Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32577

Directory

Michael Agney (magney@winnie) wrote:
: 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.)
Not at all true.  What about non-linear mathematics?  They involve a 
certain amount of imagination, and hardly EVER have any real "rules"?
Just a question to satisfy my undying need to know.:)

Last episode, dashing Leonard Timmons exclaimed:

: Science is a complex concept.  The commonly accepted definition does 
: not seem to handle things that happen only once in the lifetime of 
: the universe.
What, like the Big Bang?
--
Jonathan W. Hendry			Views expressed herein do
Steel Driving Software, Inc.	not represent those of
steeldrv@ix.netcom.com          Steel Driving Software, Inc.
jon@exnext.com                  or Lexis-Nexis

RICHTER SAID  -- .
.
Predictions based on positions of the sun and moon have to be regarded 
a trifle more
seriously, since there is evidence that tidal forces may occasionally 
act as triggers for
earthquakes otherwise on the point of taking place; in this way the 
date and hours of
occurrence  ( occurrence -two r's) may show a  slight statistical 
correlation with the
tides.
This theory is at an early stage and is  EXPERIMENTAL only.
Next window is for Aug. 31st, 1996- A window is operational 1200 hours 
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after 
the window - 
Thus 1200 Aug. 30th through 1200 hours Aug.31st - UTC is used.  This 
theory is not 
"yet" recognized by the scientific community or USGS and indicate only 
the possibility
for UNUSUAL and HIGH seismic activity.  Previous windows (see sample 
later on) have
accurately pin pointed earthquakes of a minimum of 6.0 and well above 
6.5.  " As above
as below", everything is interconnected.  The windows do not stop at 
earthquakes (HIGH)
probability/intensity but include various ways of  mother nature 
expressing herself
through destructive weather pattern.  
This negative celestial energy (cyclonic reasonance) also affects 
sophisticated electronics
equipments (planes/ boats/ trains/cars/ airport traffic control 
towers, generators/
electronics) thus the high possibility to experience 
failures/accidents leading to a lost of
general power as experienced with both "state blackouts" that struck 
inside my windows.  
Those windows do also affects "physical" computers (viruses) and 
(spiritual/astropsychology) computer
(brain) which is reacting with the subtle but real outside "stimuli". 
 Thus under those
windows, the worse elements of our society  will respond and act out 
(robotic
expressions) the will of the cosmos "Rodney King dilemma, Los Angeles 
riots etc.
producing dramatic news with the police force".
Please bear with me, newscomers needs some feedback.
Sample - I have TONS of posts/ windows like this one. 
Astrogeology of the future at work -
USGS - Message -ID: DG1t4Hv@goodnet.com -sender
news@goodnet.com (News Administrator) -Dr. Turi 
Newsgroups
-  sci.geo,sci.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes,hkbu,geog.maps - WEEKLY USGS 
Quake
Report 9/28-10/4/95  - in articleDG1t4H.v@goodnet.com>Oct 6h, 1995
drturi@goodnet.com says...
>From Dr. Turi - Dear Sirs: -  On Oct.8th and Oct.9th a very unusual 
seismic activity
will be noticeable and will produce many quakes above 6.1. More 
information are
available pertaining to my method if requested.  
Respectfully
Dr. Turi        
RE- Astrogeology
SUBJECT: RE:  Weekly USGS Quake Report
Full proofs of predictions:  
Oct. 8th a 7.0 EARTHQUAKE HIT SUMATRA (INDONESIAN ISLANDS)
Oct. 9th a 7.6 EARTHQUAKE HIT MEXICO -ARIZONA AMTRAK TRAIN
TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE POSTED "WINDOW" - A VOLCANOE ERUPTED
ON THE SIBERIAN COAST AND THREE TORNADOES HAPPENED "MID-WEST" 
ON THOSE DAYS.
/////@pl.nasa.gov   "drturi@goodnet.com>" Subject: request for 1996 
Top 
Universal Predictions. Content length 603 -  Newsgroups -   
sci.geo.geology, 
ca.earthquakes, hkbu, geo. maps -WEEKLY - USGS Quake report  
9/28-10/4/95 
   Message -ID: DG1t4Hv@goodnet.com
         Kudos to you Dr. Turi!
     I surf the Internet periodically for predictions on forthcoming 
events, 
specifically all relating to earthquake activities.  You hit the 
11/22/95 
Egypt/Israel/Saudia Arabia 7.2 quake smack dab on the head, per your 
earlier 
prediction. Congratulations again!
E-Mail       Keep up the good work.  
Appreciatively, private 
For 1996 - 1997 Universal Predictions visit -  
http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html
PS - Astropsychology feedback
From: D//// ///lis 
To: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Virgo/Virgo
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 16:34:37 +0000
Hi,
I read a posting by you on "Am I Virgo or Libra" where you documented 
the
sign Virgo and forecast. I found it uncanny. In nearly EVERY thing 
from
work, relationships, thinking, it was me and exactly how my life is 
now. I
have just started seeing another virgo and I gave her this posting and 
she
thought it uncanny. Both of us have just finished relationships with
Pisces. We both are somewhat psychic. We both get on pretty well. I am 
in
the medical research field and she has interests in antique jewelery, 
art
etc.  Private---------  Thanks.
Me:  // September 7
Her: // September 6
D///.R. Ka////s,  Ph.D.
Center for Vaccine Development
University of Maryland School of Medicine
685 West Baltimore Street, HSF Room 4//0
Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
Phone: 410-/// 2493  Fax: 410-7///6205
--
Respect fully to all.
Dr. Turi

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.

Replying to david ford  
: > >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
: "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 perso
The whole notion is wrong, since it fails to take the dimension of
time into consideration: all forms of life are not present today.
(I also notice that you had to go all the way back to poor Lamarck to
find a biologist who didn't know about species going extinct)
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!

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!

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.
> 

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 <3221c9e2.10099300@news.kth.se>,
Michael Noreen  wrote:
>Replying to david ford  
[...]
 > 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.
DF> Modify our views about how evolution progressed, yes.  But the validity
DF> of the theory itself would never be doubted.
MN>No, because there'd still be thousands of examples where it fit. One
MN>anomaly does not necessarily mean that the theory is wrong, only that
MN>we'd apparently have missed the real ancestors to mammals (if one was
MN>found in Burgess Shale). Do you see the the point? If it was shown
MN>that the problem was with the theory (such as that specific creation
MN>could be observed, that it was 100% certain that our Cambrian mammal
MN>had no ancestors) then evoultion would be falsified. As it is, since
MN>we'd view this find in the light of millions of supporting finds, we'd
MN>have to ask ourselves if we hadn't just missed the important
MN>pre-cambrian fossils showing the evolution of mammals.
MN>A mammal found in cambrian rocks is only a problem because it would
MN>make the series of later fossils unambiguously becoming more and more
MN>mammal-like redundant.
A point to clarify: "evolution" is a class of phenomena.
Instances in that class are identified by the diagnostic
characteristic of allele frequency change in populations over
time.  (Mayr pumps for "changes in adaptation and diversity",
but I prefer an objectively quantifiable definition.)  Allele
frequencies have been observed to change in populations over
time, which establishes instances in the class of phenomena
called "evolution".  Because the class "evolution" has
instances, it exists.  The *only* way to disprove "evolution"
per se is to show that *every* *single* *one* of the studies
that document the diagnostic characteristic of the phenomenon
to somehow have been wrong.  *Each* one, one by one and
separately.  Nothing else will suffice.
What you refer to above as "evolution" is actually a theory,
known as "the theory of common descent".  It is possible that
evolutionary phenomena occur, but that the theory of common
descent is false.  Unlikely, but possible.  Evidence against
the theory of common descent in the form of fossils not being
stratigraphically ordered does *nothing* to diminish the
positive evidence that evolution, as a class of phenomena,
actually exists.
There is a difference between the fact of evolution (class of
phenomena with diagnostic characteristics) and evolutionary
mechanism theories (proposed ways in which evolutionary
phenomena occur).  The fact of evolution stands whether or not
every single known EMT bites the dust tomorrow.  Each EMT will
have specific circumstances which would falsify it.  For
instance, Darwin specified a falsifying condition for natural
selection, where if any organ in a species were found to have
developed for the exclusive benefit of another species natural
selection would be falsified.  (This one confused Phillip
Johnson in "Darwin On Trial".)  The conditions that falsify one
EMT may or may not also contribute to the falsification of
other EMTs.
[...]
-- 
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System 
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more