwin observed was the results of natural selection. Since he observed the end results, I don't think it would be technically appropriate to call that *scientific fact* (since there was no reproducible series of controlled experiments). But, no doubt, he was correct that adaptation to environmental factors was at work in the environment. (I'm not disputing his observations, I'm just trying to use the correct words). However, without genetic mutation, there is no mathematical possibility that evolution - in the sense of bring forth a new variation or species - can occur. It is mathematically possibly (but, in nature, not so probable) for a species to lose certain traits, but a new DNA sequence cannot occur without a means to introduce the change. Down's Syndrome is an example of a negative mutation (genetic change located at the Number 21 Chromosome). Were it to have beneficial effects (to increase the competitive advantage of the individual) and to be reproducible through normal reproduction, then it would be a positive mutation. But, mathematically, neither can occur without somehow changing the DNA structure. The evolutionary theories require both natural selection and genetic mutation. Creationists (of all varieties) and Evolutionists (of all varieties) would agree with the natural selection part (Mendelian Genetics). But, Creationists won't accept the (positive) mutation part and Evolutionists do. Therein lies the difference. Bob Original Subject - Re: arachne-digest V1 #2035 On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:08:27 -0500 "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 10:30:28 -0800, Ray Andrews wrote: > > <snip> > > > As for me, I accept as observable fact that species change, and > are subject > > to selection pressure. I accept Darwin's theory as to how these > facts > > interact to produce change over time. I am very suspicious about > the > > claims that all life forms on earth arose from a common ancestor, > for two > > main reasons. First, because the hard evidence for this is > questionable > > at best; second, because the existing *theory* of evolution can't > really > > explain how gross anatomical changes could come about by small > mutations. > > <snip> > > There are many existing theories of evolution, some of which > attribute > the processes of mutation as being the main cause of it. Darwin's > theory explaining how evolution occurs does not involve mutations, > either large or small. His theory is about "Natural Selection". > You > might want to read his books to understand what he means by that. > Darwin's theory of "Natural Selection" is still the "prevailing" > theory > used to explain what most evolutionists believe to be the principle > mechanism that causes evolution. Many people have the very > mistaken > belief that Darwin's theory is about mutations. > > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ > > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:52:22 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Global Warming OT: Science Near where I live in southern Arizona (USA) there are several sites where mammoth remains have been located. These sites are reportedly about 10,000 years old. The surrounding terrain (topography) is essentially the same as when the mammoth remains were first deposited. There has been some minor flooding and erosion, similar to what is seen from year to year based upon the El Nino weather cycles. But nothing to indicate a major change in climate (at these locations) during the last 10,000 years (or however long the mammoth remains have been there). I don't know much about the subjects of ice ages or mammoth diets, but if an ice age event DID occur at the Arizona mammoth sites, it would appear that it happened before the mammoth deposits. Otherwise, the erosion patterns would have been different that the current process, which has continued unaltered for the last 10,000 years or so. >From my own rather unscientific observations, I haven't seen any geological evidence of marshy swamps or abundant grasslands drying up (or spouting up) in this area during that period. I would suspect that things have been relatively stable (over the long term) for a long time. Given the evidence so far, there is at least a sizeable probability that the global climate will remain stable for many more years. >From what I see on the news, I concentrate my worries upon my children and grandchildren. I cannot even fathom what problems my "great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren" might have. Bob On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:32:15 -0400 "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've seen some very interesting work in multiple disciplines that > tends > to make me worry about "global warming" and how it might affect my > great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren. > > Studies from non-weather people would seem to indicate that the last > era > of "global warming" -- which did such a great job of feeding > Mammoths > with tons of all the lovely warm weather foods found in their > "frozen > beneath the tundra" stomachs -- came right before the last ice age. > > Having a non-scientific creative [i.e. take random facts from > multiple > disciplines and put them together in a way that others have yet to] > mind, I just "realized a theory of my own." > > Ice Ages must be preceeding by major periods of global warming. > > The earth's distance from the sun, axial tilt and rotational period > have > not significantly changed since the last ice age. > > The oceans of the world are what keep the earth relatively warm. > > The "easiest" way to reduce ocean temperatures is to cover a larger > portion of the world's water with ice. > > Sea water doesn't freeze well. > > Sea water with fresh water floating on top of it [yes, that does > happen > routinely ... ask the 'eskimos' about harpooning a seal only to lose > it > because it sinks in the fresh water under the ice and comes to rest > "just out of reach" on top of the saline balance of the sea] can be > more > easily covered with ice. > > The largest source of fresh water on this planet is Antarctica. > > The ice around antarctica is melting and calving HUGE icebergs -- > one at > least is said to be larger than the state of Rhode Island, and > that's > just this year's crop of "calves." > > The more fresh water there is to freeze, the more ice will form. > > It is anybody's guess [actually, if some scientists got together > and > working on designing the right computer programs it could be more > than > a guess] at what point global warming will have diluted the seas > enough, > and enough fresh water flows onto the surface of both the Arctic and > > peri-Antarctic oceans, where the ice will take over because there is > a > build-up of reflective ice which gets greater each century because > of the sun's > energy being reflected back from the ice sheets rather than reaching > the > oceans to maintain a relatively warm global weather pattern. > > Whew!! The "puzzle solving mentality" can sneak up on a person > rather > rapidly, given the opportunity and the right prod!!! > > Now, if any of you know some climatologists or global "weather > studiers" > who could take my theory a few steps further ... please send them > my > theory. Then we can all sit back and wait to see what new thinking > develops in the scientific communities of the world. <G> > -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ > > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:14:34 +0000 From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: M$ SQL attack, Film recommendation Hi Folks, On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 23:50:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would still suggest that scientific points of debate would be better > validated with references, rather than opinion or recollections of fact. For publishing a scientific paper, or for presenting a lecture, absolutely ! For a friendly discussion between listers, in my view not much point. Very few of us are trained scientists, let alone published scientists, so supporting "proofs" may vary in quality and relevence. > But, without references for the other items, I'm left to accept those > tidbits of science based on (uh, er, um) faith. Touche ! :) > Does the word "prevailing" mean that different scientists can reach > different conclusions based on identical scientific calculations? Perfectly genuine scientists can differ on interpretation of observed facts in small or fundamental ways. At any time. On any subject. One (sometimes more than one) explanation becomes the "prevailing" thought on any subject until experimental, or observed, data conflicts with it. Then a new "prevailing" explanation(s) is developed. But while reported data and results fit neatly into the "prevailing" theory/law/hypothesis, then it remains generally accepted. > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:33:22 -0500 "Samuel W. Heywood" >> Many parents around here send their children to the private >> Christian >> schools instead of to the public schools because they disagree with >> what >> is being taught in the public schools, especially with regard to >> science. >> The Christian schools have developed their own kind of "science". There are Christians and there are Christians. Not all (or even a majority of) Christians have a problem with evolution. >> They >> call it "Creation Science". To me, Creation Science is a religious >> belief system based on faith, not science. I think you have got that exactly right, but then I am not any kind of Christian. As that great theological thinker, Robert Heinlein, said: "If you can't measure it, it ain't science !". My most sincere apologies to all list members I have now offended. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 01:36:06 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Science, Opinion & Dogma On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:58:15 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > Sam, > You didn't read *all* I said ... > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:33:17 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:04:44 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > <snip> >>> However, none of the arguments the "Young Earthers" come up with seem to >>> offer any reason why a Creator would pull that sort of BS on creatures >>> S/He loved and made guardians of said Earth.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^ > One who loves you does not tease, does not set tests of faith with the > hope that you should fail. Yep, I agree. > As far as Job goes, he asked for it ... He was bound and determined to > be "holier than just about anyone" and if I were god he would have > pixxed me off too! Job was not a hyocrite. He was a typical and average good guy and strongly dedicated to his family and in being steadfast to moral principle. He was inclined to be good and to have a perfectly natural disposition to live an upright and virtuous life. The story of Job is the story about how some very bad things can happen to good people and about how good people can deal with what happens. If Job were a hypocrite he would have turned out to be a loser even in the things that matter the most to him. BTW, as a point of trivia, and according to what I have been told by some biblical scholars, the story of Job is the story in the Bible for which we have the most ancient extant manuscripts. > As for Abraham and Isaac, I'm surprised the ram > showed up because that particular IQ test was badly flunked. The deal wasn't set up as an IQ test. It was a test of faith, not a test of IQ. I don't know what would have happened if that ram hadn't come wandering into the thicket and gotten entangled in it by his horns just in the nick of time. <snip> Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:33:00 +1000 From: "Kali McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: C14 Dear List: horribly off topic, but there is a technique that is independent of isotope decay, and of the bible, that is used for dating in the 10k to 100K year period - stimulated emissions from quartz grains. My certified EX has been collecting sand from underwater caves for this process. If he makes a mistake he will be completely ex, like one of his gang whose body was recovered by some maniac on heliox at 900 feet in Picadilly Ponds. Back on topic - I have been using DOX instead of MARTHA for converting .RTF files. It was written by a guy at my old uni, Newcastle NSW, and I was wondering about which is best? Kali http://www.nimnet.asn.au/~kali/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 02:49:01 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Newsletters & HTML On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:15:30 +0000, Laurie L Proud wrote: > Hi Bastian, > Sometimes the images are contained on remote servers, and if you read > the letter off line you get red boxes, which should auto load when > you read it on line. Hi Laurie, You are right, they are on a remote computer... but I do never read my e-mail on line. Why should I do that? The telephone isn't that cheap. These letters are e-mail newsletters. I was just wondering if M$ win did have a sneaky way of downloading those pictures... my two providers use the same trick. 73 Bastiaan > If you have this trouble ON LINE then this is not the problem so > disregard the above. > Regards Laurie > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:09:07 +00, you wrote: >> Hi List, >> often I receive 'newsletters' by e-mail... nothing unusual. >> But sometimes those newsletters in HTML contain images and displayed in >> Arachne there appear 'red boxes'. >> Red boxes because the images are NOT present. >> The HTML newsletter is an attachment and the images ought to be >> attachments too... but they are not there. >> Since most users use M$ to handle their e-mail I suppose M$ Outlook >> users can view the images in the HTML message... >> Are the immages someway concealed into the HTML file? >> Or are the images not downloaded from the provider by Arachne. If the >> latter is true than my mailbox would be some day be filled with not >> downloaded images and that is not the case. >> ??? Any explanations? >> CU, Bastiaan > -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:28:32 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: M$ SQL attack, Film recommendation On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:14:34 +0000 "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 23:50:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I would still suggest that scientific points of debate > > would be better validated with references, rather > > than opinion or recollections of fact. > > For publishing a scientific paper, or for presenting > a lecture, absolutely ! > > For a friendly discussion between listers, in my > view not much point. Very few of us are trained > scientists, let alone published scientists, so > supporting "proofs" may vary in quality and relevence. > Even for a friendly discussion, references are a valid and easy way to share information. It gives everybody a point of reference. That's why the subject of this message starts with "Re:". I think references have great value for those who are trying to articulate a point of knowledge or opinion. Among other things, they allow the listeners to ascertain where fact stops and opinion begins. In reference <grin> to the recent global political debates (on this list and other places), one could say (if so inclined) that they allow the listener to ascertain where truth ends and the lies begin. With Arachne (and other digital media viewers), references are very handy because a wide variety of referenced sources can be viewed within the program. An interested viewer could even collect the various referenced source documents and create an learning module (perhaps storing everything on a CD, with cross references, indexes, etc.). References also help inform those who are trying to form an opinion, by providing background information that might (or might not) validate the opinion or conclusion of another. I would suggest that this is a major failure of the Bush administration concerning Iraq. Many Arachnids have already asked, "Where are the facts", just as Steve recently asked in another email, "What is the reference for that?". - ------------ <snip> > > > Does the word "prevailing" mean that different > >scientists can reach different conclusions based > > on identical scientific calculations? > > Perfectly genuine scientists can differ on interpretation of > observed facts in small or fundamental ways. At any time. On any > subject. > > One (sometimes more than one) explanation becomes the "prevailing" > thought on any subject until experimental, or observed, data conflicts > with it. Then a new "prevailing" explanation(s) is developed. > > But while reported data and results fit neatly into the > "prevailing" theory/law/hypothesis, then it remains > generally accepted. I was pointing out that the data had led different people to form different conclusions. All of which makes a confusing mess in which every opinion is as equally valid as the other. One step toward a clearer understanding would be to include references. :-) - ----------- > > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:33:22 -0500 "Samuel W. Heywood" > >> Many parents around here send their children to the private > >> Christian > >> schools instead of to the public schools because they disagree > >> with what > >> is being taught in the public schools, especially with regard to > >> science. > >> The Christian schools have developed their own kind of > "science". > > There are Christians and there are Christians. > Not all (or even a majority of) Christians have a > problem with evolution. > > >> They > >> call it "Creation Science". To me, Creation Science is a > >> religious belief system based on faith, not science. > > I think you have got that exactly right, but then I am not any > kind of Christian. My personal opinion is that both sides of the argument are going for a knockout blow, rather than trying to find small points of agreement. As a Christian myself, I argue that the Christian schools should do much more experiential science, and start at an earlier age. It matters not that some of the students' observations and conclusions would mirror those of an evolutionist. What matters is to teach a methodology of identifying factual information and a scientific method of testing conclusions. And, ultimately, using references. <grin> - ----------------- > > As that great theological thinker, Robert Heinlein, said: "If > you can't measure it, it ain't science !". However, I'm convinced that my parents loved me. And, for every action that someone might claim PROVES the existence of that love, I can disprove their hypothesis by showing evidence of someone who has performed those actions for selfish reasons of personal benefit. The same goes for measuring brain waves, pulse rates, or any other means of observable measurement. Which means that love can't be proven by measurable observation. But (I hope), most of us would agree that love does exist. It just can't be measured. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. - ----------------- > > My most sincere apologies to all list members I have now offended. > > Regards, Ron No offense taken, Ron. By the way, those are nice references you've added to your signature block. ;-) Bob - -------------- > > Ron Clarke > http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html > http://tadpole.aus.as > -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - > http://arachne.cz/ > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 22:12:09 +0000 From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OT:] Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation Hi Bob, On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:26:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I agree that some, if not all, of what Darwin observed was the results of > natural selection. Since he observed the end results, I don't think it > would be technically appropriate to call that *scientific fact* (since > there was no reproducible series of controlled experiments). But, no > doubt, he was correct that adaptation to environmental factors was at > work in the environment. (I'm not disputing his observations, I'm just > trying to use the correct words). An observed fact is still a fact. Not to be confused with a reproduceable experimental result. <snipped> > but a new DNA sequence > cannot occur without a means to introduce the change. Granted. :) > Down's Syndrome is an example of a negative mutation (genetic change > located at the Number 21 Chromosome). This is a result of genetic damage. Sadly. > Were it to have beneficial effects > (to increase the competitive advantage of the individual) and to be > reproducible through normal reproduction, then it would be a positive > mutation. Agreed. > But, mathematically, neither can occur without somehow changing > the DNA structure. Mathematics is probably not involved. :) > The evolutionary theories require both natural selection and genetic > mutation. Creationists (of all varieties) and Evolutionists (of all > varieties) would agree with the natural selection part (Mendelian > Genetics). But, Creationists won't accept the (positive) mutation part > and Evolutionists do. Therein lies the difference. Genetic change is at the heart of evolutionary change, I agree. And genetic change happens all the time. It can happen from being hit by cosmic rays, by exposure to any number of chemical moities, by the natural process of ageing, and so on. DNA is a most fragile thing. But a genetic change does not get passed on, intact, to the next generation if it is not present in the gametes, i.e. not heritable. Example: Seeds of the privet, in seed trays by the thousands, look for the occasional "sport" of a variegated seedling - genetic change of single individual organism that makes the leaves bi-coloured. But seeds of those "sports" breed back to the original plant stock, i.e. non-variegated. So that particular genetic damage/change is not heritable. But sometimes the genetic change IS heritable, and future generations of such organisms may carry the change. If it is a recessive gene, it may not even be expressed. It may even disappear in the normal shuffling of chromasomes during conception. But sometimes it holds the change well. If it is a tiny change, it may not make any difference and may well disappear in the gene shuffle. A bad change will make it more likely that such individuals will be at a disadvantage in the reproduction game, and will not get to make many heirs and successors. A really bad change may be lethal. But some changes may just give the individuals a tiny advantage when environmental changes occur - and the environment is ALWAYS changing - so that small difference pays off, and is passed on. That is when Darwin's "natural selection" sorts out the winners and losers, even when the difference is minimal, and gives the winners just enough edge to matter. They will then out-compete those individuals without that genetic change, who may then go into decline. If this happens enough times, and when the differences slowly accumulate, the new individuals are eventually of a genetic profile that they are no longer compatible enough with the original organism that they cannot interbreed, then: At that point, they are a new species BY DEFINITION. This takes a long time, many many generations. But there has been a long time since life appeared on earth, so that is not a problem unless you believe in a "young earth". Now, in such a drastic condensation of the subject, what have I missed ? Or should I just say "RTFM" ? Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:39:01 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OT:] Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation Hi Ron, - --- On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:26:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I agree that some, if not all, of what Darwin observed was the results of > natural selection. Since he observed the end results, I don't think it > would be technically appropriate to call that *scientific fact* (since > there was no reproducible series of controlled experiments). But, no > doubt, he was correct that adaptation to environmental factors was at > work in the environment. (I'm not disputing his observations, I'm just > trying to use the correct words). On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > An observed fact is still a fact. Not to be confused with a > reproduceable experimental result. If it is actually a valid observation and not a mistaken conclusion. Since Darwin didn't actually stick around to replicate the changes, his observations were not based upon the *scientific method* (of developing and testing a hypothesis). I wouldn't personally make observations and call them *facts*, because that implies (to some people) something that isn't technically correct. Unless, of course, I included my research data or quoted references. <grin> I'm not implying that Darwin's observations about adaptation were incorrect. But, without research data or references, the basis of his observations cannot be replicated. Therefore, there is no valid research foundation for proving or disproving his conclusions. Thus, peer review cannot be applied. - -------- (BOB) > > But, mathematically, neither can occur without somehow changing > > the DNA structure. > (RON) > Mathematics is probably not involved. :) I disagree. X can be subtracted from the set of XY, the resulting set is exclusively Y. Mutation requires a new element, Z. Mathematically, Z is not a subset of the set XY. Mendelian Genetics is strictly mathematical. Genetic diversity (when environment is excluded, as in a lab) is strictly mathematical. Variability follows statistical probability pretty closely. - ------ (BOB) > > The evolutionary theories require both natural selection and > genetic > > mutation. Creationists (of all varieties) and Evolutionists (of > all > > varieties) would agree with the natural selection part (Mendelian > > Genetics). But, Creationists won't accept the (positive) mutation > part > > and Evolutionists do. Therein lies the difference. > (RON) > Genetic change is at the heart of evolutionary change, I agree. > > And genetic change happens all the time. It can happen from > being > hit by cosmic rays, by exposure to any number of chemical moities, > by > the natural process of ageing, and so on. DNA is a most fragile > thing. > > But a genetic change does not get passed on, intact, to the > next > generation if it is not present in the gametes, i.e. not heritable. > > Example: Seeds of the privet, in seed trays by the thousands, > look > for the occasional "sport" of a variegated seedling - genetic change > of > single individual organism that makes the leaves bi-coloured. But > seeds > of those "sports" breed back to the original plant stock, > i.e. non-variegated. > So that particular genetic damage/change is not heritable. > > But sometimes the genetic change IS heritable, and future > generations of such organisms may carry the change. If it is a > recessive > gene, it may not even be expressed. It may even disappear in the > normal > shuffling of chromasomes during conception. But sometimes it holds > the > change well. > > If it is a tiny change, it may not make any difference and may > well > disappear in the gene shuffle. A bad change will make it more > likely > that such individuals will be at a disadvantage in the reproduction > game, and will not get to make many heirs and successors. A really > bad > change may be lethal. > > But some changes may just give the individuals a tiny advantage > when > environmental changes occur - and the environment is ALWAYS changing > - > so that small difference pays off, and is passed on. That is when > Darwin's "natural selection" sorts out the winners and losers, even > when > the difference is minimal, and gives the winners just enough edge > to > matter. They will then out-compete those individuals without that > genetic change, who may then go into decline. > > If this happens enough times, and when the differences slowly > accumulate, the new individuals are eventually of a genetic profile > that > they are no longer compatible enough with the original organism > that > they cannot interbreed, then: > At that point, they are a new species BY DEFINITION. The position was articulated very well. It's difficult to summarize a subject that has been debated by so many people for such a long time, but I thought you did a good job. I would only interject that, without reproducible experiments to demonstrate that mutation can produce positive change to the DNA (meaning a genetic change that produces a competitive advantage and can be sexually reproduced in subsequent generations), that position lacks the force of scientifically reproducible experimentation. In other words, it violates the requirements set forth in *the scientific method* (which is a hypothesis based upon experimentation, subjected to peer review, with cannot be disproved by subsequent experimentation). I'm not saying that the position is wrong, only that the experimentation required by the scientific method hasn't yet been provided. A prerequisite for that is a complete genetic map (such as is the goal of the Genome Project), which would prove that Z was not an original component of the genetic set XY, but that mutation created Z (and the mutation provided a competitive adaptation and was reproductively successful). Again, I'm not presenting an argument for *faith* or a *new earth*, I'm only trying to follow the rules of science that I was taught. For that reason, I think it's valid to ask of the scientists, "My I have a reference, please". Not that I expect you to provide in your emails a reference that addresses all the secrets of the universe, but those who make a profession of teaching science should, as a matter of standard practice, provide a collection of references to validate their teachings. - ----------- (RON) > This takes a long time, many many generations. But there has been > a long time since life appeared on earth, so that is not a problem > unless you believe in a "young earth". > > Now, in such a drastic condensation of the subject, what have I > missed ? Only the references, but I'll forgive you (er, um, I mean, I won't hold you accountable for your sins of omission - that is, ah, er, ... Oh ... never mind - condensation accepted). <g> Bob - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2037 ******************************
