Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Wednesday, March 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1344
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 21:23:14 -0700
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1343
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Tuesday, March 16 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1343
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:51:21 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: Explanatory Power
Neal K. Roys wrote:
> Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>
> >We must be very careful with falsification. Explanatory power is of equal or
> >greater importance. Omnipotent explanatory theories are to be avoided,
> >however. They explain everything and thereby nothing. It is very easy to use
> >Popper naively, and its utility declines as the scope of the theory increases.
> >For example:
> >
>
> The Biblical account of creation has a lot of explanatory power also.
The Biblical doctrine of creation indeed has great explanatory power. But I
think
you are missing the point Theological doctrines operate at the level of
metaphysics. evolutionary theory operates at the level of physical cause. Of
course
the universe is God's creation. It is all very well to say that I move my arm,
but
that statement is not helpful to someone seeking to explore how nerve impulses
are
transmitted, how muscles operate, or how energy is transferred within the cell.
The "I" explanation works at a different level to that physiological or
biochemical
ones, and is not help to understanding physiology or biochemistry. In the same
way
biochemical and physiological theories to not address the issue of why I move my
arm, whether to help an old lady across a road or to kill my brother. The
explanations are complementary, not contradictory.
>
>
> If God can form Adam from the dust of the ground, then God may have done
> something similar on other creation "days." This claim has great
> explanatory power regarding a possible cause of what I acknowledge to be
> the scientifically certain sudden appearance of virtually the whole of the
> animal kingdom 453 million years ago at the cambrian explosion. (See Time
> Magazine 12.4.95)
This position is no longer tenable with the discover of 1 Ga trace fossils.
Even
the strictest definition of Cambrian explosion shows that it occurred stepwise
over several 10's of My. "Cambrian explosion" is a metaphor, so don't don't be
seduced by the imagery into thinking it was an instantaneous event. It wasn't.
> The second half of the above-mentioned Time article contains a lot of
> speculation regarding naturalistic explanations for the sudden appearance
> of the Cambrian body plans.
>
> But when we ask, "Can any of these speculations be written as testable
> mechanisms?" the fog clears and we see that the speculations are not
> testable mechanism proposals, but instead they are guesses as to what the
> conditions were at the time of the explosion.
>
> But the conditions present at an explosion do not necessarily cause the
> explosion.
>
> JC>Easy! "The cambrian explosion was caused by mass extinction of the
> JC>proceeding vendobionts, leaving vacant niches".
>
> Mass extinction is not necessarily a mechanism of speciation, much less a
> testable mechanism. It is merely a condition that might have preceeded the
> explosion. Even if the condition of extinction is verified, it did not
> necessarily cause the explosion.
Mass extinctions are always followed by diversification from the survivors. It
may not have been the sole cause of the "Cambrian explosion" but it may have
been a
factor and it is certainly testable You asked for a testable hypothesis, I
provided
one, and then you move the goal posts!
> I challenge anyone on this list to provide a testable causal mechanism that
> caused the cambrian explosion.
>
> I'm looking for something that has a falsifiability scenario that parallels
> the "no-red-shift-is-discovered" scenario that Einstein described for
> falsifying general relativity (i.e. if light from distant galaxies is
> blue-shifted, then general relativity is falsified)
>
> *I'm not looking for an environmental condition that merely corresponds
> with the Cambrian explosion.
>
> *I'm looking for a testable causal mechanism that actually causes the
> effects we see in the Cambrian explosion.
Others have dealt with this, so I will let this pass.
> Here are a few excepts from the Time Magazine article of 12/4/95.
I have already read the Time article, thank you. But popular journalistic
accounts
do not deal with the nit gritty issues, only attempt to communicate the
journalist's perceptions of them. So I decline to comment.
What is your position? God could have created by evolutionary means, but you
believe he did not because you feel the scientific evidence does not support it,
or
does your basic theology preclude you from accepting that God could create by
evolution? Until we address the real issues (underpinning metaphysics and
theology) we can end up discussing in circles.
God Bless
Jonathan
- ------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:35:58 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Shh! - a quiet admission
It is therefore clear that, as with the 'Piltdown hoax' and the =
forgeries of Ernst Haeckel, it will take many years before this =
disgraceful example of evolutionist subterfuge can be flushed out of our =
educational systems. Yet, as Dawkins observes, "...nothing momentous =
hangs on these experiments."
At least evolution admits to its own errors. I wish that people such as =
Gish or Morris could show a similar behavior. But sadly enough creation =
"science" does not make too many attempts to pretend to be "scientific". =
It's good to see how science is self correcting unlike what pretends to =
be science.
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1343
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 07:54:50 -0500
From: MccarrickAD@nswccd.navy.mil
Subject: A practical question about dating.
I have been asked by someone who dabbles in collecting fossils to
investigate how to date a mammoth tusk and actually get it done. I believe
that tusks are a complex carbon compound and therefore suitable for carbon
dating. Could anyone offer me some specific advice (off line, I assume).
Al McCarrick
mccarrickad@nswccd.navy.mil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:46:32 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Shh! - a quiet admission
Vernon wrote:
>
>To the Forum:
>
>I came across this interesting article in yesterday's 'Telegraph':
>
>
> SCIENTISTS PICK HOLES IN DARWIN MOTH THEORY
>
[snip yet another episode of deja vu]
>
>Of course, Richard Dawkins and others will be well aware that the
>peppered moth has for many years been trumpeted as a living example of
>evolution in action (even of 'macro-evolution', in some quarters!)....
>
That's because it was (and still is, for that matter; see Coyne's comments)
a "living example of evolution in action". Scientists are only questioning
whether we identified the right cause for the shift from white to black
forms; the shift itself is documented history and is still considered to be
an excellent example of natural selection.
>
>...and
>that this delusion will have influenced many hundreds of thousands of
>impressionable minds.
>
Interesting that you should bring this up, because I was not exposed to the
peppered moth until college (which was also true for most people of my
generation), when I was at an age where I was far from "impressionable".
However, this statement simply reads like more paranoid delusion.
>
>They may even find satisfaction in the fact that
>the lie will, undoubtedly, affect many more, for as the commentator (an
>evolutionist) points out, "...(the story of) Biston betularia...is
>recounted in almost every textbook on evolution." And, I might add,
>every encyclopedia carrying a section on 'Evolution'.
>
As it should have been.
>
>It is therefore clear that, as with the 'Piltdown hoax' and the
>forgeries of Ernst Haeckel, it will take many years before this
>disgraceful example of evolutionist subterfuge can be flushed out of our
>educational systems. Yet, as Dawkins observes, "...nothing momentous
>hangs on these experiments."
>
So I take it that not only do you believe that evolutionary scientists are a
metaphysical priesthood that will never abandon their "faith" despite
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but that they are liars and cheats as
well. Aside from simply being more paranoid fantasy, this also demonstrates
the level of hatred you have for these people, since only someone who hates
evolutionists would assume the worst about them at all times with virtually
no evidence, simply because you fear what they stand for. You will almost
certainly deny this, but such hatred and fear is unworthy of a Christian.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:29:03 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Robert Matthews on the Peppered Moth
Pim van Meurs wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 1999:
> Fine, creationary "theory" also accepts natural selection and variation. But what else does
> a creationary "theory" have to offer ?
The rich field of Basic Type biology.
I had written:
> Kettlewell announced his findings to the world with a fanfare: here
> is "Darwin's missing evidence". The experiments have remained as
> the ONLY good example of known forces of natural selection affecting
> the genetic makeup of a breeding population.
Pim:
> I guess this means that you are not aware of "Beak of the Finch" then ? Your statement
> should perhaps read "ONLY good example _known to you_" ?
The "Beak of the Finch" was in my thoughts as I wrote the above
comment. Here is yet another example of variation in nature, but
what do we really know about mechanisms? Is there any evidence that
genetic changes were occuring in these finches? We know that there
were environmental changes, but were the forces of natural
selection? I have only read of inferences.
I wrote:
> Yes, there are over a hundred other examples of "natural selection" -
> but in no case do we have the same clear link between identifiable
> selection forces and the genetic make-up of organisms. That is why
> Steve Jones described the Peppered Moth story as "Evolution's best
> evidence".
Pim replied:
> I would not say that this is the case. There are far better examples
> at present.
I would be interested to hear the justification for this statement.
If the Galapagos finches is a "far better" example, I'll stick with
my argument above.
Besy wishes,
David J. Tyler.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:03:52 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: The young age of Earth
Pim van Meurs wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 1999:
I had written:
> > Abiogenesis advocates have two problems to address: the origin of a
> > chemical structure that appears irreducibly complex and the origin of
> > biological information.
Pim:
> I showed you data which indicate that IC systems can happen through gradual steps. So
> a cell being IC is no evidence against evolution.
The debate about IC systems has only just started! I'm not planning
to get too involved in the exchanges, but am certainly interested in
what contributions are made. At present, the IC arguments appear
very weighty to me.
This exchange is about abiogenesis. So what "evolution" are you
referring to above? Not Darwinian - because there is not yet a
self-replicating system. Is your "evolution" a term referring to the
emergence of life from non-living precursors by natural processes?
What is the rationale for using this particular word to describe such
a process?
> Pim: "The second problem needs some clarification. Do you mean to
> say with "origin of biological information" the origin of RNA/DNA ?"
I replied:
> NO - because DNA/RNA is the chemical carrier of information. The
> analogy has long been made between the paper and the printing on it:
> the paper is merely the carrier for information. So also DNA/RNA.
Pim:
> SO this is the same old "information" argument ? Please define information, after all the
> proponents of this "information" idea need to show why this is a problem.
Information appears to me to be an extraordinarily complex concept
that needs unpacking at many different levels. The only attempted
definitions I have seen are by people who have adopted Shannon's
theory of information which operates at the level of statistics and
is not concerned with content. Shannon's concept of information
represents the lowest level of analysis. Higher levels will address
issues of syntax (the code employed to convey information), Semantics
(the communication of ideas), activity (the direct
consequences of communication) and goals (the aims of communicating).
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:27:46 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
Hello once again Vernon.
At 12:30 AM 3/16/99 +0000, Vernon wrote:
>Dear Brian,
>
>Thanks for your frank response. If I may immediately comment on
>something you said in your penultimate paragraph:
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "...at face value" but suspect that it
>> means accepting the whole of God's word as understood by Vernon
>> Jenkins.
>
>I think it a little unfair of you to suggest that I have my own
>'private' interpretation of the scriptures.
OK, this is a fair criticism. I really hadn't meant it that way,
but in looking back at what I wrote I see that that is probably
the most obvious interpretation of my words. Please accept my
apologies.
Let me try again:
I'm not sure what you mean by "...at face value" but suspect that it
means accepting the whole of God's word according to a particular
tradition of interpretation that is endorsed by Vernon
Jenkins.
Is this better? If not, I'll try again :).
VJ:===
>Believing God to be
>sovereign and completely in control of his creation; believing his
>assessment of man - as delivered particularly by the prophet Jeremiah
>(Jer.17:9) - to be true; I am, with you, committed to accepting
>Galileo's summary:
Good, I'm glad we agree on something.
Galileo:===
>
>"The holy scriptures cannot err and the decrees therein contained are
>absolutely true and inviolable. But ... its expounders and interpreters
>are liable to err in many ways."
>
VJ:==
>I am therefore perplexed that you should baulk at the three criteria I
>listed as reasonable requirements of one who had received salvation
>through faith.
And I am perplexed that you consider my answer a baulk :).
Let's review. I said that "Saving faith is faith in a person,
not ascribing to a list of beliefs." -- BH
Do you agree?
I also wrote:
"This is not to say that your three items above are not worthy
goals towards which we should strive. But they are not things
that we exchange for salvation." -- BH
If I have baulked, then it is only at the notion that we
exchange a list of beliefs for salvation. I would always "baulk"
on this point because to go there is a heresy of the
worst kind. Do you agree?
VJ:===
>In the light of our discussion so far, perhaps you could
>tell me how you view each of the following three passages:
I'll try.
>Lk.16:19-31,
One of my favorite parables, but I'm afraid you'll have to
help me out some since I can't understand what you're getting
at.
Are you saying that if Abraham had allowed Lazarus to go and
warn the rich man's brothers then the warning would be to
interpret Genesis literally? Or are you suggesting that when
Abraham said that they should listen to Moses and the Prophets
that the key items they should listen for is the order in which
animals were created?
Or perhaps you're just saying that Jesus took Moses and the
Prophets to be the inspired word of God? So do I.
>Mt.24:35-39,
You'll have to help me again at understanding your point.
It seems the key verse in the above is Matt. 24:35
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never
pass away." (NIV)
Amen to this.
>and 2Th.2.
Again, I am at a loss as to your point. But, you asked for my
view on these verses. My view is that they are part of the
inspired word of God which I fully accept.
VJ:===
>
>Concerning the order of the creation of birds and land animals, you say,
>"Please do not confuse the word of God with the interpretation of men."
>I don't follow. What is there to be interpreted here? Isn't this a
>simple statement of fact that gives the lie to the suggestion that God's
>method of creating was 'evolution'?
Your conviction that this is a simple statement of fact is in
actuality an assumption that you are making regarding the best
means of interpretation.
VJ:==
>Is it reasonable to believe that he
>would contradict himself - and that, in the first chapter of his Book?
>
No. This is one reason why I do not endorse a literal "at face
value" interpretation of Genesis.
VJ:==
>Another matter that greatly concerns me is the determined manner in
>which members, in general, shut out any consideration of adverse
>supernatural activity in respect of this debate. What of Ephesians
>6:10-18 and the Christian's armour? Do you consider we are immune from
>such attacks in our day, and have no need of these defences?
>
Of course not.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:42:16 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
At 10:27 AM 3/16/99 -0800, I wrote:
[...]
>
>VJ:==
>>Another matter that greatly concerns me is the determined manner in
>>which members, in general, shut out any consideration of adverse
>>supernatural activity in respect of this debate. What of Ephesians
>>6:10-18 and the Christian's armour? Do you consider we are immune from
>>such attacks in our day, and have no need of these defences?
>>
>
>Of course not.
>
Oops, I was too hasty. Just to be clear, when I said "of course not"
I meant it wrt the first part of the last sentence "Do you consider
we are immune from such attacks in our day" and not the last part
of the last sentence "...and have no need of these defences?".
Let's summarize :)
"Do you consider we are immune from such attacks in our day..."
- --of course not
"...,and have no need of these defences?"
- --we do have this need.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:02:19 -0800
From: "Ami Chopine" <amka@vcode.com>
Subject: natural selection, mutation, speciation (was peppered moth)
David Tyler wrote:
The "Beak of the Finch" was in my thoughts as I wrote the above
comment. Here is yet another example of variation in nature, but
what do we really know about mechanisms? Is there any evidence that
genetic changes were occuring in these finches? We know that there
were environmental changes, but were the forces of natural
selection? I have only read of inferences.
I am asking:
By genetic changes, do you mean a shift in dominant attributes in the gene
pool, or actual mutations? The difference is very meaningful.
As we can see by the examples of the moths, the finches, dogs, roses, and
other species which have been naturally, or intellegently selected, there is
a very great range of attributes already present in a given species.
Natural selection is a very real force in determining which genetic traits
become dominant. Natural selection is not in any way responsible for
genetic mutations. It does, however, determine if those mutations are
beneficial, neutral, or harmful.
Another question is, and the finches contribute to this question much better
than the moths: What does it take to become a new species?
Mutations occur in every generation of any given species, and typically do
not cause the offspring to become a different species. How much mutation
and selection does it take to preclude a variety of finch from mating with
another one?
Thanks,
Ami
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:04:00 -0800
From: "Ami Chopine" <amka@vcode.com>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
First off, let me apologize if I have reiterated things previously stated on
the list. I know, I am jumping in before I lurk very long. But, Pim has
asked, so I guess definitions haven't been given in the recent past.
Pim has written,
>SO this is the same old "information" argument ? Please define information,
after all the
>proponents of this "information" idea need to show why this is a problem.
>
Information is, by the Merriam Webster dictionary:
2b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more
alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or
binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
(Nice that it uses DNA as an example :) )
The information needed for life, is three-fold, in my estimation.
First, is the genetic code - the system of three bases specifying one amino
acid (sometimes there being more than one codon per amino acid as well as
"stop" and "start" codons). I would like a coherent theory explaining how
this could come about by natural, random interactions.
The second, is the combining of these codons into sentences which produce
useful proteins.
The third, is the collecting of these sentences to create and more complex
and diverse organisms. I am aware of the recent discussion on gene
duplication, etc.
It takes more evolution, IMO, to come from simple chemicals to single celled
animals than from those single celled animals to humans or other complex
organisms.
See you,
Ami Chopine
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:41:37 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Shh! - a quiet admission
At 10:02 PM 3/15/99 +0000, Vernon wrote:
[...]
>
>
>Of course, Richard Dawkins and others will be well aware that the
>peppered moth has for many years been trumpeted as a living example of
>evolution in action(even of 'macro-evolution', in some quarters!), and
>that this delusion will have influenced many hundreds of thousands of
>impressionable minds. They may even find satisfaction in the fact that
>the lie will, undoubtedly, affect many more, for as the commentator (an
>evolutionist) points out, "...(the story of) Biston betularia...is
>recounted in almost every textbook on evolution." And, I might add,
>every encyclopedia carrying a section on 'Evolution'.
>
As I recall the story is also given by almost every creationist
writer as well. They usually say its an example of microevolution
which almost no creationist challenges. They also, until recently :),
emphasize how irrelevant the example is.
I wonder if it ever occurred to any creationist to actually try
to falsify the example. Instead they seem to merely have
accepted it while the evolutionists did what some say they
never do and challenged even something that was "cherished".
Really Vernon, I would hope that you would reflect on this a
little wrt some claims you have made recently. It really seems
to falsify them wouldn't you say?
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:43:24 +1030
From: Mark Phillips <mark@ist.flinders.edu.au>
Subject: Re: A practical question about dating.
> I have been asked by someone who dabbles in collecting fossils to
> investigate how to date a mammoth tusk and actually get it done. I believe
> that tusks are a complex carbon compound and therefore suitable for carbon
> dating. Could anyone offer me some specific advice (off line, I assume).
And I thought you were going to ask:
"In what situations should the guy pay?"
Sorry --- I couldn't resist :-)
Mark.
_/~~~~~~~~\___/~~~~~~\____________________________________________________
____/~~\_____/~~\__/~~\__________________________Mark_Phillips____________
____/~~\_____/~~\________________________________mark@ist.flinders.edu.au_
____/~~\HE___/~~\__/~~\APTAIN_____________________________________________
____/~~\______/~~~~~~\____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
"They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:14:40 -0600
From: "Karen G. Jensen" <kjensen@calweb.com>
Subject: RE: Fossil Insects
Dear Mr. Frack,
Thank you for the information you sent on Mesozoic insects.
>Apparently, you know something about fossil insects I don't. Moreover, you
>seem to be more up-to-date than the references in my library on fossil
>insects.
Well, it looks like you know quite a lot. The data from the Treatise
provides a baseline. Here it is, summarized in a table:
Mesozoic Fossil Record of Four Insect Orders:
number of fossil families and their stratigraphic distributions
(each order considered in two groups, "primitive" and "advanced")
Coleoptera
38 families found as Mesozoic fossils, 28 of them extant (10 extinct):
Tr Jur K T R
13 (4) (4)
1 (0)
1
4 (4 )
13 (13 )
7 (7)
31 families post-Cretaceous only.
Diptera
59 families found as Mesozoic fossils, 17 of them extant (42 extinct):
Tr Jur K T R
35 (1)
6 (6)
8
12 (3)
6 (6)
56 families post-Cretaceous only.
Hymenoptera
49 families found as Mesozoic fossils; 33 of them extant (16 extinct):
Tr Jur K T R
1 (1)
13 (4)
6
9 (2)
26 (26)
23 families post-Cretaceous only.
Lepidoptera
1 family found as a Mesozoic fossil, not extant.
Tr Jur K T R
1
20
20 (all other) families post-Cretaceous only.
As you may know, I am comparing interpretations of the fossil insect data
from two different viewpoints, a Creation/Flood model as well as an
Evolution/Long Ages model. Differing expectations of the two models
include:
Expected Characteristics of the Insect Fossil Record
Creation/Flood Model Evolution/Long Ages Model
all kinds* contemporaneous all from one common ancestor
flood burial with assoc. veg. co-evolution with assoc. veg.
flood extinction of many various extinctions
survival of many via eggs some groups long-lasting
much postflood speciation much speciation
*probably suborders or superfamilies
In the Flood model under consideration, the sequence of events during the
worldwide water catastrophe (Genesis 7-8) produced an orderly progression
of layers -- briefly the lower (Paleozoic) being mostly marine, the middle
(Mesozoic) including much land-derived material eroded by rising waters,
and the upper (Cenozoic) mostly resulting from decreasing sea levels and
subsequent tectonic adjustments.
Insects in this scenario would be expected to take cover in their
respective vegetation types until this vegetation was inundated by rising
sea levels. At that time they would be expected to be caught in the
sediments, float, and/or be destroyed. The more water-resistant forms
would be expected to be fossilized more often than the easily dismembered
forms. Most populations would survive only as eggs attached to floating
vegetation.
This model predicts insects with the coal forest vegetation (Paleozoic),
some at the onset of erosion of the truely soil-rooted land forest
vegetation (Mesozoic - Triassic & Jurassic) and others as the last upland
vegetation was inundated (Cretaceous), but attenuation of each fauna after
its initial abundance, due to disintegration of the fragile bodies.
The above data show some interesting patterns, consistent with the
hypothesis of Mesozoic sediments as recording the erosion of true
soil-rooted trees with their associated insect faunas.
Coleoptera, which are relatively water-resistant (and include many aquatic
species), are well represented (38 families), including many survivors (28
of the 38 are extant).
Diptera, which are not as water-resistant (many being incapacitated by
raindrops), are well represented in Tr-J seds (47 families), but fewer (12
families) in K seds. Some of these families are extant (16 of 59), but
many more extinct (43 of 59 or 72%).
Hymenoptera, which are somewhat water-resistant, able to survive some wetting,
have one subgroup (the primitive) well represented in Tr-J sediments (14
families) with none in K, and the other (advanced) forms which are better
represented in K than in Tr-J (26 cf 9 families). The former group is
largely extinct (only 5 of 14 families extant) while the latter group is
mostly extant (28 of 35 families, including all 26 of the K families).
Lepidoptera, which are not water-resistant, being easily incapacitated by
wetting, is very poorly represented (1 family); all other families are
post-Cretaceous only.
All these orders include many families (31 Coleopteran, 56 Dipteran,23
Hymenopteran, 20 Lepidopteran) have no pre-Tertiary record, as would be
expected for such fragile animals.
I wonder if the paucity of Cretaceous Coleopterans will be filled in with
further discoveries. I would like to know more detail, especially of the
abundances and stratigraphic distributions of the 26 Cretaceous
Hymenopteran families.
>
>Unless you have information more recent or contradictory to these
>references, you appear to be mistaken. If you do have such information, I
>would appreciate it if you could cite it so I can add it to my library.
>
>You further state that these insects are "not anything like what would be
>expected if the flowering plants were co-evolving with insects" I have no
>idea what this is supposed to mean. The numbers of insects in the fossil
>record is affected by their diversity, abundance, and the chances that they
>will be fossilized. How many should we "expect"? Most of the co-evolution
>discussed is a Cenozoic phenomenon, not Mesozoic. Why would you expect
>great numbers of insects within the context of co-evolution if the plants
>weren't diverse enough to encourage the insects?
Cretaceous flowering plants are quite diverse. Paleobotanists recognizing
the importance of insects to the clearly insect-pollinated Cretaceous
plants have expressed disappointment in the Cretaceous insect record, e.g.
pp. 52-57 of Paleobiology of Angiosperm Origins by Norman F. Hughes,
Cambridge University Press 1976 (see especially Figure 6.2, p. 54), and pp.
50-51 (and 249, etc.) in The Enigma of Angiosperm Origins by the same
author and publisher, 1994.
The Cretaceous is the
>first time that angiosperms appear at all commonly. Their adaptive
>radiation in the early Cenozoic is matched by an increase in those insect
>groups most commonly associated with pollination, Lepidoptera and
>Hymenoptera: Apocrita. If there is not a cause-effect relationship here, do
>you have a better explanation for the coincidence?
>
Coordinated adaptive radiation of insects and flowering plants has clearly
occurred. Some diversity increases may have other explanations, however,
such as contributions from additional source areas. Diversity increase
does not always mean diversification.
>> This has been noted as a "problem" among angiosperm paleobotanists. I
>> remember talking to the entomologist that worked with N.F.Hughes at
>> Cambridge, who was eager to find any Cretaceous insects. That was 1980.
>> Some have been found, showing that the depositional environments were
>> capable of preserving insects. The paucity is a puzzle for those who
>> expect to trace the origins of entomopyllous (insect pollinated) plants in
>> the fossil record.
>
>I'm still with Steve in wondering what you mean to imply by "problem" and
>"puzzle".
OK.
In the trivial sense, every researcher deals with "problems" and
>"puzzles".
Yes.
You clearly seem to imply that these have some important
>significance.
Yes. At the very point where a complete fossil record of insect-plant
interaction would be welcomed by those studying angiosperm origins, there
are relatively few insect fossils. This is predicted in the flood model,
since insects could not be expected to do well after their associated
vegetation was eroded and afloat.
To me the vast difference between Cretaceous and Paleogene insect fossil
abundances is an indicator of a profound change in ecological conditions
and depositional environments.
I doubt that all of the fossils I referred to above have been
>found since 1980,
Yet there have been some significant discoveries -- including finds from
the lower Jurassic of Dorset (Whalley, 1985), the Kimmeridgian of Russia
(supplementing the Solenhofen of Germany), the Lower Cretaceous of
Transbaikalia (Krassilov and Rasnitsyn, 1982), and more from the English
Wealden (Jarzembowski, 1984 and 1991), and the Aptian of Australia (Jell &
Duncan 1986), and others. These have changed the picture considerably.
And more can be expected.
so either the person you refer to above wants specimens,
>wants a better fossil record than we have, or doesn't know the literature.
>What point are you trying to make here?
>
The man was Dr. J. Smart, I believe, who wrote for the Royal Entomological
Society. He was about to retire in 1980. He was eager to see the insects
we were finding from the Green River Formation (Eocene), to help bridge the
relatively sparse record between the Jurassic and the Paleogene.
What I see as significant is that the data which is seen as consistent with
an evolution/long ages model of earth history is also consistent with a
Creation/Flood model of earth history. I don't expect you to agree :-).
Thank you again for the Treatise data you sent.
Sincerely,
Karen
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:42:12 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: The young age of Earth
Pim has written,
>SO this is the same old "information" argument ? Please define =
information,
after all the
>proponents of this "information" idea need to show why this is a =
problem.
>
Information is, by the Merriam Webster dictionary:
2b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more
alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in =
DNA or
binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
(Nice that it uses DNA as an example :) )
Now wouldn't it be cool if there was a more scientific definition as =
well.
The information needed for life, is three-fold, in my estimation.
First, is the genetic code - the system of three bases specifying one =
amino
acid (sometimes there being more than one codon per amino acid as well =
as
"stop" and "start" codons). I would like a coherent theory explaining =
how
this could come about by natural, random interactions.
Of course there are two problems here 1) are these interactions random =
2) are there any inherent problems why this could NOT have happened ?
The second, is the combining of these codons into sentences which =
produce
useful proteins.
The third, is the collecting of these sentences to create and more =
complex
and diverse organisms. I am aware of the recent discussion on gene
duplication, etc.
And yet I have still not seen any coherent argument why information is =
an issue here.
It takes more evolution, IMO, to come from simple chemicals to single =
celled
animals than from those single celled animals to humans or other complex
organisms.
The data suggest that this might not be correct. Abiogenesis had only a =
0.5 billion years to happen.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:44:51 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: natural selection, mutation, speciation (was peppered moth)
By genetic changes, do you mean a shift in dominant attributes in the gene
pool, or actual mutations? The difference is very meaningful.
As we can see by the examples of the moths, the finches, dogs, roses, and
other species which have been naturally, or intellegently selected, there is
a very great range of attributes already present in a given species.
And how did this range in attributes happen ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:46:55 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: The young age of Earth
Pim van Meurs wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 1999:
I had written:
> > Abiogenesis advocates have two problems to address: the origin of a
> > chemical structure that appears irreducibly complex and the origin of
> > biological information.
Pim:
> I showed you data which indicate that IC systems can happen through gradual steps. So
> a cell being IC is no evidence against evolution.
The debate about IC systems has only just started! I'm not planning
to get too involved in the exchanges, but am certainly interested in
what contributions are made. At present, the IC arguments appear
very weighty to me.
This exchange is about abiogenesis. So what "evolution" are you
referring to above? Not Darwinian - because there is not yet a
self-replicating system.
It does not matter whether it be Darwinian evolution or not. IC systems can
arise in gradual steps.
So perhaps it is time that the IC people support their ideas that such systems
cannot arise naturally.
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1344
********************************