T0E good for anti-extinction efforts?
david ford
and animal extinction? Does evolutionary theory help, hurt,
or have no effect on anti-extinction efforts?
Witham, Larry. 2003. _By Design: Science and the Search
for God_ (San Francisco: Encounter Books), 248pp. Three
paragraphs on 183-4, with Witham's bracketing:
That, at least, is the remarkable public claim of one of
the world's leading experts on butterflies. At the same
London museum where Patterson had held forth,
Bernard d'Abrera rose to prominence for his mastery of
the butterfly, which he had studied from age three. In
2001, he came out with the beautifully illustrated _The
Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World_, running to
353 pages in coffee table size. A summa of his career,
thirty years of work, it contains illustrations of nearly
every genus of butterfly ever described. Here are all the
ingredients for a possible butterfly tree of life. But then,
a considerable section of the book is devoted to
lambasting science's failure to fund preservation of
butterflies and the environment; all the money,
complains d'Abrera, is squandered looking for an
elusive Darwinian tree.
"They fill the universities and the scientific institutions
after their own kind, and relentlessly pursue useless
theories about the past origins of species, which have no
bearing whatsoever on the systematic extinction of
species in their present," he wrote. His book is an attack
on the "arrogant attitude" of modern materialist science,
which claims it is not philosophical, but indeed is
profoundly so, not allowing experts like himself to
categorize nature's wonders in ways that acknowledge
them, with Linnaean-like clarity, as God's creations.
The author, who describes himself as a "Natural
Historian and Philosopher," says his work is an antidote
to "the very real excesses of evolutionist literature and
its relentless propaganda." Accordingly, his chapters on
biology, classification, philosophical argument and
mimicry spare the reader any hint of the "evolutionary
bias."
D'Abrera labels the bias in question the "Theory of the
Accidental Origin and Evolution of Species by Chance."
Breaking from that assumption, he "simply wishes to
free himself and his readers of all that viscid,
asphyxiating baggage, so as to leave the study of the
lepidoptera [insects with two pairs of broad wings]
entirely in the peace and tranquility of an objective
science, based on observation, experimental
demonstration, and above all, common sense."
one person: current man-induced mass extinctions to lead to
much speciation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pan.2004.02.02.15.42.35.683574%40mail.utexas.edu
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> What effect does the T0E have on efforts to prevent plant
> and animal extinction? Does evolutionary theory help, hurt,
> or have no effect on anti-extinction efforts?
Does it matter? Is geology bad for the environment because geologists tell
oil companies where to drill? Does David Ford have anything meaningful to
contribute? Why does Aaron even bother responding to a guy whose idea of
discourse is to provide long posts with self-referencing URLs?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
John Popelish
>
> What effect does the T0E have on efforts to prevent plant
> and animal extinction? Does evolutionary theory help, hurt,
> or have no effect on anti-extinction efforts?
There is one thing that evolutionary theory is quite clear on.
Extinct species do not generate new species.
--
John Popelish
Dan Luke
> What effect does the T0E have on efforts to prevent plant
> and animal extinction? Does evolutionary theory help, hurt,
> or have no effect on anti-extinction efforts?
Right wing propagandists appropriate "survival of the fittest" arguments
to justify ignoring the extinction of threatened species. (
http://www.americandaily.com/item/3735 ) That's not the t. o. e.'s
fault.
--
Dan
(remove pants to reply by email)
James Wakefield
It is a scientific theory, if you disagree with it, list the evidence you
have and it may be disproven. However if you want to remain scientificly
valid you must rely on genuine evidence and valid logic to make your
assertion. It is not logical to dismiss a theory based on an
incompatibility with an unproven archaic belief system. Science isn't about
proving one claim or another it's purpose is to find the objective truth.
Although we do not have the complete picture of evolution, it is based on
logic and a vast amount of evidence, undeniable evidence. It is quite
reasonable to say it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and we should
believe it is most likely true. It is not an absolute truth, science
doesn't have such concepts; everything can be questioned.
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>
>What effect does the T0E have on efforts to prevent plant
>and animal extinction? Does evolutionary theory help, hurt,
>or have no effect on anti-extinction efforts?
How could it hurt?
An understanding of evolutionary biology is of enormous value
to all such efforts. The "TOE" involves related fields like
population genetics and ecology, systematics, phylogenetic
reconstruction, etc. All are very relevant to conservation
questions.
Selection theory itself becomes quite relevant; captive breeding
programs for endangered species now know that they have to work to
compensate for the danger of unintentional selection automatically
producing significantevolutionary changes in the captive populations,
effectively creating a "zoo strain" of animals better possibly adapted
to captivity than to the wild [i.e., the breeding programs must strive
to include even those animals that are not at all well-adjusted to
captive conditions, and not just breed the happier, more successful
captives]
So, can creationism or "intelligent design ever have any
positive scientific contribution at all to make in such areas?
One could imagine that if some conservation "lessons" were
drawn from creationism the results could be disasterous [such
as if wildlife workers used the Noah's Ark story for guidelines
on minimal genetically-viable population sizes].
cheers
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
> What effect does the T0E have on efforts to prevent plant
> and animal extinction? Does evolutionary theory help, hurt,
> or have no effect on anti-extinction efforts?
>
What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation? How, if any
way, can it be tested using the scientififc method?
<sound of crickets chirping>
===============================================
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.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
gen2rev
wrote in <b1c67abe.04030...@posting.google.com>:
Bernard d'Abrera is a fellow of The International Society for
Complexity, Information, and Design (see
http://www.iscid.org/bernard-dabrera.php and
http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php) of which William Dembski is the
Executive Director (see http://www.iscid.org/about.php)
> one person: current man-induced mass extinctions to lead to
> much speciation
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pan.2004.02.02.15.42.35.683574%40mail.utexas.edu
So what? Are you saying that d'Abrera *isn't* one person?