Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 31820

Directory

ACtually, NO, it wasn't. Newtonian Mechanics DOES NOT apply to the
orbital motions
of bodies in space. To the THEN CURRENT mathamatical accuracy of
observation it
MATCHED and predicted the motions. But to todays accuracy, it FAILS.
A theory can get the right numbers to a given level of accuracy and
still be
basically crap at the fundamental level of it's axioms and basic
interpretations
and understandings. Or if not 'crap', at least not-relevant.
Too many people don't understand the difference between 'truth' and a
scientific
theory. Theories that express the result in a number are true only to a
given
level of precision. Look at all the hacks needed to make Ukawa's theory 
work to become QED! Was Ukawa wrong? The basic model used to come up
with his
equation, which is the 1st order QED term, is in direct conceptual
disagreement 
with the models used to come up with the higher order expansion terms in
QED.
Doesn't that say something about that whole theory?
> >is not evidence for the Big Bang theory.  You complained in a previous post
> >that I seemed to have a problem with reasoning.  It seems to me that
> >you might be the one with the problem.
Though the previous doubt-er might not have had any eloquence, he had
reason
to doubt, and I think the *blind acceptance* of many of the current
theories
shows a conceptual misunderstanding of the nature of scientific
reasoning, thought,
and theories in general.
> > Incidently,  I will stop making
> >        remarks like " It seems to me that you might be the one with the
> >        the problem", when you stop making this type of remarks
> 
> Indeed, Brad, you have also been a source of incendiary remarks, perhaps
> you should set an example.  Don't use my actions as a reference point to
> control your own behavior, be in charge of yourself.
It takes two people to argue. If you find someone too incendiary, IGNORE
THEM.
That's all it takes to stop an argument. Or take the argument off line
to 
private e-mails.
> >Incidently, I am still waiting on your evidence and threories related to
> >        The ability for a planet to explode.
Last month or so had a good article in Sci Am. about the origin of the
earth.
Interesting, anyway. 
David M. Union
White Tiger Software, Inc.
(508) 752-7738
.
223 31853  Article retrieved; request text separately

> It
> would also raise serious problems of how then to interpret the
> transitional fossils known as 'mammal like reptiles', which we've got
> plenty of.
Nothing that couldn't be gotten around.
> Not to mention all other early vertebrates.
> Actually finding mammals in the Burgess Shale _WOULD_ require us to
> modify our view on how evolution of mammals and vertebrates has
> progressed.
Modify our views about how evolution progressed, yes.  But the validity
of the theory itself would never be doubted.
> It wouldn't, as you say, totally destroy evolution, for
> which we have tens of thousands compelling other cases.
No, of course it wouldn't destroy the theory of evolution, for the
theory makes no _prediction_ about when mammals will appear, and thus,
would not have been shown to be incorrect if mammals were found earlier
than previously believed.  No firm prediction=total malleability in the
face of new evidence=being unfalsifiable.
>> Q: If we were to find a fossil that had not changed in basic body
>> structure for billions and billions of years, would the theory have
>> been shown to be incorrect?
> No. The normal state of affairs for any organism is to be near
> optimally adapted to its environment - unless the environment changes,
> the animal has no reason to, and if the environment changes the animal
> has to change very rapidly with it.
>> Q: Would the finding of behavior in an organism that seems to decrease
>> its chances for survival, and thereby decreases chances for continued
>> propagation of its genes, show the theory to be incorrect?
> Yes it would, if the findings were conclusive.
And under what circumstances will the findings be conclusive?  There are
so many variables, so many things that have to be accounted for, it is
impossible for mere mortals to know all the necessary information. 
Unfalsifiable.
> It WOULD force us to rework the theory of Natural Selection.
Which is a relatively painless affair.  Move a few branches on the
phyletic tree this way, reorient some others the other way-- piece of
cake.  Unfalsifiable.  
> Of course, one cannot use
> species which are in situations for which they are not adapted (ie
> moths flying into flames - the moths have not yet adapted to flames,
> which after all has only been around for a few thousand years).
Lightning bolts didn't cause fires until several thousand years ago?
>> Q: If we were to find an organ or limb that appears to us to have less
>> than the best design possible, would that show the theory to be
>> incorrect?
> Not at all. As we've tried to tell you mutation is random, and
> selection can only work on existing phenotypes. If a mutation, by
> chance, never arises, there's bugger all selection can do about it.
> Case in point: try breeding for wings in frogs.
>> Q: If we were to find an organ or limb that appears to us to have the
>> absolute best design imaginable, would that show the theory to be
>> incorrect?
> No, as with the above argument it'd just show that the animal had been
> more successful with its mutations.
>> Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each one of which had 4
>> heads, would that show the theory to be incorrect?
> HUH? I can't see the connection with evolution at all.
I was using my imagination.  You are allowed to do that in trying to
come up with situations that, if they were otherwise, would show a
theory claimed to be scientific to be unfalsifiable, or not.
>> Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each of which had very
>> colorful and cumbersome garb, which might make them especially
>> attractive to predators, would that show the theory to be incorrect?
> All such cases have been shown to be linked to sexual success - ie
> Peacocks.
"Shown to be"?  Try "claimed to be."
>> Q: If we were to find an organism that did not use sexual reproduction
>> to reproduce, would the theory have been shown to be incorrect?
> No, since asexual or sexual reproduction has absolutely nothing to do
> with evolutionary theory.
>> Q: If we were to find an organism that did use sexual reproduction to
>> reproduce, would the theory have been shown to be incorrect?
> See above. You could just as well ask if the colour red showed
> evolution to be correct - there is no connection.
>> Q: If we were to not presently observe organs and limbs taking shape
>> under the guidance of natural selection amidst various environmental
>> conditions, would the theory be shown to be incorrect?
>> A: The theory would not be shown to be incorrect because the theory
>> predicts that the changes occur over long periods of time, and it is
>> only when long periods of time have passed that we see the wonders that
>> have been wrought.
> Of course, we've seen this. Both in the lab and in the fossil record.
> Sorry.
Do you have a journal reference on this one I could look up? 
"Scientists observe new organ taking shape under guidance of natural
selection."  What's the reference?
>> Q: If we were to not see the numerous transitional fossils that are
>> predicted by the theory when examining the fossil record, would the
>> theory be shown to be incorrect?
>> A: Yes, it would be shown to be incorrect, if we continue to hold the
>> theory up as being scientific: a major, definite, firm prediction is
>> made, and if the prediction is not met, then the theory will have been
>> shown to be false.  However, the lack of transitional fossils need not
>> be a problem: we can merely postulate that the evolution of new organs
>> and limbs occurred so quickly (relatively speaking since the earth is
>> billions of years old), that few transitional forms were left to record
>> the transitions.  We could also blame the lack of transitional forms on
>> an incomplete fossil record, which would be all right until study had
>> determined that we had a good picture of what was happening in the
>> fossil record.
> Bullshit made up to support your theory. We have transitional fossils,
> thousands of them.
Good.  You should have no problem telling me about just 10 of those
thousands.  The info that will be required to formulate a well-founded
decision that we have transitional fossils on our hands:
a) how many samples
b) was geographic variation taken into account
c) how many features were looked at
d) what were the ages of the various samples looked at
e) were all features looked at
f) were all the available samples considered
g) what kind of changes occurred
h) this is said to be an intermediate between what and what
Thomas S. couldn't do it.  Can you?
>>> By your own actions you label yourself a hypocrite.
>>> Let me put it on the line David. Do you, or do you not consider
>>> evolutionary theory to be unfalsifiable?
>>> I am waiting with examples of solid evidence which, if found,
>>> would falsify evolutionary theories.
> Here, I'll give you one which'd absolutely falsify Evolutionary theory
> as we understand it:
> A species, which has got genetic variation for a trait, but which does
> not experience change in allelic frequency when a directed pressure
> (selection) is applied to that trait.
This is microevolution.  I'm interested in macroevolution, the idea that
new organs and new limbs can appear whereas before they didn't exist. 
That's the main claim of the theory of evolution: the claim of a blind
watchmaker constructing intricate and complicated things.  A change in
allele frequencies, as when black moths start increasing in numbers
compared with white moths because of a change in environmental
conditions, is not even close to a situation where a new organ develops. 
You don't need evolution to say that an allele frequency will change in
the case of black and white moths.  You just need genetics.  For the
development of a new organ, however, you need a lot more than changes in
percentages of population members having a certain wing color.
> It's as easy as that. Just find such a species or population, and
> you've succeeded. Good luck.
> Oh, BTW: this of course doesn't mean that _Evolution_ would be
> falsified, as it is an observed FACT, not a theory. Just like ie
> gravity.
I can see gravity's influence in action.  Can I see a new organ
developing whereas before it wasn't in that organism?  If you say "yes,"
please include a journal reference.
> What you'd be falsifying is the mechanism Darwin proposed for it -
> Natural Selection sensu The New Synthesis. Really, really good luck to
> you.
.
223 31856 <4vrrri$5nfm@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Article retrieved; request text separately.
220 31856 <4vrrri$5nfm@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> article
Path: mack.rt66.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!fu-berlin.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lrz-muenchen.de!ipp-garching.mpg.de!bds
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology,alt.sci.planetary,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Mars Life Scam Rigged By NASA, NSF
Date: 26 Aug 1996 09:47:30 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching
Lines: 26
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4vrrri$5nfm@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
References:  <4va0kp$b1o@hecate.umd.edu>  <4vnvop$58f@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: s4bds.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: mack.rt66.com sci.geo.geology:31856 alt.sci.planetary:11149 sci.physics:183665
Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote: 
[...]
: The story also got equally prominent coverage in the UK (which I know 
: because I read the Electronic Telegraph regularly, where it was a top 
: page story) -- and last I looked the UK has nothing to do with NASA. 
: This suggests interest in this story transcends national borders or 
: any interest in current US tax and funding patterns. 
: The same media (at least our local newspaper did, from wire services) 
: carried a story last week about the 4 July Nature article that reached 
: different conclusions.  This paper would have been studiously ignored 
: if not for the interest generated by the more recent paper, and further 
: indicates that NASA can stimulate but not control the news media. 
And NASA surely has nothing to do with the positions the media in this
country take, either.  Die Zeit had several pieces on the Mars story, as
did all the magazines (on the cover of most).  Several other papers must
have as well, but Die Zeit is the one I read.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                Congratulations to
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                    Ghada Shouaa,
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik      Olympic heptathlon champion!

Alan Scott on Sat, 17 AUG 1996:
david ford wrote:
> >The very fact that we can subdivide geological time on the basis of the
> >types of plants and animals it contains speaks against the theory of
> >evolution.  If evolution had indeed occurred, we would expect to be unable
> >to classify organisms, since things would grade from one thing to another,
> >making classification very difficult.  The problem of why we can classify
> >things today was dealt with by Darwin by postulating that the splitting
> >off of lineages had occurred in the past, meaning that the fossil record
> >would be even more loaded with transitional fossils, if his theory was
> >true.
> If you believe that there are such firm dividing lines, then you should
> be able to easily define for us all of the kinds which are so clearly
> delineated. The fact that you find such a task insurmountable puts the
> lie to your flippant assertion.
"Define for us all of the kinds which are so clearly delineated."  You
are right.  I do "find such a task insurmountable."  I'm not a
paleontologist.  A paleontologist would be the person to ask.  You might
want to start with Charles Darwin and Jean Baptiste Lamark:
"But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be
justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as
a fundamental fact of nature?.... Yet--and this is the irony--both
Darwin and Lamark were respected systematists who named hundreds of
species.  Darwin wrote a four-volume taxonomic treatise on barnacles,
while Lamark produced more than three times as many volumes on fossil
invertebrates.  Faced with the practicum of their daily work, both
recognized entities where theory denied their reality."[Gould, _The
Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 205.]  Instead of asking these two
paleontologists, you could look at a guide book for identifying fossils.
> 

In article <32136689.1A7A@n-link.com>,
Brian W. Haren  wrote:
>OK, in a few weeks I will be in Kuwait to do some reconnaissance work.  
>I am taking my Brunton with me.  Do I need to get the needle rebalanced 
>or in any way adjusted before going?
Look at the needle.  Some of them have a slider, made up of a
few turns of copper wire, on one end of the needle.  This is
to balance the dip of the magnetic lines of force with which
the needle tries to align itself.
When you get to Kuwait, see whether the north end of the needle is
hitting the glass or is so far above the markings that it's hard to
read accurately.  If it is, take the cover glass off and slide the
copper wire as close to the pivot point as it will go.  If you
don't want to do this yourself, go to a jeweler.

In article <321D10BE.5C7A@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>,
Laurie and Jerry Green   wrote:
>Andrew Poulos wrote:
>> 
>> ...They not only disbelieve that an extraterrestrial body
>> impacting Earth caused the K-T extinction but claim that the Chicxulub
>> structure (crater) was caused by volcanism...
>
>Not an expert on the K-T extinction, but I have been studying late 
>Cretaceous and early Eocene formations in southern Mexico for the last 
>couple of years and have seen no evidence of volcanism on that scale.  
Walter Alvarez and his associates have located some sedimentary
features that support the idea that there was a major meteor
impact at that time.  He has also put together a fractional-orbital
model that explains the worldwide distribution of tektites from
this event.  I haven't seen this information in published form
yet.

Replying to david ford  
: >> 1) As a _scientific_ theory, the theory of evolution has been falsified,
: >>        or shown to be incorrect.  The theory of evolution, as a
: >>        _scientific_ theory, has been shown to be incorrect in the face of
: >>        genetics and of the fossil record.
: 
: > Oh? That'll surprise geneticists and paleontologists alike. Do you
: > have any backing for this claim, or are we to take your word for it?
: 
: Don't take my word for anything.  Is Gould good enough for you?  I have
: quoted him on the matter of the lack of transitionals out the wazoo.
I can return the favour:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it
is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--
whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admit-
ting that the fossil record contains no transitional forms.
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level,
but they are abundant between larger groups.  Yet a pamphlet
entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states:
"The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...
are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan
insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
 -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Hen's Teeth
and Horse's Toes_.
Gould does NOT say that there are no transitionals (that would be
silly of him), only that there are FEWER than would be predicted by a
slow, gradual, evolution as (probably) envisioned by Darwin. We DO
have oodles of transitional forms between higher groups, and indeed
also between species (although Gould does not like them - they mess
with his theory of punctuated equilibrium). Gould does NOT say that
there is no evolution, he is only disputing the SPEED (he thinks any
species is normally kept in stasis by stabilizing selection,
interspersed with furious change when selection changes). 
:  Is
: Niles Eldredge good enough for you?  A while back I did a piece on his
: _Fossils_ (1991) demonstrating the absence of transitional fossils.  As
I don't know much about Eldredges theories, but I dare say that he
will not deny the existance of intermediates.
: for the matter of genetics, have you seen my pieces on the NIEH and a
: look at what happens when DNA gets changed in critical places?  You get
: things like cancer and a whole slew of genetic diseases.
And beneficial mutations when there's a change in selection. We've had
this chat before haven't we. I've got more examples for you of
beneficial mutations if you want them.
: "The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of
: adaption has led us to a great Darwinian paradox.  _Those [genes] that
: are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at
: the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those [genes] that
: seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major
: adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural
: populations_."-U. of Georgia geneticist John McDonald.  His emphasis. 
Exactly as is predicted by the theory of natural selection. Selection
is HARD. If there was variation in things like, say, how to go through
mitosis or how to store DNA then the organism is dead in the water.
The LESS critical a trait is, the more variation there will be, since
the penalty on aberrant forms is mild enough to be tolerated.
: Cited by Michael J. Behe in _Darwin's Black Box the biochemical
: challenge to evolution_ (1996), 28.  Behe is Associate Professor of
: Biochemistry at Lehigh U., and his book is superb.  The points he
If so he either does not understand evolutionary theory at all, or
deliberately misses the point - something not unknown from
creationists.
: presents greatly strengthen the argument from design and absolutely
: demolish the evolutionary position.  By the end of his book, the theory
: comes out looking like a piece of irradiated toast, billowing clouds of
: black smoke.
My upbringing forbids me to say from which part of Behe that black,
irritating, billowing, smoke spews forth.
: "Ever since Darwin's day, the fossil record has posed a difficulty for
: evolutionists--and an arguing point for creationists--because it did not
: appear to confirm his notion of a slow, uniform development of species. 
This is a curious statement, since a) the fossil record is a
centerpiece of evolutionary thought, and b) since the fossil record is
totally at odds with the theory you advocate, that of special
creation.
: Instead, some fossil organisms seem to persist through millions of years
: relatively unchanged, then disappear, after which a spate of new ones
: 'suddenly' springs up."
Yup. They do not evolve at a constant pace - they evolve when
selective pressure changes, since they are normally held at near
stasis by natural selection. This is the whole basis for the 'Darwin
was wrong' type articles and programs one often see.
: >> 2) As an _unscientific_ theory, the theory is unfalsifiable, that is to
: >>        say, there is no state of affairs, that if otherwise, would show
: >>        the (unscientific) theory of evolution to be false.
: >>        P1: If something is to be considered scientific, then it must at a
: >>                minimum be capable of being falsified.
: >>        P2: The theory of evolution is not capable of being falsified.
: >>        C: Thus, the theory cannot be called scientific.
: 
: > See previous note. You are out on a glorious crusade against strawmen
: > again. I think this would be a lot easier if you defined what you
: > think Evolution IS, so we could correct you.
: 
: > Oh? That'll surprise geneticists and paleontologists alike. Do you
: > have any backing for this claim, or are we to take your word for it?
It won't surprise any geneticists or paleontologists. Especially not,
I might add, some of those you've quoted, like Gould. You can easily
verify this by actually READING THEIR BOOKS instead of quoting out of
creationist litterature. Or you could ask in, say,
sci.bio.paleontology.
: > If we found mammals in the burgess shale, we'd, in the light of other
: > finds, have to say that mammals arose rather earlier than expected.
: 
: "In the light of other finds."  Not in light of the theoretical
: framework of the theory, mind you.
Both, really. Firstly evolution isn't directed; nothing in the theory
says anything about the order of appearance. However mammals are a
rather late product of the chordate line, and if we found them in
burgess shale they would predate what we consider to be their
ancestors. That would clearly mess things up for evolutionists pretty
badly. Luckily we, contrary what creationism predicts, haven't found
any mammals in burgess shale.
  The theory of evolution is
: essentially a particular view of history.  You have the Marxist view of
: history, and then you have the evolutionary view of history.  Precious
: few predictions here.
I can't post-predict past unique historical events any more than I can
predict future unique historical events. I can't predict which horse
will win the races in a week, but I can predict that one will. I can't
predict which animal gives rise to any other animal; there is no way
for me to predict that, say, frogs will, in a few hundred million
years, give rise to the group X. That doesn't mean that I can't make
predictions: I can predict that allele frequency will change if I
apply a selective pressure; I can predict that the offspring species
will be quite similar to the parent.
I can not say anything about historically unique event. Noone can. The
problem historians face is that they nearly only deal with
historically unique events.
: How can you have predictions when you're
: discussing a view of history?  You can't.  And with no predictions,
: there is no possibility of falsification.
We have given you examples of how evolution could be falsified.
: unfalsifiable.  Now physics, that's a real science.  For example,
: consider the big bang model: numerous _predictions_, which have, btw,
: been met.  And with predictions comes the possibility of being
: falsified.
Predict, then, when this particular atom of uranium will decay. You
can't - it's a historically unique event.
: > It
: > would also raise serious problems of how then to interpret the
: > transitional fossils known as 'mammal like reptiles', which we've got
: > plenty of.
: 
: Nothing that couldn't be gotten around.
Oh?
: > Not to mention all other early vertebrates.
: > Actually finding mammals in the Burgess Shale _WOULD_ require us to
: > modify our view on how evolution of mammals and vertebrates has
: > progressed.
: 
: Modify our views about how evolution progressed, yes.  But the validity
: of the theory itself would never be doubted.
No, because there'd still be thousands of examples where it fit. One
anomaly does not necessarily mean that the theory is wrong, only that
we'd apparently have missed the real ancestors to mammals (if one was
found in Burgess Shale). Do you see the the point? If it was shown
that the problem was with the theory (such as that specific creation
could be observed, that it was 100% certain that our Cambrian mammal
had no ancestors) then evoultion would be falsified. As it is, since
we'd view this find in the light of millions of supporting finds, we'd
have to ask ourselves if we hadn't just missed the important
pre-cambrian fossils showing the evolution of mammals.
A mammal found in cambrian rocks is only a problem because it would
make the series of later fossils unambiguously becoming more and more
mammal-like redundant.
: > It wouldn't, as you say, totally destroy evolution, for
: > which we have tens of thousands compelling other cases.
: 
: No, of course it wouldn't destroy the theory of evolution, for the
: theory makes no _prediction_ about when mammals will appear, and thus,
Correct, it does not. Any more than any science can predict
historically unique events.
: than previously believed.  No firm prediction=total malleability in the
: face of new evidence=being unfalsifiable.
No. Evidence of special creation would for instance falsify it, as
would anything which actually disproved the mechanism of evolution
(natural selection).
: >> Q: Would the finding of behavior in an organism that seems to decrease
: >> its chances for survival, and thereby decreases chances for continued
: >> propagation of its genes, show the theory to be incorrect?
: 
: > Yes it would, if the findings were conclusive.
: 
: And under what circumstances will the findings be conclusive?  There are
: so many variables, so many things that have to be accounted for, it is
: impossible for mere mortals to know all the necessary information. 
: Unfalsifiable.
No, 'difficult' and 'impossible' is not quite the same thing.
: > It WOULD force us to rework the theory of Natural Selection.
: 
: Which is a relatively painless affair.  Move a few branches on the
: phyletic tree this way, reorient some others the other way-- piece of
: cake.  Unfalsifiable.  
No. Phylogenetic trees are not the theory of Natural Selection.
Phylogenetic trees are a representation of a specific theory of
relationship between a particular set of species - if the species are
not related that way, then the tree is falsified (and changed). Apples
and oranges.
: > Of course, one cannot use
: > species which are in situations for which they are not adapted (ie
: > moths flying into flames - the moths have not yet adapted to flames,
: > which after all has only been around for a few thousand years).
: 
: Lightning bolts didn't cause fires until several thousand years ago?
Not by the millions day round. And not as point sources of light.
: >> Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each one of which had 4
: >> heads, would that show the theory to be incorrect?
: 
: > HUH? I can't see the connection with evolution at all.
: 
: I was using my imagination.  You are allowed to do that in trying to
: come up with situations that, if they were otherwise, would show a
: theory claimed to be scientific to be unfalsifiable, or not.
Yes, but shouldn't the theory be somewhat connected with the theory
you try to show is falsifiable (or not)?
: >> Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each of which had very
: >> colorful and cumbersome garb, which might make them especially
: >> attractive to predators, would that show the theory to be incorrect?
: 
: > All such cases have been shown to be linked to sexual success - ie
: > Peacocks.
: 
: "Shown to be"?  Try "claimed to be."
Not really. Atleast some cases have in fact been 'shown to be' by
experimentation.
: >> Q: If we were to not presently observe organs and limbs taking shape
: >> under the guidance of natural selection amidst various environmental
: >> conditions, would the theory be shown to be incorrect?
: >> A: The theory would not be shown to be incorrect because the theory
: >> predicts that the changes occur over long periods of time, and it is
: >> only when long periods of time have passed that we see the wonders that
: >> have been wrought.
: 
: > Of course, we've seen this. Both in the lab and in the fossil record.
: > Sorry.
: 
: Do you have a journal reference on this one I could look up? 
: "Scientists observe new organ taking shape under guidance of natural
: selection."  What's the reference?
You can look at anything regarding eg Archaeopteryx (Wings) or
cambrian polychaetes (jaws) or For the lab bit you can look at papers
regarding mutations in homeobox genes (eg the antennapaedia or
bithorax mutations) or the evolution of HeLa cells, but really this is
where the fossil record excels.  
: > Bullshit made up to support your theory. We have transitional fossils,
: > thousands of them.
: 
: Good.  You should have no problem telling me about just 10 of those
: thousands.  The info that will be required to formulate a well-founded
: decision that we have transitional fossils on our hands:
: a) how many samples
: b) was geographic variation taken into account
: c) how many features were looked at
: d) what were the ages of the various samples looked at
: e) were all features looked at
: f) were all the available samples considered
: g) what kind of changes occurred
: h) this is said to be an intermediate between what and what
: 
: Thomas S. couldn't do it.  Can you?
It's more a question of 'why bother'. You wont accept fossils like
Archaeopteryx or the early insects, and by specifying your questions
so that I have to do a lot of work to find the info ("how many
features were looked at") (which you'll dismiss, probably thanks to
your rubber paragraph "were all the features looked at") you've
safeguarded against me actually doing it. Well, you've succeeded - I
am not going to do that kind of work for you.
: >>> By your own actions you label yourself a hypocrite.
: >>> Let me put it on the line David. Do you, or do you not consider
: >>> evolutionary theory to be unfalsifiable?
: >>> I am waiting with examples of solid evidence which, if found,
: >>> would falsify evolutionary theories.
: 
: > Here, I'll give you one which'd absolutely falsify Evolutionary theory
: > as we understand it:
: > A species, which has got genetic variation for a trait, but which does
: > not experience change in allelic frequency when a directed pressure
: > (selection) is applied to that trait.
: 
: This is microevolution.  I'm interested in macroevolution, the idea that
There is no such distinction in biology, and if I am to accept it I
want you to supply me with a mechanism which stops microevolution from
becoming macroevolution
(and I want full citations from accepted scientific journals, I want
the raw data, I want the details on the methods used to evaluate the
data, I want reviews of responses to the article, I want... Gee, isn't
this fun!) 
: new organs and new limbs can appear whereas before they didn't exist. 
Look in a textbook of genetics for the words 'antennapaedia',
'bithorax', and 'HeLa'. They may not exactly be natural selection, but
they are clear macroevolution in your sense.
: You don't need evolution to say that an allele frequency will change in
: the case of black and white moths.  You just need genetics.  For the
That IS evolution.
: development of a new organ, however, you need a lot more than changes in
: percentages of population members having a certain wing color.
Yes, you need changes in other allele frequencies.
: > It's as easy as that. Just find such a species or population, and
: > you've succeeded. Good luck.
: 
: > Oh, BTW: this of course doesn't mean that _Evolution_ would be
: > falsified, as it is an observed FACT, not a theory. Just like ie
: > gravity.
: 
: I can see gravity's influence in action.  Can I see a new organ
: developing whereas before it wasn't in that organism?  If you say "yes,"
: please include a journal reference.
I was there referring to Natural Selection, not macromutation sensu
creationists. You of course know that evolution does not work by
simply flipping a new structure into existance, that it works by
modification of existing structures; if you accept that you may, as I
said, look in nearest textbook in genetics or cellular biology on the
effects of the antennapaedia and bithorax mutations. I can give you
specific references if you want, but it's standard textbook stuff.
MVH: Mike Noreen       |"Cold as the northern winds 
Net: ev-michael@nrm.se | in December mornings,
                       | Cold is the cry that rings
                       | from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to 
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!

In article <4vk8co$8lv@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
Justin M Sanders  wrote:
> James G. Acker (jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>>       I have a related question, but this one is probably 
>> answerable by my own research.  If someone lives 70 years and never
>> travels more than 15 miles from their birthplace, what are the 
>> chances they would witness a total solar eclipse?
> 
> It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet, but how does this
> back-of-the-envelope estimate sound?
> 
> If you never go more than 15 miles from home, then about 1,800 sq km of
> the earth's surface is accessible to you.  The total area of the earth's
> surface is 510,000,000 sq km.  If all parts of the earth's surface are
> equally likely to be in the path of an eclipse, then the probability that
> you will be in the path of any one eclipse is 1 in 283,000.
> 
> Now there are, say, 2 eclipses per year, and you are observing for 70
> years, so that is 140 eclipses.  Your probability of seeing any one of
> these 140 eclipses is, therefore, 1 in 2000.
> 
> Now, for that coffee...
Sorry, but this was way way off....
There are 2-5 eclipses/year, but not all are total.  On the average there
are only about 0.7 total solar eclipses/year.
The zone of totality can be anywhere from 0 to 265 km wide -- let's
assume an average width is 100 km.  The length of the zone of totality
is perhaps some 70% of the Earth's diameter, or 9000 km.  Thus the
zone of totality covers 9000 * 100 = 900,000 km2 of the Earth's cross
section.
Now, what about the area of the Earth?  The cross section area of the
hemisphere facing the Sun is:   pi * (6370**2)  =  127 million km2.
The hemisphere not facing the Sun is equally large -- the total cross
section area is thus  ca 250 million km2 (note that this is half the
actual surface area of the Earth).
Thus, the zone of totality of each total solar eclipse covers, on the
average, 900,000 / 250 million = 0.0036 of the Earth's surface.  Since
there are 0.7 total solar eclipses/year, each year 0.0036 * 0.7 = 0.0025
or 1/200 of the Earth's surface will experience totality.  During 70
years  70/200 = 0.35 of the Earth's surface will experience totality.
Thus the probability of seeing totality once during a 70-year life
will be approximately 0.35 (i.e. 35%).  This figure is independent on
how much one travels around, assuming one never makes any effort to
travel to a zone of totality.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch@saaf.se        psr@home.ausys.se

Jered Moses (kidkibtz@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: srlb@eskimo.com (Bob Berger) writes:
: >All right all you experts, is geometry (or any branch of mathematics) a
: >science? Seems to me mathematics is a game. You select a set of "rules", 
: >apply them to a set of "objects", see what happens when you do. It has
: >nothing to do with reality.
: "There is no branch of mathematics so obscure that it might not
: someday be applied to phenomena of the real world."
: --Nicolai Loebachevsky
That is to say, mathematics doesn't _necessarily_ have anything to do with
reality.  It just so happens that reality is often more imaginative than
mathematicians.  (Sorry about the teleology.)
--
Michael Agney

Academic research is usually published in the open and available
internationally.  Most government sponsored research (in non-military
fields) is also published and available internationally (US research
anyway).  Most private companies, understandably, regard the fruits
of their in-house research as being theirs alone (at least for the
time specified by national and international patent laws) and you're
not likely to change that anytime soon.
At least, that's the way things work here in the US.  I suppose there
must be some countries where publication is witheld.  However, it's
usually to everyone's interest that research be published - even if
such publication is accompanied with a patent claim on any related
technologies.  This is well understood and has been for some time.
How is this new proposal different?  All I can tell is it sets up some
bureaucratic nightmare that would probably inhibit rather than promote
free exchange of ideas.  Who's going to cover the cost of such an
organization?  And if I refuse to pay, does that mean I'll be denied
the data?
Libraries, postal services, phones, and internet already accomplish
more than this proposed organization.  Support those institutions and
you'll be doing everyone a greater service.
And, is there a specific newsgroup where this is actually an
appropriate thread?
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

david ford wrote:
> 
> Alan Scott on Sat, 17 AUG 1996:
> david ford wrote:
> 
> > >The very fact that we can subdivide geological time on the basis of the
> > >types of plants and animals it contains speaks against the theory of
> > >evolution.  If evolution had indeed occurred, we would expect to be unable
> > >to classify organisms, since things would grade from one thing to another,
> > >making classification very difficult.  The problem of why we can classify
> > >things today was dealt with by Darwin by postulating that the splitting
> > >off of lineages had occurred in the past, meaning that the fossil record
> > >would be even more loaded with transitional fossils, if his theory was
> > >true.
> 
> > If you believe that there are such firm dividing lines, then you should
> > be able to easily define for us all of the kinds which are so clearly
> > delineated. The fact that you find such a task insurmountable puts the
> > lie to your flippant assertion.
> 
> "Define for us all of the kinds which are so clearly delineated."  You
> are right.  I do "find such a task insurmountable."  I'm not a
> paleontologist.  A paleontologist would be the person to ask.  You might
> want to start with Charles Darwin and Jean Baptiste Lamark:
> 
> "But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be
> justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as
> a fundamental fact of nature?.... Yet--and this is the irony--both
> Darwin and Lamark were respected systematists who named hundreds of
> species.  Darwin wrote a four-volume taxonomic treatise on barnacles,
> while Lamark produced more than three times as many volumes on fossil
> invertebrates.  Faced with the practicum of their daily work, both
> recognized entities where theory denied their reality."[Gould, _The
> Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 205.]  Instead of asking these two
> paleontologists, you could look at a guide book for identifying fossils.
> 
> > 
Very interesting. But why all the fuss about creationalism vs evolution
in the first place! Of course evolution is real..we can see it with
micro organisms etc. Creationalism is also real (maybe). If there is
a God does he not create us in his image in the sense that he fills us 
with virtues and
positive qualities. The mistake comes about by an initial false 
assumption about who God really is! If there is a God then he is
a spiritual being with no 'human' form. Thus comparisons cannot be made
with the world of matter. And if someone cries 'prove it' , I can
equally well turn round to a Physics researcher and say 'prove 
superstring theory'. The debates are pointless and without end..AS an 
Engineer I get worried about both camps. Are Sientists beginning to 
treat Science as a religion and some Scientists becomming the new
'priests'! And those who disagree are branded 'heretics' by both sides!!

>
>
>> >        Interesting, what then constitutes evidence, Mr. Cagle?  Wasn't the
>> >accurate prediction of Halley's comet return by edmund Halley evidence
>> >that Newtonian Mechanics applied to the orbital motions of bodies in space?
>
>ACtually, NO, it wasn't. Newtonian Mechanics DOES NOT apply to the
>orbital motions
>of bodies in space. To the THEN CURRENT mathamatical accuracy of
>observation it
>MATCHED and predicted the motions. But to todays accuracy, it FAILS.
>
>A theory can get the right numbers to a given level of accuracy and
>still be
>basically crap at the fundamental level of it's axioms and basic
>interpretations
>and understandings. Or if not 'crap', at least not-relevant.
>
>Too many people don't understand the difference between 'truth' and a
>scientific
>theory. Theories that express the result in a number are true only to a
>given
>level of precision. Look at all the hacks needed to make Ukawa's theory 
>work to become QED! Was Ukawa wrong? The basic model used to come up
>with his
>equation, which is the 1st order QED term, is in direct conceptual
>disagreement 
>with the models used to come up with the higher order expansion terms in
>QED.
>Doesn't that say something about that whole theory?
	Perhaps I am too pragmatic, but I tend to take the standpoint that
"what works to a given level of precison is good enough.   By saying that
halley's comet was a confirmation of Newtonian mechanics, I meant that
to a first level of approximation newtonian mechanics applies to 
bodies in space such as comets.  Sure, the basic "philosophy" between 
newtonian mechanics and  theories such as general or special relativity
are in disagreement, but at the speed of halley's comet and the masses
of the objects involved, newtonian mechanics gives a description that
was "good enough".  So its not that newtonian mechanics was wrong,
but rather that newtonian mechanics is only an approximate description.  As
a results it Fails under certain circumstances.  The newtonian model is better
than say a model that says something like "doubling the mass of the comet,
will double the rate at which it approaches the sun.  This statement is
an even worse description than newtonian mechanics.  In this respect 
newtonian mechanics is better than the model I described above.
	Thus, at the time Edmund Halley, did his work, Newtonian mechanics
was the best model he had to work with.  This was my whole point with my
original statements.  
	As you have stated there are some severe problems between The big Bang
thoery and some estimations of the age of some stellar objects.  That it true.
What people should be doing is trying to come up with better theories
of the origin of the universe.  Fred Hoyle, had a steady state model that
matched observations for a while, but I have heard that it no longer
mathces more recent observations as well as the Big Bang models.  Thus I 
view the Big bang model as the "best guess" we have at this time.  If you
have seen some models that do a better job of matching known observations,
please e-mail me the references.  I am perfectly willing to change my
mind, if a better theory comes along.  The Big Bang model may not be correct,
but it seems like we don't have another one yet at this time.
>
>> >is not evidence for the Big Bang theory.  You complained in a previous post
>> >that I seemed to have a problem with reasoning.  It seems to me that
>> >you might be the one with the problem.
>
>Though the previous doubt-er might not have had any eloquence, he had
>reason
>to doubt, and I think the *blind acceptance* of many of the current
>theories
>shows a conceptual misunderstanding of the nature of scientific
>reasoning, thought,
>and theories in general.
	I agree with you that "Blind" acceptance is a bad thing.  Informed
acceptance, on the other hand is not neccesarily a bad thing.  The conflict
between charles cagle and I came about because of difference in what we thought
most scientists who are in cosmology believe regarding the big bang.  
	One of the problems I have had with Charles Cagle, is what appears
to be a double standard.  He wants hard scientific evidence, but when it
comes to the marketing of his so called "SCYBOLT fusion reactor" he
refuses to put forth the evidence of his experiments.  He gets OUT of
the dilemma by saying that he is interesting in the marketing and selling
of the technology and naturally does not want to reveal the mechanisms.
That's all very good and well, except that I will not beleive a word of this
until he provides proof.  Furthermore, he makes sweeping statments
such as "MOST scientists do not have a desire to find truth" without providing
evidence to support it.  His way out of this was to reply that the statement
is not intended to be scientific, but he knows it to be true.  He knows these
things, so he says, because of his innate desire to love the truth.  
So, my 2nd problem with him was more along the lines of a disagreement between
whether or not one can know what is true through purely subjective means.
The incendiary remarks came out of these conversations.
							-Brad

In article <321fcf66.471023@news.cris.com>,
Darren Garrison  wrote:
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Okay Mr. Whatcott, let's give these sonnets a go.
>>
>>    There once was a man
>>   named Stuart Monteith
>>who whistled and whistled and little by little 
>>the posts that he whistled grew littler and littler
>>He whistled so long that he became a student
>>Now how will that  do ? 
>>So he sneezed out his brain
>>and when he turned around and saw that his head was gone
>>Why, he whistled another and put that one on
>>He sneezed and whistled so long that he lost his post
>>Now how will CERN make a toast?
>>So he huffed and he puffed and he blew the little 
>>pigs house down
>>
>>
>>--- end of sonnet ---
>
>Hmmmm.  Not only do you not have a clue about science, you haven't any
>idea what the hell a sonnet is, either.  A sonnet is _FOURTEEN_LINES_,
>_TEN_SYLLABLES_PER_LINE_.  (Usually, but not always, in iambic
>pentameter.)
Quite right.  And if it's an English sonnet, the rhyme scheme is ABAB
CDCD EFEF GG, whereas if it's an Italian sonnet, the rhyme scheme is
ABBAABBA for the first 8 lines, with the rhyme scheme for the last 6
lines at the discrection of the poet.  
An example of an English sonnet (of mine) can be found at
	http://www.voicenet.com/~dgordon/chapman.html
ObMath: It is probably because I am a mathematician, and because
mathematicians appreciate the beauty of elegantly crafted intricate
patterns, that the regular structure of classical verse appeals to me
so much more than contemporary freeverse.  In fact, the classical
poets were well aware of the mathematical nature of their art, and
often used the word "numbers" in reference to their poetry.  For
example, speaking of the poet's ability to find comfort in the
creation of poetry, Donne wrote:
	I thought, if I could draw my pains
	Through Rhyme's vexation, I should them allay;
	Grief brought to numbers cannot be so fierce,
	For, he tames it, that fetters it in verse.
Speaking of the unparalleled mastery of Shakespeare's art, Milton wrote:
	... to the shame of slow-endeavouring art,
	Thy easy numbers flow...
I dare say that to the classical poets, the beauty of poetry was
derived very much from the inherent mathematical structure of
language.  Conversely, for me, the beauty of mathematics comes from
the poetry inherent in the harmonious relationships between symbolic
abstractions.  Both poetry and mathematics seem to possess an
intrinsic intelligence which transcends our own conscious creativity.
Both, in their own way, capture the essence of the universe.
Poetry.  Mathematics.  Same thing.
-- 
Frederick W. Chapman, University of Waterloo (fwchapman@daisy.uwaterloo.ca)
- Department of Applied Mathematics       MC 4008     (519) 888-4567, x5917
- Symbolic Computation Group/Maple Lab    DC 2302E    (519) 888-4567, x4474
Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., N2L 3G1, CANADA

In article ,
   spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
>Just one question ..
>
>How many creationists are non religious ??
>
>If the answer is very few, if any (the most likely answer) , then its about 
religion,
>nothing to do with science.
>
What is science?
Does the theory of evolution meet the criteria for a scientific theory?

Maureen Soar wrote:
> 
> The trick to posts like this is to make extensive use of your
> newsreader's KILL capabilities and to simply NOT reply to these
> clearly trolling posts.  It is not censorship to choose not to
> respond - and I think you'll find having responses is very
> important to these kind of posters (and they exist in all
> newsgroups).
> 
> Mo
> msoar@pacifier.com      std net disclaimers apply: I probably didn't say it
Perhaps if everyone annoyed by junk postings were to send back a reply 
via mail (not newsgroups) the offender might be overwhelmed by the volume 
of replies and at least reduce the number of offending postings.  Just a 
suggestion, not necessarily a good one.  What's your thought on it?
-- 
Tim Blackmore    tim_blackmore@notes.ipl.ca
Plutonium:  useless as the fifth tit on a cow.

In article  wn181@news.freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Chris Behnsen) writes:
>Not at all true.  What about non-linear mathematics?  They involve a 
>certain amount of imagination, and hardly EVER have any real "rules"?
"Non-linear mathematics"?  I completed a degree in mathematics and
only one course could possibly have been described as "linear
mathematics."  (Intro Lin Alg, which I hated.  Something about a
terrible lecturer.)  What the hell are you talking about?
	Patrick

In article <4vslbi$knn@herald.concentric.net>,
Ralph Sansbury   wrote:
> Your argument sounds very professional but although I have read a few 
>geology texts it is a little over my head and perhaps there are others 
>like me who could benefit from a little clarification. If you could 
>clarify a few points first re radioactive dating in this example.
>  Ma is not in my dictionary or  even in my limited geology library.  I 
>gather  U238 has a half life of 4.468 10^9y  so 3214.4Ma = 3.214.4 
>million annae
Correct.  3.2 billion years.
>and U-Pb refers 
>to the ratio of  some isotope of uranium(238,235) to some isotope of 
>lead(206,207) that the uranium decays to. It is not clear to me how the 
>inference is made; that is how does one determine 1)how much lead  204, 
>206 , 207, 208 there was when the rock or particular mineral like zircon 
>or hornblende was crystallized or melted and recrystallized and 2)how 
>much was added by the decay of thorium 232, uranium 235 and 236 up to the 
>present time; as part of 2 is the question 2a) I gather laboratory 
>measurments of uranium decay in certain material  is measured over a 
>short time(?) and the small change in the fraction of grams of the 
>uranium and decay product is measurable(how small and what exactly is the 
>process and how reproducible is it?)
Lead has a large number of isotopes, some of which are end
prodcuts of radioactive decay of uranium and thorium isotopes
and some of which are left over from the formation of the solar
system.  By choosing a closed system that is unlikely to have
undergone chemical re-equilibration since the rock was formed,
it is possible to measure the relative concentrations of the
parent isotopes (U-235, U-238) and the daughter isotopes
(Pb-206, Pb-207) to calculate the ate of the system.  Zircon
crystals are very resistant to chemical and thermal alteration.
They incorporate uranium more readily than lead when they
crystallize, so the proportion of inherited lead is low.
Measurements are made by crushing the rock, carefully separating
and sorting the zircons, dissolving the zircon separates in
acid, chemically separating the uranium and lead, and analyzing
the isotopic proportions with a mass spectrometer.
>3) How does one know that uranium or lead has not been added or lost to 
>the rock due to known long term chemical-geologic processes of breaking 
>up, cementation, melting, crystallizing, melting again recrystallizing 
>etc.? One of my geology books by Emiliani says that a U-Pb measurement 
>can be confirmed by a Th-Pb measurement presumably because it is less 
>likely that both measurements would be contaminated by one process 
>characterized by presumably specfic temperatures and pressures. 
The U-Pb-Th system is a rich one (lots of isotpoes), which
provides redundant information that can be used to assess the
reliability of the results on the basis of their internal
consistency.
>I have some questions that I am still trying to formulate about the 
>basics of magnetization determinations and why the biotite age indicates 
>there was no further increase in temperature sufficient to randomize the 
>magnetization directions prior to subsequent cooling and remagnetization.
The biotite age indicates the last time at which the temperature
was high enough to release argon.  This temperature is about 250
degrees Celsius, which is not high enough to cause the rock to
be re-magnetized.

Thanks for all the responses.  I think its firmly established that the
Mediterranean basin flooded at least some 5,000,000 years ago.  However, I
am confused.  I have read (though I can not currently recall where)
evidence of massive flooding at Malta.  Some of the evidence consisted of
the remains of various animals found usually in a large plain environment
washed into the recessed cavities of caves on Malta.  A large assortment of
bones have been discovered together as if to say that a variety of species
were washed into the caves by some flood.
I can not remember if human remains were found or not.  Additionally, I can
not remember the dates attributed to the bones.  Though I believe it was
around 10,000 to 20,000 BP.  Was there flooding in the area during the end
of the last Ice Age?  Also, was the Mediterranean significantly lower
during the height of the last Ice Age, and if so to the extent that
now-submerged land areas were then exposed?  I can not find any scholarly
material dealing with any of these subjects.
--------------------Doug Bailey-------------------
aessedai@ix.netcom.com
dbailey@bigdawg.cba.uga.edu
apocryph@adobe.chaco.com
telnet://darkages.chaco.com:9999 (Legatum Deorum)
http://adobe.chaco.com/~darkages/web/legatum.html
"You ask me why castles have moats?
I ask you have *you* ever seen a Mongol take a bath?"

I for one don't mind reading short, informational material about a new
product, directing me to a Web site where I can learn more. I thought that
post was one. 
If we got bombarded with a dozen of these daily, I would want to set up a
sci.geo.petroleum.announce. But the traffic is still pretty light.
BTW you reposted his entire ad for him!
-------------------------------------------
Hugh Winkler
Scout Systems            hughw@scoutsys.com
Austin, Texas                  512-452-3290
Scott Page  wrote in article
<3220F026.3355@ix.netcom.com>...
> 
> Usenet is not for commercial promotions. Thanks.
> 

> Jong Maarten_de wrote:
> 
> MikeNoreen (removed_to_avoid@mail.spammers) wrote:
> : : >The Bible....
> : : It also says that the value of pi is 3.
> : It does? Where?
> I'm quoting from memory here -- I did a maths problem on it eons ago. > The bath was described as 10 'x' in diameter, while it was 30 'x' in  >circumference. O = pi*d, ergo, pi = 3.
With any measurement there is some error. Perhaps the difference between 
3 and 3.14 would fall with in it. I don't remember seeing real numbers 
in the Bible, only integers. How about you?
Mike Supp

fwchapma@daisy.uwaterloo.ca (Frederick W. Chapman) wrote:
>In article <321fcf66.471023@news.cris.com>,
>Darren Garrison  wrote:
>>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Okay Mr. Whatcott, let's give these sonnets a go.

>>>
>>>
>>>--- end of sonnet ---
>>
>>Hmmmm.  Not only do you not have a clue about science, you haven't any
>>idea what the hell a sonnet is, either.  A sonnet is _FOURTEEN_LINES_,
>>_TEN_SYLLABLES_PER_LINE_.  (Usually, but not always, in iambic
>>pentameter.)
>
>Quite right.  And if it's an English sonnet, the rhyme scheme is ABAB
>CDCD EFEF GG, whereas if it's an Italian sonnet, the rhyme scheme is
>ABBAABBA for the first 8 lines, with the rhyme scheme for the last 6
>lines at the discrection of the poet.  
Well, going through all of the sonnet forms would have confused the
issue that the above is not one by any stretch of the imagination or
the definition.
>
>An example of an English sonnet (of mine) can be found at
>
>	http://www.voicenet.com/~dgordon/chapman.html
>
>
>ObMath: It is probably because I am a mathematician, and because
>mathematicians appreciate the beauty of elegantly crafted intricate
>patterns, that the regular structure of classical verse appeals to me
>so much more than contemporary freeverse.  In fact, the classical
>poets were well aware of the mathematical nature of their art, and
>often used the word "numbers" in reference to their poetry.  For
>example, speaking of the poet's ability to find comfort in the
>creation of poetry, Donne wrote:

>	Thy easy numbers flow...
>
>I dare say that to the classical poets, the beauty of poetry was
>derived very much from the inherent mathematical structure of
>language.  Conversely, for me, the beauty of mathematics comes from
>the poetry inherent in the harmonious relationships between symbolic
>abstractions.  Both poetry and mathematics seem to possess an
>intrinsic intelligence which transcends our own conscious creativity.
>Both, in their own way, capture the essence of the universe.
>
>Poetry.  Mathematics.  Same thing.
Maybe so, but from my experence, someone who understands/appreciates
one of the two tends to be lax in the other.  But since this is WAY
off-topic for all of the newsgroups this is posted in, the polite
thing for us to do would be to let this thread end here. :-)

In article <4vv1u3$kns@news.sas.ab.ca>, czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>[All NGs left in because I didn't know from which the below person wrote 
>his question.]
>
>gillan@worldchat.com wrote:
>
>: What is science?
>
>: Does the theory of evolution meet the criteria for a scientific theory?
>
>In a word, "yes."
The word "yes" is the answer to "what is science" - I see that I'm out of my 
intellectual league, because that makes no sense to me. 

On 8/25/96 4:32AM, in message , Chris 
Behnsen  wrote:
> 
> I believe the evidence of something like that would lie within the 
> theories of an super nova.  As every "planet" up till now has a molten 
> core, which means it's basically a large chocolate covered candy...  or 
> in other words, a star covered in rock.:)
> 
> 
> TY 4 D Discussion dudes:)
> -cjb
Star covered in rock ??
A rock star maybe ??
Not much in the way of nuclear reactions go on in planets of mass <0.01 Msol.
The fact that the core is molten is hardly a reason to call planets stars.
Sean Webb