Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1286
PostMaster (Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org)
Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:04:52 -0700The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Monday, February 8 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1286
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 16:25:51 -0700
From: "Dr. M Murphy" <mmurphy@cintek.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus?? Human birth
- -----Original Message-----
From: Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@retina.anatomy.upenn.edu>
To: evolution <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Sunday, February 07, 1999 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus?? Human birth
>
The development of
>speech may have been an important factor in increasing brain size *in
>general*, but the massive increases in temporal and frontal lobes in
>particular may be due not so much to specific selective pressures for
>the functions they perform, as it is due to developmental programs which
>control the relative sizes of *all* brain regions. A small re-write of
>your last sentence should avoid this potential confusion.
thanks for the imput.
>> In the global scheme of things, the integrity of pelvic floor over
>> time is after all not all that important. Nature couldn't care less if
>> your bottom fell out at age 50. The most important biological
>> functions ensuring the survival of our species (reproduction) have
>> long been completed at this age.
>
>
>You want to be careful making this claim. Healthy, active grandparents
>can have a profound influence on the survival and reproductive success
>of their grandchildren.
>
I totally agree. However this paragraph should be seen in the context of
the main message of the manuscript.
that is that "natural childbirth" has negative consequenses to the future
health and quality of life of women.
The main message is that the insidence of pelvic floor damage is terribly
high, with the negative consequences (usually) only visible after the
reproductive age. A related theme is that since the life expectancy has
increased so much and the fecundity rate has dropped to unprecedented
levels, coupled with the increasingly active lives of women, this negative
effect on quality of life of one or two vaginal births is more important
than ever before in history. I realize the wording is provocative (which
was my intention), so I will reconsider the exact wording.
>================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 17:11:06 -0700
From: "Dr. M Murphy" <mmurphy@cintek.com>
Subject: Human birth
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_009C_01BE52BC.D931C740
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
- ----Original Message-----
From: Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@retina.anatomy.upenn.edu>
To: evolution <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Sunday, February 07, 1999 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus?? Human birth
>
>> In the global scheme of things, the integrity of pelvic floor over
>> time is after all not all that important. Nature couldn't care less =
if
>> your bottom fell out at age 50. The most important biological
>> functions ensuring the survival of our species (reproduction) have
>> long been completed at this age.
>
>
>You want to be careful making this claim. Healthy, active grandparents
>can have a profound influence on the survival and reproductive success
>of their grandchildren.
I rewrote the paragraph. I agree that it needed work. what do you =
think?
In the natural scheme of things, the integrity of pelvic floor over time =
is
after all not all that important. By the time pelvic floor disorders =
become
significant problems the most important biological functions ensuring =
the
survival of our species (reproduction) have been completed. Further, =
since
these disorders usually lead to a personal loss of quality of life =
rather
than decreased life expectancy, they had no discernable influence on
evolutionary development or course. During most of human existence =
people
furthermore rarely made it to an age where it became a problem. =
Fortunately
this has changed in a big way. It becomes imperative to us to look with =
new
eyes at this problem and to develop new strategies to protect those =
parts of
our bodies less likely to stand the test of time and aging.
Magnus
- ------=_NextPart_000_009C_01BE52BC.D931C740
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
----Original Message-----
From: Loren Haarsma <
lhaarsma@retina.anatomy=..upenn.edu>
To:=20evolution <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date=: Sunday,=20February 07, 1999 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus?? Human=20birth
>
>> In the global scheme of things, =the=20integrity of pelvic floor over
>> time is after all not all =that=20important. Nature couldn't care less if
>> your bottom fell out =at age=2050. The most important biological
>> functions ensuring the =survival of=20our species (reproduction) have
>> long been completed at this=20age.
>
>
>You want to be careful making this =claim. =20Healthy, active grandparents
>can have a profound influence on the =survival and reproductive success
>of their=20grandchildren.
I rewrote the paragraph. I agree =that it=20needed work. what do you think?
In the natural scheme =of=20things, the integrity of pelvic floor over time is
after all not all =that=20important. By the time pelvic floor disorders =become
significant=20problems the most important biological functions ensuring =the
survival of our=20species (reproduction) have been completed. Further, =since
these=20disorders usually lead to a personal loss of quality of life =rather
than=20decreased life expectancy, they had no discernable influence =on
evolutionary=20development or course. During most of human existence=20people
furthermore rarely made it to an age where it became a =problem. =20Fortunately
this has changed in a big way. It becomes =imperative to us=20to look with new
eyes at this problem and to develop new strategies =to=20protect those parts of
our bodies less likely to stand the test of =time and=20aging.
Magnus
- ------=_NextPart_000_009C_01BE52BC.D931C740--------------------------------Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:46:58 -0600From: Bill Payne Subject: Re: Early Cambrian explosionOn Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:05:24 -0500 (EST) Steve Schimmrich writes:> There are numerous substantial geologic problems with the idea that>the>sedimentary record is evidence of Noah's flood. [snip]> 3. The occurrence of ichnofossils (trace fossils like burrows,>tracks,> coprolites, root casts, etc.) seems difficult to understand in>the> context of a global flood with rapid sedimentation. How does>one> deposit thousands of feet of sedimentary rock in a violent flood> and then form a sandstone bed with dinosaur tracks on it?I think Robert Gentry (in "The Young Age of the Earth video by AlphaProductions) satisfactorily explained that dinosaurs could have stayedalive on floating mats of vegetation. Gentry pointed out dino tracks onthe roof of a coal mine in Utah (?), and said that these dinos weretrying to escape drowning since their vegetation mat had now grounded andwas being submerged by water. > Or develop a paleosol?You mentioned root casts above, and I assume you would say the root zonebelow a coal seam is a paleosol. I now realize that there are rootsbelow most coal seams, and I believe that these roots grew in situ. However, the roots are poorly developed and the root zone is generallyonly a few inches deep. The paper by Bob Gastaldo, which I critiquedlast year at your request, persausively argues that the Carboniferoustrees were massive (up to maybe 30 meters tall) and required longstigmarian axial root systems for support. Bob failed to note that wedon't observe these long root systems beneath coal seams.Where we do see long root systems, I believe that they may have beeneroded from their original growth site, rafted by the flood to anotherlocation, and reburied in growth position, similar to the numerousvertical fossil tree trunks we observe (without roots).The shallow roots that we do observe beneath coal seams developed afterthe still living vegetation settled out of suspension. When it touchedfirm sediment, it began to root in an attempt to gain a foothold andbegin a new forest. The fact that these roots are so shallow is evidencethat the vegetation quickly died as it was buried by additional sedimentsin the flood. Therefore, we have transported (allochthonous) coal within situ (autohthonous) roots.Comments?Bill Payne, Professional GeologistLaw Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.2100 RiverChase Center, Suite 450Birmingham, AL 35244Tel: 205-733-7624 Fax: 205-985-2951___________________________________________________________________You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]------------------------------Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:48:04 -0600From: "Karen G. Jensen" Subject: Re: Early Cambrian & Phanerozoic>"Karen G. Jensen" wrote:>>> There is no need for multiple steps of creation.>> [clip]>> There is a time-gap between creation and fossilization, but not between>> Precambrian and Cambrian (and most Phanerozoic) fossilization.>>>> The "Cambrian Explosion", instead of being explosive diversification, is>> explosive sedimentation.>>>>This may work for phanerozoic bacteria, proterozoic metazoans and the early>Cambrian fauna, but how does it work for the entire order of successional>appearance?It works (and is required) if there is rapid sedimentation all through thegeological record. The successive appearances record the succession ofburial, not of origin. Is it your position that all of the forms of vertebrates, from fish to>mammals, were also created at the same timeYes. Genesis 1 (and all through Scripture) indicates all kinds --including man -- created "in the beginning". (Note Jesus' use of thisphrase, including mankind, in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6). and just didn't manage to leave behind>a traceI would not expect much fossilization until there was much rapid sedimentation.> until hundreds of mlllions of years later?The concept of hundreds of millions of years is another matter! It'sbased upon the premise that much sedimentation indicates much time, andupon isotope ratios interpreted with that firmly in mind. Otherinterpretations of the isotope ratios, invoked when the dates don't fit theaccepted timescale, may also apply when they do.If sedimentation was very rapid, the geological record does not representmuch time. How can this be explained from>your perspective without multiple creation events?>A worldwide water catastrophe such as that described in Genesis 7-8 wouldbe expected to cause massive seafloor sedimentation (Paleozoic layers), anderosion and deposition of continental areas (Mesozoic sediments), thentremendous erosion and redeposition as the new ocean floor widened anddeepened (Paleogene deposits). The resprouting flora and surviving aquaticfauna, plus the preserved land fauna, would be expected to undergo rapidspeciation in the resulting open niches with their small population sizes,low competition, low predation, and isolation, as the environment adjustedto the new hydrologic cycle, with continuing earthquakes and volcanicactivity causing continuing sedimentation (Neogene deposits). This meansspeciation (variation within the surviving kinds), but no multiplecreations (new kinds).With rapid sedimentation, There's no need for multiple creation events.Karen------------------------------Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:34:48 -0600From: "Karen G. Jensen" Subject: Re: Flood Model [was Early Cambrian explosion]Dear Steve,You wrote:> There are numerous substantial geologic problems with the idea that the>sedimentary record is evidence of Noah's flood.>> Let me just list 5 problems (want 25? 50? I could list them):>> 1. The distribution of brachiopods vs. bivalve molluscs in the> stratigraphic record. There is little difference between these> two groups in terms of hydraulic sorting or ability to escape> rising flood waters. How do you explain the observable fact> that brachiopods are extremely numerous and diverse in Paleozoic> strata while becoming much more limited in range and diversity> after the Permian extinction while bivalves show the opposite> pattern? How do you explain the appearance worldwide of certain> brachiopods, for example, which only occur in, say, Devonian> strata (I can look up some specific species if you like).>>This would be a problem hydrologic sorting or ability to escape risingflood waters were the only factors influencing the order of fossils.Another probable factor is original distribution. We don't know theoriginal distributions, but do know that brachiopods and mollusks are notequally distributed today. They were not necessarily equally distributedin the past.> 2. The occurrence of igneous plutons and batholiths within Phanerozoic> sedimentary strata of such a size as to require, using standard> thermodynamic calculations, that the bodies would take tens of millions> of years to cool (depending upon their size, of course). How does> one have rapid sedimentation with a thick gabbroic sill in the middle> of the package of sedimentary rocks?Glenn has shared some of his calculation on this, and others have offeredalternative viewpoints. I am no geophysicist, but I know that waterconducts heat well, and there are many earth processes that requiretremendous amounts of heat. Clearly the oceans have not boiled away inthe past. The marine environment has been stable enough to maintain life,despite extensive extinctions. And land areas (if they took tens ofmillions of years to cool, would they be devoid of life all that time?)have supported its biota as well. I don't think we have all the answersabout heat balance.>> 3. The occurrence of ichnofossils (trace fossils like burrows, tracks,> coprolites, root casts, etc.) seems difficult to understand in the> context of a global flood with rapid sedimentation.They seem difficult to understand in the context of slow sedimentation,too. If seafloor sedimentation were gradual, tracks and burrows would bequickly destroyed by continuing bioturbation. The presence of tracks, etc.indicates quick preservation before disintegration. How does one> deposit thousands of feet of sedimentary rock in a violent flood> and then form a sandstone bed with dinosaur tracks on it?When the tide goes out, wouldn't one expect the remaining dinosaurs to maketracks where they could? Or develop> a paleosol?Are you convinced that the silty layers called paleosols were actuallyformed slowly, then preserved in situ (usually with no unconformity)? Iam not. Even those with root casts in them are not necessarily slowlyformed. If they were the roots would have decayed. Even verticalpetrified trees in growth position are, on closer inspection, by manyevidences, found not to be in growth location. What about a limestone on top of thousands of feet of> flood deposits containing an in situ coral reef with associated> fragile crinoids or bryozoans preserved as well?In many such reef structures the fossils are not really organically bound,but are suspended in the matrix. Capitan Reef, for example, has beenrecognized as a gigantic debris flow. Some reefs that show organicstructure are oriented upside down. They were probably transported fromwhere they grew -- which would suggest high-energy water movement. Thereef problem is very interesting.>> 4. How does one get thick halite (salt) or gypsum layers in the middle> of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks?How do you get halite layers on the surface? They are usually not purehalite, and not very thick. You would have to evaporate many feet of seawater to get layers like we find in the column, and it wouldn't be purehalite -- or pure gypsum. How exactly do evaporite minerals> form in flood waters?I don't pretend to know exactly! To get pure deposits, you would have tohave pure precipitates from pure brines. Brines still come out from theocean floor. Temperature changes and other factors induce supersaturationand precipitation. This suggests some interesting experiments. Oh, and also please explain mud cracks, scour> channels, and ripple marks in adjacent shales to some of these> deposits (I have photos from a gypsum mine under Grand Rapids if> you'd like to see them).I would expect scour channels and ripple marks (and other paleocurrentindicators). Are the mud cracks in the same area? Mud cracks do formunderwater by chemical shrinkage. Since you mentioned rapid sedimentation,> please explain how long it takes to precipitate, say, 100 feet of> halite from flood waters.I don't know how rapid. But if it were slow, even mm per hour, I wouldexpect a lot of impurities in it. The purity we observe would indicateto me a much faster rate. How much heat would be released by such> a rate?>Is the amount of heat affected by the rate?> 5. How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? I can, for> example, direct you to an outcrop along a railroad bed in southeastern> Pennsylvania showing one mile of east dipping turbidite deposits> (with hundreds of graywacke/shale packages) abutting against vertical> quartz arenite sandstone beds. Please explain how features like this> form by rapid sedimentation in a global flood.First I have to ask you how a mile of turbidite deposits withgraywake/shale packagescould form slowly? If these are anything like the Great Valley Sequence(in NW California, which I studied during PhD research) they show littleevidence of time between turbidites -- so little that there is hardly anybioturbation (but a few examples, showing that organisms were alive in thearea, and some fossilized, during the deposition), and no signs of erosionbetween layers. To me, this (and other observations) speaks of rapiddeposition of the turbidic sequence, which was later tilted (in the case ofthe GVS the tilting was part of seafloor accretion to W. North America).How much later? I don't know. Long enough to dewater and set thelimestone well enough to keep its integrity (hours, days?) , but not solong that the layers were indurated so much that they would shatter upontilting or folding (i.e., not months or years). There are some places withfolded strata.Such tilted turbidites abutting against vertical quartz arenite sandstonebeds ! Any evidence of overthrusting? Must have been some dramaticearth movement there! How do you read it?>> I'll be anxiously awaiting your reply.>As I am yours.Karenhttp://geology.swau.edu------------------------------Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:45:05 -0800From: Pim van Meurs Subject: RE: Early Cambrian & Phanerozoic >This may work for phanerozoic bacteria, proterozoic metazoans and =the early>Cambrian fauna, but how does it work for the entire order of =successional>appearance?Karen: It works (and is required) if there is rapid sedimentation all =through thegeological record. The successive appearances record the succession ofburial, not of origin.And absence of any mixing or "out of order" fossils=09> until hundreds of mlllions of years later?Karen: The concept of hundreds of millions of years is another matter! = It'sbased upon the premise that much sedimentation indicates much time, andupon isotope ratios interpreted with that firmly in mind. Otherinterpretations of the isotope ratios, invoked when the dates don't fit =theaccepted timescale, may also apply when they do.Please explain, the enormous evidence pointing to an old earth =especially from the radiometric dating makes a young earth hard to =support. What "other interpretations" of these ratios are there ?If sedimentation was very rapid, the geological record does not =representmuch time.True, but that is contradicted by much of the evidence.Karen: With rapid sedimentation, There's no need for multiple creation =events.Only more miracles to explain away the reality.------------------------------Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 02:07:27 -0600From: brian grover Subject: [Re: Early Cambrian & Phanerozoic]This is a multi-part message in MIME format.- --------------6AF5E9C2B4F9595CDB6CE033Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-asciiContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - --------------6AF5E9C2B4F9595CDB6CE033Content-Type: message/rfc822Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitContent-Disposition: inlineX-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000Message-ID: <36BE98F8.9B4495F4@jpusa.chi.il.us>Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 01:57:45 -0600From: brian grover Organization: JPUSAX-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i486)X-Accept-Language: enMIME-Version: 1.0To: Pim van Meurs Subject: Re: Early Cambrian & PhanerozoicReferences: <01BE52EB.85B3D520@default>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-asciiContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit> ... With rapid sedimentation, There's no need for multiple creation events.> why would multiple events be absolutely needed under any time line?i found these sites quite helpful and intruiging: http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/bigbang1.htm http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/bigbang3.htmhttp://members.xoom.com/torahscience/bigbang2.htmhttp://www.jencom.com/2001/gse2.htmhttp://www.jencom.com/2001/2005.htm- -brian grover- --------------6AF5E9C2B4F9595CDB6CE033--------------------------------End of evolution-digest V1 #1286********************************