Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III
david ford
A collection of my better posts
http://tinyurl.com/y86r
Chris Krolczyk
> Part of Phase II is in
> A collection of my better posts
You've written several collections of URLs, not posts
that attempt to present an actual argument.
And you're referencing a single post that's
nothing *but* a collection of URLs.
Feel free to google "Daniel Joseph Min" as to why
this tactic isn't a bright idea. It's been done
before, and it doesn't work to the advantage of
the user.
-Chris Krolczyk
Lenny Flank
BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When are we going to see your scientific theory of creation, Mr Ford.
Is there some sort of problem . . . . .?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
david ford
on "childhood hypotheses of biology"" on 3 Dec 2003:
david ford:
howard hershey on 1 Dec 2003:
david ford:
>>>> I don't know x 2. Do you know?
>>>
>>> You mean, rather, that you don't care. It matters not to you
whether
>>> the quotes you use come from a complete nut job with all sorts of
crazy
>>> ideas.
>>
>> Which individual(s), if any, that I have quoted do you consider
[hh]"a
>> complete nut job with all sorts of crazy ideas"?
>>
>>> Just like it doesn't matter whether the quotes are ancient or
>>>out-of-context.
>>
>> Which quotes, if any, that I have presented do you consider
>> [hh]"out-of-context"?
>
> Almost all of them that are not simply out-of-date or from scientists
> that were far outside the mainstream even in their own time and place.
What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age? If so, I take it that you
consider quotes of Charles Darwin [hh]"out-of-date."
1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
http://tinyurl.com/yj88
[hh]"almost all of them that are not simply out-of-date"
How were my 1996 Gilbert et al. and 1992 Orr & Coyne quotes [hh]"out
of context"?
Here are the quotes in question:
_Developmental Biology_ paper by Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff
http://tinyurl.com/yj9b
Orr & Coyne on Fisher
http://tinyurl.com/y86y
_American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
http://tinyurl.com/y86w
I see that you did not write an answer my question
Which individual(s), if any, that I have quoted do you consider [hh]"a
complete nut job with all sorts of crazy ideas"?
Let's try this. Which individual(s), if any, that I have quoted do
you consider [hh]"scientists that were far outside the mainstream even
in their own time and place"?
What are the most extreme ways in which those scientists were [hh]"far
outside the mainstream"?
>> I will grant that some of the [hh]"quotes are ancient"-- my oldest
quote
>> is probably from way back in 1859. Much has been learned of the
>> biological world since 1859, not all of it supporting 1800s
speculations
>> about matters biological.
>>
>> how has the theory of NS survived?:
>> Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, D. M. S. Watson
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234718.51C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
>>
>>> All that matters to you is that the quote seems to
>>> criticize evolution
>>
>> My primary focus is the theory of natural selection.
>
> Well, good. There are, if fact, reasonable grounds for saying that some
> unspecified fraction of macroevolutionary change (repeated speciation
> over time) is not a consequence of natural selection, but rather a
> consequence of selectively neutral changes in isolated populations, some
> of which, of course, also exhibit the localized specialization in form
> and function we see in what we call subspecies.
[hh]"reasonable grounds for saying that some unspecified fraction of
macroevolutionary change"
Yes, it's usually best to leave matters unspecified and vague. That's
the hallmark of a good theory in science: vagueness.
Vague theories are also better in that they are much harder to
disprove than non-vague, highly-specific theories.
What are two of the more significant [hh]"reasonable grounds" of which
you speak?
> If you wanted, however, to argue that natural selection is incapable of
> generating speciation events or the amounts of change seen over
> evolutionary time but that you, instead favor an alternative mechanism
> such as a neutralist random walk of speciation events, you have a
> strange way of doing so. Rather than presenting an actual argument and
> using citations to point to the *evidence* supporting your argument you
> make no argument and use quotations that seem to be the *opinions* of
> scientists artfully presented so that they *seem* to support your
> *opinion* about natural selection.
Some of the quotations contain arguments, or describe evidence. For
example,
1893 Weismann
http://tinyurl.com/yjbi
1961 Rostand
http://tinyurl.com/yj8c
1966 White
http://tinyurl.com/yj8q
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://tinyurl.com/ygpp
> And you seem to be using these
> quotes not just to argue that evolution did not (often? always?) occur
> by a mechanisms (natural selection) you disagree with but to imply that
> the authors did not think evolution happened at all. *That* is
> intentionally misleading.
I have repeatedly said that I almost-exclusively quote
blindwatchmakingists.
> You specifically *never* present what these
> authors think takes the place of natural selection as a mechanism, even
> though they do often discuss that.
I have mentioned what a few anti-neoDarwinian-mechanism individuals
think was responsible for blindwatchmaking:
Gould's 1980 rejection of the extrapolationist model; 1981 Lovtrup;
a fossil record request for Andrew M.
http://tinyurl.com/yjfv
> Besides *opinions* are a dime a
> dozen and that they come from someone with a degree doesn't mean they
> are correct. Evidence presented in favor of a position, however, is not
> as useless. Why do you only give (part of) the opinions without
> presenting the evidence?
I have sometimes presented both opinions and opinion-informing
evidence. For example,
1932 Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"
http://tinyurl.com/y0s6
I argued at length in my
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
which has many quotations, some of which describe evidence.
What, by the way, are some of that essay's weak points?
> In short, what you are doing *looks* like typical creationist
> quote-mining used to imply that the authors disagree with *evolution*
Not so: as I have repeatedly said, I almost-exclusively quote from
blindwatchmakingists. Furthermore, I play up from time to time the
blindwatchmakingist credentials of some of those I quote:
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://tinyurl.com/y8c2
how do blindwatchmakingists "know" that life came from
non-life via non-intelligence-directed processes?:
Haeckel; Goodrich; Wells, J. Huxley, & Wells;
Simpson; Sagan; Dawkins; Johnson (a creationist)
http://tinyurl.com/yj7n
> rather than that they do not think that natural selection explains
> everything about evolution (or, in some cases, that they do not think
> all evolution is a steady, constant change in form rather than a rapid one).
>>
>>> and seems to come from someone with "credentials"
>>> that appear to give the criticism some "credibility".
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>> In your view, does Chauvin have credentials pertinent to a
discussion of
>> biological origins?
>> What in Chauvin's remarks do you disagree with?
>
> It doesn't matter what Chauvin's views were or what credentials he has.
> What matters is why *you* are using these ancient quotes the way you
> do. I say that you are using them to try to imply that *evolution* did
> not happen, not to imply that *evolution by natural selection* is not
> the only mechanism by which evolution can or did happen.
You are entitled to your opinions and speculations about my motives/
motivations.
> I actually agree. Evolution by natural selection is NOT the only
> mechanism by which evolution can happen. Indeed, at the molecular
> level, most of the evolutionary change observed is definitely due to
> neutral drift events, with only rare and minor in extent (but important
> in consequence) change attributable to natural selection.
What mechanisms were responsible for, and to what respective degree,
the following:
the biochemistry of vision
bacterial flagellum
the land animal--> whale transformation
the organisms that appeared during the Cambrian explosion
Do you have any references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature
backing up your answers?
Are you aware of _any_ published response by a neo-Darwinist to
Goldschmidt's challenge to neo-Darwinists?
http://tinyurl.com/yj7x
What are three biological structures, and three biochemical pathways,
if any, that you think neo-Darwinian natural selection _can_ account
for the arrival of?
What are three biological structures, and three biochemical pathways,
if any, that you think neo-Darwinian natural selection _cannot_
account for the arrival of?
> And I also
> agree that evolution tends to be episodic in the fossil record rather
> than a smooth continuum. In both cases, we are talking about
> preponderance of events rather than absolute exclusion of alternatives.
>
> So if you want to discuss whether evolution occurs by natural selection
> or neutralist explanations, I certainly would be happy to do that. If
> you want to discuss whether evolution occurs by smooth continuous change
> or episodically, I would be happy to do that.
>
> If all you are doing, as I suspect, is implying that "since" natural
> selection is the only possible mechanism of evolution, if I can present
> quotes that seem to imply that 'natural selection cannot explain
> evolution' then GODDIDIT, you are a quote-miner.
I don't think that neo-Darwinian natural selection is the only
proposed blindwatchmaking mechanism.
Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
blindwatchmakingist
http://tinyurl.com/yjau
david ford
david ford, quoting Ghiselin:
>> ....
>> While still a graduate student I read George Gaylord
>> Simpson's _Principles of Animal Taxonomy_. I
>
> Simpson, eh? I'll remember that name!
You do that, perhaps while reading some Simpson in
A collection of my better posts
http://tinyurl.com/y86r
Eldredge called Simpson a "genuine American scientific hero"-- see
Simpson, Eldredge in _Synthese_, Ager, Corner, Rosen, Grasse,
Patterson, Raup, Stanley
http://tinyurl.com/yiwk
In case you come across the quotation of Ghiselin that's in my big
bang essay, which appears at
http://tinyurl.com/ygqj
here's some information about him,
from the dust jacket of his superb
_Intellectual Compromise_ (1989):
Michael T. Ghiselin received a Ph.D. in Biological
Sciences from Stanford University. He was
awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1978, and
was a MacArthur Prize Fellow from 1981 to 1986.
He received the Pfizer Award from the History of
Science Society for his book _The Triumph of the
Darwinian Method_, and has also written _The
Economy of Nature and The Evolution of Sex_
plus numerous journal articles. He is currently
Senior Research Fellow at the California Academy
of Sciences.
R. Dunno
The turin shroud link with pics was excellent. An uncanny resemblance
to a barn owl hiding in a ripped lampshade.
Stanley Friesen
>
>What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age? If so, I take it that you
>consider quotes of Charles Darwin [hh]"out-of-date."
Yes. As far as *modern* science is concerned, Darwin *is* out of date.
the modern theory of evolution is *derived* from his, it is not
identical to his. Darwin is *not* cited in modern refereed journals.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
gen2rev
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.03120...@posting.google.com>:
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> in "Re: Chauvin
> on "childhood hypotheses of biology"" on 3 Dec 2003:
[snip]
> > Besides *opinions* are a dime a
> > dozen and that they come from someone with a degree doesn't mean they
> > are correct. Evidence presented in favor of a position, however, is not
> > as useless. Why do you only give (part of) the opinions without
> > presenting the evidence?
>
> I have sometimes presented both opinions and opinion-informing
> evidence. For example,
> 1932 Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"
> http://tinyurl.com/y0s6
> I argued at length in my
> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
> which has many quotations, some of which describe evidence.
> What, by the way, are some of that essay's weak points?
The fact that you go on and on about the fossil record, for one. The
fossil record can neither prove nor disprove Natural Selection.
[snip the rest]
howard hershey
david ford wrote:
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> in "Re: Chauvin
> on "childhood hypotheses of biology"" on 3 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
> howard hershey on 1 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
>
>
>>>>>I don't know x 2. Do you know?
>>>>
>>>>You mean, rather, that you don't care. It matters not to you
>
> whether
>
>>>>the quotes you use come from a complete nut job with all sorts of
>
> crazy
>
>>>>ideas.
>>>
>>>Which individual(s), if any, that I have quoted do you consider
>
> [hh]"a
>
>>>complete nut job with all sorts of crazy ideas"?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just like it doesn't matter whether the quotes are ancient or
>>>>out-of-context.
>>>
>>>Which quotes, if any, that I have presented do you consider
>>>[hh]"out-of-context"?
>>
>>Almost all of them that are not simply out-of-date or from scientists
>>that were far outside the mainstream even in their own time and place.
>
>
> What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age? If so, I take it that you
> consider quotes of Charles Darwin [hh]"out-of-date."
Some are. Some aren't. But to quote him as a current authority is
nonsense.
> 1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
> http://tinyurl.com/yj88
He acknowledged that other things (such as features that are neither
beneficial nor detrimental) may have contributed to evolutionary change.
And modern biologists agree. NS is not the *only* mechanism at work
in evolutionary change. That doesn't mean that NS did not happen or did
not have major importance.
The theory of neutral change is not vague. It has very precise
mathematical consequences. However, it is not usually possible to
determine what fraction of observed phenotypic change (what can be
observed in fossils) is a consequence of selection for that change and
what fraction is due to events and mechanisms unrelated to selection.
> Vague theories are also better in that they are much harder to
> disprove than non-vague, highly-specific theories.
> What are two of the more significant [hh]"reasonable grounds" of which
> you speak?
The observation that most evolutionary change is selectively neutral.
This is evidenced by the fact that sequence change is much more rapid at
postions that have no selectable consequence. The observation that
*some* phenotypic differences have no detectable selectable consequence.
The observation that some phenotypic differences do have selectable
consequences, of course, means that NS exists and does cause phenotypic
change in populations (and consequently a genetic change in the
population to the extent that the phenotypic difference is genetic).
The observation that there exist the types of intermediates, in
transitional cases, that one would expect if selection were driving
speciation. For example, in sunflowers there are two species in the
Western U.S. that specialize in dry and wet environments which are often
situated very near each other and change abruptly with very little
intermediate environment. In this case, because there is no opportunity
for a gradual cline of gene frequencies, the hybrid with intermediate
characteristics has a very narrow ecological niche. Basically, it is a
waste of energy to produce the hybrid or to produce off-spring with
mixed characteristics. This is a classic case of hybrid underfitness
(the opposite of the case for sickle cell, where the hybrid is overfit
in malarial areas). Selection could drive and favor any mutational
changes that reduce gene flow between the species adapted for wet and
the species adapted for dry. And indeed, we now observe that the two
species have accumulated differences in chromosomal organization
(translocations, inversions) that tend to make the hybrid quasi-sterile
(like a mule, which is an animal equivalent of the same process).
Now the question is, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was the
first rearrangement that reduced inter-fertility between these two
species when they were subspecies rather than true species *selected
for* its ability to reduce inter-fertility? Or did it happen as a
consequence of neutral drift? Both could explain it.
>>If you wanted, however, to argue that natural selection is incapable of
>>generating speciation events or the amounts of change seen over
>>evolutionary time but that you, instead favor an alternative mechanism
>>such as a neutralist random walk of speciation events, you have a
>>strange way of doing so. Rather than presenting an actual argument and
>>using citations to point to the *evidence* supporting your argument you
>>make no argument and use quotations that seem to be the *opinions* of
>>scientists artfully presented so that they *seem* to support your
>>*opinion* about natural selection.
>
>
> Some of the quotations contain arguments, or describe evidence. For
> example,
> 1893 Weismann
> http://tinyurl.com/yjbi
> 1961 Rostand
> http://tinyurl.com/yj8c
> 1966 White
> http://tinyurl.com/yj8q
> Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
> http://tinyurl.com/ygpp
Such quotation, even if it weren't from out-of-date or out-of-context
quotes, is *not* the same as presenting a coherent argument yourself,
*based* on your reading of these authors.
>> And you seem to be using these
>>quotes not just to argue that evolution did not (often? always?) occur
>>by a mechanisms (natural selection) you disagree with but to imply that
>>the authors did not think evolution happened at all. *That* is
>>intentionally misleading.
>
>
> I have repeatedly said that I almost-exclusively quote
> blindwatchmakingists.
But only when you can do so in a way that misleads readers into thinking
that your quoted 'blindwatchmakingists' really know they are lying about
what they say about evolution. That is intentionally misleading and
dishonest.
>> You specifically *never* present what these
>>authors think takes the place of natural selection as a mechanism, even
>>though they do often discuss that.
>
>
> I have mentioned what a few anti-neoDarwinian-mechanism individuals
> think was responsible for blindwatchmaking:
> Gould's 1980 rejection of the extrapolationist model; 1981 Lovtrup;
> a fossil record request for Andrew M.
> http://tinyurl.com/yjfv
Also dishonest and done for the purpose of intentionally misleading
people into believing that these authors really know 'evolution' is a crock.
>> Besides *opinions* are a dime a
>>dozen and that they come from someone with a degree doesn't mean they
>>are correct. Evidence presented in favor of a position, however, is not
>>as useless. Why do you only give (part of) the opinions without
>>presenting the evidence?
>
>
> I have sometimes presented both opinions and opinion-informing
> evidence. For example,
> 1932 Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"
> http://tinyurl.com/y0s6
> I argued at length in my
> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
> which has many quotations, some of which describe evidence.
> What, by the way, are some of that essay's weak points?
Even if your quotations were not out-of-date or out-of-context, an essay
that relies on quoting sources rather than presenting a coherent
*personal* argument presenting an alternative is pretty lame. Makes it
look like you are unable to think for yourself.
In your essay, your argument, when not just silly, is one that conflates
NS with slow gradual change. Neutralist change must be slow and
gradual. There is no necessary reason why NS cannot be episodic and
rapid. Moreover, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the *only* parts of
the quoted authors you use are those where they criticize the 'slow,
gradual' part of NS. Nowhere do you present either their or your
alternative explanations (other than a little bit of Goldschmidt). I
can excuse you for not having an alternative to present, since that
would require understanding rather than quoting. But I can't excuse
your failure to present the alternatives that many of your authors do
present.
For example, anyone with a brain would recognize that Gould and
Eldridge, in their article "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of
evolution reconsidered" _Paleobiology_ 3: 115-51 (1977), were NOT
rejecting selection as a mechanism. They were discussing the tempo and
mode (mode meaning their observation of an absence of *consistent*
directionality in evolution) of evolution *by* natural selection. In
fact, in the mode part of their critique, they were arguing that many
biologists were being *too* teleological in their thinking, by
presenting selected evidence that indicated a pattern of progress toward
a 'goal' (namely the current system) rather than a more objective
pattern of local differences that were often (but not necessarily
always) adaptations to local conditions, but were usually without the
element of progress. One would never guess that *that* was what they
were saying by reading the quotes you used.
>>In short, what you are doing *looks* like typical creationist
>>quote-mining used to imply that the authors disagree with *evolution*
>
>
> Not so: as I have repeatedly said, I almost-exclusively quote from
> blindwatchmakingists. Furthermore, I play up from time to time the
> blindwatchmakingist credentials of some of those I quote:
> Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
> Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
> http://tinyurl.com/y8c2
> how do blindwatchmakingists "know" that life came from
> non-life via non-intelligence-directed processes?:
> Haeckel; Goodrich; Wells, J. Huxley, & Wells;
> Simpson; Sagan; Dawkins; Johnson (a creationist)
> http://tinyurl.com/yj7n
Done only for the purpose of implying that these 'blindwatchmakingists'
actually *know* that evolution is a lie. Sort of,"See. Even they know
that evolution is bogus." That is why you choose to present only those
parts of their arguments where they *seem* to disagree with what you
think evolution is. That is creationist quote-mining. If you have a
clue or an alternative explanation, present it and the evidence you have
to support it. You should not even need to quote *anyone* in your
essay. Don't post misleading quotes that imply that other people are
knowing liars. That is dishonest.
>> rather than that they do not think that natural selection explains
>>everything about evolution (or, in some cases, that they do not think
>>all evolution is a steady, constant change in form rather than a rapid one).
>>
>>>> and seems to come from someone with "credentials"
>>>>that appear to give the criticism some "credibility".
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>In your view, does Chauvin have credentials pertinent to a
>
> discussion of
>
>>>biological origins?
>>>What in Chauvin's remarks do you disagree with?
>>
>>It doesn't matter what Chauvin's views were or what credentials he has.
>> What matters is why *you* are using these ancient quotes the way you
>>do. I say that you are using them to try to imply that *evolution* did
>>not happen, not to imply that *evolution by natural selection* is not
>>the only mechanism by which evolution can or did happen.
>
>
> You are entitled to your opinions and speculations about my motives/
> motivations.
Trying to determine what an author means is *exactly* what someone is
supposed to do when they read an argument or essay. Doing so well means
not only reading what that person chooses to include in their essay, but
also being aware of things the author avoids or ignores. Are you saying
that I am wrong about your motives/motivation (actually I am pointing
out what you are actually doing rather than what you are claiming to do
here)? I merely noticed what others less familiar with these author's
real views might not: that your quotes were quite selective and not
fully representative of their views. And I am pointing out that the way
you are using the quotes is not simply to imply that evolution by
natural selection is not the only mechanism by which evolution can or
did happen, but to imply that evolution didn't happen *and* that even
evolutionary biologists (selectively quoted) know it. If that was not
your purpose, you have a funny way to show it.
>>I actually agree. Evolution by natural selection is NOT the only
>>mechanism by which evolution can happen. Indeed, at the molecular
>>level, most of the evolutionary change observed is definitely due to
>>neutral drift events, with only rare and minor in extent (but important
>>in consequence) change attributable to natural selection.
>
>
> What mechanisms were responsible for, and to what respective degree,
> the following:
> the biochemistry of vision
Both chance and necessity. Cis-retinal, only two simple metabolic steps
away from vitamin A which is used widely in all cells, is uniquely
qualified to act as a molecule that converts light energy into
mechanical energy (conformation change). That would be the necessity
part (all visual biochemistry starts with cis-retinal, even if they are
independently evolved). Arranging a trans-membrane protein that binds
cis-retinal and converts the conformation change in that molecule
induced by light into a chemical reaction (the activation of a
G-protein) is merely a modification of pre-existing systems and
transmembrane proteins.
After this point, which certainly does not seem like an insurmountable
hurdle to the evolution of vision, we see a major difference in the
biochemistry of vertebrate and invertebrate vision.
In vertebrates, we see stimulation of a cGMP phosphodiesterase which
leads to *closure* of membrane cation channels and hyperpolarization of
the cell surface, thus transmitting the signal to the brain.
In invertebrates, e.g., Drosophila, the G-protein activates
phospholipase C (NorpA), which hydrolyzes phosphatidylinositol
4,5-bisphosphate to generate the second messengers inositol
1,4,5-triphosphate (IP3) and diacyl glycerol (DAG). The IP3 is thought
to release intracellular calcium, which in turn *opens* membrane
channels and leads to membrane depolarization, thus transmitting the
signal to the brain.
In both cases, of course, the pathways *after* the G-protein pre-existed
in cells (and particularly neural cells) well before there was vision
(used for other neural transmissions to the brain). They were merely
co-opted by the simple step of getting connected to the G-protein
activation system of vision. Initially, this would merely be an
additional signal of some utility to the organism. Later, some cells
would specialize so that the predominant activator of the system would
be the interaction of light and rhodopsin (retinol plus the opsin
transmembrane protein). From minor to major, so to speak.
A lot of this would, naturally depend upon there actually being a
selective advantage to the organism for a system that recognized the
presence of light. If there was (and I can certainly think of organisms
for which the ability to detect light might be useful), I see no
impossible step in evolving a visual biochemistry in nervous tissue.
It is probably better to ask what evidence would *you* accept? Would it
be sufficient to point out that transmembrane signalling proteins and
G-protein transduction long preceded vision and that the opsin and
G-protein are modifications of such proteins? Or would I have to show
every single nucleotide change that occurred? Remember, that the
evidence seems to point to a rather simple set of events being needed.
Chance alone can account for some of these. For example, the conversion
of vitamin A to cis-retinal may simply be a non-selected consequence of
vit A being a minor substrate of an enzyme with a different primary
activity. The original 'function' of the opsin-retinol may be a
consequence of the fact that they were colored pigments rather than
being visually useful.
> bacterial flagellum
> the land animal--> whale transformation
> the organisms that appeared during the Cambrian explosion
> Do you have any references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature
> backing up your answers?
One at a time please. WRT vision, why not start with...
Cell. 1985 Apr;40(4):839-50. Showing that the Drosophila ninaE gene
encodes an opsin (is a visual pigment protein related to the opsin
portion of vertebrate rhodopsin).
J. of Neuroscience. Volume 17, Number 15, Issue of August 1, 1997 pp.
5881-5890
Nilson D (1966) Eye ancestry: old genes for new eyes. Curr Biol 6:39-42
Included because you seem to like old papers. This author discusses
whether eyes are examples of convergent or divergent evolution.
What is now clear is that certain genes are exapted to be co-opted to
utilization in vision, and are thus more likely to be re-used when
vision is re-invented.
Zuker CS (1996) The biology of vision in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 93:571-576
>
> Are you aware of _any_ published response by a neo-Darwinist to
> Goldschmidt's challenge to neo-Darwinists?
> http://tinyurl.com/yj7x
Well, in a recent post on one of the Pitman threads, I presented a site
which got one to an article by Otto and Yong discussing the frequency
and rate of gene duplication and genome duplication (polyploidy). That
rather neatly disposes of the "how do new genes get formed" question of
Goldschmidt. They get formed by duplication and divergence or by
modular formation of chimeric proteins. I am surprised that no one has
mentioned this possibility anywhere in the articles you quote-mine from?
As to the slow and infinitely divisible change part of this quote, there
is evidence for some of the examples and not for others. But I don't
know what you mean by slow and small. Most evolution seems to involve
initial significant and rapid change (usually followed by slower fine
tuning), but not of Goldschmidtian proportions.
>
> What are three biological structures, and three biochemical pathways,
> if any, that you think neo-Darwinian natural selection _can_ account
> for the arrival of?
Depends on how *you* define neo-Darwinian natural selection as compared
to the non-neo-Darwian natural selection. It seems that creationist
views of neo-Darwinian natural selection range from a sudden event
involving thousands of independent selectively neutral mutations that
convert a random sequence into something entirely different (See Sean
Pitman's threads) to a Zeno paradox slow and steady infinitely divisible
process. Nothing inbetween of course. In particular, what role does
your idea of neo-Darwinian NS have for gene duplication and divergence?
Chimeric protein formation? The rate of evolution?
> What are three biological structures, and three biochemical pathways,
> if any, that you think neo-Darwinian natural selection _cannot_
> account for the arrival of?
Define neo-Darwinian NS and what properties you think it must exhibit.
>> And I also
>>agree that evolution tends to be episodic in the fossil record rather
>>than a smooth continuum. In both cases, we are talking about
>>preponderance of events rather than absolute exclusion of alternatives.
>>
>>So if you want to discuss whether evolution occurs by natural selection
>>or neutralist explanations, I certainly would be happy to do that. If
>>you want to discuss whether evolution occurs by smooth continuous change
>>or episodically, I would be happy to do that.
>>
>>If all you are doing, as I suspect, is implying that "since" natural
>>selection is the only possible mechanism of evolution, if I can present
>>quotes that seem to imply that 'natural selection cannot explain
>>evolution' then GODDIDIT, you are a quote-miner.
>
>
> I don't think that neo-Darwinian natural selection is the only
> proposed blindwatchmaking mechanism.
What, specifically, is your objection to "neo-Darwinian natural
selection"? Is it that this is a blindwatchmaking mechanism (in which
case you would also probably object to any natural mechanism, not just
neo-Darwinian NS)? Is it the propose rate? Is it the proposed size of
the steps? Is it the absence of the *necessity* for miracle? Exactly
where is *your* objection?
> Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
> blindwatchmakingist
> http://tinyurl.com/yjau
No indication of what alternative he proposed either.
>
Chris Krolczyk
<snip>
Collections of URLs are still not an adequate form of argument,
David.
Did you bother to google "Daniel Joseph Min" in order to find
out why - and regarding self-referential ones, in particular?
-Chris Krolczyk
david ford
gen2rev on 10 Dec 2003:
david ford:
>> I argued at length in my
>> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
>> http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
>> which has many quotations, some of which describe evidence.
>> What, by the way, are some of that essay's weak points?
>
> The fact that you go on and on about the fossil record, for one.
> The fossil record can neither prove nor disprove Natural
> Selection.
Does my essay provide support for the claim that the known
fossil record doesn't prove the theory of natural selection?
If you would, kindly supply references for the claim that the
theory of natural selection isn't proved by the known fossil
record.
Feel free to also supply references for the claim that the
theory of natural selection isn't disproved by the known
fossil record.
Does the fossil _Archeopteryx_ provide evidence for the
theory of natural selection?
Does the known fossil record refute the claim that
blindwatchmaking occurs in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step
fashion?
Schindel, David E. 1982. "The gaps in the fossil record"
_Nature_ 297: 282-4. Schindel was a Curator of Invertebrate
Fossils in the Peabody Museum of Natural History and an
Assistant Professor of Geology at Yale University. The
article's first paragraph:
THE fossil record has been both a burden and a blessing
to evolutionary biologists-- a blessing because the
stratigraphical order in which fossils are arrayed
provides broad proof of change with time, but a burden
in that the gradual morphological transitions between
presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by
most biologists, are missing. Darwin and most of his
followers have resolved this dilemma by accepting the
blessing and dismissing the burden as an unfortunate but
inherent limitation in the fossil record resulting from
varying rates of sediment deposition.
Does the theory of natural selection make any predictions
about what we should see in the fossil record?
If so, what are two of those predictions?
Did Darwin mention any predictions of the theory of natural
selection in _Origin_?
If so, what are two of those predictions that he mentioned?
Does the fossil record provide evidence, one way or the
other, for the claim that an intelligent creator(s) created
different groups of organisms at different intervals in the
earth's history?
views of Cuvier, d'Orbigny, and Agassiz (all creationists)
http://tinyurl.com/z514
John Wilkins in "Re: Well what then caused God?" on 7 Dec 2003:
david ford:
Lenny Flank:
david ford:
> > > Archaeopteryx is mentioned frequently by
> > > blindwatchmakingists. I plan to summarize the
> > > Archeopteryx chapter from Jonathan Wells
> > > (a creationist), _Icons of Evolution: Science or
> > > Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About
> > > Evolution Is Wrong_ (2000).
> >
> > Make sure you mention that Wells is a follower of "Father
> > Moon" who thinks that Sun Myung Moon is another Son of
> > God and is the younger brother of Jesus Christ.
>
> Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
> http://tinyurl.com/y6nd
>
> In terms of the logical or formal content of Wells' arguments, I
> agree that ad hominem is not a refutation. Wells falls (I would
> say stands or falls, but that is by now unnecessary) by the quality
> of his research and the rigor of his arguments.
What are two areas in which [JW]"Wells falls... by the
quality of his research and the rigor of his arguments"?
> However, it is, I think, relevant to his motivations that he is
> doing this with an a priori set against anything evolutionary or
> Darwinian being right (even if we did not have his own words to
> that effect), and that he gained his qualifications *in order to*
> show them to be false, and did not arrive at his conclusions on
> the basis of the research he so proudly claims. This does not
> disqualify his conclusions - they may be right even if he were the
> most despicable man on earth - but it explains why he does the
> sort of egregious misrepresentations he does.
What are two of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you
think Wells has done?
Do any of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you think
Wells has done involve _Archeopteryx_, and if so, how so?
david ford
Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:
Perhaps the most significant single fact in last year's
development of French scientific thought is that the
above orthodox explanation of evolution [involving "the
hundred-year-old Darwin principle of _natural
selection_"] has been badly shaken. Often criticized in
the past, it has now come under such heavy fire that the
way seems to be open, in France at least, to a new
theory of the origin of species. Thus, at the time of his
first conquests in space, man takes a new look at life, at
himself, and at his possibilities.
As long as two years ago the offensive was prepared by
Rene Sudre, an outspoken foe of Darwinism, the science
editor of the learned _Revue de Deux Mondes_, France's
oldest journal and one proverbially cautious in anything
it promotes. In two highly controversial articles Sudre
did not mince words in denouncing the "absurd dogmas"
of the generally accepted classical theory of evolution.
This year saw the controversy rapidly growing, until
recently it culminated in the title "Should We Burn
Darwin?" spread over two pages of the magazine
_Science et Vie_.
The article, by the science writer Aime Michel, was
based on the author's interviews with such specialists as
Mrs. Andree Tetry, professor at the famous _Ecole des
Hautes Etudes_ and a world authority on problems of
evolution, Prof. Rene Chauvin and other noted French
biologists, and on his thorough study of some 600 pages
of biological data collected, in collaboration with Mrs.
Tetry, by the late Michael Cuenot, a biologist of
international fame.
Aime Michel's conclusion is significant: the classical
theory of evolution in its strict sense belongs to the past.
Even if they do not publicly take a definite stand, almost
all French specialists hold today strong mental
reservations as to the validity of natural selection.
Compare posts on Rostand, Remy Chauvin, and
Schutzenberger, and my theory of natural selection essay's
mentions of Tetry and Grasse, linked to from
http://tinyurl.com/z59v
Enkidu
> 1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection
>
> Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
> Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:
1961??? If natural selection was "shredded", you'd think that in 42
years, that fact would have become common knowledge. Yet here it is,
2003, and evolution by natural selection is still the strongest theory
in the life sciences.
Enkidu
--
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we
go to church we're just making him madder and madder"
--Homer Simpson
Stanley Friesen
>Replies to John Wilkins and gen2rev.
>>
>> The fact that you go on and on about the fossil record, for one.
>> The fossil record can neither prove nor disprove Natural
>> Selection.
>
>Does my essay provide support for the claim that the known
>fossil record doesn't prove the theory of natural selection?
Since I know of nobody in their right mind who *claims* that the fossil
record "proves" the theory of natural selection, this is largely a
useless thing to show.
The fossil record very strongly supports *common* *descent*, but the
time scale is too coarse to distinguish natural selection from other
mechanisms of alteration.
>
>If you would, kindly supply references for the claim that the
>theory of natural selection isn't proved by the known fossil
>record.
>
>Feel free to also supply references for the claim that the
>theory of natural selection isn't disproved by the known
>fossil record.
>
>Does the fossil _Archeopteryx_ provide evidence for the
>theory of natural selection?
>
It neither supports nor opposes it.
>Does the known fossil record refute the claim that
>blindwatchmaking occurs in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step
>fashion?
No. It cannot, since the time scale of natural selection is decades to
millennia, and the time scale of the fossil record is, at its very best,
100s of millennia - two orders of magnitude larger than the time scale
of selection.
johac
Enkidu <hhe1...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> david ford wrote:
> > 1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection
> >
> > Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
> > Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:
>
> 1961??? If natural selection was "shredded", you'd think that in 42
> years, that fact would have become common knowledge. Yet here it is,
> 2003, and evolution by natural selection is still the strongest theory
> in the life sciences.
And it's not as if no scientific study has been done on evolution and
the mechanisms by which it happened has been carried out in the past
42 years either.
>
> Enkidu
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
Boikat
They are French. Darwin was a Brit. Of course they are going to
disagree with Darwin. What do you expect? Having said that, those
paragraphs only state that a couple of French scientists disagree with
Darwin, but it doesn't say *WHY* they disagree with him or indicate
what *they* think explains biodiversity.
>
> Compare posts on Rostand, Remy Chauvin, and
> Schutzenberger, and my theory of natural selection essay's
> mentions of Tetry and Grasse, linked to from
> http://tinyurl.com/z59v
Pththth on that.
Boikat
TomS
<b1c67abe.03121...@posting.google.com>, david ford stated..."
>
>1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection
>
>Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
>Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:
Perhaps readers of t.o will be interested in a couple of other
statements from that same issue of Science Digest ...
On page 6, "The man who tinkers with his auto in 1977 may well be
working on something other than the familiar gasoline engine."
On page 65, "Probably the most outstanding feature of the England-
France tunnel, the construction of which is supposed soon to begin, is
that the 20-mile-long underwater stretch -- about 13 times as long as
the Lincoln Tunnel under the Hudson River from Manhattan to New Jersey --
will not need any ventilation device, whatsoever."
And from that article about natural selection, there is this:
"The new movement is today encouraged by the latest findings of
science which indicate that, apart from Darwin's fortuitous mishaps,
another much more significant mechanism of genetic change may be at
work, controlled by the _good_judgment_ of the organism itself. Many
of the French rebels feel sure that the definite discovery of this
mechanism will come in 1961, perhaps opening before man the possibility
of a consciously guided evolution in accordance with his own plans."
(page 63 - italics in the original)
Let's see -- three predictions. How many were correct?
---Tom S.
We now come to a numerous tribe, that seem to make approaches even to humanity;
that bear an awkward resemblance to the human form ... Animals of the MONKEY
class ... the whole offers a picture that may mortify the pride of such as make
their persons the principal objects of their admiration.
John Wesley: A Survey Of The Wisdom Of God In The Creation: Part Two. Chapter I.
John Wilkins
> In article <VOSCb.12510$m83.8203@fed1read01>,
> Enkidu <hhe1...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> > david ford wrote:
> > > 1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection
> > >
> > > Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
> > > Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:
> >
> > 1961??? If natural selection was "shredded", you'd think that in 42
> > years, that fact would have become common knowledge. Yet here it is,
> > 2003, and evolution by natural selection is still the strongest theory
> > in the life sciences.
>
> And it's not as if no scientific study has been done on evolution and
> the mechanisms by which it happened has been carried out in the past
> 42 years either.
>
Don't angst. david is just contributing to Glenn Morton's "Darwinism is
dead" page... you know, the one that repeats the claims made since 1860
or so...
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
stoney
ford), Message ID: <b1c67abe.03120...@posting.google.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
>Part of Phase II is in
>
>A collection of my better posts
>http://tinyurl.com/y86r
You've got to know something about a subject before you can do more than
piss upwind.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
John Wilkins
> Replies to John Wilkins and gen2rev.
>
...
>
> John Wilkins in "Re: Well what then caused God?" on 7 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
> Lenny Flank:
> david ford:
>
> > > > Archaeopteryx is mentioned frequently by
> > > > blindwatchmakingists. I plan to summarize the
> > > > Archeopteryx chapter from Jonathan Wells
> > > > (a creationist), _Icons of Evolution: Science or
> > > > Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About
> > > > Evolution Is Wrong_ (2000).
> > >
> > > Make sure you mention that Wells is a follower of "Father
> > > Moon" who thinks that Sun Myung Moon is another Son of
> > > God and is the younger brother of Jesus Christ.
> >
> > Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
> > http://tinyurl.com/y6nd
> >
> > In terms of the logical or formal content of Wells' arguments, I
> > agree that ad hominem is not a refutation. Wells falls (I would
> > say stands or falls, but that is by now unnecessary) by the quality
> > of his research and the rigor of his arguments.
>
> What are two areas in which [JW]"Wells falls... by the
> quality of his research and the rigor of his arguments"?
His arguments on the Peppered Moth are, according to the specialists in
the field, false in the extreme and are obvious spins in the face of the
evidence. One researcher on the matter told me that Wells used his
corrections only to avoid the most egregious scandals of poor
scholarship, and then mentioned him in the Ackowledgements as if he (the
researcher) agreed with him (Wells)! That's lying, as well as rotten
research technique. He had an a priori view that he was going to run *no
matter* what the actual historical evidence showed.
Second his argument that if these "icons" are false, evolution falls is
deeply flawed. Evolution was not founded on Haeckel or Peppered Moths,
or even on any particular case. Darwin based his ideas on the state of
the biology of his day, and came up with an elegant solution to
fundamental problems. Evolution was based on that. And since then, case
after case have strengthened the evolutionary view, even when it proved
Darwin *wrong*, as in his views on heredity and variation. When the
originator is wrong, but his errors make his views less likely, and the
corrections make them *more* likely, then to claim that a half dozen
possible examples somehow calls evolution into question is not only bad
philosophy and logic, but bad legal rhetoric (because of course he bases
the whole approach on the lawyer Johnson's special pleading).
If everything Darwin said was wrong, and if everyone from 1858 to 1958
got it wrong, all the work since *then* still supports evolution. And
Wells knows this, since he has a biology degree. He is therefore a liar.
>
> > However, it is, I think, relevant to his motivations that he is
> > doing this with an a priori set against anything evolutionary or
> > Darwinian being right (even if we did not have his own words to
> > that effect), and that he gained his qualifications *in order to*
> > show them to be false, and did not arrive at his conclusions on
> > the basis of the research he so proudly claims. This does not
> > disqualify his conclusions - they may be right even if he were the
> > most despicable man on earth - but it explains why he does the
> > sort of egregious misrepresentations he does.
>
> What are two of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you
> think Wells has done?
> Do any of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you think
> Wells has done involve _Archeopteryx_, and if so, how so?
No, I was not aware of the Archeopteryx entering into it. Has Wells
misunderstood or misrepresented that too? Does he include Confuciornis
and the other feathered dinosaurs? I am so uninterested in the lies of a
pseudoscientist that I don't even try to remember them all - there is so
much *interesting* science out there.
johac
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
I remember reading about that. That's when all the biologists burned
their textbooks and closed their labs and said that since Darwin had
it all figured out, there was no sense in doing any more work on the
subject. Or so the cretinists would have us believe.
gen2rev
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0312...@posting.google.com>:
> Replies to John Wilkins and gen2rev.
>
> gen2rev on 10 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
>
> >> I argued at length in my
> >> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> >> http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
> >> which has many quotations, some of which describe evidence.
> >> What, by the way, are some of that essay's weak points?
> >
> > The fact that you go on and on about the fossil record, for one.
> > The fossil record can neither prove nor disprove Natural
> > Selection.
>
> Does my essay provide support for the claim that the known
> fossil record doesn't prove the theory of natural selection?
No, it doesn't.
> If you would, kindly supply references for the claim that the
> theory of natural selection isn't proved by the known fossil
> record.
I'd suggest that since Natural Selection wasn't viewed favorably until
the modern synthesis in the 1930s, and that there was knowledge of the
fossil record before that time, one could safely conclude that "natural
selection isn't proved by the known fossil record".
> Feel free to also supply references for the claim that the
> theory of natural selection isn't disproved by the known
> fossil record.
This is like asking for references for the claim that Newton's Theory of
Gravity isn't disproved by the orbits of the known planets. Science
deals with positive evidence, and can't prove a negative.
Perhaps you could suggest what the fossil record would look like if
Natural Selection were false, and explain how you arrived at that model.
> Does the fossil _Archeopteryx_ provide evidence for the
> theory of natural selection?
Neither for or against.
> Does the known fossil record refute the claim that
> blindwatchmaking occurs in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step
> fashion?
That depends on what you mean by "blindwatchmaking". But evolution can
certainly occur in a gradual fashion.
> Schindel, David E. 1982. "The gaps in the fossil record"
> _Nature_ 297: 282-4. Schindel was a Curator of Invertebrate
> Fossils in the Peabody Museum of Natural History and an
> Assistant Professor of Geology at Yale University. The
> article's first paragraph:
> THE fossil record has been both a burden and a blessing
> to evolutionary biologists-- a blessing because the
> stratigraphical order in which fossils are arrayed
> provides broad proof of change with time, but a burden
> in that the gradual morphological transitions between
> presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by
> most biologists, are missing. Darwin and most of his
> followers have resolved this dilemma by accepting the
> blessing and dismissing the burden as an unfortunate but
> inherent limitation in the fossil record resulting from
> varying rates of sediment deposition.
So what?
> Does the theory of natural selection make any predictions
> about what we should see in the fossil record?
None that I can think of.
> If so, what are two of those predictions?
>
> Did Darwin mention any predictions of the theory of natural
> selection in _Origin_?
> If so, what are two of those predictions that he mentioned?
Some species will become extinct, and species will tend to diversify.
> Does the fossil record provide evidence, one way or the
> other, for the claim that an intelligent creator(s) created
> different groups of organisms at different intervals in the
> earth's history?
Does your theory of Intelligent Creators make any predictions about the
fossil record? If so, what are these predictions?
> views of Cuvier, d'Orbigny, and Agassiz (all creationists)
> http://tinyurl.com/z514
So what?
> John Wilkins in "Re: Well what then caused God?" on 7 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
> Lenny Flank:
> david ford:
>
> > > > Archaeopteryx is mentioned frequently by
> > > > blindwatchmakingists. I plan to summarize the
> > > > Archeopteryx chapter from Jonathan Wells
> > > > (a creationist), _Icons of Evolution: Science or
> > > > Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About
> > > > Evolution Is Wrong_ (2000).
> > >
> > > Make sure you mention that Wells is a follower of "Father
> > > Moon" who thinks that Sun Myung Moon is another Son of
> > > God and is the younger brother of Jesus Christ.
> >
> > Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
> > http://tinyurl.com/y6nd
> >
> > In terms of the logical or formal content of Wells' arguments, I
> > agree that ad hominem is not a refutation. Wells falls (I would
> > say stands or falls, but that is by now unnecessary) by the quality
> > of his research and the rigor of his arguments.
>
> What are two areas in which [JW]"Wells falls... by the
> quality of his research and the rigor of his arguments"?
The fact that he spends time on "Archaeoraptor", for one thing, and his
problems with _Bambiraptor_ for another.
> > However, it is, I think, relevant to his motivations that he is
> > doing this with an a priori set against anything evolutionary or
> > Darwinian being right (even if we did not have his own words to
> > that effect), and that he gained his qualifications *in order to*
> > show them to be false, and did not arrive at his conclusions on
> > the basis of the research he so proudly claims. This does not
> > disqualify his conclusions - they may be right even if he were the
> > most despicable man on earth - but it explains why he does the
> > sort of egregious misrepresentations he does.
>
> What are two of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you
> think Wells has done?
"Archaeoraptor", and his representation of Kevin Padian's point of view.
> Do any of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you think
> Wells has done involve _Archeopteryx_, and if so, how so?
His claim that _Archaeopteryx_ has been "dethroned".
howard hershey
gen2rev wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 04:47:39 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0312...@posting.google.com>:
>
>
>>Replies to John Wilkins and gen2rev.
>>
>>gen2rev on 10 Dec 2003:
>>david ford:
>>
>>
>>>>I argued at length in my
>>>>Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
>>>>which has many quotations, some of which describe evidence.
>>>>What, by the way, are some of that essay's weak points?
>>>
>>>The fact that you go on and on about the fossil record, for one.
>>>The fossil record can neither prove nor disprove Natural
>>>Selection.
>>
>>Does my essay provide support for the claim that the known
>>fossil record doesn't prove the theory of natural selection?
>
>
> No, it doesn't.
Actually, why would one expect the fossil record to be evidence that the
mechanism of natural selection occurs? Natural selection requires
evidence that 1) genetic variation occurs, 2) some fraction of this
genetic variation has phenotypic effect, and 3) the local environment
discriminates for or against certain phenotypes, leading to 4) change in
genotype and phenotype of organisms. All of those are certainly
observable without any reference to the fossil record. That is, one can
directly observe that natural selection occurs today in living
organisms, observe change in genotypes over time, observe that random
(wrt need) mutation is the only observed source of genetic difference,
observe that genes affect phenotype, and observe that local environments
discriminate among genetic variants. The only thing that the fossil
record could show is that it is either going to be consistent with or
inconsistent with the types, amounts, and directions of change that can
be directly observed to be due to selection today.
Since many fossil species are only known from single fossils, it is, of
course, impossible to determine that phenotypic variation exists
*within* those species. However, for other fossil species, where there
are sufficient numbers of remains at a specific site, one can observe
the same amounts and range of variation in phenotype (genotypic
variation not being generally possible to observe, Jurrasic Park
notwithstanding) *within* species (for things like bone length that can
be observed in fossils) that one observes today. Certainly I think it
quite reasonable to conclude that the fossil and geological evidence is
*consistent with* the idea that organisms in the past likely had similar
genetic systems to those observed today and that 1) genetic variation
occurred in those organisms by random mutation much like it does today,
that 2) some fraction of the observed phenotypic variation *within
species* was due to genetic variation caused by random mutation (the
only known mechanism of genetic change), 3) organisms of the past were
under the same kinds of selective pressure to successfully reproduce
that current organisms are under, 4) that environments in the past were
as varied and changeable as environments of today and that environments
in the past selectively and differentially affected the genotypes of the
organisms in that environment.
In those fossils where the record is relatively complete, one also
observes phenotypic change over time (say, in cranial capacity in
hominids). Assuming that at least part of an organism's phenotype is a
consequence of its genotype (as is certainly true in modern organisms),
that means that at least part of this change in phenotype (the fossil
record, of course, only records phenotype, not genotype) the evidence is
consistent with the idea that one is observing at least some change in
genotype when one sees a consistent time-oriented change in phenotype
(as is true today).
Now here comes the trickier part. *Some* of these changes in phenotype
*could* be due to natural selection. But since all we can observe is a
change in phenotype, and, in the best cases, some changes in environment
that *correlates* with that change in phenotype (say a change in horse
dentation that correlates with a change in food sources -- such as a
change from forest edge to grasslands), it is not possible to rule out
other mechanisms that can also change phenotype over time (such as
drift). That is a consequence of the fact that correlation is not
causation. Now, given observations in the present that the difference
in dentation of grassland animals and forest edge animals is consistent
with the change of dentation seen in the past, attributing the change in
dentation in the past to adaptation to changing local conditions is not
unreasonable. The *amount* and rate of change is not inconsistent with
similar changes in adaptation to changing conditions today (vide the
changes that have occurred in finch beaks), especially given the
geologically much longer time frames in the past.
But correlation is not causation and we cannot perform a test that would
clearly demonstrate that the change in dentation was due to natural
selection as a consequence of changing environmental conditions (forest
edge to grassland). If you repeatedly see such changes in a consistent
direction, however, that makes the hypothesis that the change is not
just a coincidental correlation but causally important stronger, just as
repeatedly observing the sun rise in the east makes the hypothesis that
the earth rotates in that direction stronger.
Given the importance of natural selection in adapting organisms to local
environments in the present, it is not unreasonable to think it equally
important in the past. Thus when a fossil shows structure exquisitely
adapted to local conditions, it would be unreasonable to think that
natural selection played no role. Unless, of course, you think that
organisms in the past were dramatically different than current organisms
are.
There *are* other known mechanisms that could account for change over
time. For example, it could be due to neutral drift in an isolated
population. Or due to founder effects. Or due to sexual selection.
Which of these *known* mechanisms do you prefer, Mr. Ford? Or would you
propose a different alternative explanation?
>>If you would, kindly supply references for the claim that the
>>theory of natural selection isn't proved by the known fossil
>>record.
Rather, the *mechanism* of natural selection (which is demonstrated to
be important -- but not the only possible mechanism -- here and now in
the present) reasonably explains *some* (but not all) of the changes
over time seen in the fossil record. The fossil record is *consistent
with* the idea that natural selection was active in adapting organisms
to local environments in the past.
> I'd suggest that since Natural Selection wasn't viewed favorably until
> the modern synthesis in the 1930s, and that there was knowledge of the
> fossil record before that time, one could safely conclude that "natural
> selection isn't proved by the known fossil record".
>
>
>
>>Feel free to also supply references for the claim that the
>>theory of natural selection isn't disproved by the known
>>fossil record.
The fossil record is consistent with the idea that natural selection
occurred in the past, just as it does in the present. What features of
the fossil record do you think are inconsistent with natural selection
playing a significant role in the adaptation of organisms to their local
conditions?
> This is like asking for references for the claim that Newton's Theory of
> Gravity isn't disproved by the orbits of the known planets. Science
> deals with positive evidence, and can't prove a negative.
>
> Perhaps you could suggest what the fossil record would look like if
> Natural Selection were false, and explain how you arrived at that model.
>
>
>
>>Does the fossil _Archeopteryx_ provide evidence for the
>>theory of natural selection?
>
>
> Neither for or against.
But, AFICT, that fossil is consistent with the idea that Archeopteryx
was shaped by its local environment in the same way that any organism is
-- by the fact that local environments distinguish between genetic
variants that have a significant effect on phenotypes that affect
reproductive success.
>>Does the known fossil record refute the claim that
>>blindwatchmaking occurs in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step
>>fashion?
>
>
> That depends on what you mean by "blindwatchmaking". But evolution can
> certainly occur in a gradual fashion.
And it can also occur via mutations that have phenotypically larger
effects (such as changes in the timing of larval changes, neotony,
etc.). Basically, selection works with whatever genetic variants
mutation (random wrt need) throws at it.
>>Schindel, David E. 1982. "The gaps in the fossil record"
>>_Nature_ 297: 282-4. Schindel was a Curator of Invertebrate
>>Fossils in the Peabody Museum of Natural History and an
>>Assistant Professor of Geology at Yale University. The
>>article's first paragraph:
>> THE fossil record has been both a burden and a blessing
>> to evolutionary biologists-- a blessing because the
>> stratigraphical order in which fossils are arrayed
>> provides broad proof of change with time, but a burden
>> in that the gradual morphological transitions between
>> presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by
>> most biologists, are missing. Darwin and most of his
>> followers have resolved this dilemma by accepting the
>> blessing and dismissing the burden as an unfortunate but
>> inherent limitation in the fossil record resulting from
>> varying rates of sediment deposition.
>
>
> So what?
>
>
>
>>Does the theory of natural selection make any predictions
>>about what we should see in the fossil record?
>
>
> None that I can think of.
Organisms in the past should show adaptation to the local conditions of
the past. As the local conditions change, one should see concommitant
change in the relevant features in the organisms that inhabit that local
area.
>>If so, what are two of those predictions?
>>
>>Did Darwin mention any predictions of the theory of natural
>>selection in _Origin_?
>>If so, what are two of those predictions that he mentioned?
>
>
> Some species will become extinct, and species will tend to diversify.
And they will always remain locally adapted. This will produce variance
in populations, particular at the margins of adaptation. This, in turn,
*can* lead to speciation in isolated subpopulations.
>>Does the fossil record provide evidence, one way or the
>>other, for the claim that an intelligent creator(s) created
>>different groups of organisms at different intervals in the
>>earth's history?
One can always invent a 'creator' to explain any evidence if one posits
a supernatural creator. But the evidence does constrain the creator to
producing only the patterns one actually observes. That said, the
evidence clearly says that any 'creator' one wishes to invent to explain
the evidence has to have a prediliction for inventing and creating
organisms in a pattern which is also consistent with and apparently
indistinguishable from the historical pattern expected of common descent.
david ford
david ford:
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> in "Re: Chauvin
on "childhood hypotheses of biology"" on 3 Dec 2003:
david ford:
>>>> Which quotes, if any, that I have presented do you consider
>>>> [hh]"out-of-context"?
>>>
>>> Almost all of them that are not simply out-of-date or from
scientists
>>> that were far outside the mainstream even in their own time and
>>> place.
>>
>> What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age? If so, I take it that
you
>> consider quotes of Charles Darwin [hh]"out-of-date."
>
> Some are. Some aren't. But to quote him as a current authority is
> nonsense.
Your reply didn't address my question of what makes a quote
[hh]"out-of-date."
I didn't quote 1871 Darwin as [hh]"a current authority." The
argument below has a _modus tollens_ structure ('in the mood of
denying': if p, then q; not q; therefore not p). Since the logical
structure is sound, if both premises are true, then the conclusion
is true. What, if anything, is wrong with either of the two
premises in this argument?:
Premise 1: If Darwin's theory of natural selection was
well-supported by the evidence known in 1871, then Darwin
_wouldn't_ have done some backtracking on his theory of
natural selection in 1871.
Premise 2: Darwin _did_ some backtracking on his theory of
natural selection in 1871.
Conclusion: Darwin's theory of natural selection wasn't well
supported by the evidence known in 1871.
If I can find a quote by Darwin extolling the Lamarckian
mechanism, perhaps I could construct a similar argument
around that pro-Lamarckian quote.
>> 1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
>> http://tinyurl.com/yj88
>
> He acknowledged that other things (such as features that are neither
> beneficial nor detrimental) may have contributed to evolutionary change.
> And modern biologists agree. NS is not the *only* mechanism at work
> in evolutionary change. That doesn't mean that NS did not happen or did
> not have major importance.
Premise 1: If the theory of natural selection could do
everything that it has been alleged to be capable of doing by
fervent advocates of the theory such as Dawkins, then there
_wouldn't_ be any need for additional mechanisms.
Premise 2: There _is_ a perceived need for additional
mechanisms among many blindwatchmakingists, an
exception being fervent advocates of the theory such as
Dawkins.
Conclusion: The theory of natural selection cannot do
everything that it has been alleged to be capable of doing by
the likes of Dawkins.
>>>>My primary focus is the theory of natural selection.
>>>
>>> Well, good. There are, if fact, reasonable grounds for saying
that some
>>> unspecified fraction of macroevolutionary change (repeated
speciation
>>> over time) is not a consequence of natural selection, but rather a
>>> consequence of selectively neutral changes in isolated
populations, some
>>> of which, of course, also exhibit the localized specialization in
form
>>> and function we see in what we call subspecies.
>>
>> [hh]"reasonable grounds for saying that some unspecified fraction
of
>> macroevolutionary change"
>> Yes, it's usually best to leave matters unspecified and vague.
That's
>> the hallmark of a good theory in science: vagueness.
>
> The theory of neutral change is not vague. It has very precise
> mathematical consequences. However, it is not usually possible to
> determine what fraction of observed phenotypic change (what can be
> observed in fossils) is a consequence of selection for that change and
> what fraction is due to events and mechanisms unrelated to selection.
[hh]"The theory of neutral change is not vague." I didn't say
the theory of neutral change was vague. [df]"good theory"
wasn't a reference to the theory of neutral change.
I _did_ say that this comment of yours is vague: [hh]"some
unspecified fraction of macroevolutionary change... is not a
consequence of natural selection, but rather a consequence of
selectively neutral changes in isolated populations." Your
reply did not address my charge of vagueness, and moreover,
your reply repeated the vagueness. I will make my sarcastic
comments once again:
It's usually best to leave matters unspecified and vague.
That's the hallmark of a good theory in science: vagueness.
Saunders, P.T. and M.W. Ho. 1982. "Is Neo-Darwinism
Falsifiable? And Does It Matter?" _Nature and System_ 4:
179-196. The first paragraph:
There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and
surprisingly few writers on the subject seem to consider
it necessary to spell out precisely what it is that they are
discussing. This is especially curious in view of the
controversy which dogs the theory, for one might have
thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
over its status would be to decide upon a generally
acceptable definition of it. Alternatively, if this turned
out not to be possible, then this might have indicated
clearly the source of the disagreement. Of course, the
lack of a firm definition does, as we shall see, make the
theory much easier to defend.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1980. "Is a new and general theory of
evolution emerging?" _Paleobiology_ 6: 119-30. On
119-120:
The version known as the "modern synthesis" or
"Neo-Darwinism" (different from what the late 19th
century called Neo-Darwinism-- see Romanes, 1900) is,
I think, fairly characterized in its essentials by Robson
and Richards. Its foundation rests upon two major
premises:.... All these statements, as Robson and
Richards also note, are subject to recognized
exceptions-- and this imposes a great frustration upon
anyone who would characterize the modern synthesis in
order to criticize it. All the synthesists recognized
exceptions and "ancillary processes," but they attempted
both to prescribe a low relative frequency for them and
to limit their application to domains of little
evolutionary importance. Thus, genetic drift certainly
occurs-- but only in populations so small and so near the
brink that their rapid extinction will almost certainly
ensue. And phenotypes include many non-adaptive
features by allometry and pleiotropy, but all are
epiphenomena of primarily adaptive genetic changes
and none can have any marked effect upon the organism
(for, if inadaptive, they will lead to negative selection
and elimination and, if adaptive, will enter the model in
their own right). Thus, a synthesist could always deny a
charge of rigidity by invoking these official exceptions,
even though their circumscription, both in frequency
and effect, actually guaranteed the hegemony of the two
cardinal principles. This frustrating situation had been
noted by critics of an earlier Darwinian orthodoxy, by
Romanes writing of Wallace, for example (1900, p.
21):....
Compare [hh]"some unspecified fraction of
macroevolutionary change... is not a consequence of natural
selection, but rather a consequence of selectively neutral
changes in isolated populations."
I am interested in the question of _how_ there supposedly
originates new organs and limbs having new functions apart
from the input of intelligence, and specifically the theory of
natural selection in this regard. I fail to see the relevance of
your comments above to addressing that question.
Which quotes, if any, that I have presented do you consider
[hh]"out-of-context"? You have quite a selection to choose
from in just this post alone. More possibilities appear in
A collection of my better posts
http://tinyurl.com/y86r
What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age?
Is the following quotation [hh]"out-of-date"?:
Osborn, Henry Fairfield. 1925. _The Origin and Evolution
of Life_ (New York: Scribner's). According to the
creationist Phillip Johnson, Osborn was "head of the
American Museum of Natural History at the time of the
[1925] Scopes trial, [and] was the leading public antagonist
of William Jennings Bryan, although he did not go to Dayton
for the trial. Osborn was a fervent supporter of the
discredited Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man fossils as
proofs of evolution." See Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating
Darwinism By Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press),
131pp, 121. This quotation from ix-x of Osborn's book
comes from Johnson, 121-122:
In contrast to the unity of opinion on the _law_ of
evolution is the wide diversity of opinion on the
_causes_ of evolution. In fact, the causes of the
evolution of life are as mysterious as the law of
evolution is certain. Some contend that we already
know the chief causes of evolution, others contend that
we know little or nothing of them. In this open court of
conjecture, of hypothesis, of more or less heated
controversy, the great names of Lamarck, of Darwin, of
Weismann figure prominently as leaders of different
schools of opinion; while there are others, like myself,
who for various reasons belong to no school, and are as
agnostic about Lamarckism as they are about Darwinism
or Weismannism, or the more recent forms of
Darwinism, termed Mutation by de Vries. In truth, from
the period of the earliest stages of Greek thought man
has been eager to discover some natural cause of
evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural
intervention in the order of nature. Between the
appearance of _The Origin of Species_, in 1859, and the
present time there have been great waves of faith in one
explanation and then in another: each of these waves of
confidence has ended in disappointment, until finally we
have reached a stage of very general skepticism.
Compare
1922 Bateson, Lerner, Orwell
http://tinyurl.com/2aq8z
1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, Saunders & Ho
http://tinyurl.com/y2gg
>>> And you seem to be using these
>>> quotes not just to argue that evolution did not (often? always?)
occur
>>> by a mechanisms (natural selection) you disagree with but to imply
that
>>> the authors did not think evolution happened at all. *That* is
>>> intentionally misleading.
>>
>> I have repeatedly said that I almost-exclusively quote
>> blindwatchmakingists.
>
> But only when you can do so in a way that misleads readers into thinking
> that your quoted 'blindwatchmakingists' really know they are lying about
> what they say about evolution. That is intentionally misleading and
> dishonest.
Please refer to two quotes where you think that I quoted
[hh]"in a way that misleads readers into thinking that your
[i.e. df's] quoted 'blindwatchmakingists' really know they are
lying about what they say about evolution."
Also, note that there is a difference between someone, say a
materialist scientist,
a) lying to others (say laymen),
and
b) having first fooled themselves, then unintentionally
misleading others (say laymen).
The concept of fooling oneself derives from Feynman.
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr,
Wilson, Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://tinyurl.com/y8c2
Do you think that scientists should bend over backwards to
show that maybe they are wrong when speaking to laymen?
If "yes," please briefly describe two lines of evidence against
the theory of natural selection.
Haldane, J.B.S. 1940. _Adventures of a Biologist_ (New
York: Harper & Brothers Publishers), 281pp. From the
beginning of the chapter "Why I Am a Materialist," on 225:
WHEN I say that I am a materialist I mean that I believe
in the following statements:
1. Events occur which are not perceived by any mind.
2. There were unperceived events before there were any
minds.
And I also believe, though this is not a necessary logical
deduction from the former two, that:
3. When a man has died he is dead.
Further, I think that it is desirable that other people
should believe these statements.
Are you aware of any strong evidence and arguments for the
materialist scientist Haldane's statements 1 and 2?
>>> You specifically *never* present what these
>>> authors think takes the place of natural selection as a mechanism,
>>> even though they do often discuss that.
Not so. The nice thing about statements that mention "never"
or "always" is that it only takes one counterexample to
disprove them. I have said [df]"Judging by the
_Paleobiology_ article, when he wrote it, Gould (like
Gilbert et al.) rejected the mechanism of [Darwinian] natural
selection and accepted the mechanism of saltation." See
1996 _Developmental Biology_ paper by Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff
http://tinyurl.com/yj9b
>> I have mentioned what a few anti-neoDarwinian-mechanism individuals
>> think was responsible for blindwatchmaking:
>> Gould's 1980 rejection of the extrapolationist model; 1981 Lovtrup;
>> a fossil record request for Andrew M.
>> http://tinyurl.com/yjfv
>
> Also dishonest and done for the purpose of intentionally misleading
> people into believing that these authors really know 'evolution' is a
> crock.
Can [hh]"really know" be rephrased as "actually think"? (If
not, please rephrase [hh]"really know."
>>> Besides *opinions* are a dime a
>>> dozen and that they come from someone with a degree doesn't mean
they
>>> are correct. Evidence presented in favor of a position, however,
is not
>>> as useless. Why do you only give (part of) the opinions without
>>> presenting the evidence?
>>
>> I have sometimes presented both opinions and opinion-informing
>> evidence. For example,
>> 1932 Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"
>> http://tinyurl.com/y0s6
>> I argued at length in my
>> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
>> http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
>> which has many quotations, some of which describe evidence.
>> What, by the way, are some of that essay's weak points?
>
> Even if your quotations were not out-of-date or out-of-context,
What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age?
Which quotes, if any, that I have presented do you consider
[hh]"out-of-context"?
> an essay
> that relies on quoting sources rather than presenting a coherent
> *personal* argument presenting an alternative is pretty lame. Makes
> it look like you are unable to think for yourself.
I was thinking of presenting a quotation here, but will instead
take the following approach.
An expert on plants read Darwin's _Origin_, and he did not
accept Darwin's arguments for the theory of natural selection.
The plant expert looked for almost 40 years for evidence
supporting Darwin's theory of natural selection in the objects
of his study, and yet he failed to see any such evidence.
Question: Are you aware of any evidence from the world of
plants supporting the theory of natural selection?
Question: Are you aware of any evidence from plant fossils
supporting the theory of natural selection?
> In your essay, your argument, when not just silly, is one
> that conflates NS with slow gradual change.
I have been accused of conflating Darwinian natural
selection with slow gradual change. Do you have any
references in support of your belief that Darwinian natural
selection doesn't have to involve slow gradual change?
Perhaps one of the references you will supply is in
Gould's "conflated with natural selection" remark
http://tinyurl.com/yiwr
> Neutralist change must be slow and
> gradual. There is no necessary reason why NS cannot be
> episodic and rapid.
Please provide references for your assertions that Darwinian
natural selection can be [hh]"rapid" and that it doesn't have
to be [hh]"slow and gradual."
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. The book's last
paragraph, on 326:
But that is a train of thought that must wait for another
book. The main lesson of this book is that the
evolutionary high ground cannot be approached hastily.
Even the most difficult problems can be solved, and
even the most precipitous heights can be scaled, if only
a slow, gradual, step-by-step pathway can be found.
Mount Improbable cannot be assaulted. Gradually, if
not always slowly, it must be climbed.
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. _River Out of Eden: A Darwinian
View of Life_ (USA: BasicBooks), 172pp. A paragraph
on 83:
Do good by stealth. A key feature of evolution is its
gradualness. This is a matter of principle rather than
fact. It may or may not be the case that some episodes
of evolution take a sudden turn. There may be
punctuations of rapid evolution, or even abrupt
macromutations-- major changes dividing a child from
both its parents. There certainly are sudden
extinctions-- perhaps caused by great natural
catastrophes such as comets striking the earth-- and
these leave vacuums to be filled by rapidly improving
understudies, as the mammals replaced the dinosaurs.
Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always
gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to
explain the coming into existence of complicated,
apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not
gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory
power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are
back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total
absence of explanation.
Huxley, Sir Julian. 1960. "The Evolutionary Vision" in
_Issues in Evolution: The University of Chicago Centennial
Discussions_, Volume III of the _Evolution After Darwin:
The University of Chicago Centennial_ series, eds. Sol Tax
and Charles Callender (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1960), 310pp., 249-61. Huxley gave this Darwin
Centennial Convocation Address on 26 Nov 1959. A
paragraph on 252:
The broad outlines of the new evolutionary picture of
ultimates are beginning to be visible. Man's destiny is to
be the sole agent for the future evolution of this planet.
He is the highest dominant type to be produced over two
and a half billion years of the slow biological
improvement effected by the blind opportunistic
workings of natural selection; if he does not destroy
himself, he has at least an equal stretch of evolutionary
time before him to exercise his agency.
> Moreover, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the *only*
> parts of the quoted authors you use are those where they
> criticize the 'slow, gradual' part of NS.
Two examples, please.
> Nowhere do you present either their or your
> alternative explanations (other than a little bit of Goldschmidt). I
> can excuse you for not having an alternative to present, since that
> would require understanding rather than quoting. But I can't excuse
> your failure to present the alternatives that many of your authors do
> present.
[hh]"Nowhere do you present... your alternative
explanations" I am an old-earth creationist, and have
maintained on numerous occasions that intelligence was
responsible for the appearance of the first lifeforms on earth,
and for the arrival of subsequent lifeforms.
About your claim that [hh]"Nowhere do you [df] present...
their... alternative explanations (other than a little bit of
Goldschmidt)," I stated that [df]"Spencer rejected the
Darwinian mechanism and was a Lamarckian." See
1893 Weismann
http://tinyurl.com/yjbi
I'll ask you a question I asked Andrew M.:
Do you think Goldschmidt in 1940, Gould in 1980, Lovtrup,
Tetry, Grasse, and Goodwin accepted the position that the
neo-Darwinian mechanism plus other mechanism(s) is
responsible for the origination of biological novelties [new
structures having new functions]? I was under the
impression that all of them didn't.
Goldschmidt in 1940: macroevolution is decoupled from
microevolution; propounded Goldschmidtian mechanisms
Gould in 1980: macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution.
Leans toward neo-Goldschmidtian mechanisms as a replacement.
Lovtrup: neo-Goldschmidtian mechanisms
Tetry and Grasse: unknown mechanism(s)
Goodwin: what boils down to as unknown mechanism(s)
> For example, anyone with a brain would recognize that Gould and
> Eldridge, in their article "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of
> evolution reconsidered" _Paleobiology_ 3: 115-51 (1977), were NOT
> rejecting selection as a mechanism.
The spelling is "Eldredge," not [hh]"Eldridge."
I don't recall saying G&E rejected [hh]"selection as a
mechanism" in their 1977 _Paleobiology_ article. If you
think that I did say so, please present what I wrote that makes
you think that.
> They were discussing the tempo and
> mode (mode meaning their observation of an absence of *consistent*
> directionality in evolution) of evolution *by* natural selection. In
> fact, in the mode part of their critique, they were arguing that many
> biologists were being *too* teleological in their thinking, by
> presenting selected evidence that indicated a pattern of progress toward
> a 'goal' (namely the current system) rather than a more objective
> pattern of local differences that were often (but not necessarily
> always) adaptations to local conditions, but were usually without the
> element of progress. One would never guess that *that* was what they
> were saying by reading the quotes you used.
[hh]"They were discussing the tempo and mode... of
evolution *by* natural selection." Is that so-- where in their
article do they discuss this?
I'd like to compare what you reference with the following:
Gould, Stephen Jay and Niles Eldredge. 1977. "Punctuated
equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered"
_Paleobiology_ 3: 115-51. On 129:
We must not make up stories about the power of natural
selection, just because modern theory favors it as an
evolutionary agent. In so doing, we do not strengthen
the Darwinian cause, but only display our biases.
A paragraph on 133:
iii) Quite apart from the bickering that will continue for
years over whether this or that case really exhibits
gradualism, we must consider the characteristic rates of
supposed gradualistic events. When this is done, one
cardinal fact emerges: they are too slow to account for
most important evolutionary phenomena, particularly for
adaptive radiations and the origin of new morphological
designs. We regard gradualism as unimportant in
evolution not only because it occurs rarely, but also
because its rates are only sufficient to cast a superficial
molding upon the pattern of evolutionary change. As
Stanley writes (1975): "Phyletic evolution is much
more sluggish and less significant than has generally
been recognized."
A paragraph on 134:
If such tiny, sustained rates of change actually exist in
paleontological time, what do they mean? Traditionally,
they have been interpreted as the primary defenders of
conventional selection theory. But we demur, for the
rates are far too slow and far too continuous for
selection in such a dynamic world. We wish cautiously
to float a radical proposal: perhaps these rates do not
provide a comfortable confirmation of traditional
panselectionism; perhaps they constitute a fundamental
mystery worthy of our serious thought and attention.
[hh]"One would never guess that *that* was what they
were saying by reading the quotes you used."
One would never guess 1/10th of G&E's 1977 paper's
abstract by reading your comments on their paper. I invite
lurkers to compare your comments with:
Abstract of 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper:
We believe that punctuational change dominates the
history of life: evolution is concentrated in very rapid
events of speciation (geologically instantaneous, even if
tolerably continuous in ecological time). Most species,
during their geological history, either do not change in
any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in
morphology, with no apparent direction. Phyletic
gradualism is very rare and too slow, in any case, to
produce the major events of evolution. Evolutionary
trends are not the product of slow, directional
transformation within lineages; they represent the
differential success of certain species within a clade--
speciation may be random with respect to the direction
of a trend (Wright's rule).
As an a priori bias, phyletic gradualism has precluded
any fair assessment of evolutionary tempos and modes.
It could not be refuted by empirical catalogues
constructed in its light because it excluded contrary
information as the artificial result of an imperfect fossil
record.
With the model of punctuated equilibria, an unbiased
distribution of evolutionary tempos can be established
by treating stasis as data and by recording the pattern of
change for all species in an assemblage. This
distribution of tempos can lead to strong inferences
about modes. If, as we predict, the punctuational tempo
is prevalent, then speciation-- not phyletic evolution--
must be the dominant mode of evolution.
We argue that virtually none of the examples brought
forward to refute our model can stand as support for
phyletic gradualism; many are so weak and ambiguous
that they only reflect the persistent bias for gradualism
still deeply embedded in paleontological thought. Of
the few stronger cases, we concentrate on Gingerich's
data for _Hyopsodus_ and argue that it provides an
excellent example of species selection under our model.
We then review the data of several studies that have
supported our model since we published it five years
ago. The record of human evolution seems to provide a
particularly good example: no gradualism has been
detected within any hominid taxon, and many are
long-ranging; the trend to larger brains arises from
differential success of essentially static taxa. The data
of molecular genetics support our assumption that large
genetic changes often accompany the process of
speciation. Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion
from the start-- it was never "seen" in the rocks; it
expressed the cultural and political biases of 19th
century liberalism. Huxley advised Darwin to eschew it
as an "unnecessary difficulty." We think that it has now
become an empirical fallacy. A punctuational view of
change may have wide validity at all levels of
evolutionary processes. At the very least, it deserves
consideration as an alternate way of interpreting the
history of life.
[hh]"they were arguing that many biologists were being
*too* teleological in their thinking"
Is that so-- where in their article do G&E argue this?
Paleontologists that accept the blindwatchmaker thesis have
failed to find instances in the fossil record of gradualism
between different kinds of organisms, and are reduced to
describing insignificant gradualism _within_ particular kinds
of organisms.
It's really quite funny, when you think about it.
Similarly, experimental biologists that accept the blind
watchmaker thesis have failed to find instances in the
laboratory or outside the laboratory of animals and plants
gradually turning into different kinds of animals and plants.
Those same experimental biologists are reduced to describing
insignificant gradualism _within_ different kinds of animals
and plants (for example, in finch's beak shapes).
This also is really quite funny, when you spend a moment
thinking about it.
And sad.
>>> In short, what you are doing *looks* like typical creationist
>>> quote-mining used to imply that the authors disagree with
>>> *evolution*
>>
>> Not so: as I have repeatedly said, I almost-exclusively quote from
>> blindwatchmakingists. Furthermore, I play up from time to time the
>> blindwatchmakingist credentials of some of those I quote:
>> Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
>> Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
>> http://tinyurl.com/y8c2
>> how do blindwatchmakingists "know" that life came from
>> non-life via non-intelligence-directed processes?:
>> Haeckel; Goodrich; Wells, J. Huxley, & Wells;
>> Simpson; Sagan; Dawkins; Johnson (a creationist)
>> http://tinyurl.com/yj7n
>
> Done only for the purpose of implying that these 'blindwatchmakingists'
> actually *know* that evolution is a lie. Sort of,"See. Even they know
> that evolution is bogus."
See my discussion surrounding lying versus being fooled,
above.
> That is why you choose to present only those
> parts of their arguments where they *seem* to disagree
> with what you think evolution is.
Two examples of what you have in mind, please.
> That is creationist quote-mining. If you have a
> clue or an alternative explanation, present it and the evidence you have
> to support it. You should not even need to quote *anyone* in your
> essay. Don't post misleading quotes that imply that other people are
> knowing liars. That is dishonest.
When I quote, you accuse me of posting misleading
quotations. If I were to begin posting summaries of others'
comments, you would no doubt accuse me of posting
misleading summaries. I prefer the accusation of posting
misleading quotations to the accusation of posting misleading
summaries-- the former is much easier to defend against,
while onlookers have a much better opportunity to decide for
themselves the accuracy or inaccuracy of the charges.
>>> rather than that they do not think that natural selection
explains
>>> everything about evolution (or, in some cases, that they do not
think
>>> all evolution is a steady, constant change in form rather than a
rapid one).
>>>
>>>> In your view, does Chauvin have credentials pertinent to a
>>>> discussion of biological origins?
>>>> What in Chauvin's remarks do you disagree with?
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what Chauvin's views were or what credentials he
has.
>>> What matters is why *you* are using these ancient quotes the way
you
>>> do. I say that you are using them to try to imply that
*evolution* did
>>> not happen, not to imply that *evolution by natural selection* is
not
>>> the only mechanism by which evolution can or did happen.
>>
>> You are entitled to your opinions and speculations about my
motives/
>> motivations.
>
> Trying to determine what an author means is *exactly* what someone is
> supposed to do when they read an argument or essay. Doing so well means
> not only reading what that person chooses to include in their essay, but
> also being aware of things the author avoids or ignores. Are you saying
> that I am wrong about your motives/motivation (actually I am pointing
> out what you are actually doing rather than what you are claiming to do
> here)?
The primary focus of my arguments these days is the
proposed neo-Darwinian mechanism, i.e. the theory of
natural selection. In my humble opinion, I am shredding the
theory of natural selection.
> I merely noticed what others less familiar with these author's
> real views might not: that your quotes were quite selective and not
> fully representative of their views.
Yes, and you ably demonstrated as much by your capable
handling of G&E's 1977 paper.
> And I am pointing out that the way
> you are using the quotes is not simply to imply that evolution by
> natural selection is not the only mechanism by which evolution can or
> did happen, but to imply that evolution didn't happen *and* that even
> evolutionary biologists (selectively quoted) know it.
The following is a logically-inconsistent and hence
incoherent claim:
"These believers in blindwatchmaking know that
blindwatchmaking didn't happen."
A claim that biology _is not_ the product of
blindwatchmaking/ non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level
processes, and _is_ the product of seeingwatchmaking/
intelligence-directed processes, cannot be adequately/
convincingly advanced solely on the basis of a refutation of
the theory of natural selection. Perhaps known or
to-be-discovered blindwatchmaking mechanisms other than
the defunct & never-viable neo-Darwinian mechanism can
plausibly account for the biological world.
> If that was not
> your purpose, you have a funny way to show it.
I will leave what's below for another day.
david ford
johac:
Enkidu:
david ford:
> > > > 1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection
> > > >
> > > > Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
> > > > Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:
> > >
> > > 1961??? If natural selection was "shredded", you'd think that in 42
> > > years, that fact would have become common knowledge. Yet here it is,
> > > 2003, and evolution by natural selection is still the strongest theory
> > > in the life sciences.
> >
> > And it's not as if no scientific study has been done on evolution and
> > the mechanisms by which it happened has been carried out in the past
> > 42 years either.
>
> Don't angst. david is just contributing to Glenn Morton's "Darwinism is
> dead" page... you know, the one that repeats the claims made since 1860
> or so...
Please describe two compelling lines of evidence
for Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Steele, Edward J., Robyn A. Lindley, Robert V. Blanden.
1998. _Lamarck's Signature: How Retrogenes Are Changing
Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm_ (Reading, MA:
Perseus Books), 286pp. This book is part of the Frontiers of
Science series, with Paul Davies as series editor. According
to the dust jacket, Steele is Associate Professor of Biological
Sciences at the University of Wollongong, New South
Wales, Lindley is Director of the Technology Innovation
Research Centre at the University of Wollongong, Australia,
and Blanden is in the Division of Immunization and Cell
Biology at the John Curtin School of Medical Research in
Canberra, Australia. From the Epilogue, a paragraph on 209,
and material on 210 and 220-221:
The Darwinian revolution was a resounding success, but
the problem with intellectual revolutions is that they
often harden into suffocating dogma-- and at their
apogee tend to be guarded by the holders almost as a
sacred mantra. For a while the dogma is useful, but then
an 'establishment' inevitably forms, the individuals of
which find it almost impossible to break ranks, because
if they do their careers and financial livelihood are put at
great risk. This is antithetical to the spirit of scientific
inquiry (yet sadly, an accurate commentary on the
human condition). Today it is an unfortunate fact that
_neo_-Darwinian ideas have evolved into almost a
religion within sections of the scientific establishment.
Neo-Lamarckian soma-to-germline gene feedback loops
are still resisted with an irrational passion in a few
quarters. This is particularly so amongst some
immunologists and population geneticists who still seem
wedded to the sterile concept, to us at least, of the
'neutral theory' of molecular evolution of Kimura. Yet
as we have shown here, the soma-to-germline concept
has great explanatory and predictive power for the
evolution and structure of the V-region gene families of
the vertebrate immune system.
....we are strongly motivated to address certain issues
arising from the widely read writings of Daniel C.
Dennett (a philosopher from Tufts University) and
Richard Dawkins (of Oxford University), both of whom
have emerged as late twentieth-century defenders of an
extreme and uncompromising brand of neo-Darwinism.
Stephen Jay Gould has recently called it 'Darwinian
Fundamentalism', and it has been also brilliantly
exposed by the mathematician and novelist David
Berlinski in his recent essay in _Commentary_ magazine
entitled 'The Deniable Darwin'.
.... For the aficionados we raise the issue of 'final
causes', a concept that a traditional neo-Darwinist might
incorporate into any form of Lamarckian inheritance.
The short answer is that 'divine purpose' or 'final causes'
are outside the scope of scientific work. However, it is
ironic that in his attempt to eliminate all traces of 'divine
intervention' or 'deliberate design' from his extreme
brand of neo-Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, in books
such as _The Blind Watchmaker_, sets himself up as the
supreme 'artificer of design'! This is lucidly explained
in David Berlinski's essay 'The Deniable Darwin'. Thus
all of his computer-based models demonstrating the
'power of natural selection' depend ultimately on
Dawkins setting all the selection criteria and the
sequential (algorithmic) rules for the desired result of
his selection program. Thus 'divine intervention' by the
programmer is intrinsic to all computer-based
evolutionary selectionist programs....
Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin" on the Discovery Institute website
http://tinyurl.com/ygrf
Tracy Hamilton
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.03121...@posting.google.com...
> howard hershey on 10 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> in "Re: Chauvin
> on "childhood hypotheses of biology"" on 3 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
>
> >>>> Which quotes, if any, that I have presented do you consider
> >>>> [hh]"out-of-context"?
> >>>
> >>> Almost all of them that are not simply out-of-date or from
> scientists
> >>> that were far outside the mainstream even in their own time and
> >>> place.
> >>
> >> What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age? If so, I take it that
> you
> >> consider quotes of Charles Darwin [hh]"out-of-date."
> >
> > Some are. Some aren't. But to quote him as a current authority is
> > nonsense.
>
> Your reply didn't address my question of what makes a quote
> [hh]"out-of-date."
Sure it did. If the work has been superceeded, there is
no point to quote the old work except for historical reasons.
You seem signally unaware of what work has been done, or what
it means. I suggest reading and thinking before arguing
some predetermined conclusion .
> I didn't quote 1871 Darwin as [hh]"a current authority." The
> argument below has a _modus tollens_ structure ('in the mood of
> denying': if p, then q; not q; therefore not p). Since the logical
> structure is sound, if both premises are true, then the conclusion
> is true. What, if anything, is wrong with either of the two
> premises in this argument?:
> Premise 1: If Darwin's theory of natural selection was
> well-supported by the evidence known in 1871, then Darwin
> _wouldn't_ have done some backtracking on his theory of
> natural selection in 1871.
> Premise 2: Darwin _did_ some backtracking on his theory of
> natural selection in 1871.
> Conclusion: Darwin's theory of natural selection wasn't well
> supported by the evidence known in 1871.
Premise 1 is faulty.
> If I can find a quote by Darwin extolling the Lamarckian
> mechanism, perhaps I could construct a similar argument
> around that pro-Lamarckian quote.
Why would such an exercise be useful? You can't even realize
what is wrong with your premises.
> >> 1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
> >> http://tinyurl.com/yj88
> >
> > He acknowledged that other things (such as features that are neither
> > beneficial nor detrimental) may have contributed to evolutionary change.
> > And modern biologists agree. NS is not the *only* mechanism at work
> > in evolutionary change. That doesn't mean that NS did not happen or did
> > not have major importance.
Ah, you have ALREADY been told what was wrong with premise 1 above!
[huge snip]
The above says it ALL about your ability to make a convincing argument.
Tracy P. Hamilton
david ford
david ford:
howard hershey on 10 Dec 2003:
david ford:
>>>> What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age? If so,
>>>> I take it that you consider quotes of Charles
>>>> Darwin [hh]"out-of-date."
>>>
>>> Some are. Some aren't. But to quote him as a
>>> current authority is nonsense.
>>
>> Your reply didn't address my question of what
>> makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date."
>
> Sure it did. If the work has been superceeded, there is
> no point to quote the old work except for historical reasons.
Superceded how-- superceded by a later edition of the same
work? Superceded as in now known to be erroneous in every
possible way? Superceded as in now known to be erroneous
in at least one way? Superceded as in now known to be
largely erroneous?
Do you think papers now being published in peer-reviewed
science journals should only quote from or cite
already-published writings that have _not_ been
[TH]"superceeded" (exception: when quoting or citing
[TH]"for historical reasons")?
> You seem signally unaware of what work has been done, or what
> it means. I suggest reading and thinking before arguing
> some predetermined conclusion .
I would suggest reading and thinking before arguing
some predetermined conclusion.
>> I didn't quote 1871 Darwin as [hh]"a current authority." The
>> argument below has a _modus tollens_ structure ('in the mood of
>> denying': if p, then q; not q; therefore not p). Since the logical
>> structure is sound, if both premises are true, then the conclusion
>> is true. What, if anything, is wrong with either of the two
>> premises in this argument?:
>> Premise 1: If Darwin's theory of natural selection was
>> well-supported by the evidence known in 1871, then Darwin
>> _wouldn't_ have done some backtracking on his theory of
>> natural selection in 1871.
>> Premise 2: Darwin _did_ some backtracking on his theory of
>> natural selection in 1871.
>> Conclusion: Darwin's theory of natural selection wasn't well
>> supported by the evidence known in 1871.
>
> Premise 1 is faulty.
Are you saying that Premise 1 is faulty because in what I
quoted as evidence for Premise 1, Darwin _didn't_ do some
backtracking? If so, perhaps you could detail just how it is
exactly that Darwin didn't do some backtracking on his
theory of natural selection in the 1871 Darwin quote I
presented.
Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 1959. _Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution_ (NY: Doubleday & Company), 480pp. From
the chapter "The Origin of Man," a paragraph on 343, a
paragraph on 346-7, the following line, my reference to a
snipped 1871 Darwin quote, and the Himmelfarb paragraph
on 348 that followed the Darwin quote:
Sexual selection had a far more important role in the
_Descent [of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex_]
than in the _Origin_. It assumed much of the burden for
the origin of species that had earlier been carried by
natural selection-- so much so that it would no longer be
accurate to describe the theory as that of natural
selection. Darwin himself had taken to referring to his
theory as "the principle of evolution."^37 This principle
included several explanations for the origin of man, of
which natural selection was only one, the others being
sexual selection, the inherited effect of use and disuse,
the direct action of the environment, the correlation of
growth, and one unspecified cause. Of these, sexual
selection, not natural selection, was the most important,
as Darwin himself now admitted: "For my own part I
conclude that of all the causes which have led to the
differences in external appearance between the races of
man, and to a certain extent between man and the lower
animals, sexual selection has been by far the most
efficient."^38
....
Having dispensed with natural selection when there was
no evidence of utility, he [Darwin] soon came to
dispense with it even where he might have made out a
case for utility. More and more, the Lamarckian
principle of the inherited effects of use and disuse came
to replace natural selection. A variety of phenomena
were now attributed to this cause: the smallness of the
tail in some monkeys and its absence in man, the
development of the vocal organs and power of speech,
the thin legs and thick arms of Indians who spent most
of their lives in canoes, the larger hands of English
laborers compared with those of the gentry, the
hardened skin on the soles of the feet, the inferiority of
Europeans compared with savages in sight and other
senses, customs such as the deliberate eradication of hair
and other mutilations;^46 even the virtuous habits
inculcated in youth. Where once he would have
re-interpreted these findings to make them conform to
natural selection-- and they are amenable to such
re-interpretation-- he was now easily persuaded of the
simpler Lamarckian idea.
In a remarkable confession Darwin explained how and
why he formerly erred in giving too much prominence
to natural selection:
[snip 1871 Darwin quote. A slightly-fuller quote than
what Himmelfarb quoted is in the URL "1871 Darwin
backtracks," below]
The confession is fascinating, not only for what Darwin
said but how he said it-- the alternating rhythm of
self-recrimination and self-extenuation. In the second
edition, perhaps smarting as a result of Mivart's
triumphant citation of this passage, he tried to undo the
damage by recanting, in effect, some of his earlier
recantation. He now declared himself convinced "that
very many structures which now appear to us useless,
will hereafter be proved to be useful, and will therefore
come within the range of natural selection."^48
>> If I can find a quote by Darwin extolling the Lamarckian
>> mechanism, perhaps I could construct a similar argument
>> around that pro-Lamarckian quote.
>
> Why would such an exercise be useful?
> You can't even realize what is wrong with your premises.
You don't say. That's what I have you for!
>>>> 1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yj88
>>>
>>> He acknowledged that other things (such as features that are neither
>>> beneficial nor detrimental) may have contributed to evolutionary change.
>>> And modern biologists agree. NS is not the *only* mechanism at work
>>> in evolutionary change. That doesn't mean that NS did not happen or did
>>> not have major importance.
>
> Ah, you have ALREADY been told what was wrong with premise 1 above!
I'm an old-earth creationist, remember? The Wise Ones on
talk.origins need to tell me at length, and in great detail, and
with numerous references to heavy-duty sources, and on at
least 2 occasions, what is wrong with what I am saying
before it will even _begin_ to sink in. Here is your
opportunity:
If a theory lacks good evidence for acceptance as being true,
it does not acquire good grounds for acceptance as being true
by being the most satisfactory theory out of a field of
poorly-supported theories. Sometimes the best that can be
said is, "None of the theories presented is well-supported.
We cannot account for the phenomena the theories presented
hope to be able to account for. We do not know the answer."
I think the grounds for accepting as true Darwin's theory of
natural selection are in the range of exceedingly weak to
nonexistent. Please describe 3 compelling lines of
theoretical, experimental, or observational evidence for the
theory of natural selection.
It has been over 110 years since de Varigny called for efforts
to obtain experimental evidence that is relevant to the topic at
hand, and I will be particularly interested to hear any
descriptions you might present of experimental evidence for
the theory of natural selection.
de Varigny, Henry. 1892. _Experimental Evolution_
(London and NY: Macmillan and Co.), 271pp. This book is
based on lectures delivered in the Summer School of Art and
Science at University Hall, Edinburgh in August 1891. de
Varigny had a D.Sc., and was a Demonstrator in the Paris
Museum d'Histoire Naturelle and member of the Societe de
Biologie. The end of the first lecture, on 39-45:
Such are, briefly stated, the general proofs of evolution,
or at least the principal among them; I must be content
with this short statement.
Are these proofs satisfactory, are they convincing, and
what do they demonstrate?
To an impartial mind, they prove one thing to begin
with, and it is that if we accept the creation theory, we
must believe that creation has been going on through the
whole series of past ages, and that every type of life has
been specially created at some time or other, being in
most, if not all cases, very similar to types which have
lived before, and must also have been specially created.
We must believe that the Creator while obeying a
general tendency to progress, has first created some
types of life which He, soon after, has diversified in
various directions; and that some of these types were
doubtless of inferior order, since they have died out,
while the types of new creation, the new species or
varieties, have taken their place. But then, these new
species also have proved inferior, and again new types
have been created, or, again, without proving inferior,
they have soon had new companions more perfect.
Upon the whole, innumerable creations must have taken
place, from the Cambrian to the Quaternary period,
during millions of years, and it would seem as if the
Creator has been trying to evolve out of each given type
the greatest number of forms without altering the
fundamental structure of the type[.] Also it would seem
as if the Creator evolved the higher types very slowly
and gradually, through small modifications in various
parts, by a sort of patching, an ever-mending and
rearranging process, just as a man generally proceeds.
Things stand, therefore, exactly as they should stand if
the Creator had been unable to create immediately the
desired form or types; if He had begun by inferior forms
which required much alteration to attain the desired
degree of efficiency. This inability to attain, from the
first, the desired result, is very striking; palaeontology
amply illustrates it, and embryology also; and to many it
may seem surprising, while evolutionists, and believers
in natural selection, do not wonder at it.
Palaeontology and embryology therefore, while not
disproving the creation theory, render it rather
unintelligible to our reason, while they display facts
which seem very intelligible upon evolutionary views.
But can palaeontology and embryology, and all the other
facts appealed to by evolutionists, disprove special
creation, and establish the evolution theory on a firm
basis? Can we consider the doctrine of the
transmutation of species as firmly established, as
demonstrated by fact in an unmistakable manner?
Certainly not. Evolutionists are convinced of the truth
of their doctrine, they can point to a number of facts
which fit with it, but they cannot give the required
demonstration. The situation of the creationists is
different. If they accept the view-- and they must do
so-- that every species and variety has been specially
created, they may say that things stand as they ought to,
if special creation has existed and as none of them claim
that special creation is going on now we cannot ask of
them to show us a creation of that sort. On the other
hand, evolutionists cannot claim that evolution is a
process of the past. They believe in its present
existence, not only in organic structure, but in mental
organization, and also in the inorganic world, and they
point to the facts of psychology, zoology, and
astronomy, as illustrating the process of evolution. And
creationists may rightly demand of them to show precise
and unmistakable instances of transmutation.
Are evolutionists prepared to meet this difficulty, this
requirement? They may answer that the astronomical
facts are not under their control, and that an enormous
amount of time is required to yield a single instance of
evolution, so that all they can do is to note the present
condition of things, and let our descendants do the same
and draw their conclusions. So far as psychology is
concerned, they may answer that proofs of individual
evolution are to be seen every day, and that mental
evolution is a positive fact in every individual man, and
in the animal kingdom as a whole. And as concerns
zoology, they may reply that innumerable facts point to
descent and evolution. But the creationists may object
to this argument, and say; if species are really evolved
from each other-- and the case of species is only a very
small point in the question-- you must show us species
arising, by evolution, from former species. In many
palaeontological cases we do not find the connecting
links of which you assume the existence-- in fact, it may
be said with truth that their existence is not always
required-- and, especially, we have not yet seen a new
species originate from a preceding one. Show us this,
show us a positive case of transmutation through natural
means, such as may and do operate under natural
conditions, show us a species becoming a new one,
_hitherto unknown_,^1 [1: This requirement is
necessary to preclude all objection which might be
raised-- with reason-- from the possibility of normal
dimorphism.] and we will believe in evolution. Such is
the answer of creationists.
It might be discussed whether this argument is not of the
most dangerous sort, more especially for creationists,
whether there are not serious inconveniences in refusing
to believe in that which cannot be demonstrated by
actual, precise, visible and tangible fact. But this point
had better be left out, and we will accept the reply of the
creationists as it stands.
They ask for a proof of transmutation: we must secure
that proof and meet their demand. How so? Through
direct experiment, through experimental transformism.
The notion is not exactly a recent one, but in the present
debate it represents the only line along which we may
expect to discover the positive facts which are
necessary. As Buffon has said, "Man will never be
conscious enough of nature's power, nor of his power on
nature." And this statement I believe to be positively
true. The only thing to be done, at all events, is to
subject the notion to the only possible test of which it
admits, and to begin experiments.
I have just said that the notion is not of recent origin.
The fact is that we find it clearly expressed in the _Nova
Atlantis_, where Bacon advises experimental
investigations for the purpose of discovering how the
environment reacts on living organisms and forms
species. But the most authorized defender of
experimental transformism has surely been Isidore
Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, and many passages concerning
this matter might be quoted from his _Histoire naturelle
generale des Regnes organiques_, and his _Influence du
Monde ambiant_, etc. One will be enough, "Since
Nature," he says, "left to herself never allows us to
witness considerable modifications in the conditions of
life, it is clear that only one way is open to us if we wish
to perceive such modifications and to examine their
effects on the organism; we must oblige Nature to
perform that which she would not spontaneously
accomplish."(_Hist. Nat. Gen._ iii. p. 389.)
This is exactly what we require. While facts of
observation are sufficiently numerous to give us a fair
idea of the amount of natural variability and variation--
although much may yet be done to give an adequate
notion of the amount of this variability-- we require to
extend our knowledge concerning the causes of
variability (the natural causes, of course), and to
discover in what manner, and to what extent they do
operate. We are already acquainted with some of these
causes, and we know that by selection, crossings,
modified environment, much has been done. But still
more can be done, and in experimental transformism lies
the only test which we can apply to the evolutionary
theory. We must use all the methods we are acquainted
with, and also those, yet unknown, which cannot fail to
disclose themselves when we begin a thorough
investigation of the matter, and do our utmost to bring
about the transmutation of any species. We do not
specially desire to transform any one species into
another known at present; we wish to transform it into a
new species. And this is necessary, if we do not wish to
remain open to an objection suggested by the facts of
dimorphism. Many species occur in two or more forms,
sometimes very different, and if we were merely to
transmute one species into another, it might be said that
we had mistaken the two forms of a dimorphic species
for two different species, and then our attempt would be
useless to a large extent.
Experimental transformism is what we need now, and
therein lies the only method we can use.
But it must be demonstrated that this test is available,
and it remains to show what are the facts which lie at its
basis, and what are the methods to be used.
> [huge snip]
That's right: just let Howard answer the snipped easy questions.
> The above says it ALL about your ability to make a convincing argument.
And you ought to know, having presented so _many_
compelling lines of argumentation to me in the past.
Tracy Hamilton
> Tracy Hamilton <DontSpam...@uab.edu> on 19 December 2003:
> david ford:
> howard hershey on 10 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
>
> >>>> What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age? If so,
> >>>> I take it that you consider quotes of Charles
> >>>> Darwin [hh]"out-of-date."
> >>>
> >>> Some are. Some aren't. But to quote him as a
> >>> current authority is nonsense.
> >>
> >> Your reply didn't address my question of what
> >> makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date."
> >
> > Sure it did. If the work has been superceeded, there is
> > no point to quote the old work except for historical reasons.
>
> Superceded how-- superceded by a later edition of the same
> work? Superceded as in now known to be erroneous in every
> possible way? Superceded as in now known to be erroneous
> in at least one way? Superceded as in now known to be
> largely erroneous?
Well, let us take an example. You had an extended quote of
one Jean Rostand from 1961 saying he wasn't convinced the
natrual selection could not explain all the variety of life.
" The mutations which we know and which are considered
responsible for the creation of the living world, are, in
general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of
pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of the
preexisting organs. In any case, they never produce
anything really new or original in the organic scheme,
nothing which one might consider the basis for a new organ
or the priming for a new function. Let us stress that it is
not, that the mutations are too slight-- they might be even
more modest than they are-- if only they were of another
kind, or took another direction. In the smallest human
movement, I see in miniature all of human civilization; in
mutations, I fail to see all of organic evolution in
miniature."
Why out of date? We know a lot more about different kinds
of mutation - it only appears that Rostand refers to point mutations.
Very few actual mutations were known back then - we did not have
the technology to automatically sequence nucleic acids or proteins.
Where does Rostland consider the impact of HOX genes?
Where does he take into account Kimura's neutral theory
vs natural selection?
The is what additional information, RECENT information,
is all about. It turns out that Rostland was *partly* right.
Ryland was right about natural selection alone not being sufficient
to explain *all* of organic evolution (the all is important!),
wrong about mutations being insufficient.
So, what *is* the point of quoting partially correct work with
*no comment* on what is right and what is wrong? Is this what
"shredding" is?
> Do you think papers now being published in peer-reviewed
> science journals should only quote from or cite
> already-published writings that have _not_ been
> [TH]"superceeded" (exception: when quoting or citing
> [TH]"for historical reasons")?
David, please read the peer-reviewed literature. Take any
technical journal and tell us how many *quotes* you find in
the *whole* journal.
The number is very likely to be ZERO. A citation is a
reference to previous work so that the wheel does not need
to be reinvented. It is up to the author to actually show
*understanding* of the referenced paper. If the author
missed the point, the referees just might think him an idiot -
and they will probably be right.
> > You seem signally unaware of what work has been done, or what
> > it means. I suggest reading and thinking before arguing
> > some predetermined conclusion .
>
> I would suggest reading and thinking before arguing
> some predetermined conclusion.
I have read what you write, and it shows no understanding
of the issues, nor their resolution in the literature to date.
I have come to that conclusion based on what you have
posted.
All you present is incomplete tidbits
of other peoples work, when I know more of the story.
What there is to think of such an exercise is not salutary.
> >> I didn't quote 1871 Darwin as [hh]"a current authority." The
> >> argument below has a _modus tollens_ structure ('in the mood of
> >> denying': if p, then q; not q; therefore not p). Since the logical
> >> structure is sound, if both premises are true, then the conclusion
> >> is true. What, if anything, is wrong with either of the two
> >> premises in this argument?:
> >> Premise 1: If Darwin's theory of natural selection was
> >> well-supported by the evidence known in 1871, then Darwin
> >> _wouldn't_ have done some backtracking on his theory of
> >> natural selection in 1871.
> >> Premise 2: Darwin _did_ some backtracking on his theory of
> >> natural selection in 1871.
> >> Conclusion: Darwin's theory of natural selection wasn't well
> >> supported by the evidence known in 1871.
> >
> > Premise 1 is faulty.
>
> Are you saying that Premise 1 is faulty because in what I
> quoted as evidence for Premise 1, Darwin _didn't_ do some
> backtracking?
No, a mechanism can be well supported even though it is not the
*only* mechanism.
As you were told in the >>>> below:
[snip]
> >> If I can find a quote by Darwin extolling the Lamarckian
> >> mechanism, perhaps I could construct a similar argument
> >> around that pro-Lamarckian quote.
> >
> > Why would such an exercise be useful?
> > You can't even realize what is wrong with your premises.
>
> You don't say. That's what I have you for!
Glad to help. Do you understand the simple point yet? Evolution
is not only by natural selection. Saying that other mechanisms are
also at work does not mean natural selection is not well supported.
> >>>> 1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/yj88
> >>>
> >>> He acknowledged that other things (such as features that are neither
> >>> beneficial nor detrimental) may have contributed to evolutionary
change.
> >>> And modern biologists agree. NS is not the *only* mechanism at work
> >>> in evolutionary change. That doesn't mean that NS did not happen or
did
> >>> not have major importance.
> >
> > Ah, you have ALREADY been told what was wrong with premise 1 above!
>
> I'm an old-earth creationist, remember? The Wise Ones on
> talk.origins need to tell me at length, and in great detail, and
You have to hold up your end. That means answering questions you
have not so far. Like:
David Ford said:
"> Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
> considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection have
> concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how the
> biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year
> existence, and have concluded that the theory does not find confirmation
> in the fossil record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record
> where we have particularly good and numerous specimens. Materialists that
> have concluded that the theory of natural selection/ the neo-Darwinian
> mechanism cannot account for the biological world believe that a superior
> theory of a blindwatchmaking mechanism or cluster of blindwatchmaking
> mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
Frankly this [you putting things in your own words]
is an inadequate response because it is ambiguous.
Please rewrite with these issues in mind:
How *can* (not is!) natural selection be confirmed by the fossil
record?
(what should be seen and *why* it follows from natural selection
and taphonomy) If it *can't* be, then not confirming it is a red
herring. You certainly wouldn't want to use such a rhetorical device,
now would you?
Are there no gradual changes, or is there no *pattern* of gradual
change
(that is, gradual change everywhere).
What are the major problems with natural selection? If it is that NS
*alone* cannot explain all of evolution, that does not mean that
natural selection has been invalidated *in any manner* (in trouble, or
about to collapse, whatever). This is precisely what
Eldredge was talking about, and which you still seem unaware of.
Is it a major problem that a hammer can't be used as a saw, but that
both
are needed to build a house? [Gee, this sounds familiar!]
This lack of awareness is precisely why John Wilkins wants you define
what you mean by neo-Darwinism: if it is a theory that *only* has
natural selection as the mechanism, nobody thinks that.
Not even Dawkins.
Drop the blindwatchmaking as an adjective. It is stupid.
To be fair, I will summarize Eldredge in MY words:
A common view [one could argue whether it was common or a
caricature] is that evolution is gradual *constant* accumulation
of small improvements driven by natural selection. The fossil record
does not bear this out. Rather than assume it is a fault of
the fossil record, examine the theoretical assumptions. Natural
selection
is still valid, but not the driving force for *speciation*, when
genetic isolation occurs. Once isolation occurs, there are two random
walks (with some selection, so not completely random) rather than one,
so they wind up at quite different destinations,
the further apart as time progresses. This is what the record, both
fossil and genomic, shows.
> with numerous references to heavy-duty sources, and on at
> least 2 occasions, what is wrong with what I am saying
> before it will even _begin_ to sink in. Here is your
> opportunity:
Sorry, I asked first. And since it is your misconceptions that need to
be corrected, you have to write what *you* think. I will
answer your questions for evidence of natural selection
after that (I give one below anyway below).
[snip]
> It has been over 110 years since de Varigny called for efforts
> to obtain experimental evidence that is relevant to the topic at
> hand, and I will be particularly interested to hear any
> descriptions you might present of experimental evidence for
> the theory of natural selection.
> de Varigny, Henry. 1892. _Experimental Evolution_
> (London and NY: Macmillan and Co.), 271pp. This book is
> based on lectures delivered in the Summer School of Art and
> Science at University Hall, Edinburgh in August 1891. de
> Varigny had a D.Sc., and was a Demonstrator in the Paris
> Museum d'Histoire Naturelle and member of the Societe de
> Biologie. The end of the first lecture, on 39-45:
> Such are, briefly stated, the general proofs of evolution,
> or at least the principal among them; I must be content
> with this short statement.
> Are these proofs satisfactory, are they convincing, and
> what do they demonstrate?
> To an impartial mind, they prove one thing to begin
> with, and it is that if we accept the creation theory, we
> must believe that creation has been going on through the
> whole series of past ages, and that every type of life has
> been specially created at some time or other, being in
> most, if not all cases, very similar to types which have
> lived before, and must also have been specially created.
You are an old earth creationist, you say. Is THIS what you
believe? If so, it is not in any Bible I know of. You can remedy
that if you think otherwise. If NOT, then the evidence
availble to de Verigny over a century ago was sufficient to
falsify day-age old earth creationism.
[big snip - creationists could demand to see a speciation event
in order to believe it]
> It might be discussed whether this argument is not of the
> most dangerous sort, more especially for creationists,
> whether there are not serious inconveniences in refusing
> to believe in that which cannot be demonstrated by
> actual, precise, visible and tangible fact. But this point
> had better be left out, and we will accept the reply of the
> creationists as it stands.
Do you realize what de Varigny is getting at here?
> They ask for a proof of transmutation: we must secure
> that proof and meet their demand. How so? Through
> direct experiment, through experimental transformism.
> The notion is not exactly a recent one, but in the present
> debate it represents the only line along which we may
> expect to discover the positive facts which are
> necessary. As Buffon has said, "Man will never be
> conscious enough of nature's power, nor of his power on
> nature." And this statement I believe to be positively
> true. The only thing to be done, at all events, is to
> subject the notion to the only possible test of which it
> admits, and to begin experiments.
I suppose evolving antibiotic resistance comes to mind immediately here
as an example of natural selection.
[snip]
> > [huge snip]
>
> That's right: just let Howard answer the snipped easy questions.
Umm, no. Just stop at the first major error that should not have been
made because why the premise was faulty was already explained. If you
don't get that right, there was no point to going further.
> > The above says it ALL about your ability to make a convincing argument.
>
> And you ought to know, having presented so _many_
> compelling lines of argumentation to me in the past.
Fix your premise. It is not that hard.
Tracy P. Hamilton
david ford
david ford:
Tracy Hamilton on 19 December 2003:
david ford:
>>>> Your reply didn't address my question of what
>>>> makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date."
>>>
>>> Sure it did. If the work has been superceeded, there is
>>> no point to quote the old work except for historical reasons.
>>
>> Superceded how-- superceded by a later edition of the same
>> work? Superceded as in now known to be erroneous in every
>> possible way? Superceded as in now known to be erroneous
>> in at least one way? Superceded as in now known to be
>> largely erroneous?
Snips throughout.
> Well, let us take an example. You had an extended quote of
> one Jean Rostand from 1961 saying he wasn't convinced the
> natrual selection could not explain all the variety of life.
> Rostand
> Rostland
> Rostland
> Ryland
>> That's right: just let Howard answer the snipped easy questions.
>
> Umm, no. Just stop at the first major error that should not have been
> made because why the premise was faulty was already explained. If you
> don't get that right, there was no point to going further.
You couldn't even consistently misspell Rostand's name.
There is no point in replying to the remainder of your post.
Crick, Francis. 1981. _Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature_
(NY: Simon and Schuster), 192pp. A paragraph on 152-3:
In deciding between two theories [i.e., the theories of
a) life originating on earth, and b) life being sent to earth
by aliens on an alien spacecraft], one soon learns that
plausibility alone will not do, quite apart from the fact
that it is usually contaminated with our unstated
prejudices. Directed Panspermia may at first sight seem
farfetched, but can we give solid reasons for this initial
reaction? Thirty years of experience in molecular
biology has taught one the lesson that plausibility is not
enough. It will not do just to put the nail on end and
give it a little tap. It is essential to drive it home. To
give a theory the degree of certainty we need, we have
to hit it hard, again and again. And this, alas, is just
what we are unable to do in this particular case. Every
time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will
never write another one, because there is too much
speculation running after too few facts, though I must
confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating
that I never seem to stick to my resolve.
What are some [Crick]"unstated prejudices" that are
contaminating theory-of-NS-adherents' perception of
plausibility of Darwin's theory of natural selection, i.e. the
Darwinian blindwatchmaking mechanism, in accounting for
the mind-less origination of new organs and new structures
having new functions?
Compare Crick with the "Fallacy three" section of
Robert Dorit's review of _Darwin's Black Box_ on the
American Scientist website
http://tinyurl.com/3b3wf
david ford
NS "falls far short of adequacy"" on 25 Nov 2003:
david ford:
>> It certainly would be good to hear of any currently-
>> known experimental and observational evidence for the
>> theory of natural selection, today being over 140 years
>> since Darwin propounded the theory in his _Origin_.
>> Before you or others describe the evidence for the
>> theory of natural selection discovered in the past 70
>> years, humor me for a moment, if you would (I know it
>> will be hard):
>>
>> What experimental and observational evidence for the
>> theory of natural selection dates from before 1932? In
>> 1932, the theory had been widely known for over 70
>> years. Many experiments had been done in the hope
>> of demonstrating the theory's validity. Would it be
>> accurate to say that in 1932, the theory of natural
>> selection abysmally lacked experimental and observational
>> confirmation?
>
> No. It would be accurate to say that general relativity in 1915 (when
> it was proposed) "abysmally" lacked experimental and observational
> confirmation. Schwartzschild published his solution in 1916 and the
> next solar eclipse was in 1919.
The 1919 eclipse experiment left something to be desired in terms of
providing confirmation for Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Good evidence for general relativity was known well before the 1919
experiment. See Steven Weinberg's _Dreams of a Final Theory_ (1993),
chapter V.
> YOu forget the large amount of observational evidence that either
> *Darwin* already listed in his works or which was found during the
> 19th century (Archaeopteryx, H.Erectus, genetics ...).
Please briefly describe 2 lines of observational evidence that Darwin
presented in his writings as support for the theory of natural
selection.
What exactly did Archaeopteryx derive from?
Into what exactly did Archaeopteryx transform?
Do you really consider the series _____, Archaeopteryx, _____
confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?
(If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature that concur?)
What exactly did H. Erectus derive from?
Into what exactly did H. Erectus transform?
Do you really consider the series _____, H. Erectus, _____
confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?
(If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature that concur?)
Please briefly describe how genetics provided confirmatory evidence
for the theory of natural selection in the years before 1932.
Also, please provide references to 2 papers in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature for the claim that genetics provides
confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
david ford
of NS, Phase III" on 14 Dec 2003:
david ford:
Wells, Jonathan. 2000. _Icons of Evolution: Science or
Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is
Wrong_ (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing), 338pp.
From the Preface, on xiii:
Many people were kind enough to review and comment
on the manuscript. Those who assisted me with
technical details in the indicated sections or chapters
include: ...Ashby Camp and Alan Feduccia
(Archaeopteryx); Theodore D. Sargent (Peppered
Moths);.... Listing these people here does not imply that
they endorse my views. On the contrary, many of them
will disagree with my conclusions and
recommendations. But for these fine people, science is
the search for truth, and I am indebted to them for
helping me get the facts straight. Of course, any errors
that remain are my fault, not theirs.
People who patiently read and commented on major
portions of the manuscript include (in alphabetical
order).... Some of these readers helped me with
scientific content, but all of them helped me to make the
book readable. If there are still errors or rough spots, it
is because I failed to follow all of their excellent advice.
Was the researcher you spoke with Sargent? If not, who?
[JW]"and then mentioned him in the Ackowledgements as if
he (the researcher) agreed with him (Wells)!" Before you
wrote your comments about Wells on the peppered moth, had
you looked at Wells's Preface? (For one thing, I don't see an
[JW]"Ackowledgements" section, and for another, I don't see
an implication of agreement-- quite the opposite, in fact.)
> He had an a priori view that he was going to run *no
> matter* what the actual historical evidence showed.
Suppose a materialist is studying biology, or paleontology.
Is it possible that his or her a priori materialist mindset
against anything remotely implying or suggesting
super-intelligence influences will affect that person's
perceptions of what he or she sees and concludes when
looking at biology or paleontology?
> Second his argument that if these "icons" are false, evolution falls is
> deeply flawed. Evolution was not founded on Haeckel or Peppered Moths,
> or even on any particular case. Darwin based his ideas on the state of
> the biology of his day, and came up with an elegant solution to
> fundamental problems. Evolution was based on that. And since then, case
> after case have strengthened the evolutionary view, even when it proved
> Darwin *wrong*, as in his views on heredity and variation. When the
> originator is wrong, but his errors make his views less likely, and the
> corrections make them *more* likely, then to claim that a half dozen
> possible examples somehow calls evolution into question is not only bad
> philosophy and logic, but bad legal rhetoric (because of course he bases
> the whole approach on the lawyer Johnson's special pleading).
>
> If everything Darwin said was wrong, and if everyone from 1858 to 1958
> got it wrong, all the work since *then* still supports evolution. And
> Wells knows this, since he has a biology degree. He is therefore a liar.
Wells, Jonathan. 2000. _Icons of Evolution: Science or
Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is
Wrong_ (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing), 338pp. On
6, 7, 8:
When asked to list the evidence for Darwinian
evolution, most people-- including most biologists--
give the same set of examples, because all of them
learned biology from the same few textbooks. The most
common examples are: .... These examples are so
frequently used as evidence for Darwin's theory that
most of them have been called "icons" of evolution. Yet
all of them, in one way or another, misrepresent the
truth. .... The following chapters compare the icons of
evolution with published scientific evidence, and reveal
that much of what we teach about evolution is wrong.
This fact raises troubling questions about the status of
Darwinian evolution. If the icons of evolution are
supposed to be our best evidence for Darwin's theory,
and all of them are false or misleading, what does that
tell us about the theory? Is it science, or myth?
In your conception of [JW]"evolution," can [JW]"evolution"
be propelled by intelligence/ an intelligent creator(s)?
Please briefly describe 1 compelling line of evidence for
[JW]"evolution," after first defining [JW]"evolution." Please
also provide 3 references to the peer-reviewed scientific
literature that discuss that compelling line of evidence.
>>> However, it is, I think, relevant to his motivations that he is
>>> doing this with an a priori set against anything evolutionary or
>>> Darwinian being right (even if we did not have his own words to
>>> that effect), and that he gained his qualifications *in order to*
>>> show them to be false, and did not arrive at his conclusions on
>>> the basis of the research he so proudly claims. This does not
>>> disqualify his conclusions - they may be right even if he were the
>>> most despicable man on earth - but it explains why he does the
>>> sort of egregious misrepresentations he does.
>>
>> What are two of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you
>> think Wells has done?
>> Do any of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you think
>> Wells has done involve _Archeopteryx_, and if so, how so?
>
> No, I was not aware of the Archeopteryx entering into it. Has Wells
> misunderstood or misrepresented that too? Does he include Confuciornis
> and the other feathered dinosaurs? I am so uninterested in the lies of a
> pseudoscientist that I don't even try to remember them all - there is so
> much *interesting* science out there.
Perhaps if you talked to Camp and Feduccia, they would tell
you that Wells used their corrections only to avoid the most
egregious scandals of poor scholarship, and then mentioned
them in the [JW]"Ackowledgements" as if they agreed with
Wells.
H,R.Gruemm
Of common descent.
> (If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the peer-reviewed scientific
> literature that concur?)
Are you being childish or what ? In order to determine that a fossil
is a transitional, we don't need the birth cetrificate of its
grandfather.
Regards,
HRG.
Dana Tweedy
> Please briefly describe 2 lines of observational evidence that Darwin
> presented in his writings as support for the theory of natural
> selection.
One was comparison with directed selection by farmers and pigeon breeders,
another was camoflage and mimicry in animals. See chapter 4 of Origin of
Species:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-04.html
>
> What exactly did Archaeopteryx derive from?
A feathered theropod.
> Into what exactly did Archaeopteryx transform?
We don't know if Archae "transformed" into anything, or was a dead end.
However it's clear that since birds exist today, one or more of Archae's
relatives did leave descendants which modern birds are descended from. If
A. lithographica did speciate, it would have been into another species of
feathered theropod.
> Do you really consider the series _____, Archaeopteryx, _____
> confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?
No, more conformatory of the concept of common descent. Natual selection is
supported by other evidence.
> (If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the peer-reviewed scientific
> literature that concur?)
I'm not aware that anyone claimed that individual species in the fossil
record were evidence for natural selection.
Here's some evidence of natural selection:
http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm
>
> What exactly did H. Erectus derive from?
Most likely H. habilis, or H. ergaster
> Into what exactly did H. Erectus transform?
H. erectus may have been the ancestor of H.neanderthalensis, and archaic
H.sapiens. Other phylogenic trees draw the ancestor of neanderthals and
modern humans as H. heidelburgensis There's a great deal of debate among
paleoentologists over the exact linage. See:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
> Do you really consider the series _____, H. Erectus, _____
> confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?
Again, it's evidence of common descent. There is other evidence for natural
selection.
Snip the rest
DJT
david ford
"time to reexamine" theory of NS" on 2 Dec 2003:
david ford:
Tracy Hamilton on 1 Dec 2003:
david ford:
>>>> Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
>>>> _Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
>>>
>>> I agree that 1980 was a good time to re-examine the role of natural
>>> selection. What do *you* think the outcome was, since this has been
>>> done?
>>>
>>> Please use your own words, as we have seen no evidence of any
>>> understanding on your part.
>>
>> Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
>> considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection have
>> concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how the
>> biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year
>> existence, and have concluded that the theory does not find confirmation
>> in the fossil record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record
>> where we have particularly good and numerous specimens. Materialists that
>> have concluded that the theory of natural selection/ the neo-Darwinian
>> mechanism cannot account for the biological world believe that a superior
>> theory of a blindwatchmaking mechanism or cluster of blindwatchmaking
>> mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
>
> Please rewrite with these issues in mind:
>
> How *can* (not is!) natural selection be confirmed by the fossil
> record? (what should be seen and *why* it follows from natural selection
> and taphonomy)
This question is answered in
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
If you cannot be bothered with locating the answer therein,
just let me know, and I'll see what I can do to present some
spoon-sized portions.
> If it *can't* be, then not confirming it is a red
> herring. You certainly wouldn't want to use such a rhetorical
> device, now would you?
>
> Are there no gradual changes, or is there no *pattern* of gradual
> change (that is, gradual change everywhere).
>
> What are the major problems with natural selection?
a. Small, minor changes in certain kinds of fossil organisms
are seen in the fossil record, yet these small, minor changes
are not seen accumulating to the point where new body
structures having new functions appear. (In fact, we find in
the fossil record new body structures having new functions
appearing _abruptly_.)
b. In a similar fashion, small minor changes in living
organisms are seen in the laboratory and in the field, yet
these small, minor changes are not seen accumulating to the
point where new body structures and new organs having new
functions appear.
c. In short, the testimony of the fossil record and of living
organisms is harmonious.
1. One major problem with the theory of natural selection is
that there is no confirmation for it from the fossil record.
2. A second major problem with the theory of natural
selection is that there is no confirmation of it from lab
experiments and out in the field.
3. A third major problem with the theory of natural selection
is that it utilizes mutations as the raw material for
blindwatchmaking, and yet there are exceedingly few-- if
any-- known mutations that could plausibly be said to be
capable of contributing to the appearance of new organs and
new structures having new functions.
> If it is that NS
> *alone* cannot explain all of evolution, that does not mean that
> natural selection has been invalidated *in any manner* (in trouble, or
> about to collapse, whatever). This is precisely what
> Eldredge was talking about, and which you still seem unaware of.
> Is it a major problem that a hammer can't be used as a saw, but that
> both are needed to build a house?
>
> This lack of awareness is precisely why John Wilkins wants you define
> what you mean by neo-Darwinism: if it is a theory that *only* has
> natural selection as the mechanism, nobody thinks that.
> Not even Dawkins.
References, please, to some of Dawkins's writings.
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker: Why the
evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design_
(New York: W.W. Norton & Company), 332pp.
A paragraph on 5:
Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and
is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day,
but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The
analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and
living organism, is false. All appearances to the
contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind
forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.
A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs
and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a
future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the
blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin
discovered, and which we now know is the explanation
for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all
life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no
mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no
vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to
play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the _blind_
watchmaker.
> Drop the blindwatchmaking as an adjective. It is stupid.
Sir, yes, sir. I see that now, sir.
> To be fair, I will summarize Eldredge in MY words:
>
> A common view [one could argue whether it was common or a
> caricature] is that evolution is gradual *constant* accumulation
> of small improvements driven by natural selection. The fossil record
> does not bear this out. Rather than assume it is a fault of
> the fossil record, examine the theoretical assumptions. Natural
> selection is still valid, but not the driving force for *speciation*, when
> genetic isolation occurs. Once isolation occurs, there are two random
> walks (with some selection, so not completely random) rather than one,
> so they wind up at quite different destinations,
> the further apart as time progresses. This is what the record, both
> fossil and genomic, shows.
I don't think your summary accurately characterizes the
Eldredge material I presented. Instead of attempting to
scrutinize each aspect of your summary, I will simply
suggest to lurkers that they compare your summary with:
1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS
http://tinyurl.com/ygpn
and leave it at that.
John Wilkins
> Tracy Hamilton <t_p_ha...@yahoo.com> in "Re: 1980 Eldredge:
> "time to reexamine" theory of NS" on 2 Dec 2003:
...
This is not a good characterisation of the *scientific* views that are
associated with natural selection. It is a metaphor, an analogy, an
illustration for the nonscientist. As such it lacks rigor and is apt to
mislead the over-literal. While we don't expect you to give the
equations of the fundamental theorem and Wrightean adaptive landscapes,
you might at least give literal and non-metaphorical accounts of the
ideas you think neo-Darwinism implies or requires or asserts. I've been
asking you (and Paganananono) this for, if memory serves, around 4
years. You suggest you have such a firm grasp of the science you can
criticise it (although all you ever seem to do is quote short snippets
of other people's words), so why won't you define the doctrines you
oppose? And then define those you assert to be true?
I offer the explanation that you cannot.
As to Dawkins' prose above; while not actually purple it has a royal
tinge. At best it denies the Enlightenment doctrine that the universe is
rational in itself. This is much closer to the traditional views of
Christianity, that the intelligence, the foresight, and the concern for
humanity, is not to be found in the creation. Allowing for Dawkins's
atheism, it is entirely coherent with theism - the empirical world has
no foresight. At worst it expresses *Dawkins's* ideas and beliefs, not
those of neo-Darwinism.
So, david, stop with the rhetoric and enter a serious debate and
discussion, here. Or shut up and try to publish somewhere and get the
Big Guys to respond. In the end, playing with the big guys is what makes
a serious argument anyway.
>
> > Drop the blindwatchmaking as an adjective. It is stupid.
>
> Sir, yes, sir. I see that now, sir.
Sure you do, until you do it again.
>
> > To be fair, I will summarize Eldredge in MY words:
> >
> > A common view [one could argue whether it was common or a
> > caricature] is that evolution is gradual *constant* accumulation
> > of small improvements driven by natural selection. The fossil record
> > does not bear this out. Rather than assume it is a fault of
> > the fossil record, examine the theoretical assumptions. Natural
> > selection is still valid, but not the driving force for *speciation*, when
> > genetic isolation occurs. Once isolation occurs, there are two random
> > walks (with some selection, so not completely random) rather than one,
> > so they wind up at quite different destinations,
> > the further apart as time progresses. This is what the record, both
> > fossil and genomic, shows.
>
> I don't think your summary accurately characterizes the
> Eldredge material I presented. Instead of attempting to
> scrutinize each aspect of your summary, I will simply
> suggest to lurkers that they compare your summary with:
>
> 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS
> http://tinyurl.com/ygpn
>
> and leave it at that.
What definition of neo-Darwinism is *he* responding to in that piece?
Names don't always mean the same thing.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Howard Hershey
If David Ford were capable of independent thought rather than merely
stringing together excerpted quotes from other authors (which he
mistakenly thinks is a substitute for erudition), he might be able to
tell us how he thinks that the evidence for natural selection as a
mechanism which changes population genome frequency in the direction
that optimizes those phenotypes that are best adapted to local
conditions *could* be demonstrated *in* the fossil record rather than
merely being consistent with the fossil record.
To me, the evidence that natural selection, as an observation of the
mechanism which causes changes in population genome frequency in the
direction that optimizes those phenotypes that are best adapted to local
conditions is evidence from living organisms in current environments
(where all aspects of that definition can be experimentally demonstrated
and rates of change can be quantitated). As the above defined
mechanism, of course, natural selection only works on *existing* genetic
variance and not *hypothetical* genetic variance. So, the independent
fact that the ultimate source of all genetic variance is *mutation*
which is random wrt need does come into play. These *current*
experimental observations of how organisms work is the evidence that Mr.
Ford needs to counter if he wants to shred the Theory of NS.
The reason why the fossil record is not evidence for natural selection
is that we cannot, given the nature of the fossil record, know, with
certainty, what the selective forces were and what the genetic
composition of populations were. We can only infer what natural
selection could do in the past on the basis of inference of the nature
of selective forces observed in the present and the response (and rate
of response) via natural selection that can be observed in the present.
OTOH, what I *really* think Mr. Ford is objecting to is not the idea of
natural selection, per se, but the idea that natural selection (and
probably, although he doesn't say so, any other naturalistic mechanism)
can be inferred to be, in part, responsible for producing the observed
fossil record. That is, he thinks *some unspecified aspects* of the
fossil record are *inconsistent* with the observed ability and rate at
which NS can be *observed in the present* to change *morphology* (since
the fossil record is a record of morphologic change and not genetic
change, which is examined independently by sequence differences in
living organisms -- and which is also *consistent with* the idea that NS
plays a role in change over time or common descent, but is more
consistent with the idea that most *observed* genetic change in
organisms is selectively neutral drift). Given that the rate of both NS
and artificial selection can be measured in the present, given that the
rate and extent of morphological change which *can* be obtained by
artificial or natural selection in the present *with existing variance*
can be as quantitatively as large as many of the changes seen in, say,
human brain capacity over the much longer time of 5 million years (this
was a change which was actually quite rapid), given that the rate of
random mutation is observable, he has a tough job in justifying his
quantitative claim that NS *could not* produce the observed amount of
morphological change seen in fossil record in the time available for
that change. He doesn't make clear which *observed* feature of the
mechanism of NS working on random variation does not hold in the past.
Does he think that random variation did not occur in the past? That NS
did not bias organisms toward those features that were locally
beneficial in the past? That NS did not occur at all in the past? That
the rate of morphological change in the past was too fast to be
accounted for by NS by using extrapolation from current rates? I am
quite sure that Mr. Ford doesn't even know that those are the questions
he needs to be asking.
That is because David seems to not be capable of independent thought and
is only capable of quasi-mindlessly stringing together the secular
equivalent of Bible verses that have been taken either in (typically
from old or crank sources) or out (typically the ones from more recent
sources) of context to justify a previously decided upon position (such
a methodology of extracting Biblical quotes is used variously to justify
killing witches or not, hating homosexuals or not, keeping the
institution of slavery or not, beating one's children or not, handling
snakes or not, and drinking poison or not). That is a style of
'scholarship' which is quite common to fundamentalist preachers
(Christian, Muslim, and Hindu) and medieval scholastics (What did
Aristotle think about this?).
It is not, however, one that is used by modern scholars and certainly
not one used by modern (meaning since the Rennaisance) scientists. What
they do is try to examine and explore evidence that supports and that
which tests their ideas. For example, take the "assertion" that there
is no evidence supporting NS. That would mean that environments have no
effect in determining the genetic nature of the organisms exposed to
that environment. This is an eminantly testable hypothesis. And it has
been tested. Do you know what the results were? Or are you using a
definition of NS that is non-standard, such as a definition that
requires NS to invent new traits rather than distinguish among existing
phenotypic traits on the basis of their effects on reproductive success?
I suspect that Mr. Ford has a non-standard definition of NS, since he
thinks it doesn't happen in current environments.
>
> Snip the rest
>
> DJT
david ford
of NS, Phase III" on 25 Dec 2003:
david ford:
H,R.Gruemm in "Re: Newman: theory of NS "falls far short
>> Please briefly describe 2 lines of observational evidence that Darwin
>> presented in his writings as support for the theory of natural
>> selection.
>>
>> What exactly did Archaeopteryx derive from?
>> Into what exactly did Archaeopteryx transform?
>> Do you really consider the series _____, Archaeopteryx, _____
>> confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?
>
> Of common descent.
We were discussing the theory of natural selection and the
state of pre-1932 evidence for it. You have shifted the
discussion to another topic, which is fine. I had been looking
forward to a discussion of pre-1932 evidence for the theory
of natural selection, but alas, we can't always get what we
want.
Please define [HRG]"common descent." In your definition,
please specify how many original common ancestor(s) of
plants there were, and specify how many common
ancestor(s) of animals there were.
How many of the original common ancestors were the
product:
of mind-less forces?
of intelligence/ of mind-directed forces?
As you know, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. How
many times has life arisen on earth:
before 3 billion years ago?
between 2 and 3 billion years ago?
between 1 and 2 billion years ago?
between 500 million and 1 billion years ago?
between 250 million and 500 million years ago?
between today and 250 million years ago?
In response to the question "....between 500 million and 1
billion years ago," if you answered "once," please name 3
organisms that have as their common ancestor the life that
arose on the earth between 500 million and 1 billion years
ago.
How many times has life originated not on earth, but
elsewhere in the universe?
If your prior answer lies in the range of "once" or higher:
How many times has life that originated not on earth but
rather elsewhere in the universe traveled to the earth?
At what point(s) in the earth's history did life from outside
the earth arrive here?
Is it possible for nested hierarchies to be the creative product
of mind/ intelligence? (Examples illustrative of a "yes"
answer might appear in the thread "Mind-Created Nested
Hierarchies," the first post therein being
http://tinyurl.com/2q7tx )
Are you aware of any journal articles in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature that in large part discuss common
descent? If "yes," please list as many such articles as you are
aware of, up to 8.
Among present-day living plants, animals, and other
organisms, are there any exceptions to the familiar genetic
code system?
Is it possible for porcupine-like quills to arrive 2 or 3 or 4
times, independently (an alleged phenomenon termed
"convergence")?
How about 90 times?
How about 1,190 times?
What is the rationale for your answers?
Suppose 2 fossilized, almost-identical porcupines are found,
one in North America and one in Europe. How would you
use the concept of [HRG]"common descent" to account for
the independent arrival of porcupine-like quills in these two
creatures?
More generally, what is the relationship between "common
descent" and the numerous alleged instances of
"convergence"?
Who besides yourself has said that Archaeopteryx is
confirmatory of Darwin's theory of common descent-- IOW,
are you aware of any references that concur?
>> (If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the
>> peer-reviewed scientific literature that concur?)
>
> Are you being childish or what ?
What.
> In order to determine that a fossil
> is a transitional, we don't need the birth cetrificate of its
> grandfather.
What makes a fossil a [HRG]"transitional" fossil?
How would someone go about determining whether a
particular fossil [HRG]"is a transitional"?
Please name 2 fossil organisms that are not
[HRG]"transitional," if any.
Is _Tyrannosaurus_ "transitional"?
Is _Triceratops_ "transitional"?
Paleontologists have identified many fossil species. Is each
of those of identified fossil species a "transitional"?
What is the relationship between [HRG]"common descent"
and [HRG]"transitional" fossils?
Howard Hershey
What sort of evidence were you expecting? How do you define what is a
"small, minor change" and "small, minor changes are not seen
accumulating to the point where new body structures having new functions
appear"? Why, or why not, does the transition of bones from the jaws of
reptiles into two of the ear bones of the middle ear of mammals count?
How fine a gradation of changes do you need to see to say that such a
change in fossilizable features of organisms did not occur? Which
fossil record were you looking at that had that plentiful and full a
fossil record for sufficiently long periods of time to be able to answer
your question? In all the fossil records that meet the criteria you
need to answer the question, you always say that the observed change is
not "big" enough, usually with the dismissal of "But they are still
birds (snails, foramniferans, mammals, reptiles, vertebrates,
whatever)". I.e., the goalposts are in continual motion and "small,
minor changes" are all that you will *ever* see because you will always
move the goalposts so that any *seen* changes are "small and minor".
> b. In a similar fashion, small minor changes in living
> organisms are seen in the laboratory and in the field, yet
> these small, minor changes are not seen accumulating to the
> point where new body structures and new organs having new
> functions appear.
Since nearly all change in evolution involves modification of
pre-existing structure to new (usually emergent) or quantitatively
different function, why would we expect to see such major changes in
experimental time-frames? What counts as a "new" body structure and a
"new" organ having "new" functions in any *operationally useful* way?
For example, let's take the evolution of lungs. The initial stages were
undoubtedly simply an out-pouching of a particularly blood-vessel rich
region of the dorsal side of the digestive tract of a fish that spent
some time in stagnant water (gulping surface air is not unseen even in
current fishes in stagnant waters). Would this blood-vessel enriched
surface or outpouching to increase surface area count as a "new" body
structure, a "new" organ, or a "new" function? I doubt very much that
you would say it did. All subsequent changes in this primitive "lung"
were merely simple changes that acted to increase the internal surface
area to the point where certain organisms could lose the *other* ways
they had for extracting oxygen from their environment (through gills and
skin; many amphibians still use all three mechanisms, so we reptiles and
mammals have lost information by breathing solely through lungs). This
loss of information allowed certain vertebrate organisms to evolve into
and exploit drier niches than previous species could. The lung was
obviously not an *intelligently designed* structure. If lungs had been
*intelligently designed*, any fool idiot of a semi-sentinent designer
would have provided an opening for the lung airway separate from the
opening used for swallowing food and drink. Having the trachea branch
off from the digestive tract is not *intelligent* design by any design
standards. But, and this is the crucial question, at what point did
these 'lungs' become a "new" body structure, a "new" organ having "new"
functions? Or was it, at every single step, a "minor modification" of
the pre-existing structure performing a function which only changed quantitatively?
I could ask the same question about the bones of the middle ear (these
jaw bones transmitted sound at all stages of change). All that changed
was their being the hinge point of the jaw, a feature that was lost.
> c. In short, the testimony of the fossil record and of living
> organisms is harmonious.
>
> 1. One major problem with the theory of natural selection is
> that there is no confirmation for it from the fossil record.
The amount and rate of morphological change (in Darwins) seen in the
fossil record is well *within* the amount and rate of change that can be
observed, in the present, occuring via natural or artificial selection
in present day experiments. Indeed, the DNA evidence indicates that,
although selection is a very powerful and rapid cause of change, most
evolutionary change is selectively neutral drift which is much slower.
That means that selection, important though it is, is not occurring *all
the time* in the sense of *producing* change. Selection is primarily
involved in genetic stasis rather than genetic change. The amount of
genetic difference between, say, chimp and man, is *well* within the
capacity of selection to generate. Indeed, most of the *genetic*
differences between man and chimp are irrelevant to the *morphological*
differences between them. Only a small fraction of the *genetic*
differences between these species had any selective value or resulted in
the significant morphological differences between these two species.
One does not need large amounts of genetic change to produce significant
morphological difference (and the morphological difference between
chimps and humans is significant for a mere 5-10 million years)
> 2. A second major problem with the theory of natural
> selection is that there is no confirmation of it from lab
> experiments and out in the field.
You must have a very different definition of what natural selection is
than I do. In what way are the Grant's experiments on finch beaks, the
analysis of anole leg lengths, and the analysis of guppy tail size
(among many other examples) not confirmation of the power of natural
selection? In what way is artificial selection (which are lab
experiments) not relevant to natural selection? What is your definition
of natural selection that allows you to say something this ignorant with
a straight face? It must be something quite different than what I think
of when I say "natural selection".
> 3. A third major problem with the theory of natural selection
> is that it utilizes mutations as the raw material for
> blindwatchmaking, and yet there are exceedingly few-- if
> any-- known mutations that could plausibly be said to be
> capable of contributing to the appearance of new organs and
> new structures having new functions.
I am having a hard time with what you consider to be a *consistent* and
operational definition of what qualifies as "new". Again, how does one
independently determine at what point a modification of previously
existing structure so that it now has a different or emergent function
becomes defined as "new". Take our lungs for example. At which stage
in its *development* in our very own embryo (starting as an outpouching
of the digestive tract) does it become a "lung"? Only when we are born
and it takes in that first gulp of air? Or when we have an embryonic
"lung" structure? You are taking something that appeared as a continuum
and you are arbitrarily asserting that at one stage it is a "minor
modification" of a pre-existing structure and at a second stage that it
is something "new". And doing it in a way that allows you to move the
goalposts so that no "new" structure can *ever* evolve.
Again, the genetic differences that effect *all* the morphological
differences between human and chimp are an unknown small fraction of the
total genetic differences. All the genetic differences *could be*
accounted for by drift alone; which means that the vast majority of
differences *are* due to drift, since drift is an unavoidable
consequence of chance alone. That means that those genetic differences
that have phenotypic and selective phenotypic effects are a small
fraction of the total number of differences. But, since there are no
"new" organs or "new" structures that distinguish chimps from humans, I
guess you would have to say that this change was within your goalposts
as doable by evolution, right?
[snip more quotes of other people's opinions, which, whether in or out
of context, is irrelevant]
gen2rev
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0312...@posting.google.com>:
> John Wilkins in "Re: Shredding Theory
> of NS, Phase III" on 14 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
> John Wilkins in "Re: Well what then caused God?" on 7 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
> Lenny Flank:
> david ford:
[snip]
> >> What are two of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you
> >> think Wells has done?
> >> Do any of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you think
> >> Wells has done involve _Archeopteryx_, and if so, how so?
> >
> > No, I was not aware of the Archeopteryx entering into it. Has Wells
> > misunderstood or misrepresented that too? Does he include Confuciornis
> > and the other feathered dinosaurs? I am so uninterested in the lies of a
> > pseudoscientist that I don't even try to remember them all - there is so
> > much *interesting* science out there.
>
> Perhaps if you talked to Camp and Feduccia, they would tell
> you that Wells used their corrections only to avoid the most
> egregious scandals of poor scholarship, and then mentioned
> them in the [JW]"Ackowledgements" as if they agreed with
> Wells.
In Feduccia's case that's very probable. In an interview published
earlier in the year, he was asked:
Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on
evolution entirely. How do you feel about that?
He replies:
Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and
they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould,
so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and
half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone
for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These
creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of
evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and
plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the
size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to
modern-day corn. If that's not evolution in action, I do not know
what is.
Taken from: Anon. 2003. Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds. Discover 24(2):16
(February 2003). Also on-line at
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-03/rd/breakdialogue.html/
david ford
[snip]
A reply appears in the thread "Naive ?s on the
Blindwatchmaker Thesis," specifically at
http://tinyurl.com/28hra
Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.
More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
(Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp. This book is
based on lectures delivered at Princeton University in
January 1925. More was Professor of Physics at the
University of Cincinnati, and also wrote _The Limitations of
Science_. These extracts appear in the chapter "Introduction:
Evolution as Science and Faith." Paragraphs on 30-32:
As I am by training a physicist, it may be asked why I
undertake a discussion of biology and of evolution in
particular. My reasons are that there is a more urgent
need for a critique of biology as it is the science which
is furthest out of its field, and also its influence on life
and thought is more direct and readily seen than is that
of the physical sciences and, consequently, may be more
pernicious. While the physical sciences have
endeavoured to dominate thought, they do recognize
that the field of life lies outside their boundaries and
they continue to exclude its problems from their
discussions.
At least, the biologists cannot reproach me with being a
"paper philosopher," since I have had a pretty severe and
long training as a laboratory experimenter. I am quite
prepared to accept the conclusions of biological
experimentation and I shall depend on the statements of
biologists to show that they have not bridged the gap
between the organic and inorganic worlds; that they are
not prepared to explain living processes as physical
force and energy; that biological evolution as a guide to
human society is a delusion. Anyone trained adequately
in physics, which the biologists acknowledge to be the
foundation of their science, ought surely to be able to
follow and to understand their deductions. If this be not
true, how can biologists use the facts and laws of
physics with such freedom and assurance? And when
we remember that the data of biology must be
interpreted by historians, sociologists, philosophers, and
the clergy, before the doctrine of evolution can be used
as a guide to human affairs the argument becomes a
two-edged sword and cuts both ways. There are even
good grounds for believing that physics, with its
dependence on the technical use of mathematics, is the
most difficult and avoided of the sciences. Biologists
and social evolutionists preach its essential value as a
necessary foundation for their authority, but they
successfully avoid its practice and their interpretations
of its laws seem, at times, rather weird.
A paragraph on 12-13:
Again, the marvellous inventions of science and its
conquest of external conditions affect the imagination.
Criticism is abashed and overawed by the array of facts
which men of science have predicted and which have
been verified. And so we become convinced that the
facts of science are adequate as a basis for the most
elaborate and far-reaching hypotheses on all questions,
however contrary to experience and common sense they
may seem to be. Our doubts are dulled to a quiescence
which would, otherwise, be active if we kept clearly in
mind that science is based on the same sort of evidence
as are all other methods of human knowledge and that
men of science are, as Newton pictured them, wanderers
on the shore of a vast sea of unknown phenomena,
picking up here and there a bright coloured pebble or
shell.
Paragraphs on 21-24:
With what is now known to have been a pitifully meagre
supply of facts, observations, and experiments, the
Darwinians preached the gospel of evolution as an
established scientific law and crushed all opposition to
natural selection by hurling the anathema that, if you did
not believe, you were not fit to survive. Every trick of
habit and every reminiscent thought was traced back to
some mammalian or reptilian monster; even such
insignificant facts as that the hair on a man's wrist lay in
a certain direction were sufficient to link him with
simian ancestry; and daily search was made for the
"missing link."
All this restlessness and discussion resulted in one real
service. Interest was directed to the biological sciences
and they were cultivated as never before. Laboratories
multiplied, and the phenomena of life were studied
systematically. The results of this investigation have
been that, today, the evidence available supports our
faith in a general law of evolution. We accept it as we
accept the law of conservation of matter, not because it
can be proved to be true from experience, but because
without it natural law is not intelligible. The only
alternative is the doctrine of special creation which may
be true but is irrational. The origins of the human races
certainly go far back in time. But, on the other hand, the
causes and method of evolution have become a matter of
such doubt that the better biologists, themselves, admit
they are not on the track of any satisfactory proofs. In
addition to what may be called the scientific confusion
amongst biologists, they have been shocked, and even
dazed, by recent sudden attacks from the outside on
them and on their work. They are driven to the
defensive and agree with Professor Conklin who
introduces the subject of human evolution with the
outburst that: "During the past few years, and especially
within the past twelvemonth, there has been a
remarkable recrudescence of the old theological
opposition to the theory of evolution, especially as
applied to man."^9 [9: _The Direction of Human
Evolution_, Scribner's, 1922, 2d ed., p. v.] And he
characterizes this outbreak as the most ignorant,
frenzied, and intolerant that has ever been uttered
against this theory.
We now learn that after sixty years of persistent
research, the causes of evolution are unknown; natural
selection, with its catchwords of struggle for existence
and survival of the fittest, is losing ground; the despised
Lamarckism with its metaphysical background is
gaining in favour. Is it, then, surprising that laymen
should confuse mere faith in evolution of some sort with
the controversies as to its cause, and condemn the whole
doctrine? They remember, only too well, the haughty
assurance of the Darwinians that evolution was a
demonstrated fact and not a faith, and that natural
selection was an adequate cause. And with popular
acceptance of these assertions as truths, society was
reorganized according to the philosophy of naturalism
with the universe a machine. If now, the biologists
cannot tell us how evolution will proceed in the future
and what causes variations, how can we predict what we
should do or how apply evolution to guide us socially
and ethically? As a laboratory science evolution does
not especially interest us.
While this note of uncertainty and confusion is clearly
apparent in the minds of the biologists, they seem to
miss the point that evolution is a far broader subject than
a laboratory problem in biology; that it is one affecting
the entire physical and spiritual outlook of man. Instead
of aiding society to re-orientate itself, they still try to
soothe us into quiescence by saying our knowledge
merely is lacking but the mechanistic method still
remains the only true "open sesame." Let us, therefore,
withdraw for a time from discussing evolution and its
applications and gather more facts until we have
sufficient data wherewith to give the solution to the
world. They cannot understand that it is not more facts
which are needed but some little indication to show that
the laws of physics are adequate to include life and its
attributes. They are blind to the evidence that the world
is fast losing faith in the ability of science to solve the
riddle of man, to coordinate his physical and mental
worlds by scientific experiments and logical formulae,
and is turning again to the precepts of those who are
wise from human experience. Two or three examples
will be sufficient to show how biologists, who recognize
the revolt against scientific naturalism, propose to meet
the situation.
Professor Conklin, who by his scientific achievements
and by his position as biologist in Princeton University
exerts a great influence, sketches the probable direction
of human evolution with the avowed purpose of
combating these frenzied attacks on the study of
evolution. I may say at once, that I am quite in
sympathy with his purpose in so far as he opposes the
futile and foolish attempts to prohibit by law the
teaching of the science of biology and of evolution, or to
limit the full inquiry of biological phenomena. But, his
irritation under fire seems to have confused the clarity of
his scientific reasoning to such an extent that he fails to
distinguish between evolution as a scientific theory to be
investigated in the biological laboratory, which will
stand or fall on the evidence of scientific investigation,
and the metaphysical hypothesis of evolution as a guide
to social and religious affairs, which is not a problem of
biology.
On 28-29:
[after quoting 1922 Bateson: most all of what is quoted
is in http://tinyurl.com/2aq8z and
http://tinyurl.com/y2gg ] Again, we see that men of
science are still under the delusion that they are hounded
by a host of enemies. Can they contemplate the course
of history for the last half century and not see that
implicit belief in Darwinian evolution, accepted because
we naively believed in the facts and theories given us by
biologists, has dominated society? Is it astonishing that
a revolt occurs when the prop to our faith is thus
knocked out? It cannot reassure us to have Professor
Bateson tell us, at the close of his address, to be of good
cheer because the mystery may be solved tomorrow; we
cannot forget that, after sixty years of diligent search to
clear this mystery of the origin of species and of the
method of their variations, he confesses that not even a
beginning has been made. The tomorrow of the
biologist may be as long as the million years or so
necessary for the horse to eliminate his four toes.
The last paragraph of the chapter, on 33-34:
A final word should be given in justification of the fact
that I have based my criticism, and have placed most of
my emphasis, on the work and ideas of the founders of
the evolution theory, Lamarck, Spencer, Darwin,
Huxley, Fiske, and Haeckel. Objection will almost
certainly be made that, as their work has been
superseded or at least revised by modern scientific work,
I should criticise the facts and hypotheses of living
biologists. But the objection will not be just, if it is kept
in mind that the purpose of the book is not to discuss the
validity of evolution as a scientific biological theory but
rather to trace the effects of its application to the broader
fields of social life and religion. The doctrine of the
founders of evolution was clear and it was pronounced
with authority; today it is confused and broken with so
many crosscurrents that it is very doubtful if many of
those who confidently subscribe to the dogma of
evolution as the explanation of life, of society, and of
religion, know what it really requires us to believe. In
spite of the fact that much of the earlier specific work
has been discredited, it is equally true that modern
biologists are still using the ideas and methods of their
predecessors. If these ideas and methods are
fundamentally wrong, then the monistic and naturalistic
philosophy, which has followed from the doctrine of
evolution and which is still dominant, will fall also.
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> H,R.Gruemm on 25 Dec 2003:
>
> [snip]
>
> A reply appears in the thread "Naive ?s on the
> Blindwatchmaker Thesis," specifically at
> http://tinyurl.com/28hra
>
> Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.
>
> More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
> (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp.
<snip>
NOt that old books are necessarily incorrect or invalid, but perhaps you
could explain why a book published nearly eighty years ago should be
considered as a refutation?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
david ford
david ford:
>> Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.
>>
>> More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
>> (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp.
>
> NOt that old books are necessarily incorrect or invalid, but
> perhaps you could explain why a book published nearly
> eighty years ago should be considered as a refutation?
The theory of natural selection was widely discarded by those "in the
know" in 1932, about 70 years after _Origin_ appeared. In 1932, solid
grounds existed for rejecting as plausible the hypothesized Darwinian
blindwatchmaking mechanism. In 1932, evidence from breeders and
laboratory experimenters refuted Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Widespread rejection of the theory of natural selection existed in
1932. Such widespread rejection based upon solid grounds happened
before, and it is presently happening again.
AC
Natural selection is still considered a mechanism, though not the only
mechanism. Your quote mines and 80 year old papers are not compelling,
David. Natural selection certainly does play a role in the evolution of
organisms.
I do enjoy it when you use words like "widespread' however. I find it so
very amusing that you will attach such rhetorical devices to quotes from 80
year old books.
david ford
david ford on 25 Dec 2003:
Way to go, Feduccia, in committing the fallacy of equivocation in your
handling of the concept of "evolution."
What a scam. Were _you_ taken in by it?
legerdemain in the use of the word "evolution"
http://tinyurl.com/3avem
I also like Feduccia's response to the questions
How did you get involved in the debate in the first place?,
What are some other important issues in evolution today?, and
Where do you think birds will evolve from here?.
John Wilkins
Hmmm... in 1930 R A Fisher published _The Genetical Theory of Natural
Selection_, and in the 1930s, Sewall Wright began publishing his work
on genetic drift and selection. By the 1940s, Julian Huxley, Haldane,
Ford (another one, I hope not related) Dobzhansky and Mayr had developed
a consensus on natural selection as the main cause of adaptations. This
became known as the Modern Synthesis.
David, what parallel universe are you posting from?
david ford
david ford:
df> Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.
df>
df> More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
df> (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp.
AC NOt that old books are necessarily incorrect or invalid, but
AC perhaps you could explain why a book published nearly
AC eighty years ago should be considered as a refutation?
df The theory of natural selection was widely discarded by those "in
df the know" in 1932, about 70 years after _Origin_ appeared. In
1932,
df solid grounds existed for rejecting as plausible the hypothesized
df Darwinian blindwatchmaking mechanism. In 1932, evidence from
df breeders and laboratory experimenters refuted Darwin's theory of
df natural selection.
Here are a few supporting references:
1932 Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"
http://tinyurl.com/y0s6
Dobzhansky's 1937 redefinition of "evolution"; 1930 Radl
http://tinyurl.com/yst4z
how has the theory of NS survived?:
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
http://tinyurl.com/ywhge
1928 Erik Nordenskiold, 1922 Wilhelm Johannsen, 1869 Louis Agassiz (a
creationist)
http://tinyurl.com/2sncf
1925 Louis Trenchard More
http://tinyurl.com/3a9qw
1925 Osborn, in
Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn; 1940
Haldane on materialism; Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley on slow rate and
gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_
paper
http://tinyurl.com/34sq3
1922 Bateson, Lerner, Orwell
http://tinyurl.com/2aq8z
1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, Saunders & Ho
http://tinyurl.com/y2gg
Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://tinyurl.com/yiwv
1893 Weismann
http://tinyurl.com/yjbi
1959 Gertrude Himmelfarb on 1871 Darwin backtracking; 1892 Henry de
Varigny
http://tinyurl.com/2lov2
1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
http://tinyurl.com/yj88
df Widespread rejection of the theory of natural selection existed in
df 1932. Such widespread rejection based upon solid grounds happened
df before, and it is presently happening again.
JW Hmmm... in 1930 R A Fisher published _The Genetical Theory of
JW Natural Selection_, and in the 1930s, Sewall Wright began
publishing
JW his work on genetic drift and selection. By the 1940s, Julian
Huxley,
JW Haldane, Ford (another one, I hope not related) Dobzhansky and
JW Mayr had developed a consensus on natural selection as the main
JW cause of adaptations. This became known as the Modern Synthesis.
JW
JW David, what parallel universe are you posting from?
I'm aware of the Modern Synthesis.
my own indigestion with the Synthefish
http://tinyurl.com/y84x
However, for the moment I would like to discuss with you, John, the
claims and references I presented above about 1932.
gen2rev
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0312...@posting.google.com>:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> on 30 Dec 2003:
Where does Feduccia commit the fallacy of equivocation?
> legerdemain in the use of the word "evolution"
> http://tinyurl.com/3avem
That's about as confused as anything else you've posted. But we can
discuss it if you like.
> I also like Feduccia's response to the questions
> How did you get involved in the debate in the first place?,
> What are some other important issues in evolution today?, and
> Where do you think birds will evolve from here?.
In what way?
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> on 31 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
> AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> on 30 Dec 2003:
> david ford:
>
> df> Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.
> df>
> df> More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
> df> (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp.
>
> AC NOt that old books are necessarily incorrect or invalid, but
> AC perhaps you could explain why a book published nearly
> AC eighty years ago should be considered as a refutation?
>
> df The theory of natural selection was widely discarded by those "in
> df the know" in 1932, about 70 years after _Origin_ appeared. In
> 1932,
> df solid grounds existed for rejecting as plausible the hypothesized
> df Darwinian blindwatchmaking mechanism. In 1932, evidence from
> df breeders and laboratory experimenters refuted Darwin's theory of
> df natural selection.
>
> Here are a few supporting references:
>
> 1932 Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"
> http://tinyurl.com/y0s6
Lacking context and a book title (and sufficient internet access at home
to chase up your links - just give references and proper quotes, will
you?) I can't say. NS has always been argued to be adequate to explain
all aspects of evolution by Darwin and most of his followers.
>
> Dobzhansky's 1937 redefinition of "evolution"; 1930 Radl
> http://tinyurl.com/yst4z
Again, which page. I have a copy of Dobzhansky's book Give me a page and
a brief quote.
>
> how has the theory of NS survived?:
> Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
> http://tinyurl.com/ywhge
1929?
>
> 1928 Erik Nordenskiold, 1922 Wilhelm Johannsen, 1869 Louis Agassiz (a
> creationist)
> http://tinyurl.com/2sncf
Oh come on. Nordenskiold's book was written in 1924, well before your
"challenge date", and was published in 1928 in English. Even the second
edition predates your terminus ad quo. Johannsen is well known - he was
a macromutationist (and that opinion failed to survive past the
Synthesis) and *Agassiz*? in 1869? Sheesh. If you want Agassiz, how
about his view in 1873? "Darwin has placed the subject on a different
basis from that of all his predecessors, and has brought to the
discussion a vast amount of well arranged information, a convincing
cogency of argument..." (Lurie 383). Of course he did not become an
evolutionist, but he at least tried hard to understand it (misdefining
it and arguing against a strawman despite himself), which seems to be
more than you are doing.
Lurie, E. (1960). Louis Agassiz: A life in science. Baltimore and
London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
>
> 1925 Louis Trenchard More
> http://tinyurl.com/3a9qw
And cenancestor of creationism, I am told.
>
> 1925 Osborn, in
> Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn; 1940
> Haldane on materialism; Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley on slow rate and
> gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_
> paper
> http://tinyurl.com/34sq3
All this is too vague to even guess what you mean. Osborn was a
neo-Lamarckian well before this date (in 1894 he published in favour of
that view) and so he could be expected not to be in favour of
selectionist explanations (apparently he died in 1935 still a
neo-Lamarckian, well after it had been abandoned by the biological
community, despite Shaw and Koestler). As to the others (what is the
date of Saunders and Ho?) so what? There are differing views. Do *any*
of them deny that selection operates? None of them could do so, I
warrant.
>
> 1922 Bateson, Lerner, Orwell
George Orwell? Say what?
> http://tinyurl.com/2aq8z
> 1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, Saunders & Ho
> http://tinyurl.com/y2gg
Well before the synthesis. Well before Fisher. Well before Dobzhansy's
genetic experiments. Well before Sewall Wright. Well before every damned
thing that underpins modern reliance on selection as the mechanism of
adaptation.
>
> Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and
> J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
> http://tinyurl.com/yiwv
>
> 1893 Weismann
> http://tinyurl.com/yjbi
Hmmm, I happen to have this. What page? And guess what? Weismann was a
selectionist on most things (although he anticipates speciation by drift
at one point).
>
> 1959 Gertrude Himmelfarb on 1871 Darwin backtracking; 1892 Henry de
> Varigny
> http://tinyurl.com/2lov2
I have Himmelfarb. What page? Saying what?
>
> 1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
> http://tinyurl.com/yj88
"A bit" <> "shredding the theory" david. That is pure weaseling.
Darwin's theory is not discarded by Darwin or anyone else of note in
these refs. As it happened, the assumptions on which Darwin backtracked
(blending inheritance) were false. Without those criticisms of Jenkin
and Mivart having force, he was more right in the first edition of the
Origin than the sixth or in the Descent.
>
> df Widespread rejection of the theory of natural selection existed in
> df 1932. Such widespread rejection based upon solid grounds happened
> df before, and it is presently happening again.
>
> JW Hmmm... in 1930 R A Fisher published _The Genetical Theory of
> JW Natural Selection_, and in the 1930s, Sewall Wright began
> publishing
> JW his work on genetic drift and selection. By the 1940s, Julian
> Huxley,
> JW Haldane, Ford (another one, I hope not related) Dobzhansky and
> JW Mayr had developed a consensus on natural selection as the main
> JW cause of adaptations. This became known as the Modern Synthesis.
> JW
> JW David, what parallel universe are you posting from?
>
> I'm aware of the Modern Synthesis.
>
> my own indigestion with the Synthefish
> http://tinyurl.com/y84x
>
> However, for the moment I would like to discuss with you, John, the
> claims and references I presented above about 1932.
They demonstarte nothing so far. More details. No links. I pay for
internet by the minute, and my kids have put me into costly overtime.
You can give the refs in one place. I have askled you to do this
repeatedly. Page numbers, bibliographic details, and a summary or quote
from each to show that the sense you are deriving is actually there.
And here's one comment to make: there is a difference between
restricting the things selection explains (which must occur no matter
how selectionist one is - for example, selection does not explain the
seasons or gravity, so there have to be *some* limits) is quite a
different thing from "discarding selection". You are just engaging in
rhetorical flourish. New year, old song.
david ford
david ford:
[snip]
>> However, for the moment I would like to discuss
>> with you, John, the claims and references I presented
>> above about 1932.
>
> They demonstarte nothing so far. More details.
> No links. I pay for internet by the minute, and my
> kids have put me into costly overtime.
This is as lame an excuse as "The dog ate my homework."
> You can give the refs in one place. I have askled you to
> do this repeatedly.
This is the first I hear of it.
> Page numbers, bibliographic details, and a summary or
> quote from each to show that the sense you are deriving
> is actually there.
Many anti-neo-Darwinian-blindwatchmaking-mechanism
quotes appear in the theory of natural selection essay at
http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
but you have repeatedly declined to critique the essay.
At some point I might create an essay involving some
1932-and-before quotes, including the 1870 Bennett quote
below.
When you have had a chance to access and review the
links I supplied, please let me know.
A local library might provide free Internet access.
One way to quickly save the contents of a link is to go to a
page, "file" and "save as" (or if it works, control-s) to save
the page, save it, open Word, and open the saved file. In this
manner, you could probably save the text of all the links in
under 5 minutes, and then review the material at your
leisure.
A longer method is: control-a to select all, control-c to copy,
control-v to paste into WordPad (the material here loses the
graphics), control-a to select all and control-x to cut, and
finally control-v to paste into Word.
When you get your hands on a copy of the Bell book, which
you recommended to me and which I got, please let me know.
Incidentally, one reply to you appears in the thread "Naive ?s
on the Blindwatchmaker Thesis" at
http://tinyurl.com/3x8x5
> And here's one comment to make: there is a difference between
> restricting the things selection explains (which must occur no matter
> how selectionist one is - for example, selection does not explain the
> seasons or gravity, so there have to be *some* limits) is quite a
> different thing from "discarding selection". You are just engaging in
> rhetorical flourish. New year, old song.
I hope you don't give up, for I have such fond memories of
our discussions. And now, the promised Bennett.
Bennett, Alfred W. 10 Nov 1870. "The Theory of Natural
Selection From a Mathematical Point of View" _Nature_ 3:
30-33. This paper was read before Section D of the British
Association, at Liverpool, 20 September 1870.
The first paragraph and part of the following paragraph:
THE fascinating hypothesis of Darwinism has, within
the last few years, so completely taken hold of the
scientific mind, both in this country and in Germany,
that almost the whole of our rising men of science may
be classed as belonging to this school of thought.
Probably since the time of Newton no man has had so
great an influence over the development of scientific
thought as Mr. Darwin; and no one can over-estimate
the debt which Science owes to his patient researches
and his clear insight into some of the hidden ways of
Nature. The advocates of Darwinism have, however,
almost invariably failed to recognise that the theory
consists of two essential distinct portions, one of which
may be admitted while the other is denied. The first
portion is that with which the name of Darwin is
popularly associated, although its origination is by no
means due to him, namely, the probable ancestry of all
forms of living organism from a single few original
germs; the other portion, and that which we especially
owe to his genius, is the theory that the infinite
modifications of existing forms owe their origin to a
process of Natural Selection from spontaneous
variations. These two perfectly distinct hypotheses have
generally been so confounded together that those who
have attacked or defended the one have also attacked or
defended the other. My object in the present paper is to
show that, while the former hypothesis may be
considered as established, as nearly as it is possible to
establish a theory which requires thousands or millions
of years for its complete development, the arguments in
support of the second hypothesis are far less
satisfactory.
The principle that new forms of organic life have been
produced by modifications of older nearly-allied forms
is by no means a new one; its inherent reasonableness
and probability commended it to Lamarck and the
author of the "Vestiges of Creation" long before it was
elaborated in a more scientific form by Mr. Darwin and
Mr. Wallace. It has been opposed, of course, by
theologians; but, were it not that the theological mind is
inherently averse to the reception of new ideas, it would
have been seen that the supposition that the Creative
Power works by continuous modification and adaptation
of contrivance to end, by a constant exercise of His
prerogative, is a far higher tribute to His exalted
attributes, than the popular dogma that all living things
were created as we now see them by one single gigantic
effort, after which the power collapsed, and has never
since been exercised.
A paragraph on 32:
It may now fairly be asked, if the principle of natural
selection is abandoned as the main cause of these
wonderful modifications, what other theory can be
substituted in its place? I do not know that the objector
to a theory is always bound to provide another theory as
a substitute. Mr. Darwin, in his "Variation of Animals
and Plants under Domestication," quotes with
well-deserved approval Whewell's aphorism, that
"Hypotheses may often be of service to science, when
they involve a certain portion of incompleteness, and
even of error." Mr. Darwin's and Mr. Wallace's
hypothesis of natural selection has been of signal service
to science; but if this hypothesis has been too rashly
handled and too widely applied, it may be equally
serviceable to point out its incompleteness or its error, as
the first step to a still more scientific explanation. In the
following remarks, I merely wish to call the attention of
naturalists to one or two points which I think have
almost been lost sight of in the discussion.
On 33, the last two paragraphs of the article:
In the essay alluded to above, M. Claparede, himself one
of the few genuine Darwinians among French writers,
points out the dangerous and unscientific manner in
which the theory of natural selection is made, in the
hands of its too zealous advocates, to explain
phenomena which are probably due to other causes.
The discovery of this law marked an era in the history of
natural science, and gave a wonderful impulse to
original research. The danger now is that the law will
be pressed into services which have no claim upon it;
and that, in the hands of injudicious partisans, it will
become a hindrance rather than an aid to science, by
closing the door against further investigations into other
laws which lie behind it. To claim for Natural Selection
the main agency in the creation of the countless forms of
organic life with which we are surrounded, is straining it
beyond its strength. An era of equal importance will be
marked by the discovery of the law which regulates the
tendency to variation which must necessarily underlie
natural selection.
The argument of "design" was undoubtedly pushed by
pre-Darwinian writers to too great an extent. The most
recent phase of Darwinianism, however, is a complete
denial of the existence of design in Nature. It is the
carrying into Natural Science of the Hobbesian principle
of Self-love. Every individual and every species exists
for its own advantage only, and has no _raison d'etre_
except its own welfare. To my mind the beauties and
wonders of Nature seem, on the other hand, to teach a
different lesson, that,
All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul;
that there are laws, albeit almost unknown to us-- not
laws merely of external circumstance, but laws of
internal growth and structure,-- which actively modify
each individual organism, not only for its own
advantage in the struggle for life, but for the higher end
of subordinating every individual existence to the good
of the whole.
Tracy Hamilton
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> on 1 Jan 2004:
> david ford:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> However, for the moment I would like to discuss
> >> with you, John, the claims and references I presented
> >> above about 1932.
> >
> > They demonstarte nothing so far. More details.
> > No links. I pay for internet by the minute, and my
> > kids have put me into costly overtime.
>
> This is as lame an excuse as "The dog ate my homework."
Is it lamer than this?:
"You couldn't even consistently misspell Rostand's name.
There is no point in replying to the remainder of your post."
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
gen2rev
wrote in <b1c67abe.04010...@posting.google.com>:
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> on 1 Jan 2004:
> david ford:
[snip]
> > You can give the refs in one place. I have askled you to
> > do this repeatedly.
>
> This is the first I hear of it.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g33b2p.d2mjm71tllv03N%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g36qcm.an4n8he1ikwyN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
> > Page numbers, bibliographic details, and a summary or
> > quote from each to show that the sense you are deriving
> > is actually there.
>
> Many anti-neo-Darwinian-blindwatchmaking-mechanism
> quotes appear in the theory of natural selection essay at
> http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
> but you have repeatedly declined to critique the essay.
But I have. And as I've stated before, a major problem with this essay
is that you seem to have confused two of Darwin's claims. One is that
evolution happened, and the second is that Natural Selection is a
mechanism of that evolution. And why do you go on and on about the
fossil record?
[snip the rest]
david ford
of "evolution," sensu Sagan: Where should I go to see?"
david ford:
>> "evolution" is defined using Sagan's definition:
>
> It is not clear why you would rely upon a man whose
> degree field is planetary atmospheres for a definition of evolution.
Especially when there are so many other definitions of "evolution" out
there, including the paleontologist Simpson's: "Man is the result of
a purposeless materialistic process [i.e., "evolution"] that did not
have him in mind. He was not planned."
Citation in
J. Huxley, Stebbins, Simpson, and Dawkins on materialistic processes
http://tinyurl.com/227t8
BTW, various definitions/meanings of "evolution" are frequently used
by authors without notifying readers that shifts in the word's meaning
are occurring.
>> "Only nine percent of Americans accept the central finding of
>> modern biology that human beings (and all the other species)
>> have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
>> of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed
>> along the way."
>>
>> Should I go to a museum? If so, which ones?
>
> A central finding is not the fact of evolution.
>
> The fact of evolution is that life changes over time. The greater
> the distance in time the greater the change. And that is about it.
> But that you can see in a museum.
I, an old-earth creationist, accept that the sorts of plants and
animals present on the earth has not remained the same through time,
but instead has altered throughout the course of the earth's history.
Creationist geologists long ago recognized this fact.
views of Cuvier, d'Orbigny, and Agassiz (all creationists)
http://tinyurl.com/z514
> A theory is an explanation of the facts. The theory(s) of evolution explain
> the fact of evolution.
>
> It says nothing about the rate of change, that is a finding based upon a
> detailed study of the evidence.
>
> He mis-states "no divine intervention needed." We do not know
> that. We do know we have not found anything that appears to
> need divine intervention. What has been found can be
> explained by natural mechanisms.
The universe began to exist in the Big Bang creation event, and is
about 15 billion years old. Is the universe's beginning to exist
something [MG]"that appears to need divine intervention"?
Suppose a divine entity created physics such that physics could give
rise to life. If physics then gives rise to life, would life's
origination be ascribable to the action of a divine entity?
Suppose a divine entity created physics such that lifeforms could
easily transform into radically-different-appearing other lifeforms.
If a population of fruit flies transforms into a population of
penguins, would that be a transformation that involved the input of a
divine entity?
=================================.
Matt Giwer in "Re: Evidence of "evolution," sensu Sagan: Where
should I go to see?" on 1 Dec 2003:
david ford:
Lenny Flank:
david ford:
>>>> Where should I go to see evidence of "evolution," where
>>>> "evolution" is defined using Sagan's definition:
>>>> "Only nine percent of Americans accept the central finding of
>>>> modern biology that human beings (and all the other species)
>>>> have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
>>>> of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed
>>>> along the way."
>>>
>>> Would you mind telling me how to recognize "divine intervention"
in
>>> the history of life? Please be as specific as possible.
>>
>> Would you mind telling me how Sagan "knows" that [Sagan]"divine
>> intervention" wasn't needed to transform bacteria into humans?
(Or, to
>> be more precise, to transform the common ancestor(s) of bacteria
and
>> trilobites and oak trees into humans.) Please be as specific as
possible.
>
> He doesn't know that. He mis-stated it. The correct statement is,
> everything in the fossil evidence can be explained by natural
> means, nothing has been found that suggests or requires divine
> intervention.
Suppose someone rose from the dead after being dead 3 days. Would
that arising be something that [MG]"requires divine intervention"? If
"no," please mention 3 hypothetical/ imaginary events that would
[MG]"requir[e] divine intervention."
> The jerk offs claiming you are evading something do not understand
> evolution enough to explain it and should have no place in the newsgroup.
david ford
david ford:
>>> How can you be posting from a .edu email address and be asking a
>>> question like this? Do you really want to learn about evolution
or are
>>> you just wanting to stir things up?
>>>
>>> Any good bookstore will supply you with what you need. A good one
>>> to start with is Carl Zimmer's "Evolution" - the book which
>>> companioned the
>>> PBS TV series on evolution. This consists of over 360 pages of
>>> introductory material including nine pages of suggested further
reading.
>>
>> Where exactly in Carl Zimmer's _Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea_
>> (2001) should I go to see evidence of "evolution," where
"evolution" is
>> defined using Gould's characterizations of the term on the book's
>> pages x (the first complete paragraph) and xi (last paragraph)?
>
> 1. Gould is talking about vestiges there, but there is no reason why
> vestiges must be covered in this book, which is a historical narrative
> about the way evolution was discovered
In my copy of Zimmer's _Evolution_ book, Gould does not talk about
vestiges in the paragraphs I referenced. In my copy, the first and
last words on page x are "society" and "past," while the first and
last words on page xi are "by" and "ago," respectively.
The last word on 41 is "by," and the last word on 332 is "science."
Does your copy match?
> 2. pp40-41, 331-332
I've read these pages in my copy of Zimmer. I don't see an answer to
my question on these pages.
> 3. Vestiges are one line of discovery - homologies in general are
> another - try chapter 6.
Is your chapter 6 "The Accidental Tool Kit"?
Please briefly describe how vestiges and homologies are evidence for
_________________________________ [whatever you want to say they are
evidence for], and mention 2 examples/illustrations of each.
> 4. If you *really* want to know what evolutionary theory is about, try
> reading some textbooks, and eventually some primary literature. You can
> make any argument you like on the basis of popular books. For example, I
> once read this devotional book on church doctrine...
Would this article qualify as [JW]"primary literature"?:
Orr, H. Allen and Jerry A. Coyne. 1992. "The Genetics of Adaptation:
A Reassessment" _The American Naturalist_ 140: 725-742.
If so, I've read it.
1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
http://tinyurl.com/y86y
1992 _American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
http://tinyurl.com/y86w
>>> The evidence for evolution is spread far and wide. Yes you can
find
>>> out about it from museums, yes, you can find out about it from
>>> peer-reviewed literature, yes you can find out about it from
books.
>>> You can also find out about it from studying the fossil record,
from
>>> studying the genomes of various species, from studying
biochemistry,
>>> comparative anatomy, from geology, from medicine, from
paleontology
>>> and a host of other avenues. It all depends on how serious you
are
>>> and how much you want to learn.
>>>
>>> A good online source of information to get up and running is the
>>> talk.origins archive (www.talkorigins.org). This consists of all
>>> manner of material including "informally peer-reviewed" articles
on
>>> the topic, many of which have references to formally peer-reviewed
>>> papers that have been published in professional, refereed
journals.
>>>
>>> Your request to learn about it as defined by Carl Sagan is rather
odd.
>>> Why choose his definition? He was an astronomer, not a biologist
or
>>> someone in some similar field of study. If you are interested in
>>> learning about evolution "as controlled by some god", then science
>>> cannot help you.
>>>
>>> Scientists are in the business of studying the natural world, not
the
>>> supernatural. Evolutionists can only try to understand what
nature
>>> tells us about the way it came to be the way it is, and the
evidence
>>> so far reveals that everything we see came to be as it is without
the
>>> *requirement* of divine intervention. Science cannot go beyond
that
>>> and state categorically that this means there is no god, or that
it
>>> means there is a god.
>>>
>>> Clearly no one has been alive long enough to see evolution in the
>>> broad sense of a migration from inanimate material to the first
cell
>>> to modern organisms, so like a detective piecing together clues
from
>>> an unwitnessed crime to catch the culprit, scientists are forced
to
>>> use what clues are available to understand our origins. Ever
since
>>> Darwin first put the subject out there with a proposed mechanism
to
>>> explain part of it, scientists have been steadily building a
massive
>>> amount of support for the theory.
>>>
>>> The definition of evolution is essentially a change in allele
>>> frequency in a population. This, together with speciation has
been
>>> observed. Pathways from from non-animate material to living
>>> organisms
>>> have been suggested (such as in "Vital Dust" by Nobel Laureate
>>> Christian de Duve), although this isn't strictly part of
evolution.
>>> From that point on, the fossil record, the diversity and
distribution
>>> of life, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, and the study of and
>>> experimentation on various genomes or parts thereof have provided
so
>>> much evidence that no competent scientist who knows what they're
>>> talking about doubts that it happened.
>>>
>>> You are apparently posting from an educational institution. You
are
>>> privileged to be there. Do not waste your time blundering around
or
>>> waiting for "education" to settle upon you like a dove from
Heaven.
>>> Educate yourself.
>>>
>>> Budikka
John Wilkins
Yes. I made a mistake, and read instead the last complete paragraph on x
and the first complete paragraph on xi.
The first para on x does not define evolution, but distinguishes rightly
between fact of evolution and the explanatory theories, so it was
irrelevant. The last para on xi does not define it either, but says,
"Evolution substituted a naturalistic explanation of cold comfort for
our former conviction that a benevolent deity fashioned us directly...".
He says that humans represent a tiny twig on the tree of life, and have
only a brief existence. So far as I can tell all this is true. Similar
theological points might also be made about gravitational theory and
Newtonian physics, of course.
>
> > 2. pp40-41, 331-332
>
> I've read these pages in my copy of Zimmer. I don't see an answer to
> my question on these pages.
You question is "where should I go in Zimmer to find evidence of
evolution?" Since I mistook it for evidence of vestiges, I gave the
answer to the wrong question.
>
> > 3. Vestiges are one line of discovery - homologies in general are
> > another - try chapter 6.
>
> Is your chapter 6 "The Accidental Tool Kit"?
> Please briefly describe how vestiges and homologies are evidence for
> _________________________________ [whatever you want to say they are
> evidence for], and mention 2 examples/illustrations of each.
This is disingenuous of you. You either know how homologies and vestiges
are evidence of evolution (in which case all we need do is provide
examples of them, which every textbook does), or you don't know enough
to make criticisms of evolutionary theory and fact.
Zimmer lists homologous genes (and they are only several of literally
thousands). He lists examples of molecular homologies of eye pigments
that are slightly different in related groups and very different is
distantly related groups. He lists developmental homologies and
differences. He discusses whales, and the predictions based on the
mamalian homologies of bones and organs that whales will be found to
have landbased ancestors, now discovered. And all this is listed in one
form or another on the Archive or on a number of publically available
websites, in books and in the technical literature.
You aren't int he position to ask people to list two or any other number
of examples. They have been provided before. We have the same book - so
let's discuss a single case fully, and move on. But I warn you - I don't
have the time to do a page by page commentary on a popular book.
>
> > 4. If you *really* want to know what evolutionary theory is about, try
> > reading some textbooks, and eventually some primary literature. You can
> > make any argument you like on the basis of popular books. For example, I
> > once read this devotional book on church doctrine...
>
> Would this article qualify as [JW]"primary literature"?:
> Orr, H. Allen and Jerry A. Coyne. 1992. "The Genetics of Adaptation:
> A Reassessment" _The American Naturalist_ 140: 725-742.
I would take AN to be one step above Scientific American. It is not a
technical journal, it is a more technical popular magazine. If you want
to discuss reviews, though, try Trends in Ecology and Evolution, or
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, or Evolution, or Nature (the
research articles, not the summary reviews for the nonspecialist), and
so on.
>
> If so, I've read it.
> 1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
> http://tinyurl.com/y86y
> 1992 _American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
> http://tinyurl.com/y86w
So, what do they say? Or am I supposed to have memorised the last 150
years of the literature both technical and popular?
>
<snip Budikka's excellent comments, which you seem not to have responded
to at all>
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> on 1 Jan 2004:
> david ford:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> However, for the moment I would like to discuss
> >> with you, John, the claims and references I presented
> >> above about 1932.
> >
> > They demonstarte nothing so far. More details.
> > No links. I pay for internet by the minute, and my
> > kids have put me into costly overtime.
>
> This is as lame an excuse as "The dog ate my homework."
Whatever. I do my own homework - not yours.
And I edit and read offline. My link time is limited. Unfortunately, I
don't have the luxury of an .edu.* account at home, and at work I am
expected to limit my online time.
>
> > You can give the refs in one place. I have askled you to
> > do this repeatedly.
>
> This is the first I hear of it.
Sure it is david. Sure it is.
>
> > Page numbers, bibliographic details, and a summary or
> > quote from each to show that the sense you are deriving
> > is actually there.
>
> Many anti-neo-Darwinian-blindwatchmaking-mechanism
> quotes appear in the theory of natural selection essay at
> http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
> but you have repeatedly declined to critique the essay.
> At some point I might create an essay involving some
> 1932-and-before quotes, including the 1870 Bennett quote
> below.
All you have done is present quotes from a number of people who either
reject natural selection altogether (usually non-scientists, and early
on, in the 19thC) or who, like *Darwin* do not expect selection to be
all-powerful. What you have not done is show that at or around 1932,
natural selection was rejected as an evolutionary, and in particular as
an adaptive, mechanism.
You seem to confuse speciation, adaptation, and other kinds of
evolutionary change. Selection ios the sole plausible and demonstrated
mechanism of adaptation. It is not the sole cause of speciation (indeed,
for a long time, until fairly recently, it was thought that speciation
did not involve selection at all; but a number of counterexamples have
been documented), and it is not the only process going on in evolution.
At the time you say people were abandoning selection, selection was
given a mathematical treatment, and population genetics was showing how
it could generate major shifts in populational composition in relatively
short periods. The synthesis was founded on that, in large part, basing
on the work of Fisher, Wright, Haldane and Ford, and later on
Dobzhansky, Mayr and others. [Lurkers might like to read the
participants' recollections in
Mayr, E. and W. B. Provine, Eds. (1980). The evolutionary synthesis:
perspectives of the unification of biology. Cambridge MA, Harvard
University Press.
in which the role of mathematics, and in particular of statistics, in
the synthesis is recorded and discussed. Also see
Krüger, L., L. J. Daston, et al. (1990). The Probabilistic revolution.
Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
]
>
> When you have had a chance to access and review the
> links I supplied, please let me know.
> A local library might provide free Internet access.
> One way to quickly save the contents of a link is to go to a
> page, "file" and "save as" (or if it works, control-s) to save
> the page, save it, open Word, and open the saved file. In this
> manner, you could probably save the text of all the links in
> under 5 minutes, and then review the material at your
> leisure.
> A longer method is: control-a to select all, control-c to copy,
> control-v to paste into WordPad (the material here loses the
> graphics), control-a to select all and control-x to cut, and
> finally control-v to paste into Word.
If you want to discuss some quote or publication, then it is incumbent
on you to present the refs, not send people off to URLs. One reason I
refuse to chase them down is that you repeatedly cite posts of your own
that do not give the refs either. Give 'em here or not at all. After
all, if cut and paste is that easy, *you* cut and paste them. You *know*
where the essay is, and have it presumably on your own hard disk. I fail
to see why *we* should do your bibliographic work for you to support
your own claims.
>
> When you get your hands on a copy of the Bell book, which
> you recommended to me and which I got, please let me know.
As of the last day at uni, it was still out.
>
> Incidentally, one reply to you appears in the thread "Naive ?s
> on the Blindwatchmaker Thesis" at
> http://tinyurl.com/3x8x5
>
> > And here's one comment to make: there is a difference between
> > restricting the things selection explains (which must occur no matter
> > how selectionist one is - for example, selection does not explain the
> > seasons or gravity, so there have to be *some* limits) is quite a
> > different thing from "discarding selection". You are just engaging in
> > rhetorical flourish. New year, old song.
>
> I hope you don't give up, for I have such fond memories of
> our discussions. And now, the promised Bennett.
>
> Bennett, Alfred W. 10 Nov 1870. "The Theory of Natural
> Selection From a Mathematical Point of View" _Nature_ 3:
> 30-33. This paper was read before Section D of the British
> Association, at Liverpool, 20 September 1870.
I will attempt to get a copy from microfiche when I get back.
So far, all we have is
1. Acceptance of common descent and descent with modification.
2. A dig at theologians and assertion of the compatibility of evolution
and religion.
So far, no substantial attack on selection.
>
> A paragraph on 32:
> It may now fairly be asked, if the principle of natural
> selection is abandoned as the main cause of these
> wonderful modifications, what other theory can be
> substituted in its place? I do not know that the objector
> to a theory is always bound to provide another theory as
> a substitute. Mr. Darwin, in his "Variation of Animals
> and Plants under Domestication," quotes with
> well-deserved approval Whewell's aphorism, that
> "Hypotheses may often be of service to science, when
> they involve a certain portion of incompleteness, and
> even of error." Mr. Darwin's and Mr. Wallace's
> hypothesis of natural selection has been of signal service
> to science; but if this hypothesis has been too rashly
> handled and too widely applied, it may be equally
> serviceable to point out its incompleteness or its error, as
> the first step to a still more scientific explanation. In the
> following remarks, I merely wish to call the attention of
> naturalists to one or two points which I think have
> almost been lost sight of in the discussion.
So here we have:
A claim that he doesn't have to come up with a replacement hypothesis
[arguable in the extreme, but perhaps defensible in 1870].
No substantial argument against natural selection.
>
> On 33, the last two paragraphs of the article:
> In the essay alluded to above, M. Claparede, himself one
> of the few genuine Darwinians among French writers,
> points out the dangerous and unscientific manner in
> which the theory of natural selection is made, in the
> hands of its too zealous advocates, to explain
> phenomena which are probably due to other causes.
> The discovery of this law marked an era in the history of
> natural science, and gave a wonderful impulse to
> original research. The danger now is that the law will
> be pressed into services which have no claim upon it;
> and that, in the hands of injudicious partisans, it will
> become a hindrance rather than an aid to science, by
> closing the door against further investigations into other
> laws which lie behind it. To claim for Natural Selection
> the main agency in the creation of the countless forms of
> organic life with which we are surrounded, is straining it
> beyond its strength. An era of equal importance will be
> marked by the discovery of the law which regulates the
> tendency to variation which must necessarily underlie
> natural selection.
An argument from consequences (fallacy 1)
An argument from ignorance (fallacy 2)
An affirmation of the consequent (fallacy 3).
You *sure* this guy is a mathematician?
>
> The argument of "design" was undoubtedly pushed by
> pre-Darwinian writers to too great an extent. The most
> recent phase of Darwinianism, however, is a complete
> denial of the existence of design in Nature. It is the
> carrying into Natural Science of the Hobbesian principle
> of Self-love. Every individual and every species exists
> for its own advantage only, and has no _raison d'etre_
> except its own welfare. To my mind the beauties and
> wonders of Nature seem, on the other hand, to teach a
> different lesson, that,
> All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
> Whose body Nature is, and God the soul;
>
> that there are laws, albeit almost unknown to us-- not
> laws merely of external circumstance, but laws of
> internal growth and structure,-- which actively modify
> each individual organism, not only for its own
> advantage in the struggle for life, but for the higher end
> of subordinating every individual existence to the good
> of the whole.
An argument from aesthetic preferences (fallacy 4).
Nothing but assertions and fallacies.
Al Klein
ford) posted to alt.atheism:
>Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> in "Re: Evidence
> of "evolution," sensu Sagan: Where should I go to see?"
> on 1 Dec 2003:
>david ford:
>>> Where should I go to see evidence of "evolution," where
>>> "evolution" is defined using Sagan's definition:
>> It is not clear why you would rely upon a man whose
>> degree field is planetary atmospheres for a definition of evolution.
>Especially when there are so many other definitions of "evolution" out
>there, including the paleontologist Simpson's: "Man is the result of
>a purposeless materialistic process [i.e., "evolution"] that did not
>have him in mind. He was not planned."
Well ... aside from the fact that that's NOT a definition of evolution
....
>The universe began to exist in the Big Bang creation event, and is
>about 15 billion years old. Is the universe's beginning to exist
>something [MG]"that appears to need divine intervention"?
There doesn't appear to be any evidence that it does. Unless you have
some?
>Suppose someone rose from the dead after being dead 3 days.
We'd worry about the implications after it happened.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Placebo GODS
From: dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford)
Date: 02/01/2004 11:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <b1c67abe.04010...@posting.google.com>
The ''fact'' of evolution? LOL. The theories of general relativity, quantum
mechanics, and tons more that have been TESTED and OBSERVED and proved correct
to almost unbelievable levels are still not yet called FACTS, absolute truths.
Yet, on the other hand, you claim to know for sure, evolution is a FACT, when
it has NEVER been observed or tested. No experiment has proved natural
selection or random mutations could produce greater complexity in species or
add new protein to the genome or create new species. It is NOT fact, but
science-fiction.
Shalom!
david ford
Tracy Hamilton <t_p_ha...@yahoo.com> on 2 Jan 2004:
david ford
John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> on 1 Jan 2004:
david ford:
> > >> However, for the moment I would like to discuss
> > >> with you, John, the claims and references I presented
> > >> above about 1932.
> > >
> > > They demonstarte nothing so far. More details.
> > > No links. I pay for internet by the minute, and my
> > > kids have put me into costly overtime.
> >
> > This is as lame an excuse as "The dog ate my homework."
>
> Is it lamer than this?:
>
> "You couldn't even consistently misspell Rostand's name.
> There is no point in replying to the remainder of your post."
Ah, yes, you're quoting from my
1981 Francis Crick: "plausibility is not enough," is "usually
contaminated with our unstated prejudices"
http://tinyurl.com/257oa
The inspiration for the comments of mine that you quote above was this
exchange:
df: That's right: just let Howard answer the snipped easy questions.
Tracy Hamilton on 23 Dec 03: Umm, no. Just stop at the first major
error that should not have been
made because why the premise was faulty was already explained. If you
don't get that right, there was no point to going further.
By the way, should you have any insight into this question asked in my
1981 Crick post, please do share:
What are some [Crick]"unstated prejudices" that are
contaminating theory-of-NS-adherents' perception of
plausibility of Darwin's theory of natural selection, i.e. the
Darwinian blindwatchmaking mechanism, in accounting for
the mind-less origination of new organs and new structures
having new functions?
(Of course, if you were to state any [Crick]"unstated prejudices,"
they would cease to be unstated-- it's actually not possible for you
to answer the question verbally or in print.)
Getting back to [TH]"Is it lamer than this?:", I have responded to
your Rostand post twice:
once when I made the comment about misspellings and presented Crick,
and the second time when I replied on 25 Dec 03 to an older post of
yours (portions of that older post you placed into your Rostand post):
Dawkins on blind watchmaking; thumbnail description of 3 major
problems with the theory of natural selection
http://tinyurl.com/2y4av
When I get around to it I will reply to your Rostand post's comments
about mutations, since your invitation to discuss mutations is simply
too good to pass up.
The bottom line is that I have replied twice to portions of your
Rostand post, and plan to make a 3rd reply.
gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> on 2 Jan 2004:
david ford on 2 Jan 2004:
John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> on 1 Jan 2004:
david ford:
> > > > You can give the refs in one place. I have askled you to
> > > > do this repeatedly.
> > >
> > > This is the first I hear of it.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g33b2p.d2mjm7
> 1tllv03N%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g36qcm.an4n
> 8he1ikwyN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
I printed and read both of these posts, and failed to see John W.
asking me to [JW]"give the refs in one place" in either one. Which
words of John in those 2 posts do you think are John asking me to
[JW]"give the refs in one place"?
> > > Page numbers, bibliographic details, and a summary or
> > > quote from each to show that the sense you are deriving
> > > is actually there.
> >
> > Many anti-neo-Darwinian-blindwatchmaking-mechanism
> > quotes appear in the theory of natural selection essay at
> > http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
> > but you have repeatedly declined to critique the essay.
>
> But I have. And as I've stated before, a major problem with this essay
> is that you seem to have confused two of Darwin's claims. One is that
> evolution happened, and the second is that Natural Selection is a
> mechanism of that evolution.
And in
1990 Bengtson on Cambrian explosion
http://tinyurl.com/y8bv
I replied as follows:
==================== begin reply =================
You stated earlier that [g]"A major problem with this essay [of df's]
is that you [df] seem to have confused two of Darwin's claims. One is
that evolution happened, and the second is that Natural Selection is a
mechanism of that evolution."
Inserting the definitions you supplied of [g]"evolution" and
[g]"Natural Selection" into your statement, I get the following
rendition of what you maintain:
Darwin claimed that change in allele frequencies over time happened,
and Darwin claimed that over time the local environment influencing
allele frequencies in a population is a mechanism of that change in
allele frequencies over time.
Where exactly in _Origin_ did Darwin make the two claims you allege he
made?
==================== end reply =================
> And why do you go on and on about the fossil record?
Just to remind ourselves, in the 1990 Bengtson link presented above,
there is this exchange:
==================== begin exchange =================
>>>> Please say exactly where in my essay on the theory of natural
selection I
>>>> confused 1) and 2).
>>>
>>> The part where you go on and on about the fossil record.
>>
>> I invite lurkers to read the fossil record section of my theory of
natural
>> selection essay, and see if they spot the confusion between 1) and
2) that
>> gen2rev alleges exists there. For reference, 1) and 2) are as
follows:
>> 1) Change in allele frequencies over time, whether directed or
>> non-directed, occurred
>> 2) Natural Selection, one of the mechanisms of that change in
allele
>> frequencies over time.
>> The essay's URL is
==================== end exchange =================
Now, to answer [g]"And why do you go on and on about the fossil
record?," I'll present my response to the question [TH]"What are the
major problems with natural selection?":
a. Small, minor changes in certain kinds of fossil organisms
are seen in the fossil record, yet these small, minor changes
are not seen accumulating to the point where new body
structures having new functions appear. (In fact, we find in
the fossil record new body structures having new functions
appearing _abruptly_.)
b. In a similar fashion, small minor changes in living
organisms are seen in the laboratory and in the field, yet
these small, minor changes are not seen accumulating to the
point where new body structures and new organs having new
functions appear.
c. In short, the testimony of the fossil record and of living
organisms is harmonious.
1. One major problem with the theory of natural selection is
that there is no confirmation for it from the fossil record.
2. A second major problem with the theory of natural
selection is that there is no confirmation of it from lab
experiments and out in the field.
3. A third major problem with the theory of natural selection
John Wilkins
...
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> on 2 Jan 2004:
> david ford on 2 Jan 2004:
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> on 1 Jan 2004:
> david ford:
>
> > > > > You can give the refs in one place. I have askled you to
> > > > > do this repeatedly.
> > > >
> > > > This is the first I hear of it.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g33b2p.d2mjm7
> > 1tllv03N%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g36qcm.an4n
> > 8he1ikwyN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
>
> I printed and read both of these posts, and failed to see John W.
> asking me to [JW]"give the refs in one place" in either one. Which
> words of John in those 2 posts do you think are John asking me to
> [JW]"give the refs in one place"?
Well I read it as asking you to follow usual debating procedure, but
that's no nevermind. I did ask you to provide references and quotes here
(sorry for the long URL, but I don't know how to cut down Google links):
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=1g23ayq.1v8u3pa
1iz307pN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dford%2Breferences%2B
group:talk.origins%2Bauthor:wilkins%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_
drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D2001%26as_maxd%3D4%26a
s_maxm%3D1%26as_maxy%3D2004%26selm%3D1g23ayq.1v8u3pa1iz307pN%2525wilkins
%2540wehi.edu.au%26rnum%3D2>
>
> > > > Page numbers, bibliographic details, and a summary or
> > > > quote from each to show that the sense you are deriving
> > > > is actually there.
But let's start afresh.
David,
Can you please post the bibliographic references in the post, rather
than in a URL, so I don't have to go chasing your supporting evidence?
It is standard academic practice to do this, and if somebody refuses to
do this in ordinary conversation, they are deemed not to have supporting
references.
If you have a long bibliography, then it is not feasible to post it, and
instead better to put it in a single file and place that somewhere so I
can download it in one go.
Moreover, I still want you to put one or a few quotations at a time,
with your own argument and conclusions drawn, rather than posting long
excerpts from some other article that may, or may not be relevant to the
issue at hand.
This is not onerous, or rather, it moves the burden of providing support
for your own views to you, as well as the burden of making an actual
case. You did well with the claim from the 1870 mathematician, which
enabled me to respond quite easily.
Here's how it might work. You make a claim, say, "Natural selection was
being abandoned around 1932 by biologists working on organisms at the
time". To support this, you cite publications from that time, along with
a short summary of the argument from each one that supports the claim.
Then I can go check the refs and see if they do support the claim the
way you think, or respond to your summary of their argument if that is
sufficient to be going on.
I will cite refs myself, which you can then check. We do this for each
point until we have exhausted the topic, ourselves, or reach agreement.
...
Oh, and we have to define our terms. Can you please define what you mean
by "neo-Darwinism" and "blindwatchmaking" in your own words, because
your usage of these terms doesn't seem to match anything I have read
about either?
gen2rev
Wilkins) wrote in <1g733q9.1jx0hnfqwcbufN%john.w...@bigpond.com>:
[snip]
> (sorry for the long URL, but I don't know how to cut down Google links):
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=1g23ayq.1v8u3pa
> 1iz307pN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dford%2Breferences%2B
> group:talk.origins%2Bauthor:wilkins%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_
> drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D2001%26as_maxd%3D4%26a
> s_maxm%3D1%26as_maxy%3D2004%26selm%3D1g23ayq.1v8u3pa1iz307pN%2525wilkins
> %2540wehi.edu.au%26rnum%3D2>
Remove everything but the "selm" switch. The above URL reduces to
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g23ayq.1v8u3pa1iz307pN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
Or, if for some reason "selm" isn't present in the URL, look for
"as_umsgid". Using this switch, the URL for the referenced post is
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=1g23ayq.1v8u3pa1iz307pN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
Note that both of these switches refer to the message's ID, with
characters like "%" and "@" replaced by hexadecimal "longhand" ("%25"
and "%40").
HTH
gen2rev
wrote in <b1c67abe.04010...@posting.google.com>:
> Replies to gen2rev and Tracy H.
[snip Tracy Hamilton stuff]
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> on 2 Jan 2004:
> david ford on 2 Jan 2004:
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> on 1 Jan 2004:
> david ford:
>
> > > > > You can give the refs in one place. I have askled you to
> > > > > do this repeatedly.
> > > >
> > > > This is the first I hear of it.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g33b2p.d2mjm7
> > 1tllv03N%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g36qcm.an4n
> > 8he1ikwyN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au
>
> I printed and read both of these posts, and failed to see John W.
> asking me to [JW]"give the refs in one place" in either one. Which
> words of John in those 2 posts do you think are John asking me to
> [JW]"give the refs in one place"?
Where he writes:
Instead, you make a claim here, and I will discuss it with you,
criticising only when necessary. I will check up your use of
secondary quotations as well, but what I won't do is hunt
through your often repetitive posts and do an exegesis of them.
If you want to engage me in conversation, then I shall happily
do so, but you have to engage *me*. URLs are, on Usenet, for
secondary references. But I shan't try to reconstruct your
argument for you.
And I replied to this in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9ljatv4hkefqpi659d77uakcj9ikr12bca%404ax.com
where I wrote:
==================== begin reply =================
In the last paragraph (amongst others):
It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with
many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes,
with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling
through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately
constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent
on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by
laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense,
being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost
implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and
direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use
and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle
for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing
Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved
forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the
most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely,
the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is
grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed
law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
==================== end reply =================
What does this have to do with Natural Selection? Aside from the fact
that we *do* see new body structures with new functions appearing
gradually in the fossil record (for instance, the wings of birds), what
makes you think that Natural Selection must proceed in small, minor
changes? Who claims that it has too?
> b. In a similar fashion, small minor changes in living
> organisms are seen in the laboratory and in the field, yet
> these small, minor changes are not seen accumulating to the
> point where new body structures and new organs having new
> functions appear.
That's not true either. Take a look at:
Johnsen, S., Balser, E. J., & Widder, E. A. 1999.
Light-emitting suckers in an octopus. Nature 398:113-114.
> c. In short, the testimony of the fossil record and of living
> organisms is harmonious.
Yes, but not in the way that you believe.
> 1. One major problem with the theory of natural selection is
> that there is no confirmation for it from the fossil record.
But then again, no one claims that the fossil record confirms Natural
Selection. However, it doesn't rule it out, either.
> 2. A second major problem with the theory of natural
> selection is that there is no confirmation of it from lab
> experiments and out in the field.
So are you withdrawing your claim that "organisms' environments and the
other organisms with which they interact can cause change in allele
frequencies over time"? (see
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160146370.24664-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu)
This is the very definition of Natural Selection.
> 3. A third major problem with the theory of natural selection
> is that it utilizes mutations as the raw material for
> blindwatchmaking, and yet there are exceedingly few-- if
> any-- known mutations that could plausibly be said to be
> capable of contributing to the appearance of new organs and
> new structures having new functions.
Can you back up that claim? Even if you can, "exceedingly few" are all
that's required over geological time scales.
howard hershey
david ford wrote:
> Replies to gen2rev and Tracy H.
>
> Tracy Hamilton <t_p_ha...@yahoo.com> on 2 Jan 2004: david ford
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> on 1 Jan 2004: david ford:
>
[snip]
> And in 1990 Bengtson on Cambrian explosion http://tinyurl.com/y8bv
>
> I replied as follows: ==================== begin reply
> ================= You stated earlier that [g]"A major problem with
> this essay [of df's] is that you [df] seem to have confused two of
> Darwin's claims. One is that evolution happened, and the second is
> that Natural Selection is a mechanism of that evolution." Inserting
> the definitions you supplied of [g]"evolution" and [g]"Natural
> Selection" into your statement, I get the following rendition of what
> you maintain: Darwin claimed that change in allele frequencies over
> time happened, and Darwin claimed that over time the local
> environment influencing allele frequencies in a population is a
> mechanism of that change in allele frequencies over time. Where
> exactly in _Origin_ did Darwin make the two claims you allege he
> made? ==================== end reply =================
Darwin observed and documented that organisms exhibit phenotypic
variance and that some of that phenotypic variance is heritable. He
also thought that there was a continual input of new or recurrent
variance into populations. He certainly was correct in both statements.
Today we would say that organisms in a population vary in the nature
of their alleles and some of this genetic variance has a phenotypic
effect. We would also say that there is a continual input of new or
recurrent variance by mutation which has been demonstrated to occur
without respect for need for the mutation. Darwin, being somewhat
forced into a Lamarkian form of genetics, was wrong about the last point.
Darwin also observed and documented the fact that the environment
influences the relative success of certain phenotypes, and, to the
extent that the phenotype is based on genotypic or allelic variance,
causes differences in the relative success of certain genotypes.
When the environment is changed or changing in a consistent way, either
naturally or by human intervention, these facts of nature can and will
lead to a change in the phenotypes seen (and to the extent that these
changes are genetically based, lead to changes in the frequency of the
underlying alleles or genetic factors that affect phenotype).
[snip]
>
> Now, to answer [g]"And why do you go on and on about the fossil
> record?," I'll present my response to the question [TH]"What are the
> major problems with natural selection?":
>
> a. Small, minor changes in certain kinds of fossil organisms are seen
> in the fossil record, yet these small, minor changes are not seen
> accumulating to the point where new body structures having new
> functions appear.
That is, variance within populations *can* be observed in the fossil
record. This variance is of the same type that can be observed today
and are due, undoubtedly, to the same kinds of mutational mechanisms
that produce genetic and phenotypic variance today. And the fossil
record can also show, in a particular spot, changes in environment over
time. Over particularly long times, the amount of environmental change
can be significant. Say, changes from softer browsing shrubs to
grasslands that might require changes in dentation in herbivores.
> (In fact, we find in the fossil record new body
> structures having new functions appearing _abruptly_.) b. In a
> similar fashion, small minor changes in living organisms are seen in
> the laboratory and in the field, yet these small, minor changes are
> not seen accumulating to the point where new body structures and new
> organs having new functions appear.
The fossil record, of course, is inherently not complete. That gives
two possible explanations for the apparently abrupt changes, missing
information because of the stochastic and sporadic nature of
fossilization or missing information because organisms change too
rapidly. Take your pick. But the real question is involved in *rate*.
You agree that fossil organisms show variance similar to that seen
today. And there is evidence that environments changed directionally in
the past. So, given the rate of directional change that is possible in
present-day organisms by environmental selection (say the amount of
change in bill size in finches per year), is it possible for such a rate
to produce the observed amount of change in the fossil record given the
amount of time available for a particular observed change -- say that
between the dentation of a browsing horse species and a grazing horse
species. Or is some other mechanism than selection necessary?
> c. In short, the testimony of the
> fossil record and of living organisms is harmonious.
I agree. But I am sure I disagree with what you meant to say.
> 1. One major problem with the theory of natural selection is that
> there is no confirmation for it from the fossil record.
There is consistency with the expectations of natural selection in the
fossil record. The fossil record clearly shows that variance in the
past existed. And variance within a population is a prerequisite for
selection. No variance, no selection. It is almost certain that
genetic systems were similar in the past. At least I see no reason to
doubt it. That means that mutation occurred in the past, and was the
source of new or recurrent variance. And it is certain that
environments changed in the past. Since it is not possible to re-create
with certainty all the selective pressures on an organism that existed
millions of years ago over sufficient periods of time to see its effect,
all we can ask is if the observations are consistent with changes one
would expect for selection. That is, if the environment is seen to be
changing from soft shrubs to harsher grasses, are the fossils of the
organisms in that environment (say horse-like organisms) changing
appropriately within lineages to adapt to the changing environment?
> 2. A second major problem with the theory of natural selection is
> that there is no confirmation of it from lab experiments and out in
> the field.
Again, you must have some very strange idea of what natural selection
is, since there is ample theoretical and experimental evidence of the
effectiveness of selection by environmental conditions in changing
phenotype of organisms *and*, to the extent that the phenotypes are
genetically based, changing the genotypes of populations.
There is nothing in the definition of "natural selection" that states
that the genetic change is not "natural selection" unless some entirely
new organ magically poofs into existence. There is nothing in the
definition of natural selection that requires that needed mutations
appear. There is nothing in the definition of natural selection that
involves a teleologic goal. There is nothing in the definition of
natural selection that defines that 'natural selection' only occurs if
the change is over some unspecified amount.
> 3. A third major problem with the theory of natural selection is that
> it utilizes mutations as the raw material for blindwatchmaking, and
> yet there are exceedingly few-- if any-- known mutations that could
> plausibly be said to be capable of contributing to the appearance of
> new organs and new structures having new functions.
>
Mutations modify existing structures and functions. Any 'new'
structures and functions that mutations produce will be little more than
modifications of existing structures and functions plus some 'new'
functions that are emergent consequences of modifications of existing
structures.
Since essentially all 'new' organs, 'new' structures, and 'new'
functions that have evolved have their roots in the modification of
pre-existing gene 'structures' (or duplicates thereof), it is 'new'
organs and 'new' structures that *cannot* be generated by known
mechanisms of mutation (including duplication, chimeric duplication,
rearrangements, point mutations, deletions and insertions) that are hard
to nearly impossible to find.
John Wilkins
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
...
> > When you get your hands on a copy of the Bell book, which
> > you recommended to me and which I got, please let me know.
>
> As of the last day at uni, it was still out.
...
I have it now.
BTW: Looking back over this thread, I note you haven't responded to any
of my main points. Why is that?