                                  T H E

                          E S T A B  - L O I D
                    ---------------------------------
                    Issue #6                   3-7-86
                    ---------------------------------

                A weekly electronic magazine for users of
                    The Establishment BBS (894-6526)
                    owned and operated by Thane Smith

                        Editor - Gene B. Williams

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . You may share this magazine with your friends under the   .
     . condition that the magazine remain complete and intact,   .
     . with no editing, revisions or modifications of any kind,  .
     . and including this opening section and statement.         .
     . If you like the magazine, the Sysop and I would appre-    .
     . ciate it if you would let your friends know where they    .
     . can log in to find the magazine.                          .
     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                (c) 1986

    THIS ISSUE:

         This past week I read through a pamphlet put out by Jim
    Lippard - on some of the flaws found in Fundamentalist beliefs.
    (If you haven't read it yet, and would like to, contact Jim here,
    on any of several other BBSs around, or send a self-addressed
    stamped envelope to Jim Lippard, PO Box 37052, Phoenix, 85069.)
         I don't agree with everything in his booklet; however, are
    some extremely valid points brought up. This week I'd like to
    talk about one such point that has been - and will continue to be
    - a controversy. Evolution.
         There are bound to be a few users who would prefer to avoid
    the topic. And that's fine. It's also why I'm introducing the
    topic in this first section (as usual), Those of you who would
    prefer to avoid the subject need not go any farther.

                                EVOLUTION

         A few hundred years ago the "science" of alchemy was hitting
    a peak. Most people think that the single goal of alchemy was to
    turn lead into gold. While that's not such a bad goal, it's an
    inaccurate description of alchemy. If that's all it was about,
    the church would've never condemned it (or, I doubt that they
    would have).
         The alchemists were fiddling with other things as well. One
    of those things involved something called a "homoculus." The idea
    was that a living body was a collection of elements and chemicals
    in unknown arrangements - and so was a nonliving body. The
    alchemists were searching and trying to find what the difference
    was between the two.
         To be fair, not very many of those "scientists" (in quotes
    because, were they scientists, or weren't they?) were involved in
    this search. In several parts of the world, to even be *thinking*
    about such things was considered sufficiently criminal to have
    the thinker put to death - often by slow torture.
         In any case, they didn't succeed (as far as anyone knows).
         But apparently they were on the right track. The interest
    was revived again in this century. Nobel Prize winning scientists
    such as Harold Urey were involved with biochemical studies - the
    new and more respected (and more knowledgeable) name for what the
    alchemists had tried earlier.

                             The New Studies

         This time the idea was to attempt to discover if life could
    have started on our planet spontaneously. (Most of you know the
    name Carl Sagan. He was also involved in the early studies while
    connected with the University of Indiana.)
         What these scientists did first was to concentrate the
    elemental parts of early earth in a sterile, test-tube environ
    ment. Energy was then added to the closed system. (The basic
    elements used were hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen; with the energy
    used, separately and together, being radioactivity, sunlight,
    heat and an electric spark [all three of which occur in nature]).
         The end result in every experiment was a combination of the
    basic elements into increasingly complex molecules. That kind of
    chemical reaction was pretty well expected. Chemicals *do* tend
    to combine. What was more astonishing yet, however, was that the
    combination that resulted was heading towards organic.
         As early as 1951 the first organic molecules formed. Two
    years later, and working with a more and more concentrated (but
    still sterile) solution, the molecules continued to combine and
    recombine until no one could deny that they were organic in
    nature. By the early 1960s the first nucleic acids formed. For
    those of you less familiar with organic chemistry, nucleic acids
    are the so-called building blocks of protein - and proteins are
    the building blocks of . . . YOU! - and of every other living
    thing on earth.
         Then later in that same decade, the first prime proteins
    formed.
         This happened again and again and again. Take those base
    elements, add a bit of energy, and organic molecules *will* form
    and *will* continue to become more and more complex. Under
    heavily controlled conditions, with a man-made reconcentration of
    materials again and again and again, it took less than 20 years
    to go from the purified gases of hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen to
    a relatively complex protein.
         During the 1960s and 1970s the studies continued, but along
    other, related lines. Instead of starting with base elements, the
    scientists began with already existing simple forms - viruses.
         In any case, a virus has a protective coat of protein. Strip
    away this coating and the virus seems to degenerate into a
    collection of organic chemicals. Specific tests were done that
    did strip away that coat, leaving two vials - one with the
    internal chemical structure, and one with the external protein.
    (This *can* happen in nature if the energy kicked in is violent
    enough.) Then the two were recombined. And lo and behold! Quite
    naturally and without any help from the scientists, the internal
    structure and protein coat recombined to make another complete
    virus.
         Meanwhile, the other studies continued. Just shy of 1970 the
    first virus resulted.
         Nobody can prove if a virus is alive or not. At times it
    acts like a living thing. Other times it acts more like a
    mineral. However, many scientists agree that the virus is the
    simplest form of life - a kind of missing link between what we
    definitely recognize as living, and what we definitely recognize
    as nonliving.

                                 Cloning

         On the surface, cloning may not seem to be related to the
    discussion above. It is.
         To date, cloning has been more or less restricted to little
    more than what farmers have been doing for years in combining the
    advantageous traits of one plant with another. Despite rumors to
    the contrary, at this time the highest lifeform successfully
    cloned has been a salamander, with very limited success having
    been done with rabbits  - mostly in using a female rabbit's womb
    as the home of an artificially inseminated egg - not true cloning
    at all.
         At the same time, cloning is quite similar to artificial
    insemination (or natural insemination, for that matter) - a
    combination of genetic materials.
         The genetic structure of all living things on earth is
    remarkable similar. It differs primarily in complexity. Other
    than that, your DNA and that of a frog (for example) are very
    close to being the same.
         In very brief, and oversimplest, form, DNA makes you what
    you are. It's kinda like a twisted ladder of chemicals, with each
    rung on that ladder sorta-kinda representing a particular
    characteristic of the creature (including you). Also keeping
    things overly simplified, there are 4 basic chemicals used within
    that chain - call them A, B, C and D. A will link only with C and
    B will link only with D. Rip the DNA ladder in half and it will
    tend to reform in exactly the same original shape and format due
    to a given and exclusive chemical recombination.
         In this way, the DNA can reproduce and reproduce like crazy,
    making it possible for the half-DNA in the egg, and half-DNA in
    the sperm to set off a chain reaction of reproduction that
    eventually will create a whole, new living being.
         Call it a simple, natural chemical recombination, or call it
    the will of God. Either way the results are the same. Without it,
    you and I wouldn't be here, nor would anything else that's alive.
         Cloning makes use of this. Even when the cells of your body
    have specialized into being those of the eye, or of a muscle, or
    a nerve or whatever, they *still* contain the complete genetic
    code of what you are. (The only place this is different is with
    the egg of a female, or the sperm of a male, in which case the
    structure is halved - sorta. The details of this could fill a few
    thousand issues of the magazine easily.)
         Scientists haven't advanced all that far in this field. They
    *have* come along far enough to show that DNA recombination is
    also natural. It happens, and without a whole lot of help (unless
    you're religious, in which case it gets all the divine help it
    needs).

                           Evidence and Decay

         Any competent scientist can carry out these experiments, and
    will get the same results. The elements within an organic
    compound automatically join together, and join together again.
    Take two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, provide a bit of
    energy, and you get water. Every time. Take that same pure water
    and break it apart (such as by electrolysis) and you get two
    parts of hydrogen to one part of oxygen. Every time.
         There are quite a few people who deny these facts - who say
    that the results were rigged, or worse yet that the results are
    teh effect of the devil getting into the laboratory (or into the
    scientists, and causing them, and their assistants, and their
    staffs, and their colleagues, etc. to lie).
         What these experiments show is that nature quite . . . well,
    naturally . . . causes inorganic substances to combine into ever
    more complex organic molecules under certain conditions - the
    conditions that existed (and still exist to a smaller extent) on
    earth. Deny it all you wish. You can yell as long as you wish
    that gravity doesn't exist, but the next time you drop a hammer
    it *will* fall.
         From here we drop into the realm of speculation. Since this
    does happen, does it necessarily mean that given sufficient time
    true and recognizable life forms will come about?
         Scientists have been carrying on organized and painstaking
    research for about 30 years. The earth had millions and millions
    of years for its own "experiments." We may never know what the
    next step in the chain would be, simply for lack of time.
         So this part will remain a matter of speculation for the
    foreseeable future. It's entirely likely that the "final truths"
    may never be known - or if they are, won't be for tens of
    thousands of years.
         Meanwhile we have other things to look at that *do* exist,
    such as the remains of creatures that once lived.
         It has been argued that archeological finds are useless for
    proof of evolution because there are gaps. Indeed there *are*
    gaps, sometimes of thousands of years.
         But then consider the difficulty involved in having anything
    at all remain after such a period of time. Some very special
    conditions must exist.
         Maybe you've once buried a favorite pet in the backyard.
    Then later on, out of curiosity, maybe you tried to dig it up
    again, only to find that nothing was there. All that can happen
    in just a few years. (If you don't believe it, try an experiment
    on your own. Bury something like a dead mouse, mark the spot and
    dig it up 2 years later.)
         Imagine the same effects of nature over a period of, say, 20
    or 30 million years. And imagine them taking place on creatures
    that are more simple than earthworms. (How many earthworm
    skeletons do you think you'll find, however long you dig?)
         There is also the argument that things left on the surface
    take even longer to decay. Fine. That's true within limitations.
    You can test the validity of this easily by leaving another dead
    mouse on the ground for a year. By then it will still be gone.
         The lack of evidence isn't so astounding. It's the fact that
    any evidence at all remains that is astounding. Take something
    large and bulky, like an elephant and bury it directly in the
    ground. Just 100 years later you'll be lucky to find bone
    fragments. A thousand years later you still *might* be able to
    perform complicated chemical tests of the soil to show a
    predominance of certain substances like calcium. Ten thousand
    years later, not even that is likely to remain.
         So missing links aren't the befuddlement of science - they
    are the norm. If those links *were* there and easy to find, it
    would be time for science to redefine itself. The lack is more
    understandable, and more scientifically valid.

                                 Dating

         One of the key arguments against any finds is the dating of
    that particular find. Is the scientist studying the jawbone of a
    pig slaughtered 10 years ago? Or the jawbone of some ancient
    creature that died 10 million years ago?
         There are two general methods of dating. One takes a reading
    of the radioactive elements that are still present in the
    remains, along with the elements that this (or those) radioactive
    elements decay into. The most well known of these is carbon-14,
    which is a relatively common isotope of "regular" carbon.
         Basically it works like this:
         The rate of decay is a known factor. So is what the
    radioactive element becomes after decay is complete, and what it
    becomes in each stage along the way. By studying the proportion
    of decayed elements, it's a relatively simple matter to backtrack
    mathematically to determine how much was there in the first
    place, and from there (once again mathematically) to figure out
    how long it took to happen.
         It's kind of like a natural clock.
         There are a few problems with this form of dating, but it is
    generally accepted to be accurate to within a few thousand years
    or so, depending on how old the object is (was?) in the first
    place. Other things can sneak in as well, causing a dating to be
    more inaccurate.
         Even so, if this form of dating is even as much as 10%
    inaccurate (it's more like 1% or 2%), the findings are still
    enough to provide definite evidence within allowable error. If
    the dating shows something to be 1 million years old, and the
    error is 10%, that means that the object under study is somewhere
    between 1,100,000 and 900,000 years old. And if the dating is
    totally inaccurate as much as 10% of the time (this is more like
    0.1%), that means that it's correct enough for the other 90%
    (actually the other 99.9%).
         The second method is more simple, although less accurate.
    You can see a part of it taking place right in your own yard, and
    all over the world to a much larger extent.
         Set something down in the yard. Within a couple of days it
    will have a visible coat of dust on it. Leave it there long
    enough it will be covered up completely. If you live on a sandy
    desert where the wind blow constantly, it will take even less
    time yet. (On the deserts of northern Africa, which was the site
    of many battles during World War II, dig around and you can find
    tanks and other machinery completely buried.)
         Other forces of nature also assist in burying objects - the
    flow of a river, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, the wash of
    the sea, rain, lack of rain, etc., etc., etc. All the forces of
    nature combine.
         The conditions on the surface change from time to time. What
    is now a great desert in Arizona was once an inland sea.
    Minnesota, with all its lush plantlife and thousands of lakes was
    once completely covered by ice. Consequently, the "ages" tend to
    gather as distinct layers.
         Take a look at the mountains around the valley. Some were
    produced volcanically. Others are huge hunks of the ground pushed
    up by related forces. On these you can actually *see* some of the
    layers.
         Quite obviously (or what should be obvious), the deeper the
    layer, the older are the things found in it. There are times when
    this is not true - such as when the earth has literally turned
    over from the forces of nature. But in this case, the signs of
    the turnover will also be present, and the scientists *still*
    have some idea of the time frame.
         Imagine that in one layer you find the fossil of fish, with
    all the fins essentially intact as they are with fish today.
    Through the layers beneath that you find other fossils of fish,
    with each successive layer showing that the fish of the time were
    more and more simple.

                               Conclusion

         It's true that there have been hoaxes. There have also been
    cases when a scientist or two will twist the findings to prove a
    particular pet theory.
         However, to claim that ALL findings are hoaxes, and that ALL
    scientists are liars and frauds, is a bit ridiculous.
         It has also been said that all the findings are inconclusive
    and mean nothing, other than another case of scientists misinter-
    preting data.
         This is a valid point. Scientists are just people, and can
    make mistakes. History is full of such cases - and in fact the
    history of science is little more than a long study of errors.
         However, and at the same time, it has to be taken into
    account that the studies are becoming more and more accurate. As
    new studies are completed, they aren't showing that the previous
    scientists were misinterpreting, but that they were correct in
    most instances - or even underestimated the results.
         Just because scientists have made mistakes in the past
    doesn't mean that they *always* make nothing but mistakes. If we
    were to take that attitude - that science is always error and to
    be dismissed out of hand - you're going to have to toss out more
    of your beliefs than just an objection to evolution. And you
    can't logically (or justifiably) toss out one faction that makes
    you uncomfortable and keep the rest - can you?
         Nor can you casually toss aside the findings of several
    thousand scientists who have all come to the same results.
         Beyond that there is the simple logic of the idea - although
    you *can* argue that point successfully, I guess. Things like -
    if a mountain under study has layers that took 50,000 years each
    to form, and you find item A in layer 12, and item B in layer 13,
    then item B is about 50,000 years older than item A.
         Literally thousands upon thousands of researches have been
    done that show that every creature on earth slowly changes. Some
    of those changes can be seen in a single generation, particularly
    with the simpler life forms. More extensive changes show up in
    fossil records. And in both cases, this happens again and again
    and again and again.
         Then along comes Harold Urey and those who followed him,
    with an ever increasing amount of evidence that shows that
    organic molecules naturally form from the elements that would
    have been on earth when it was first formed.
         Coupled together, the indication is that evolution begins on
    the molecular level and continues up through the most complex
    creatures. It's the way of nature. Deny it all you like - or play
    ostrich if you wish. It won't matter.
         Scream and shout all you want that the earth is the center
    of the universe. But, just as science showed such thoughts wrong
    then, and just as the screaming and shouting and threats then
    didn't move the earth from its orbit around the sun . . . .

    UNTIL NEXT TIME

         Well, *that* should get some discussion going!
         I will ask a couple of things, however.
         Feel perfectly free to take either side. But whichever side
    you take, don't allow yourself to drop into emotional attacks or
    insults. That's easy to do with a controversial topic, but it
    will get you nowhere. Not here and not in life, either.
         Ya see, we had this discussion before, on Zephyr. A couple
    of people decided that the way to "disprove" the facts was to
    first deny they existed, and then to insult anyone who believed
    those facts, or who took the time to find them to be true. And
    these same few stormed out in a huff because everyone was
    "picking on them."
         So, if you find yourself getting angry or upset, don't leave
    a reply at that time. Log off, calm down, and think things over.
         Second, I am extraordinarily busy at the moment. Everything
    in this week's issue is verifiable, but I simply don't have the
    time to go through my files and dig out the actual references.
    While it is a perfectly valid, and even desirable, point to
    demand that someone making a statement provide the references,
    I'll have to pass this time. I apologize for this, but will just
    have to leave it up to you to find those references on your own.
    It's not difficult anyway. Just go to any decent library with a
    good science section and look up the subject. Or get out an
    encyclopedia and look up the names Harold Urey, Carl Sagan and
    Cyril Ponnamperamu. These were the 3 prime movers of the original
    biochemical studies. It's not secret information and is there for
    anyone to find who cares to look.
         And, yes - that's a cop out on my part. I just don't have
    the time right now to do better. But, just because I don't have
    the time to list the references for you doesn't invalidate the
    facts. As I said above, check them out for yourself.

    As to next week - or next issue if it takes more than a week:
         Once again I have to resort to a cop out. I really don't
    know what I'll be doing. For the third (or is it fourth?) time, I
    am quite busy right now - with 3 books due to be put into the
    publisher's hands in the next month. Then there's the new baby,
    and . . . well, you get the idea.
         Perhaps another piece of fiction?

Zephyr Magazine is © Gene Williams. All rights reserved.