From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:37:11 GMT

Antti emailed me a response to the "real issues" post (which I had
also emailed him), with permission to post it publicly.  So, here it is.

From asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi Mon Sep 28 12:31:41 1992
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
To: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:33:08 EET

> (1) What is your definition of biology (your last non-answer to this was
>     "I accept the criteria common to science"), and why does evolution
>     not fit it (your last answer to this was "I read that the proof
>     is actually zero) (In case you haven't guessed, neither of your
>     previous answers will be accepted here)?

	Biology studies living creatures in their environment. As I have said 
	and proved (and most have agreed) it includes at least SOME evolution.
	I accept those examples. BUT also there's a lot of speculation and I 
	don't count it to biology. Empirical sciences study, what we can 
	observe. When we can't observe the evolution of species, it's a matter
	of belief. The question (for instance) "how life got started" belongs
	to the ETERNAL QUESTIONS. The science can't give any good answer to 
	them, but some kind of knowledge. But, this is not biology, this is 
	philosophy or theology. 

> (2) Why is Chris's _Tragopogon_ example not speciation?

	I said: Because I don't know anything about their sexual life and 
	reproduction. One said that they are defined to be different 
	species by morphology. I said that I don't trust morphology. I haven't
	said it straightly, but I have given hints that perhaps in the close
	future we are able to know it for sure, when the mapping of DNA has  
	reached the level we need. 

> (3) Who are Menem and Norrdahl?  (Okay, Norrdahl - to whom you referred
>     at least once as "Norrblad" - has told us who he is, but seemed to
>     disagree with your original description of him)

	I have wondered, where Menem has been. He is now changing account, but
	he hasn't appeared for over a month. Both of them are biologists. I 
	have discussed a bit with Norrdahl (I'm terribly bad with remembering 
	names, I've forgotten my own more than once :( ). I think Norrdahl 
	agrees with me - in certain extent. He accepts creation, but also 
	evolution to some level. I think he gave a good picture what he believes
	himself. 

> (4) What are your responses to the three very long, and several
>     more abbreviated, criticisms of the book _Life - How did it Get
>     Here..._?

	I haven't answered and never will. The reason is that it has been 
	discussed not long ago in another newsgroup (talk.religion.misc). It's
	difficult to answer - I haven't got the references to my hands. 
	Anyways my beliefs are not dependent of what is written in that book. 

> (5) Where is your evidence that the leading birds in a migratory wedge
>     (a) suffer from higher mortality than the rest of the wedge, and
>     (b) do not switch off throughout the migration?

	Now here there has been studied very much such species, especially 
	cranes. We have very much available information and we can count the
	amount of migrating cranes in the Baltic Sea. B is easy to answer: 
	Here it's impossible - Cranes migrate thousands of kilometres above
	arctic tundra and only the rest few hundred kilometres in Hungary there
	is not possible to switch off before the goal. Here in the north I 
	haven't even heard of such possibility, but when I talked 1988 with a
	group of Estonian Ornithologists they told that some cranes do switch 
	off in Southern Estonia (Louna-Eesti), but winter is so hard there that
	they die. I know A is true, when weaker (younger) cranes sometimes   
	doesn't know the route enough well, so they could lose the whole 
	wedge. And it hasn't happened. 

> (6) Do you still insist that the _Larus_ ring species is not an example
>     of speciation in action?  Why or why not?

	I told Norrdahl that it's an intriguing example: I would easily put
	Larus hyperboreus to evolve from Larus argentatus cachinnans and
	Larus marinus from Larus f. fuscus, but there hasn't been found any 
	proof to this claim. So, there is flexibility (a lot) inside a 
	species, but there is a brick-wall separating different "real" 
	species. 

> (7) What is the Biblical definition of species, and in what book, chapter,
>     and verse may we find it?

	In Gen 1:25. 

> (8) What evidence do you have that there are two (choose _any_ two)
>     components of human vision that show a negative linear correlation
>     to each other?

	None. Thatswhy I took the example of muscles, there I had one. 

> (9) What evidence to you have of truncated fitness functions in the real
>     world?

	I used the example of migratory birds: Some "realize" to escape the
	cold the others don't ---> mass death to those, who doesn't. It is 
	rare, I must admit and I use it only to simplify. 

> (10 - the $20,000 question) Do you understand evolution?  Acceptable
>     evidence would be answering Chris's short quiz of a couple of
>     weeks ago (heck, just answer any two questions from it), with 
>     #11 added on:

	I think most people DON'T understand evolution. I don't now what you
	mean by understanding it.  Difficult to say. It's like with trinity -
	in order to "understand" it you must believe to it. But when I'm 
	critical to trinity, the ones who believe to it think I don't 
	understand it. It's easy to say that anyone against evolution doesn't
	really understand it. 

	I have a different reason for not answering his quiz: 1) I have only 
	time (and very little of it) to give satisfactory answers to the 
	REAL questions. 2) It would have been humiliating (Who is Chris to 
	ask my knowledge ?) 3) If you have evolutionary questions, you can only
	give evolutionary answers, and that is what I wanted to avoid. 

> (11) What is additive genetic variance, and would you expect it to
>      increase or decrease for a trait if there is no selection on that
>      trait? (Hint:  the answer to this has to do with your most
>      recent "criticism" of evolution as of this posting).

	That is the point I'm criticizing. Dawkins made "Methinks it's like a
	weasel" in about 60 steps making one letter "fixed" or "constant". In
	the same way good properties are said to be cumulated. But I wonder 
	why the bad properties doesn't cumulate aswell ?

> Please note that flippant, one-line answers to any of these questions
> will result in some sort of serious reprisal, to be decided later :-).

	I try to avoid.  :)

			Andreas

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg