Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.correct,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet.bible,alt.blasphemy,sci.lang,alt.catastrophism,alt.fan.publius,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.atheism,alt.philosophy.debate
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!iglou!news
From: gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dp1-033.ppp.iglou.com
Message-ID: <DuA0qp.Mwz@iglou.com>
Sender: news@iglou.com (News Administrator)
Reply-To: gnewman@iglou.com
Organization: Wormsby Works
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
References: <xanidu-2306960830540001@lucky118.nuts.nwu.edu> <4qlp8s$cll@news.ox.ac.uk> <xanidu-2506962023090001@lucky146.nuts.nwu.edu> <4qr4ss$et2@news.ox.ac.uk> <31D20104.2C54@pe.net> <31d317b3.171113541@news.airmail.net> <31d4c28e.97447171@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <Pine.SGI.3.91.960630142041.3518G-100000@umbc8.umbc.edu> <31D6EAB7.278B@cts.com>  <Pine.SGI.3.91.960709015039.5871D-100000@umbc10.umbc.edu> <Pine.SGI.3.91.960709020111.22806B-100000@umbc8.umbc.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:45:48 GMT
Lines: 116
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:187659 sci.lang:57124

On Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:01:32 -0400, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>NOTE: This is part 3 of a 3 part essay.

>In the Cambrian explosion, all of the different types of body
>plans of animals for all the present 4 phyla burst on the
                                                            ^^^^
>scene.[Fossils, 189.]  [Kingdom, phylum, class...]

 The word you want is 'taxa', plural of 'taxon'.


> Those 4 are
>all the main ones that remain of the at least 25 phyla that
>suddenly appeared in the space of 10 million years.[# 25
>somewhere in Gould's Wonderful Life (1989), I believe: 15-20
>preserved in the Burgess Shale alone-- see 99.  On 99, Gould says
>the best book on the subject lists 32 phyla.  The # 10 million in
>_Time_, 12/4/95 & also Niles Eldredge's Fossils (1991), 189.] 
>Three of those 4 phyla are Mollusca (e.g., land snails),
>Arthropoda (insects, spiders, etc.), & Chordata (which has
>reptiles, birds, & mammals).

>One proposed cause for the Cambrian explosion, "biology's Big
>Bang" as _Time_ put it, is that earthquakes, sand & mud slides,
>avalanches, & a tumultuous climate caused algae to die out,
>releasing oxygen; previously, decomposing algae had released
>large quantities of carbon dioxide & taking out oxygen.[Time] 
>This increase in oxygen level somehow led to the frenzied
>activity & 25 phyla suddenly popping into existence.[!!??!]

 Why the consternation? When conditions changed, some organisms
developed hard parts.  Hard parts can be very useful, so they
spread.


>  As
>was stated before, "Environmental pressures fostered rapid
>change."[Time.  Eldredge also likes the idea of climate changes
>doing all this: 207.  In Frankenstein's case, we have electricity
>bringing a monster to life, & here we have a sudden increase in
>oxygen level supposedly leading to all of earth's phyla bursting
>on the seen??!?!]

 In a way, yes. Many of the soft bodied critters that left no
record before the Cambrian microdeveloped hard parts.

>After the 543 mya Cambrian explosion, we have the Silurian,
>weighing in at around 400 mya.[Fossils, 189.]  Plants appeared on
>the land, as well as vertebrates, worms, & insects, & other land
>arthropods.[Fossils, 180, 189.]  In this regard, Beck, Leim, &
>George Gaylord Simpson note on 1165 of _Life_ (1991) that
>"Contrary to what we might have supposed, most (and perhaps all)
>of the animal phyla arose in the sea."  Mentioned as uncertain
>are 2 phyla of parasites of unclear origin, as well as flatworms
>& aschelminths that are usually seen in damp soil but also have
>sea species.

>Also, the very fact that we can divide the past into different
>epochs based on the differing prominent life forms present in
>them speaks to the fact that sharp divisions exist, that there is
>no such thing as gradual development of organisms over the
>millions & millions of years earth has seen.

 Huh? Why? Those divisions are just for OUR convenience. We are
more concerned with land animals than with sea animals, so that's
how we divide things: by whatever large, land animal was present.
The sea life has ALWAYS been more important to the planet in
general. It is STILL the Age of Fishes -- that's just not very
interesting to us.


  Btw, William
>Whewell, the same guy that came up with the neologisms
>"scientist" & "physicist," came up with the names we use for the
>different geological epochs & was a Christian.  Moreover, he was
>an ordained clergyman.[Fred Heeren, _Show Me God_ (1995), 297.]

>>      Evolution, as defined by those who work with it, is:
>>      The change in gene frequencies within a population over
>> time.
>>      This has been observed, as have speciation events.
>> The rest of David's post shows as distorted an understanding of
>> evolutionary science as the misunderstanding of the
>> implications of physics he has displayed on the "Prove God's
>> Existence" thread.
>>      A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>      Hint: Read everything Stephen J. Gould has ever written, it
>> might help.

>Awe, shucks.  & I thought you concurred that the patchwork job on
>Darwin's theory of evolution constituted "bad science."  You
>could possibly make my little amount of knowledge slightly larger
>in size if your replies to my remarks contained substance [a good
>start was made on one reply to a piece of mine on the origin of
>life.  Keep it up.  Study the reply from James A. to me, e.g.  He
>shut me up-- for a while-- by presenting gobs of info to mull
>over.]  As I recall, your responses have consisted for the most
>part of merely little jibes or questions, with no presentation of
>information or reasoning.  I am heartened that you only presented
>a scanty description of microevolution, dropped a big name in
>paleontology, & gave the retort "A little knowledge is a
>dangerous thing" to my posting on the non-falsifiability of
>evolutionary theory.  Come to think of it, you haven't said
>terribly much about my postings in that other strand either.  Are
>my positions really that solid?

 Uh, no, your positions are naieve and poorly founded.

 It's pretty obvious to me that you haven't read the very paper
your attacking.  How can we take you seriously?




