Caullery: "data of Mendelism embarrass us"
david ford
Evolution" _Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,
1916_ (full name: _Annual Report of the Board of Regents
of the Smithsonian Institution: Showing the Operations,
Expenditures, and Conditions of the Institution for the Year
Ending June 30, 1916_), 321-335. This was "An
introductory lecture in a course offered by Prof. M. Caullery
as exchange professor at Harvard University, Feb. 24, 1916.
Translated from the French by Mrs. C. H. Grandgent.
Reprinted from Science, April 21, 1916." On 321:
I have the honor to occupy at the University of Paris a
chair of biology especially devoted to the study of the
evolution of organic beings. It is then to the present
state of this great problem that the lectures which I am
going to give will be dedicated. I do not enter upon this
subject here without some apprehension.
On 324:
During the last few years very rapid and great progress
has been made in our knowledge relative to certain
kinds of data, notably heredity and variation. But they
have not failed to shake markedly the notions which
previously seemed to be at the very foundation of
evolution. One of my compatriots, an ardent disciple of
Lamarck, F. Le Dantec, wrote even as far back as eight
years ago a book bearing the significant title "La Crise
du Transformisme," in which he brought out the
contradictions in question, contradictions which,
according to him, were to result in the ruin of the very
idea of transformism. Since that time opposition has
become even more marked, and at the present day,
either tacitly or explicitly, certain of the most
authoritative men, by their works, have arrived very
near to a conception which would be the negation of
transformism rather than its affirmation.
A paragraph on 328:
The biologists at the end of the nineteenth century were
divided with regard to the mechanism of evolution into
two principal groups, following either Lamarck or
Darwin. Among the neo-Lamarckians some have
accorded to natural selection the value of a secondary
factor, holding that the primary factors are the direct
modifying influences of the surroundings which
according to them cause the variations. Selection came
in only secondarily, by sorting out these variations and
especially by eliminating some of them. Such was the
particular doctrine developed by my master, A. Giard, at
the Sorbonne. Others have more or less absolutely
refused to grant any value to selection. Such was the
case of the philosopher Herbert Spencer. We must also
recognize that, since the time of Darwin, natural
selection has remained a purely speculative idea and that
no one has been able to show its efficacy in concrete
indisputable examples.
Paragraphs on 329-30:
Lamarckism and Darwinism shared the support of
biologists up to the end of the nineteenth century,
discussion being in general restricted to speculation.
The controversy begun in 1891 between Weismann and
Spencer, who represented the two extremes, gives an
idea of the extent to which one could go in this
direction.
The last 20 years constitute indisputably a new period in
the history of transformism where the field of discussion
has been renewed, and scientists have sought to give it a
much more positive and experimental character. Two
kinds of investigation have been developed in this
direction: On one hand the methodical study of
variations, and on the other that of heredity and
especially of hybridization. These two categories
overlap.
Note that this new point of view is not, properly
speaking, a study of evolution. According to it,
variation and heredity in themselves, under present
conditions, are analyzed independently of all
hypothetical previous states of the organism.
Afterwards the results obtained with the Lamarckian,
Darwinian, and other succeeding theories will be
confronted.
The sum of these researches, which are now in high
favor, is a new and important branch of biology, which
has received the name of _genetics_. It defines for us in
particular the hitherto very vague notion of heredity and
seems certain to lead us to an analysis of the properties
of living substance somewhat comparable to that which
the atomic theory has afforded concerning organic
chemistry. We can not maintain too strongly its great
importance. As far as the theory of evolution is
concerned, the results obtained up to this time have been
rather disappointing. Taken together the newly
discovered facts have had a more or less destructive
trend. In truth the results obtained do not agree with any
of the general conceptions previously advanced and do
not show us how evolution may have come about. They
have a much greater tendency, if we look only to them,
to suggest the idea of the absolute steadfastness of the
species. We must evidently accept these facts such as
they are. But what is their significance? On the one
hand they are still limited, on the other hand, as I have
already stated above, and as I shall try to show in the
following lectures, the advances made by the study of
heredity in organisms at the present time and under the
conditions in which we are placed, does not permit us to
accept ipso facto the doctrines of heredity for all past
time and under all circumstances.
Paragraphs on 333-4:
But if we return now to the study of evolution, the data
of Mendelism embarrass us also very considerably. All
that it shows us, in fact, is the conservation of existing
properties. Many variations which might have seemed
to be new properties are simply traced to previously
unobserved combinations of factors already existing.
This has indeed seriously impaired the mutation theory
of De Vries, the fundamental example of the
_OEnothera lamarckiana_ seeming to be not a special
type of variation, but an example of complex
hybridization. The authors who have especially studied
Mendelian heredity find themselves obliged to attribute
all the observed facts to combinations of already
existing factors, or to the loss of factors, a conception
which seems to me a natural consequence of the
symbolism adopted, but which hardly satisfies the
intelligence. In any case, we do not see in the facts
emerging from the study of Mendelism, how evolution,
in the sense that morphology suggests, can have come
about. And it comes to pass that some of the biologists
of greatest authority in the study of Mendelian heredity
are led, with regard to evolution, either to more or less
complete agnosticism, or to the expression of ideas quite
opposed to those of the preceding generation; ideas
which would almost take us back to creationism.
Lamarckism and Darwinism are equally affected by
these views. The inheritance of acquired characters is
condemned and natural election declared unable to
produce a lasting and progressive change in organisms.
The facts of adaptation are explained by a previous
realization of structures which are found secondarily in
harmony with varied surroundings. That is the idea
which different biologists have reached and which M.
Cuenot in particular has developed systematically.
On 335, the article's last paragraph:
It seemed to me necessary to devote the first meeting of
the course to this general analysis of the conditions
under which the problem of transformism now presents
itself. I believe that this analysis is the justification of
the course itself. It shows the advantage of confronting
in a series of lectures the old classic data with the
modern tendencies, all of which have to be brought into
agreement. The crisis of transformism which Le Dantec
announced some eight years ago is very much more
acute and more in evidence now than it was then.
================================================================
For Further Reading
"Lamarckism and Darwinism.... The controversy begun in
1891 between Weismann and Spencer, who represented the
two extremes"
1893 Weismann
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911282317410.13320-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
"The last 20 years [i.e. 1896 or so through 1916] constitute
indisputably a new period in the history of transformism
where the field of discussion has been renewed, and
scientists have sought to give it a much more positive and
experimental character."
1959 Gertrude Himmelfarb on 1871 Darwin backtracking; 1892 Henry de
Varigny
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312222212.4728f71b%40posting.google.com
1937 Goldschmidt on winning souls for Darwin
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403131825.1eefa6ee%40posting.google.com
"some of the biologists of greatest authority in the study of
Mendelian heredity are led, with regard to evolution, either
to more or less complete agnosticism"
1922 Bateson, Lerner, Orwell
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990810225527.4089209B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, 1982 Saunders & Ho
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990131235540.126906A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
"We must also recognize that, since the time of Darwin,
natural selection has remained a purely speculative idea and
that no one has been able to show its efficacy in concrete
indisputable examples."
1982 Saunders & Ho in previous URL
"They [research results from studying heredity and
variations] have a much greater tendency, if we look only to
them, to suggest the idea of the absolute steadfastness of the
species. .... But if we return now to the study of evolution,
the data of Mendelism embarrass us also very considerably.
All that it shows us, in fact, is the conservation of existing
properties. ....we do not see in the facts emerging from the
study of Mendelism, how evolution, in the sense that
morphology suggests, can have come about."
fruit flies
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Steven J.
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04031...@posting.google.com...
> Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> Evolution" _Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,
> 1916_ (full name: _Annual Report of the Board of Regents
> of the Smithsonian Institution: Showing the Operations,
> Expenditures, and Conditions of the Institution for the Year
> Ending June 30, 1916_), 321-335. This was "An
> introductory lecture in a course offered by Prof. M. Caullery
> as exchange professor at Harvard University, Feb. 24, 1916.
> Translated from the French by Mrs. C. H. Grandgent.
> Reprinted from Science, April 21, 1916." On 321:
>
>
It is inconceivable that you would expect us to believe that a lecture,
offered when my grandfather was in elementary school -- offered before gene
sequencing allowed descriptions of exact changes in mutated genes, before
the development of the modern synthesis, before DNA was known or even widely
suspected of being the stuff of genes -- would convince anyone that genetics
does not support the existence of mutation or the emergence of new species.
So your point would seem to be one of these:
You may wish to assert that the evidence changes so unpredictably and
promiscuously -- now supporting one hypothesis, now a quite contrary one --
that there is no reason to assume that evidence is a better guide to
facticity than any other shifting function. If the evidence seems hostile
to your position now, it seemed friendly to it in the past, and may again.
This would seem, in practice, to deny that science is in any real sense
progressive -- which seems rather hard to reconcile with its increasing
practical successes.
Or then again, you may wish to argue that since evolutionists held onto
belief in descent with modification and natural selection even at a time
when the evidence seemed to be against it, their acceptance of the theory is
based on faith rather than evidence -- and thus you are free to dismiss
appeals to the evidence on the grounds that neither side is really guided by
the evidence. Yet nowhere does Caullery -- at least in the passages you
quote mine -- address the evidence for common descent with modification; all
his remarks address mechanisms by which such descent might take place.
Alternately, since Caullery seemed to be drawing premature conclusions (that
genetics did not support mutations and "transformism") based on preliminary
data, you may wish us to infer that evolutionary theory itself is such a
premature conclusion drawn from limited evidence. However, a century and a
half of data is rather a lot for the basic premises of evolutionary
theory -- common descent, descent with modification, and natural
selection -- to be premature.
Or perhaps your point is the reverse, but made in arguably an over-subtle
way. The creationist case, for the last century and a half at least, has
consisted of "secular science and 'evolutionism' has no explanation for
[fill in the blanks], so this gap is properly stuffed with a Creator." But
the gap that Caullery was discussing -- the inability to show how new
inheritable variation could arise in a population, or how natural selection
would act on it -- has been filled. One might hesitate to simply
extrapolate from this that all such gaps will be filled with "naturalistic"
explanations -- but surely the history of this problem ought to be a
cautionary tale to those who infer, or hope, that their current favorite
gaps will escape such a fate.
Or you may have no point at all.
-- Steven J.
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> Evolution" _Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,
> 1916_ (full name: _Annual Report of the Board of Regents
You're a sad man, David, a very sad man.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Lilith
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 03:11:19 +0000 (UTC),
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> > Evolution" _Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,
> > 1916_ (full name: _Annual Report of the Board of Regents
> ^^^^
>
> You're a sad man, David, a very sad man.
>
> <snip>
Just think, if david can dig up quotes another 100 years previous to
this one, he won't have anyone agreeing with evolutionary theory at
all. :)
Bobby D. Bryant
LoL.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
AC
Ah yes. Time to bring out the "Newton was a Creationist" list.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
> Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> Evolution" _Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,
> 1916_ (full name: _Annual Report of the Board of Regents
> of the Smithsonian Institution: Showing the Operations,
> Expenditures, and Conditions of the Institution for the Year
> Ending June 30, 1916_), 321-335.
<snip more of Ford's regurgiquotes>
What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation. How, if any
way, can we test it using the scientific method? Why, if any reason,
won't Ford answer those two simple questions?
===============================================
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! =-----
Sverker Johansson
> Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> Evolution" _Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,
Couldn't find any fresh straws to grasp at, could you?
Only ancient fossils. Once upon a time, it was possible
to have an interesting discussion with you. Now,
you're just pathetic.
--
Best regards,
Sverker Johansson
-----------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------
David Wise
1916 -- that is "nineteen sixteen", 88 years ago. In other words,
David Ford is committing a more egregious act of quote-mining than
creationists usually stoop to.
You should learn something about the history of the development of
evolutonary theory. Two easy sources would be "Darwin for Beginners"
by Jonathan Miller (Amazon lists it as out-of-print, but I've recently
seen a new printing of it at a local Barnes & Noble. Another,
apparently also reprinted, is "Blueprints" by Donald Johanson and
Maitland Edey, of which I wrote years ago on CompuServe:
"This is a good layman's book for tracing the history and development
of evolutionary thought through the individuals involved -- Buffon,
Lamarck, Darwin, Mendel, de Vries, Morgan, Woese, etc -- and for
reviewing how they reached some of their conclusions and some of the
problems which they encountered (though not as comprehensively as in
_Evolution: History of an Idea_, which was intended as a textbook)."
The basic situation at that time was that Darwin's theories involved
more than just the idea of natural selection. He also pondered
questions about how new characteristics arose, how they were
inherited, and how they could spread through the population. Even
though he had a copy of Mendel's monograph in his library, he
apparently hadn't read it. Instead of Mendel's "quantum" view (ie,
that the units of inheritance were discrete), Darwin's view was
somewhat analogous to pigment being added to paint, in which there was
a blending of characteristics. In addition, after years of tackling
the problem of how new characteristics could arise, Darwin found
himself returning to a kind of a Lamarckian view with his "pangenic"
theory, in which particles in the body would transmit information back
to the sex cells in order to produce the new characteristics needed.
John Wilkins describes this in more detail in the FAQ, "Darwin's
Precursors and Influences: 7. Heredity", at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurhered.html .
In the beginning of the 20th century, the discovery and study of
mutations and the discovery of Mendelian genetics showed that Darwin's
pangenetic theory was wrong, hence genetics and mutation were
considered to be proof against Darwinism. It wasn't until the 1930's
that the "Great Synthesis" (AKA the "Modern Synthesis") showed that in
fact genetics do not disprove Darwin, but rather it fills in the gaps
that Darwin couldn't and shows how evolution works on the genetic and
on the population levels. A FAQ page on this is "The Modern Synthesis
of Genetics and Evolution" by Laurence Moran at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html .
Your quote-mining is false and misleading because it has lifted the
article out of its historical context and neglects to inform the
reader that it was written well over a decade before it was finally
realized that genetics actually support Darwin, not disprove him.
As I update the creation/evolution part of my site, I've added a quote
from Sun Tzu, one that you may have heard at some time or other and
one that you and every other "creationist" really should heed if you
are serious about opposing evolution or anything else:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred
battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances
of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in
every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford
University Press, 1963)
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04031...@posting.google.com>...
yang AthD (h.c)
> Evolution" _Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,
> 1916_ (full name: _Annual Report of the Board of Regents
> of the Smithsonian Institution: Showing the Operations,
> Expenditures, and Conditions of the Institution for the Year
> Ending June 30, 1916_), 321-335.
"A Hundred Scientistss Against Einstein"
-1931*
*Thank you Steven Carr!
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -575 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
Mark K. Bilbo
<ad30b67a.04032...@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
dwi...@aol.com (David Wise):
> In case lurkers miss it, the date of the article being referenced is 1916
> -- that is "nineteen sixteen", 88 years ago. In other words, David Ford
> is committing a more egregious act of quote-mining than creationists
> usually stoop to.
Jesus Christ on a crutch! He's spewing stuff that's 88 years old???
What's Ford gonna do next? Quote people who insist the atom can't be
split? Post quotes about heavier than air flight being a fantasy? Cut 'n'
paste articles ridiculing the idea of going to the moon?
Does Ford have any function neurons at all?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
Brian Holmes
>From: "Mark K. Bilbo" y...@hoo.com-amikchi
>Date: Sat, Mar 20, 2004 2:12 PM
>Message-id: <pan.2004.03.20....@hoo.com-amikchi>
>
>On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 21:03:31 +0000 in episode
><ad30b67a.04032...@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
>dwi...@aol.com (David Wise):
>
>> In case lurkers miss it, the date of the article being referenced is 1916
>> -- that is "nineteen sixteen", 88 years ago. In other words, David Ford
>> is committing a more egregious act of quote-mining than creationists
>> usually stoop to.
>
>Jesus Christ on a crutch! He's spewing stuff that's 88 years old???
>
>What's Ford gonna do next? Quote people who insist the atom can't be
>split? Post quotes about heavier than air flight being a fantasy? Cut 'n'
>paste articles ridiculing the idea of going to the moon?
>
>Does Ford have any function neurons at all?
****************
Intensive MRI reveals seven functional neurons inside Ford's skull.
Six are associated with defecation and quote mining (insofar as these
activities can be distinguished), and the seventh is inadequate to control the
other six.
gotta go,
Cabbage
Frank Reichenbacher
> Evolution" _
???
This is like almost a century old dude.
And besides that, so what?
Name one living published scientist who has spent a career studying
variation and/or genetics of populations of natural organisms in the field
who does not believe the theory of evolution by means of natural selection
is the best explanation for the evidence. Please provide a list of the
peer-reviewed publications of this unique individual.
In the unlikely event that you can come up with even one.
Frank
david ford
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:b1c67abe.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> > Evolution" _
>
> ???
>
> This is like almost a century old dude.
>
> And besides that, so what?
In 1916, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
evidence then available?
> Name one living published scientist who has spent a career studying
> variation and/or genetics of populations of natural organisms in the field
> who does not believe the theory of evolution by means of natural selection
> is the best explanation for the evidence.
How about a probably-dead one, Grasse, who wrote a book on the topic
that appeared in French in 1973.
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Richard Forrest
> "Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message news:<YlSdnXBcXek...@speakeasy.net>...
> > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:b1c67abe.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > > Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> > > Evolution" _
> >
> > ???
> >
> > This is like almost a century old dude.
> >
> > And besides that, so what?
>
> In 1916, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> evidence then available?
>
> > Name one living published scientist who has spent a career studying
> > variation and/or genetics of populations of natural organisms in the field
> > who does not believe the theory of evolution by means of natural selection
> > is the best explanation for the evidence.
>
> How about a probably-dead one, Grasse, who wrote a book on the topic
> that appeared in French in 1973.
See: (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html)
"Even until the 1970s there was at least one famous French scientist
of the "old school," Pierre P. Grasse, who continued to voice strong
reservations concerning Darwin's particular explanation (and the
Neo-Darwinian explanation) of "how" evolution occurred. Not
surprisingly, Grasse is quoted FIVE TIMES in The Revised Quote Book,
because he wrote of the "myth of evolution, considered as a simple,
understood, and explained phenomenon."
However, the editors of The Revised Quote Book neglect to tell their
readers that in the same book by Grasse from which they have quoted,
Grasse also stated in the most unequivocal terms: "Zoologists and
botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and
not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on
documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living
world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning
evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical
data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for
affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an
important part in the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre P.
Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977,
pp. 3,4,5,7)
Of course, Grasse also tipped his hat to the French "father of
evolution," Lamarck, stating: "Lamarckism, which is no less logical
than Darwinism ... is a tempting theory ... and we would not be
surprised to learn from molecular biology that some of its
[Lamarckism's] intuitions are partly true...it should be considered
today a way of thinking, of understanding nature, rather than a strict
doctrine entirely oriented toward the explaining of evolution."
(Pierre P. Grasse, p. 8)
The authors of The Revised Quote Book lifted Grasse's phrase, "the
myth of evolution," out of context, trying to deceive others into
believing that Grasse was doubtful of evolution even though he stated
he "agreed" with the "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that
"evolution" was an historical scientific "fact." Grasse simply
disagreed with explanations of exactly "how" evolution occurred. He
felt the "how" part was not a "simple, understood, and explained
phenomenon."
"
Ten seconds of research disproves your point.
>
> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
>
> > Please provide a list of the
> > peer-reviewed publications of this unique individual.
> >
> > In the unlikely event that you can come up with even one.
RF
Nancy Kroohs
> > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:b1c67abe.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > > Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> > > Evolution" _
> >
> > ???
> >
> > This is like almost a century old dude.
> >
> > And besides that, so what?
>
> In 1916, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> evidence then available?
Opinions differed; some thought it was, some thought not. There was
nowhere near as much evidence as there is today on just how powerful
it can be as an evolutionary mechanism. Hence the honest difference
of opinion among reputable scientists of the time.
You might want to consider, though, that even then the evidence for
*common descent* was vast, and very few scientists considered it in
question. Caullery certainly didn't. You need to learn the
difference between evidence for (macro)evolution having happened, and
evidence for its mechanism(s). They are not necessarily the same
thing.
>
> > Name one living published scientist who has spent a career studying
> > variation and/or genetics of populations of natural organisms in the field
> > who does not believe the theory of evolution by means of natural selection
> > is the best explanation for the evidence.
>
> How about a probably-dead one, Grasse, who wrote a book on the topic
> that appeared in French in 1973.
>
> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Did you even read this? It's a summary of Eldredge and Gould's
punctuated equilibria hypothesis. I'm sure the T.O. archive has a
nice article somewhere summing up exactly what the P.E. hypothesis is
and what it isn't. (Hint: Eldredge and Gould *definitely* didn't
question common descent. They didn't even question the importance of
natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. They simply doubted
it was the whole story, prompted by criticisms of the gradualism that
had come into vogue.)
But somehow I suspect this has also been pointed out to you before,
and ignored.
Cheers,
Nancy
Frank Reichenbacher
Richard and Nancy both responded very nicely to your lame attempt to answer
my challenge.
I would only add that Gould and Eldridge's punctuated equilibrium is as
dependent on natural selection as Darwin's original thesis.
You cannot give an example of a single "creation scientist" who spends his
or her life researching the diversity of organisms in the field or in the
lab.
The fact is that among those living biologists who spend their careers
studying the diversity of life, there is not one who believes that the
theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not the best
explanation for the available data.
This unification of professionals in the field is, of course, no guarantee
that the TOE *is*, in fact, the best explanation for the data, but it does
mean that your inceasingly foolish quote-mining expeditions can do nothing
but reflect poorly upon you and your cause.
Frank
howard hershey
david ford wrote:
> "Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message news:<YlSdnXBcXek...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>>news:b1c67abe.04031...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
>>>Evolution" _
>>
>>???
>>
>>This is like almost a century old dude.
>>
>>And besides that, so what?
>
>
> In 1916, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> evidence then available?
>
There is plenty of evidence consistent with natural selection (the
observation that local environmental conditions can and does have a
biasing effect on the reproductive success of different alleles in a
population).
What evidence do you have that natural selection is regularly or even
infrequently suspended in any natural biota? Can you point out where,
for example, after adding streptomycin at appropriate concentrations,
only the streptomycin sensitive bacteria survive and the resistant ones die?
Is it your argument that natural selection doesn't happen? Or is it
your argument that natural selection does occur but cannot lead to
speciation? Or is it your argument that natural selection does occur
but random mutation cannot be the source of the variant alleles? What
exactly are you trying to say by dredging up this ancient history?
Until you make an actual argument, all you are doing is dredging up
ancient history of science. And, of course, making a mental jumble of
the concepts of natural selection, speciation, mutation, variation, and
evolution in the process rather than clearly delineating where you see
the problem.
>
>>Name one living published scientist who has spent a career studying
>>variation and/or genetics of populations of natural organisms in the field
>>who does not believe the theory of evolution by means of natural selection
>>is the best explanation for the evidence.
>
>
> How about a probably-dead one, Grasse,
Oui, c'est mort. En 1985. [Pardon my French.]
http://www.si.edu/archives/archives/findingaids/FARU7323.htm
And the poor man, who did indeed disagree with Darwin's proposed
mechanism, has become falsely transformed into an anti-evolution
creationist hero, despite saying....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html
Grasse also stated in the most unequivocal terms: "Zoologists and
botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and
not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on
documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living
world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning
evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data,
directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities
between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in
the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of
Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)
> who wrote a book on the topic
> that appeared in French in 1973.
>
> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
>
Taking a few of your 'arguments' from the above post:
"I personally cannot see how such mutations can play any part in the
appearance of evolutionary novelties. For example, at the end of a
bacterial colony's mutating, though we may have some
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, they are still _bacteria_. Our colony
has not become say a centipede population over time, but have remained
_bacteria_."
Personal incredulity is not sufficient. What you need is to test
whether the *rate* of evolutionary change within some small part of the
whole is inconsistent with the rates of change observed during selection
in shorter periods of time that can and have been observed in the time
since science has looked. For example, is the rate of cranial capacity
increase in the hominids too rapid to be accounted for by selection?
"In the absence of good variations, natural selection acts as a
conservative rather than a constructive force, killing off those things
that venture to make deviate from the norm. Natural selection works to
preserve the norm, _not_ to allow for or build up deviations from it.
Says Eldredge, "Natural selection is for the _status quo_.... Selection
is going on all the time. But it is selection predominantly for
constancy, for maintaining the status quo...."75"
Yes. All the above is quite true. That is exactly what sequence data
shows -- that most change in sequence is a consequence of selective
neutrality over time with most coding sequences having less change than
non-coding sequences because of the conservative nature of most
selection. This is also why most of the coding genome of all
vertebrates is roughly the same wrt the proteins encoded and, even more,
their functions. Why most evolutionary change involves modifications in
quantitative traits rather than qualitative differences. And why we
share the same basic and fundamental metabolic system as aerobic
bacteria and yeast. That is why almost all of the observed
'qualitative' changes seen involve new functions for old proteins or new
functions for duplicates of old proteins, with the occasional chimeric
protein thrown in as a wild-card.
"Nature's selection meant that beneficial characteristics survived while
harmful ones suffered destruction. Gradually, through the accumulation
of these beneficial characteristics, new species, new organisms, and
their concomitant evolutionary novelties, formed.
One thing wrong with the analogy is that there exists a limit to the
amount of change people can bring about in their animals. Horses can be
bred to run only so fast, teacup poodles can be bred only so small,
sheep can be bred to produce only so much wool, bantams can be bred only
so fantastic in appearance. In other words, people cannot bring about
evolutionary novelty type changes in their animals."
One can, of course, quite reasonably argue that natural selection, by
itself, does not produce speciation (the crucial event of evolution).
Speciation requires changes that produce reproductive isolation. Having
a population with a local advantage because of an allele difference may
lead to selection for reproductive isolation because of heterozygote
*dis*advantage (the opposite of the heterozygote *advantage* of sickle
cell allele in malarial areas), but so can random chance (a population
isolated in time or geography can accumulate differences that prevent
reproduction with a parent population by chance alone).
The above, David, actually do compose an argument. Not a particularly
good or valid one, since it seems to rest so heavily on personal
incredulity. However, unlike your mining of ancient history and talk
about NS, in the above you make no claim that natural selection does not
happen. Rather you argue (poorly, IMHO) that natural selection, which
*does* happen, cannot be responsible for evolution. That is a different
argument.
Can you see the reason for the confusion, David?
There is a difference between asking whether "the theory of NS [is]
well-supported by the experimental evidence" and asking whether 'the
theory that evolution occurs (always, sometimes, primarily) by gradual
NS mechanisms is well-supported by the experimental evidence'.
To deny the importance and ability of NS to cause adapatation of
organisms to local environments and to screen variants for reproductive
utility requires one to be sublimely ignorant and obtuse. To ask
whether NS is the sole or primary cause of speciation is not, however,
ignorant (but also not supported by the quote-mining you do).
Conflating the two ideas is a sign of a confused and muddled mind using
quotations to cover up his confusion.
david ford
Grasse not a Lamarkian. Do you agree with the implication in the
source you're quoting from that Grasse was a Lamarkian?
I seem to recall Gould or Dawkins stating that it is a pity that the
proposed Lamarkian mechanism doesn't match up with observations.
Should either one have said such a thing, they would not thereby be
Lamarkians.
> The authors of The Revised Quote Book lifted Grasse's phrase, "the
> myth of evolution," out of context, trying to deceive others into
> believing that Grasse was doubtful of evolution even though he stated
> he "agreed" with the "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that
> "evolution" was an historical scientific "fact." Grasse simply
> disagreed with explanations of exactly "how" evolution occurred. He
> felt the "how" part was not a "simple, understood, and explained
> phenomenon."
> "
Thank you for helping to make my point.
> Ten seconds of research disproves your point.
I quote almost-exclusively from blindwatchmakingists, for example,
Grasse.
In 1973, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
evidence then available?
> > Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
gen2rev
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com>:
[snip]
> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
One has to wonder why you spend so much time in this essay on the fossil
record, which has very little to do with Natural Selection. But, given
that you've never been able to answer my criticisms of this strategy, I
can only conclude that you don't really know what you're talking about.
[snip]
Chris Krolczyk
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> > Evolution" _Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution,
> > 1916_ (full name: _Annual Report of the Board of Regents
> ^^^^
>
> You're a sad man, David, a very sad man.
Sad *and* pathetic, if posts like this are any
real indication.
-Chris Krolczyk
Chris Krolczyk
> "Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message news:<YlSdnXBcXek...@speakeasy.net>...
> > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:b1c67abe.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > > Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> > > Evolution" _
> >
> > ???
> >
> > This is like almost a century old dude.
> >
> > And besides that, so what?
>
> In 1916, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> evidence then available?
For 1916? Yes. For *now*, no, since we've got loads of data
which supercede what was known in 1916.
That's a mighty weak question, David. Care to tell anyone
what your point was?
> > Name one living published scientist who has spent a career studying
> > variation and/or genetics of populations of natural organisms in the field
> > who does not believe the theory of evolution by means of natural selection
> > is the best explanation for the evidence.
>
> How about a probably-dead one, Grasse, who wrote a book on the topic
> that appeared in French in 1973.
But I thought we were talking about *1916*, David.
Some people are able to build strawmen all by themselves;
this has to be the first time someone had to resort to time
travel to find one.
-Chris Krolczyk
Chris Krolczyk
David, your reading comprehension is laughable. The third
paragraph that Richard Forrest quotes says nothing about
Grasse being a "Lamarckian" - it says that he *partially
agrees* with its "way of thinking {and} understanding
nature". That seems to be rather contrary to your
understanding of him as a "Lamarckian".
(Sorry to insert a spelling [f]lame here, but you *do*
realize that the material you've just quoted spells it
"LamarCk", don't you?)
> I seem to recall Gould or Dawkins stating that it is a pity that the
> proposed Lamarkian mechanism doesn't match up with observations.
> Should either one have said such a thing, they would not thereby be
> Lamarkians.
Wow. That paragraph is...uh...okay, what is it intended as?
A slam against Gould and Dawkins? An attack on their
acceptance of the ToE? Something else? What?
Lest anyone think I'm being a smartass, I'm having
trouble comprehending what David meant by that
paragraph. It's grammatically odd, sure, but that
wouldn't have been a problem if his meaning was more
clear. It isn't.
> > The authors of The Revised Quote Book lifted Grasse's phrase, "the
> > myth of evolution," out of context, trying to deceive others into
> > believing that Grasse was doubtful of evolution even though he stated
> > he "agreed" with the "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that
> > "evolution" was an historical scientific "fact." Grasse simply
> > disagreed with explanations of exactly "how" evolution occurred. He
> > felt the "how" part was not a "simple, understood, and explained
> > phenomenon."
> > "
>
> Thank you for helping to make my point.
Still having trouble with that reading comprehension
thing, are you?
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
DF: "I dare you to try to find a scientist who studied
variation and genetics of populations who does
not believe in the ToE."
RF: "Creationist quote-miners claim Grasse doesn't,
but he does - he just has stated qualms about
certain aspects of the Darwinian hypothesis."
DF: "Thank you for proving my point."
The problem here is what you think your actual
point *is*.
> > Ten seconds of research disproves your point.
>
> I quote almost-exclusively from blindwatchmakingists, for example,
> Grasse.
>
> In 1973, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> evidence then available?
For 1973, David. For *1973*. I see that the concept
of science being a gradual process is as much trouble
for you as reading comprehension is these days.
-Chris Krolczyk
david ford
david ford:
> > >
> > > This is like almost a century old dude.
> > >
> > > And besides that, so what?
> >
> > In 1916, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> > evidence then available?
>
> Opinions differed; some thought it was, some thought not.
[NK]"some thought it was" Some names, please.
> There was
> nowhere near as much evidence as there is today on just how powerful
> it can be as an evolutionary mechanism. Hence the honest difference
> of opinion among reputable scientists of the time.
What such evidence was there in 1916?
> You might want to consider, though, that even then the evidence for
> *common descent* was vast, and very few scientists considered it in
> question. Caullery certainly didn't. You need to learn the
> difference between evidence for (macro)evolution having happened, and
> evidence for its mechanism(s). They are not necessarily the same
> thing.
I'm not questioning common descent. In fact, I'm somewhat enamored of
the idea that common descent was the product of intelligent design of
the first lifeform.
Also, I'm aware of the "fact of evolution" versus "theories of
evolution" distinction that many individuals wish to make.
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> > > Name one living published scientist who has spent a career studying
> > > variation and/or genetics of populations of natural organisms in the
> > > field who does not believe the theory of evolution by means of natural
> > > selection is the best explanation for the evidence.
> >
> > How about a probably-dead one, Grasse, who wrote a book on the topic
> > that appeared in French in 1973.
> >
> > Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
>
> Did you even read this?
Yes, I read it. Did you read it?
> It's a summary of Eldredge and Gould's
> punctuated equilibria hypothesis. I'm sure the T.O. archive has a
> nice article somewhere summing up exactly what the P.E. hypothesis is
> and what it isn't. (Hint: Eldredge and Gould *definitely* didn't
> question common descent. They didn't even question the importance of
> natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism.
I disagree with your last sentence.
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://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
> They simply doubted
> it was the whole story, prompted by criticisms of the gradualism that
> had come into vogue.)
[NK]"gradualism that had come into vogue." When did this occur? I
thought gradualism came to prominence with Darwin's advancement of his
theory of natural selection in 1859.
> But somehow I suspect this has also been pointed out to you before,
> and ignored.
>
david ford
Do you think that Gould and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium is as
dependent on the theory of natural selection's conception of natural
selection as Darwin's original theory of natural selection was?
[RF]"Eldridge's" His name is actually spelled "Eldredge."
> You cannot give an example of a single "creation scientist" who spends his
> or her life researching the diversity of organisms in the field or in the
> lab.
>
> The fact is that among those living biologists who spend their careers
> studying the diversity of life, there is not one who believes that the
> theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not the best
> explanation for the available data.
Brian Goodwin should fit the bill.
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
> This unification of professionals in the field is, of course, no guarantee
> that the TOE *is*, in fact, the best explanation for the data, but it does
> mean that your inceasingly foolish quote-mining expeditions can do
> nothing but reflect poorly upon you and your cause.
I assume you also think that unification of opinion of professionals
in the field on the "fact" that life can come from non-life apart from
the input of intelligence is also somehow significant.
Frank Reichenbacher
Of course.
>
> [RF]"Eldridge's" His name is actually spelled "Eldredge."
Thank you, I seem to have a mental block with his name.
>
> > You cannot give an example of a single "creation scientist" who spends
his
> > or her life researching the diversity of organisms in the field or in
the
> > lab.
> >
> > The fact is that among those living biologists who spend their careers
> > studying the diversity of life, there is not one who believes that the
> > theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not the best
> > explanation for the available data.
>
> Brian Goodwin should fit the bill.
>
> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Eureka, eureka! You found another one (also, "sort of").
I'm not really sure, though, that Goodwin qualifies as someone who has
studied the diversity of organisms in the field or in the lab for a career.
Actually, I really can't find any information on Goodwin's qualification's
on the Net. Were you able to find anything?
You realize that Goodwin considers that the evidence does support the
evolution of natural diversity, he's just not sure that natural selection
can explain it.
So far it seems you've kind of found two people (out of an estimated 6
billion human beings on the planet earth) who apparently do not believe that
evolution by means of natural selection is the best explanation for the data
and who seem to have some experience or research to back up their views. Of
course, I am not sure why we should put more weight in the opinions of these
two guys, who, I venture to guess, would find almost nothing else at all
that could agree on, than those of the many thousands of other researchers
who say otherwise.
I'll give you half a point for effort..
>
> > This unification of professionals in the field is, of course, no
guarantee
> > that the TOE *is*, in fact, the best explanation for the data, but it
does
> > mean that your inceasingly foolish quote-mining expeditions can do
> > nothing but reflect poorly upon you and your cause.
>
> I assume you also think that unification of opinion of professionals
> in the field on the "fact" that life can come from non-life apart from
> the input of intelligence is also somehow significant.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously, and as I have already
commented, unanimity of opinion, even among professionals, is no guarantee
of truth.
Frank
Larry Moran
Frank Reichenbacher <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
>> Frank Reichenbacher <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> news:<CO2dna_dNtq...@speakeasy.net>...
[snip]
>>> The fact is that among those living biologists who spend their careers
>>> studying the diversity of life, there is not one who believes that the
>>> theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not the best
>>> explanation for the available data.
>>
>> Brian Goodwin should fit the bill.
[snip URL]
> Eureka, eureka! You found another one (also, "sort of").
>
> I'm not really sure, though, that Goodwin qualifies as someone who has
> studied the diversity of organisms in the field or in the lab for a career.
> Actually, I really can't find any information on Goodwin's qualification's
> on the Net. Were you able to find anything?
>
> You realize that Goodwin considers that the evidence does support the
> evolution of natural diversity, he's just not sure that natural selection
> can explain it.
>
> So far it seems you've kind of found two people (out of an estimated 6
> billion human beings on the planet earth) who apparently do not believe that
> evolution by means of natural selection is the best explanation for the data
> and who seem to have some experience or research to back up their views. Of
> course, I am not sure why we should put more weight in the opinions of these
> two guys, who, I venture to guess, would find almost nothing else at all
> that could agree on, than those of the many thousands of other researchers
> who say otherwise.
>
> I'll give you half a point for effort..
There are hardly any modern evolutionary biologists who believe that
natural selection, by itself, is sufficient to account for the data. The
idea that adaptation is the *exclusive* agent of change is no longer
tenable.
The modern debate is over the relative contributions of various mechanisms
of evolution. There are many who believe that positive natural selection
within local populations is by far the predominant mechanism but there are
many who believe otherwise. Modern evolutionary theory includes random
genetic drift and gives appropriate consideration to other possibilities
(such as molecular drive) at the level of populations (=microevolution).
Modern evolutionary theory also encompasses higher level phenomena such
as speciation, species sorting, and the complications of developmental
constraints. These lie in the domain of macroevolution. You may not
accept all of these possibilities but it is wrong to deny that they are
part of modern evolutionary theory.
There is legitimate debate over the relative contributions of the various
potential mechanisms and it's possible to find supporters of all possible
permutations and combinations. None of them discounts natural selection
as a powerful mechanism but it's not correct to imply, as you do, that
"the theory of evolution by means of natural selection" is accepted as the
"best explanation of the available data."
Creationists, such as David Ford, are fond of quoting evolutionary
biologists who dispute the exclusiveness of natural selection. What he
doesn't realize is that this is part of the modern consensus among
evolutionary biologists. We should recognize this and try to explain to
the Creationists that natural selection is only part of the big picture.
"Evolution" is not in trouble just because it's more complicated than simple
adaptations.
You make a huge mistake by trying to pretend that everything can be
explained by positive natural selection operating at the level of local
populations. This is not correct and it only plays into the hands of our
critics, who are quite capable of proving you wrong.
Larry (who would like a full point for effort) Moran
gen2rev
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com>:
> Nancy Kroohs <Rena...@yahoo.com> on 22 Mar 2004:
[snip]
> > It's a summary of Eldredge and Gould's
> > punctuated equilibria hypothesis. I'm sure the T.O. archive has a
> > nice article somewhere summing up exactly what the P.E. hypothesis is
> > and what it isn't. (Hint: Eldredge and Gould *definitely* didn't
> > question common descent. They didn't even question the importance of
> > natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism.
>
> I disagree with your last sentence.
>
> 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://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
There's nothing in this that contradicts the claim that Gould and
Eldredge didn't question the importance of natural selection as an
evolutionary mechanism.
There's also Howard Hershey's unanswered response:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3FEDF2D5.6E5AA1A2%40indiana.edu
[snip]
Frank Reichenbacher
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc60ij0....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
Shhh! Be vewy vewy qwiet. I'm hunting wabbits!
The
> idea that adaptation is the *exclusive* agent of change is no longer
> tenable.
Never was, even to Darwin, though he argued for a primary causal role.
I wasn't arguing that natural selection is the cause of evolution, I just
didn't phrase my challenge very well.
Note that he has only been able to find two modern biologists who have spent
their careers studying the natural diversity of organisms in the field or in
the lab (and I'm not so sure about Goodwin, who probably does not believe in
the natural selection as a primary causal agent but *is* a confirmed
evolutionist).
>
>
>
> Larry (who would like a full point for effort) Moran
Done!
Frank
>
>
>
Larry Moran
Frank Reichenbacher <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> >>> The fact is that among those living biologists who spend their careers
>> >>> studying the diversity of life, there is not one who believes that the
>> >>> theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not the best
>> >>> explanation for the available data.
[snip]
> I wasn't arguing that natural selection is the cause of evolution, I just
> didn't phrase my challenge very well.
>
> Note that he has only been able to find two modern biologists who have spent
> their careers studying the natural diversity of organisms in the field or in
> the lab (and I'm not so sure about Goodwin, who probably does not believe in
> the natural selection as a primary causal agent but *is* a confirmed
> evolutionist).
Please explain your challenge.
Are you restricting your challenge to those scientists who spend their
carreers studying natural diversity in the field? Why? Do you mean to
exclude paleontologists, population geneticists, and those why study
molecular evolution? If so, why?
Are you looking for evolutionary biologists who dispute the idea that
natural selection is the *only* explanation of the data or are you looking
for scientists who claim that *most* evolution is by random genetic drift
or some other non-adaptive process? There are lots of both kinds.
>> Larry (who would like a full point for effort) Moran
>> Done!
>> Frank
Larry (can I get *two* points for supplying names?) Moran
Frank Reichenbacher
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:09:04 +0000 (UTC),
> Frank Reichenbacher <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >>> The fact is that among those living biologists who spend their
careers
> >> >>> studying the diversity of life, there is not one who believes that
the
> >> >>> theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not the best
> >> >>> explanation for the available data.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I wasn't arguing that natural selection is the cause of evolution, I
just
> > didn't phrase my challenge very well.
> >
> > Note that he has only been able to find two modern biologists who have
spent
> > their careers studying the natural diversity of organisms in the field
or in
> > the lab (and I'm not so sure about Goodwin, who probably does not
believe in
> > the natural selection as a primary causal agent but *is* a confirmed
> > evolutionist).
>
> Please explain your challenge.
>
> Are you restricting your challenge to those scientists who spend their
> carreers studying natural diversity in the field?
Like I said, Larry, it was poorly phrased. Not that it matters anymore
because I just killfiled Ford.
I meant the challenge to include workers in the field or in the lab, but the
lab part was left off the message.
Why? Do you mean to
> exclude paleontologists, population geneticists, and those why study
> molecular evolution? If so, why?
No, I would definitely accept those folks.
>
> Are you looking for evolutionary biologists who dispute the idea that
> natural selection is the *only* explanation of the data or are you looking
> for scientists who claim that *most* evolution is by random genetic drift
> or some other non-adaptive process? There are lots of both kinds.
I was not actually asking for evolutionary biologists at all, but
creationists or intelligent designers who actually are in a position to know
something about natural organisms. The vast majority of "creation
scientists" that are held as examples of authoritative sources have no
actual experience in the field or in the lab with natural organisms. They
are chemists, lawyers, physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, weekend
amateurs, you name it, but not field biologists or geneticists. It was meant
to be a simple challenge that would require Ford to come up with someone
whose research background provides a basis for an informed opinion. In other
words, someone who has put as much of the same kind of work into their
ID/creationist research as your average evolutionary biologist.
Ford came up with Bernard D'Abrea, a lepidopterist, in another thread, and
Goodwin. Neither fits the bill very well, which is why I gave him a half
point.
I was thinking about drafting this challenge into a standard form that I
could send off to some of the more annoying cretinists, but this thread with
you has shown me that it needs more work.
>
> >> Larry (who would like a full point for effort) Moran
>
> >> Done!
>
> >> Frank
>
>
>
> Larry (can I get *two* points for supplying names?) Moran
Can you name any creationists that have spent their careers studying the
diversity of natural organisms in the field or in the lab and have
peer-reviewed publications to document their work?
Frank
>
>
Chris Krolczyk
You're babbling, David.
It's pretty clear what Frank Reichenbacher intended when
he referred to the dependency of PunkEek on "Darwin's
original thesis".
> [RF]"Eldridge's" His name is actually spelled "Eldredge."
Yeah, and as I pointed out you botched the spelling of "Lamarck".
You are therefore officially even in the Spelling Lame War.
Yay, you.
-Chris Krolczyk
John Wilkins
To add to this, let it be noted that Brian Goodwin is a respected
developmental biologist. His book _How the leopard got its spots_ is an
attempt to reintroduce epigenetic causes into biology. While I don't
agree with everything he says (epigenesis is itself constrained by both
genetic and environmental causes, and as Turing once said, the spots are
easy, the whole cat is harder, although he said it of a zebra and its
stripes) he is a credible disputant. Ford is being disingenuous, as
Larry says, but attacking Goodwin is not the way to go.
Keyword: evo-devo...
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Eros
> Caullery, M. 1916. "The Present State of the Problem of
> 1916_ (full name: _Annual Report of the Board of Regents
> Expenditures, and Conditions of the Institution for the Year
> introductory lecture in a course offered by Prof. M. Caullery
> as exchange professor at Harvard University, Feb. 24, 1916.
> Translated from the French by Mrs. C. H. Grandgent.
> Reprinted from Science, April 21, 1916."
Do you have ANY books/papers/articles in your library less than 50
years old, David? Why don't you keep abreast of the times... you might
learn something new.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDist Paradox No 15: The argument from design is not a theological
argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any
rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us
to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate.
Phillip Brown
<snip words from the ancients>
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, IBM, 1943.
And he should know.
--
phillip brown
Duncan Harris
The French were strongly Lamarckian, even some into the 1960s(!), and
there were Lamarckians even through the 1920s and 1930s. and there is
a statue to Lamarck in his home town with "the inventor of the theory
of evolution" or words to that effect on it. I think they may just
have come round to the standard position now though. For example,
this also explains the French rejection of Darwin in 1872 claimed here
as "evidence" that Darwin was fundamentally wrong:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/v23n3_muddy_waters2.asp
*The Modern Synthesis*
Anyway, 1916 predates the modern synthesis. This is relevant to the
biometricians versus the Mendelians argument. Fisher had reasoned by
1911 (Box 1978) that the two positions were compatible, and showed it
in his 1918 paper "The Correlation between relatives on the
supposition of Mendelian inheritance", see here;
http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/digitised/fisher/9.pdf