Files of SciCre quotations to be checked for accuracy
Date: Tue Mar 09 1993 14:41:00
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: Phil Nicholls
Subj: Re: Primer.Evo
Again, I think that what you call the "fact of evolution" depends on
what aspect of evolution is being surveyed. There are a growing number
of scientists who are removing various parts of the emperor's apparel.
It will be in the interest of those who benefit from the grants, fame,
publishing, etc. to continue to declare that the emperor is still
dressed for some decades to come, so I would not be surprised if the
literature dealing with paleontology continues to describe the
hypothetical details of the kingly clothing. :)
We don't have to discuss creationism if it holds no interest for you, we
can instead discuss aspects of evolution that are being questioned.
Let me quote a little from microbiologist Michael Denton's book about
the latest paradigm that you support. "Neither of the two fundamental
axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory - the concept of the
continuity of nature, that is the functional continuum of all life forms
linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval
cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted
from a blind random process - have been validated by one single
empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859. Despite more than
a century of intensive effort on the part of evolutionary biologists,
the major objections raised by Darwin's critics such as Agassiz, Pictet,
Bronn and Richard Owen have not been met. The mind must still fill up
the 'large blanks' that Darwin acknowledged in his letter to Asa Gray."
But I would say that some of the "fact of evolution" isn't as absolute
as you seem to think.
* Origin: OKRA BBS * Tuscaloosa, AL * (205)759-4030 (1:3606/2)
Date: Mon Mar 15 1993 16:28:02
From: John Thompson
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Transitions & Such Lik{2}
BB> (Animal Species and Evolution) wrote in 1963:
BB>
BB> "The nature and cause of transpecific evolution has been a highly
BB> controversial subject during the first half of this century. The
BB> proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution is
BB> due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural
BB> selection, and that transpecific evolution is nothing but an
BB> extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place
BB> within populations and species. A well-informed
BB> minority,...maintained...that neither evolution within species, nor
BB> geographic speciation could explain the phenomena of
BB> "macroevolution" or as it is better called transpecific evolution."
Date: Sat Mar 13 1993 16:22:12
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: Phil Nicholls
Subj: Re: Hello
Niles Eldridge quoted by the L.A. Times on November 19, 1978:
"But no one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long
chalked up to 'gaps' in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of
gradualism confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata
of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But ALL OF THE
FOSSIL EVIDENCE TO DATE HAS FAILED TO TURN UP ANY SUCH MISSING
LINKS, Eldridge said and there is a growing conviction among many
scientists that these transitional forms never existed. And if this
is so, then the gradualistic view of evolution is an inaccurate
portrayal of how life develops."
PN>Gould and Eldridge are not using the same arguments as creationists. If you
PN>would bother to actually READ Gould's writing, you would be
PN>aware of that.
PN>Source of quote: Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover, May 1981.
Phil, what I was referring to was that Eldridge and Gould are using the
argument of the gaps in the fossil record to support their punk eek
theory. Creationists have been saying since the inception of
Darwinistic evolution, that the fossil record does not support the
gradualistic suppositions of evolution.
Why do you assume that I haven't read Gould's writings? I have no
problem with you responding to whatever mistakes or misunderstandings I
might have, but I really notice the almost standardized tendency on
this sub to make personal "slams" against those of us who aren't whole
hearted evolutionists...
Date: Sat Mar 13 1993 16:39:14
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: Phil Nicholls
Subj: Dating Methods
Phil, thanks for the clarification. I am aware (although my post
doesn't show it) that carbon dating is used for organic material. I've
read some claims that it is accurate up to 50,000 years and other claims
that it is accurate up to 10,000 years. However I have also read this
following interesting tidbit...
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep
and serious... It should be of no surprise, then, that fully half of
the dates are rejected. The wonder, is, surely, that the remaining
half come to be accepted." (Robert Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in
Error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981)
These methods also have their "assumptions". I don't have
many difficulties with the "age of the earth" dating methods. I do have
difficulty when those methods are used to determine the age of various
fossils and artifacts by dating igneous rocks. William Stansfield in
"The Science of Evolution" (1977) pointed out the following:
"It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the reliable
dating methods they are often claimed to be. Age estimates on a
given geological stratum using different methods are often quite
different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no
absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock."
Date: Sat Mar 13 1993 18:28:16
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: David Myers
Subj: Punctuated Equilibrium..
DM>Monday March 08 1993, Barbara Brasfield writes to Dr Pepper:
Neo-Darwinists do not accept Gould's hypothesis that evolutionary change
is related to specification. Evidence is lacking of daughter
populations forming and later rejoining or replacing the parent species.
Douglas Futuyma has pointed out that few if any examples of ancestral
forms persisting in the same area with the modified decendent have been
documented.
Date: Sat Mar 13 1993 19:45:18
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: John Thompson
Subj: Primer.evo
JT>BB> If life evolved into the profusion of life we see today in small
JT>BB> increments over the ages, we should find fossils of transitional
JT>BB> creatures. But there has never been any evidence of such transitional
JT>BB> creatures even though geologists have found rock layers of the last
JT>BB> 500 million years and no transitional forms were found.
JT>Here is a short list of references on fossil transitions between
JT>various high order taxa:
JT> 1. Colbert, E. H., 1969, Evolution of the Vertebrates, 2nd ed.,
JT> Wiley, New York; 535 p.
JT> a. Fish-Tetrapod (Crossopterygian-Amphibian) Transition:
JT> pp. 71-78.
JT> b. Amphibian-Reptile Transition: pp. 111-114
JT> c. Reptile-Mammal Transition: pp. 130-144, 250, 254
The coelacanths and rhipidistians are together classified as
crossopterygian fishes, which is supposed to be the ancestral group for
amphibians. A supposedly-extinct-for-a-hundred-million-years
coelacanth (cousin to the rhipidistians) was hauled aboard in 1938.
Examination of this supposed ancestor to tetrapods proved to be
disapointing to those wanting to explore this classic evolutionary link.
The "link" established on skeletal features was destroyed when the soft
tissues were examined. The heart, brain and intestine was not what
had been expected for a tetrapod ancestor. B.J. Stahl in "Vertebrate
History:Problems in Evolution" pointed out that however close the
crossopterygian and amphibian skeleton may have appeared, the overall
biology of the two was not close.
Amphibian to reptile. The fossil amphibians Seymouria have some
reptile-like skeletal characteristics. The problem is that Seymouria
arrive too late in the fossil record to be reptile ancestors and they
are now considered true amphibians. While evolution textbooks proclaim
that reptiles evolved into amphibians, they don't explain how an
amphibian egg gradually became an amniotic egg. Have you read any
discussions on how the amphibian heart and aortic arches gradually
evolved into the reptilian counterpart? Or do you have information that
would explain how an amphibian reproduction modes could have altered
into a reptilian mode of reproduction?
The reptile to mammal transition is based on some extinct supposed
mammal-like reptiles. J. H. Jerison, a recognized authority in the
study of cranial endocasts, wrote the following concerning the mammal
like reptile brains.
"...these animals had brains of typical lower vertebrate size...since
their endocasts were all very near the volume of these expected brain
sizes and since the endocasts present maximum limits on their brain
sizes, the mammal-like reptiles, in short, were reptilian and not
mammalian with repect to the evolution of their brains...There are
few suggestions of mammalian features in the brains of the
mammal-like reptiles...The forebrain, to the extent that its position
is identifiable, was of reptilian size and shape. This was not the
case the the earliest known fossil mammal...The earliest mammal for
which there is reasonable evidence, Triconodon of the Upper Jurassic
period, was apparently already at or near the level of living
'primitive' mammals such as the insectivores of the Virginia opposum.
It was certainly lager brained than its reptilian ancestors of
comparable size." (Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence)
I especially like Gareth Nelson's (American Museum of Natural History)
quote in the December 9, 1986 Wall Street Journal: '"We've got to have
some ancestors. We'll pick those." Why? "Because we know they have to
be there, and these are the best candidates." That's by and large the
way it has worked. I am not exaggerating"
JT>BB> I think evolution is happening to some extent in a microevolutionary
JT>BB> way. I don't think that we can take that information and extrapolate
JT>BB> it to claim that macroevolution has occurred and to explain the origin
JT>BB> of life. The assumptions and rationalizations that parade as
JT>BB> scientific "fact" without empirical support only serves to emphasize
JT>BB> the metaphysical nature of some of the claims of evolution.
JT>Evolutionary biologists would say that the difference between "macro-" and
JT>"microevolution" is only a matter of degree, not character. What is it
JT>that prevents "microevolutionary" changes from accumulating over time to
JT>produce "marcoevolutionary" differences? This is no trivial point!
I agree that it is no trivial point, since it is the one that usually
separates evolutionists from creationists. Despite Darwin's assumption
that the major divisions in biology were crossed by the same simple
processes of microevolution, not all biologists have hopped on board.
Bernard Rensch, (Evolution Above the Species Level) provided a list of
many leading authorities who didn't subscribe to the belief that
microevolution could be extrapolated to macroevolution. E. Mayr (Animal
Species and Evolution) wrote in 1963:
"The nature and cause of transpecific evolution has been a highly
controversial subject during the first half of this century. The
proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution is
due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural
selection, and that transpecific evolution is nothing but an
extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within
populations and species. A well-informed
minority,...maintained...that neither evolution within species, nor
geographic speciation could explain the phenomena of
"macroevolution" or as it is better called transpecific evolution."
Date: Wed Mar 17 1993 15:52:10
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Transcript travails
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
In a msg on , Barbara Brasfield of 1:3606/2 writes:
GT>You also commented on the so-called transitiional form problem. First many
GT>transitional forms are known. In fact each living creature is transitional
GT>between itself, its ancestors and either its descendents or extinction. In
GT>that sense all fossils are transitional forms.
BB> Either we mean two different things when we both speak of
BB> "transitional"
BB> forms, or there are some misinformed paleontologists... Dr.
BB> Colin
BB> Patterson (British Museum of Natural History), Dr. Niles
BB> Eldridge, Dr.
BB> David M. Raup (Chicago), Dr. David Pilbeam (Boston), and Dr.
BB> Donald
BB> Fisher (N.Y. State Natural Museum) were asked about transitional
BB> forms
BB> in the fossil record in a written interview.
Gee, why did I have this feeling that Luther Sunderland would show up
sometime? This is the guy who falsely passed himself off as a
representative of the New York Regents, right? Who ended up with at
least four of his interviewees angry at the liberties that he took with
their words?
BB> Not one of the
BB> museum
BB> officials listed above could cite any evidence of an intermediate
BB> form
BB> between amphibians and fishes.
BB> When questioned about the gap
BB> between
BB> invertebrates with hard exoskeletons and vertebrates with a
BB> skeleton, no
BB> museum director offered any fossil evidence supporting the
BB> evolution of
BB> any invertebrate into a fish. Neither could any cite evidence of
BB> transitions from amphibian to reptile. Dr. Patterson said "Is
BB> Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps
BB> no.
BB> There is no way to answer the question." He also pointed out
BB> that
BB> Archaeopteryx has "become a patsy for wishful thinking."
BB> Concerning the reptile to mammal transition, Roger Lewin wrote in
BB> an
BB> article in Science magazine that the transition to mammal is
BB> still an
BB> enigma.
Date: Wed Mar 17 1993 16:54:38
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: The pontoons are here
In a msg on , Barbara Brasfield of 1:3606/2 writes:
BB> Creationists have consistently pointed to the fact of the abrupt
BB> appearance and the obvious stasis of species in the fossil
BB> record.
BB> Gould and Eldridge may be taking the same evidence and giving it
BB> a new
BB> and interesting name, but the fact is that creationists have
BB> ALWAYS
BB> emphasized the sudden origin of new species and their failure to
BB> change
BB> drastically.
SciCre-ists point to one six 24 hour day period of appearance, and claim
stasis... except directly after the Noachian deluge, when more change in
a short time is postulated than any EMT researcher would be willing to
credit.
Eldr*E*dge and Gould, however, do not claim that punctuated equilibrium
is *exclusive*. Not all speciation must be punctuational, nor is
stasis obligatory for all species. Punctuated equilibrium merely
describes the common mode of evolutionary change. The mechanism of
punctuation is unspecified: gradual (but apparently accelerated on
a geologic time scale due to small population size) change is possible,
as well as genetic drift or more radical genetic change. The transition
exists in punk eek, but for such a brief time and in such a limited
area that fossilization of intermediates is rare (but does occur).
BB> Gould also wrote:
BB> When Niles Eldridge and I proposed the theory of punctuated
BB> equilibrium in evolution, we did so to grant stasis in
BB> phylogenetic
BB> lineages the status of 'worth reporting' - for stasis had
BB> previously been ignored as nonevidence of evolution, though
BB> all
BB> paleontologists knew its high relative frequency.
BB> (Cardboard Darwinism)
BB> This sounds as if there might be a tendency among paleontologists
BB> to
BB> ignore evidence that doesn't fit into their particular
BB> paradigm...
They were not ignoring it completely, as you imply. However, for the
purposes of research, most paleontologists would not wish to examine
phenomena which would likely be uninteresting, just so that they
would not waste precious research time. If they wanted to look at
evolutionary change, they would concentrate upon what could then
be regarded as such.
Have you *really* read Kuhn? (That's not a slam.)
PN> Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain
PN>trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by
PN>creationists --WHETHER THROUGH DESIGN OR STUPIDITY, I do
PN>not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes
PN>no transitional forms. The punctuatons occur at the level
PN>of species; directiona trends (on the staircase model) are
PN>rife at the ligher level (that should be higher level) of
PN>transitions within major groups."
BB> Niles Eldridge quoted by the L.A. Times on November 19, 1978:
BB> "But no one has found any such in-between creatures. This
BB> was long
BB> chalked up to 'gaps' in the fossil records, gaps that
BB> proponents of
BB> gradualism confidently expected to fill in someday when rock
BB> strata
BB> of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But ALL OF
BB> THE
BB> FOSSIL EVIDENCE TO DATE HAS FAILED TO TURN UP ANY SUCH
BB> MISSING
BB> LINKS, Eldridge said and there is a growing conviction among
BB> many
BB> scientists that these transitional forms never existed. And
BB> if this
BB> is so, then the gradualistic view of evolution is an
BB> inaccurate
BB> portrayal of how life develops."
What are the "such in-between creatures"? It is difficult to figure
out the meaning when the critical context has been removed. Without
the referent for *that* phrase, the meaning of the rest becomes
indeterminate. Also, it appears that some of the above text is not
actually a quote from Eldredge. It would be nice to have the quoted
part and the reporter-paraphrased part clearly delineated.
PN>Gould and Eldridge are not using the same arguments as creationists. If
PN>youwould bother to actually READ Gould's writing, you would beaware of that.
PN>
PN>Source of quote: Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover, May 1981.
BB> Phil, what I was referring to was that Eldridge and Gould are
BB> using the
BB> argument of the gaps in the fossil record to support their punk
BB> eek
BB> theory. Creationists have been saying since the inception of
BB> Darwinistic evolution, that the fossil record does not support
BB> the
BB> gradualistic suppositions of evolution.
I showed above how SciCre and punk eek critically differ.
BB> Why do you assume that I haven't read Gould's writings? I have
BB> no
BB> problem with you responding to whatever mistakes or
BB> misunderstandings I
BB> might have, but I really notice the almost standardized tendency
BB> on
BB> this sub to make personal "slams" against those of us who aren't
BB> whole
BB> hearted evolutionists...
Well, Phil might have gotten the impression that you had not read
Eldredge (note the spelling, please) and Gould's original paper on
the topic of punctuated equilibrium because you failed to mention the
bridged gap contained therein. If I recall right, it involved trilobites.
There was an ancestral population that was widely distributed, and then
suddenly there was another species that appeared with it all over the
place. It sure looked like one of those bridgeless gaps that you
discussed earlier, except...
In one small quarry, Eldredge and Gould found one of those sequences showing
the transition (speciation) of the new population from the ancestral one.
Outside of that quarry, the derived species appeared suddenly; within,
gradually.
Looks like the pontoons did arrive, after all.
As noted in the echo rules, pointing out ignorance is *not* considered
a personal attack. Feel free to point out ignorance on my or any other
participant's part. And if you feel that you or anyone else has been
the subject of a personal attack, netmail me with the particulars and
I'll see about correcting the situation.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 509-627-6267 (1:347/103)
Date: Wed Mar 17 1993 17:26:24
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Dating Methods
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
(steady, computer, blind, double... oops, wrong "dating" ;-) )
In a msg on , Barbara Brasfield of 1:3606/2 writes:
BB> Phil, thanks for the clarification. I am aware (although my post
BB> doesn't show it) that carbon dating is used for organic material.
BB> I've
BB> read some claims that it is accurate up to 50,000 years and other
BB> claims
BB> that it is accurate up to 10,000 years. However I have also read
BB> this
BB> following interesting tidbit...
BB> "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably
BB> deep
BB> and serious... It should be of no surprise, then, that fully
BB> half of
BB> the dates are rejected. The wonder, is, surely, that the
BB> remaining
BB> half come to be accepted." (Robert Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in
BB> Error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981)
"Microcomputer central processing units are extremely complex devices,
where each circuit must work perfectly to insure the integrity of
calculations performed using them. The fabrication and testing of
such chips is subject to many errors arising from a variety of
sources. It should be of no surprise, then, that fully 99% of some
runs of chips are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the
remaining 1% come to be sold, installed, and relied upon."
-- Me, just now (or maybe this post is just a chip "feature")
PN>The age of the earth is determined by Potassium-Argon dating and
PN>Rubidium strontium isochron dating. Neither of these methods are
PN>affected in the way C-14 dates are affected and are very reliable.
BB> These methods also have their "assumptions".
I assume that you aren't someone's Turing test project. Do I need to
include that assumption in every reply I make to one of your posts?
If my assumption is wrong, will the author please enter in Dr. Epstein's
competition?
BB> I don't have
BB> many difficulties with the "age of the earth" dating methods. I
BB> do have
BB> difficulty when those methods are used to determine the age of
BB> various
BB> fossils and artifacts by dating igneous rocks.
Please, do us a favor and cite some examples of folks dating fossils
using igneous rock samples. This is something I would love to check
into.
BB> William Stansfield in
BB> "The Science of Evolution" (1977) pointed out the following:
BB> "It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the
BB> reliable
BB> dating methods they are often claimed to be. Age estimates
BB> on a
BB> given geological stratum using different methods are often
BB> quite
BB> different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).
BB> There is no
BB> absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock."
It is fortunate, then, that absolute reliability is not the usual
criterion for scientific endeavor.
Relatively reliable seems to work just fine.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 509-627-6267 (1:347/103)
Date: Wed Mar 17 1993 17:41:12
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Punctuated Equilibrium..
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
In a msg on , Barbara Brasfield of 1:3606/2 writes:
DM>Have you *ever* seen Gould speak? He's a tough little sob, and if you even
DM>suggested to him that his theory and creationism had
DM>anything in common, he'd not only tell you why it didn't,
DM>he'd tear your ear off.
BB> What Gould may personally feel when people quote his material is
BB> really
BB> irrelevent as long as that material is not misrepresented. I am
BB> well
BB> aware of Gould's distaste for creationists, but the fact is that
BB> data is
BB> data, and while Gould may want to limit his findings within the
BB> parameters of evolution, the questions and points he has raised
BB> within
BB> the "evolution community" are very much like the same questions
BB> and
BB> points that have been raised within the "creationist community"
BB> for
BB> several decades.
I saw Gould speak to an auditorium of folks at Texas Christian University,
and while there were a couple of hostile questioners thereafter, Gould
handled them quite gently. Me, I got my ear torn off, but that's
another story.
BTW, I had been to hear Dr. Norman Geisler speak at the University of
Texas at Arlington just a couple of weeks previous to Gould's talk at
TCU, and Geisler was much more abusive to questioners than I've ever
seen Gould become. Dr. Geisler was one of the defense's star
witnesses at the Arkansas balanced treatment trial, where he gave his
considered opinion that UFO's were manifestations of Satan intended
to deceive believers.
The problem is, Barbara, that you *are* misrepresenting P.E. when you
claim that P.E.'s concepts and those of SciCre are congruent. They
are not, as I showed in a previous post.
DM>The idea, as I understand it, is that speciation events
DM>must take place on the edge of a population, that this sub-
DM>population must be isolated (or else the mutation would be
DM>diluted into the gene pool), that the speciation event is
DM>rapid on a geological time scale, and then if the mutation
DM>is successful, the new species them re-invades the range of
DM>the origin species and takes over.
BB> Neo-Darwinists do not accept Gould's hypothesis that evolutionary
BB> change
BB> is related to specification. Evidence is lacking of daughter
BB> populations forming and later rejoining or replacing the parent
BB> species.
BB> Douglas Futuyma has pointed out that few if any examples of
BB> ancestral
BB> forms persisting in the same area with the modified decendent
BB> have been
BB> documented.
One such was given in the original Eldredge and Gould paper. I don't
know how Futuyma could have missed it, if indeed he did.
Evidence does exist which shows transitions at the species level in the
fossil record. Additionally, speciation has been observed in modern
populations.
DM>Note that the theory says something about the rapidity with which a new
DM>species is formed, but says little about transitional
DM>species per se. Archeopteryx would still be Archeopteryx
DM>in Gould's world.
DM>So, if my understanding is correct, then mutation and
DM>natural selection are necessary for speciation,
BB> At a conference at Hobart College Feb. 14, 1980 when asked what
BB> role
BB> mutations play in speciation, Gould said, "A mutation doesn't
BB> produce
BB> major new raw material. You DON'T MAKE A NEW SPECIES BY MUTATING
BB> THE
BB> SPECIES...That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due
BB> to
BB> random mutations. A mutation is NOT the cause of evolutionary
BB> change.
BB> SOMETHING ELSE than natural selection brings about species at new
BB> levels, trends, and direction."
Who was taking the notes, and where is this published?
BB> and NOTHING
DM>THAT GOULD IS SAYING IN PUNCTUATED EVOLUTION CONTRADICTS
DM>THE IDEAS OF DARWIN AT ALL.
BB> Darwin:
BB> "Natural selection can act only by the preservation and
BB> accumulation
BB> of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each
BB> profitable to
BB> the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost
BB> banished such
BB> views as the excavation of a great valley by a single
BB> diluvial wave,
BB> SO WILL NATURAL SELECTION, IF IT BE A TRUE PRINCIPLE, banish
BB> the
BB> belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, OR OF
BB> ANY
BB> GREAT AND SUDDEN MODIFICATION IN THEIR STRUCTURE."
Who said that P.E. demands morphological change? Speciation requires
no such thing, and P.E. simply describes the common mode of speciation.
BB> Methinks, there is evidence of a "contradiction" between Gould
BB> and
BB> Darwin. :)
Like I said, Darwin also has a quote that encapsulates the major
points of P.E. I'll see about locating that.
Contradiction is a tough logical jump to substantiate. You are
probably looking for "inconsistent".
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 509-627-6267 (1:347/103)
Date: Fri Mar 26 1993 11:22:08
From: Mark Arvid Johnson
To: Leslie Rhorer
Subj: Re: Ozone hole
Attr:
science -------------------------------
-> Quoting Leslie Rhorer to Mark Arvid Johnson <- MAJ> I thought the scientific method involved people dispassionately
LR> Dispassionately? No, not necessarily. Objectively, yes.
You cannot be `objective' without being `dispassionate!' Examine the
following quote from a 1990 AP story about a museum display in London
devoted to 300 years of famous fakes and forgeries,viz.
"Mark Jones, an expert on coins and medals who assembled the fakes
from 26 museums in Britain and abroad, said the exhibition was "about
deception, about lying things whenever and wherever they are made.
"It's evidence of what people saw and valued in the art of the past
because a faked antique shows much more clearly than the real thing what
collectors valued. Fakes often reflect what people want to believe," he
said.
"When we fall in love we aren't totally rational in assessing our
loved one's qualities," Jones said. "You can fall in love with an object
but others will see through it because they don't share your love for
it."
You cannot be `obective' about a theory for are emotionally attached to.
MA> slightest bit of
MA> evidence against a theory, conclusively proven, conclusively disp
MA> that theory.
LR>Yes, but that does not mean that one simply discards the theor
LR>toto. Obviously, if the theory explains a great many
LR>things well, it is absurd to simply discard it if there is
LR>no better theory yet extant.
LR> What it DOES mean is that if
LR>we can't make the theory work by modifying it (which is the
LR>most usual case in such circumstances),
Any theory can be forced and twisted by special pleading to fit the facts,
but the question is does the theory ACCURATELY explain ALL the facts.
LR>even that is necessary. Many theories have areas where
LR>they work and areas where they do not. For example,
LR>Newton's theories work famously at low velocities, low
LR>accelerations, and under moderate gravity, so we still use
LR>them. Maxwell's equations work perfectly for EM
LR>frequencies substantially less than that of visible light,
LR>so when you build a radio, you talk to Maxwell, not to
LR>Planck.
Modern ENGINEERS use Newton's and Maxwell's work because they work in the
REAL world, but have long been abandoned as valid or accurate THEORIES by
modern SCIENTISTS
Date: Tue Mar 30 1993 14:06:30
From: Gerard Trigo
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Primer.Evo
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
On 03-27-93, Barbara Brasfield wrote to Joe Morlan:
>------------------------------------
JM>BB> There are a growing number of scientists who are removing
JM>BB> various parts of the emperor's apparel.
JM>Name five.
1. Darwin's insistance on gradualism has been challenged by Gould and
Eldridge and their punctuated equilibria theory.
___---------------------------------
First off this is a mechanism to explain evolution. It does not matter
if the process was as gradual as envisioned by Darwin, or punctuated as
envisioned by Gould. Invalidating either or both methods would not
invalidate evolution.
Barbara continues
___---------------------------------
2. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleotologist - British Museum of Natural
History. American Museum of Natural History keynote address, Nov.
1981) "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary
view, or let's call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had
a sudden realization for over 20 years I had thought I was working
on evolution in some way...It struck me that I had been working on
this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about
it... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried the
question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History
and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of
the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a
very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was
silence for a long time and eventually one person said: 'I do know
one thing - it ought not be taught in high school'."
___---------------------------------
This is bull.
First off it is the usual straw Man tactic of taking part of a speech
out of context. I think the man was talking about semantics here, not the
observations of evolution.
Second it is one man's opinion -- not supported by any real fact.
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency. It is and has
been observed in the field and laboratory. It is supported by both
historical breeding techniques and methods, modern genetics and
observations of the fossil record.
You continue:
___---------------------------------
3. Arthur Koestler (Janus: A Summing Up) "I have quoted some voices of
dissent coming from biologists in eminent academic positions. There
have been many others, just as critical of the orthodox doctrine,
thought not nearly as outspoken - and their number is steadily
growing... The history of science shows that a well-established
theory can take a lot of battering and get itself in a tangle of
contradictions... In the meantime, the educated public continues to
believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the
magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection - quite
unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be
irrelevant and natural selection a tautology."
___---------------------------------
Critical of what orthodox doctrine -- it would help if you included the
full context of the message.
Seems to me he is criticizing the theory of natural selection on some
grounds, but they are not clear what they are or why he is being critical.
However the Theory of Natural Selection is just one theory proposed to
explain the observation that life evolves. If that explanation fails, then
a better one will be found that matches the observations.
You continue
___---------------------------------
4. Roger Lewin (Evolutionary Theory Under Fire. Science, Nov. 1980)
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the
mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain
the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to
the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can
be given as a clear, No."
___---------------------------------
nother straw man argument. It does not give the reasons for his
conclusion, which may be erroneous, and IMHO probably are. I personally
see no problem with micro-evolution resulting in speciation events over
time. A prime example would be dogs. (Those who have heard this before
can jump to the next section.) While dogs are currently all classifAed as
_Canis familiarus_, they do not follow the standard definition of a
species, which is a naturally interbreeding population. In reality, the
miniature poodle and the Wolf hound can not breed naturally. The problem
is that for the most part species is an artificial construct used by man
because he has this innate drive to catalog things. Why are the miniature
poodle and the Wolf hound in the same species? We don't have a clear
>area in which to divide the dogs into separate groups.
You continue in Next Post
___---------------------------------
Date: Tue Mar 30 1993 14:59:32
From: Gerard Trigo
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Primer.Evo 2
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
On 03-27-93, Barbara Brasfield wrote to Joe Morlan:
(Continued from previous post)
>------------------------------------
The commentary continues:
___---------------------------------
JM>Peleontology follows the scientific method. Any scientist who
JM>can disprove the theory of evolution will be guaranteed a Nobel
JM>Prize.
Just what is "THE scientific method"? I ask because I have recently
read this statement: "There is a fairly widespread belief that
there is something called THE scientific method that can be
characterized in a fairly clear, unequivocable manner that separates
science from other fields...First, there is no such thing as THE
scientific method, but rather there is a cluster of practices and issues
that are used in a variety of contexts and can be loosely called
scientific methodologies." I would appreciate it if you could define
the exact scientific method and how it is specifically followed by
paleontologists. Thanks.
___---------------------------------
First you make observations: Example the fossil record
Second you present a hypothesis to explain those observations, Ex:
Evolution.
Third you devise tests for your hypothesis and make more observations:
Ex: If life evolves should see the following things;
A; Systematic change in life through time -- Yep we see it.
B: Ability of modern forms to change -- Yep we see it.
C: There must be some method for traits to be passed on to
offspring --- yep there is.
D: There must be some mechanism to cause animals to evolve;
Several possibilities exist From Natural Selection to Random
mutational change. Any one or combination of which may be true. Select one
and see how it fits the observations an additional tests.
If the observations from the tests don't fit then discard the hypothesis
and find a new one. In our example, the tests were positive, With further
tests and observations, it became a theory.
It continues:
___---------------------------------
JM>You seem to think that scientists believe in evolution as though
JM>it was some sort of religion (secular humansism?). Thus your use
JM>of the strange term "evolutionism." You are very wrong in that
JM>assumption.
Thanks for the suggestion concerning secular humanism,
but I don't care to use it since it seems to perpetuate extreme
jocularity among some folks... :) I have explained earlier
how I differentiate between evolution and evolutionism. Perhaps you
would explain how you think I am "very wrong in that assumption"?
Keeping in mind of course that I have never said that I "think that
scientists believe in evolution as though it was some sort of religion."
___---------------------------------
I think you are confusing natural caution with devotion. If someone comes
up with some observation purporting to disprove any established theory, he
had better have real good data. It does not matter if the theory is
natural selection or relativity.
IT continues:
___---------------------------------
JM>If you have at your disposal any facts which unequivocally
JM>disprove the theory of evolution, please let us know what they
JM>are. So far I haven't seen anything from you which comes close.
I have never made the statement that I could "unequivocably disprove the
theory of evolution", perhaps that's why you haven't "seen anything that
comes close". I have pointed out what I see as some data that doesn't
seem to fit.
>------------------------------------
So far the only things you have pointed out are some opinions that
disagree -- not data.
Gerard Trigo
Date: Tue Mar 30 1993 16:18:38
From: Gerard Trigo
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Primer.evo
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
On 03-27-93, Barbara Brasfield wrote to Jack Kilmon:
>------------------------------------
Hey, Jack, that one's almost as good as Ostrom's speculation on the
evolution of feathers...
"Is it possible that the initial (pre-Archaeopteryx) enlargement of
feathers on its hand might have been to increase the hand surface area,
thereby making it more effective in catching insects? Continued
selection for larger feather size could have converted the entire
forelimb into a large, light-weight 'insect net.' It is not difficult
to visualize how advantageous these paired 'insect nets' would be in
snaring leaping insects, or even in batting down excaping flying
insects." From these insect catching nets we eventually get flight.
>------------------------------------
Sounds reasonable to me -- what exactly is your objection to this
scenario?
You continue:
>------------------------------------
Or Gerhard Heilman (The Origin of Birds) offers us this scenario:
"...By the friction of the air, the outer edges of the scales become
frayed, the frayings gradually changing into still longer horny
processes, which in course of time become more and more featherlike,
until the perfect feather is produced. From wings, tail and flanks, the
feathering spreads to the whole body."
>------------------------------------
I don't believe any reputable biologist, or Paleontologist believes this
scenario. You are correct in this one, it is totally unreasonable.
However, until evidence is found to indicate how feathers came about, all
this is speculation. The only thing we have evidence for is feathers and a
higher metabolism appearing at the same time. So there is obviously some
relationship between the two. Oh I keep forgetting, you equate "I don't
know" with therefore "God did it."
Gerard Trigo
Date: Tue Mar 30 1993 16:25:40
From: Gerard Trigo
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Hello
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
On 03-27-93, Barbara Brasfield wrote to Rob Fargher:
>------------------------------------
Rob, I think this is something of an idealized view of science and
scientists. Scientists don't just "look at the facts and then make
their conclusions". They usually start with a theory and look for the
facts to support their theory. Gould has said, "Facts do not speak for
themselves; they are read in the light of theory... Science is a
quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like
accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to
inescapable interpretation." (Ever Since Darwin).
Science Historian (Darwin College, UK) Dr. Barry Gale (Evolution Without
Evidence), speaking of Darwin, wrote: "His theory had, in essence,
preceded his knowledge - that is, he had hit upon a novel and evocative
theory of evolution with limited knowledge at hand to satisfy either
himself or others that the theory was true."
>------------------------------------
I do not argue that there is bias in all of us that affects our world
view, but on the whole, my observation is that science on the whole does
follow the pattern.
I think your historian is at odds with other historians and what I have
studied of Darwin.
A: He was raised in a creationist society and graduated minister of
Christ College.
B: There is no evidence that Darwin did not believe the current
theory of immutability of the species when he set sail on the
Beagle.
C: There is evidence that he had some contact with evolutionary
thought. He was aware of Lamarck's hypothesis of acquired
characteristics, but he knew it to be thoroughly discredited.
There is no indication that he was aware of or read the poem
"The Temple of Nature" by his grandfather, which did not provide
anything beyond the thought that life changes.
D: Darwin's notebooks, of which he was a meticulous note taker on
his ideas and thoughts, do not mention any idea of evolution
until well after the Beagle Voyage, which provided him with his
main data.
E: The only data that Darwin lacked, was a mechanism by which
characteristics are inherited. He knew from observation and
experiment that they were, he just did not know how.
With this information, I do not see how Dr. Gale came to that conclusion.
It sounds like he came to the conclusion first and tried to twist the
facts to fit his scenario.
Gerard Trigo
Date: Tue Mar 30 1993 18:07:52
From: Gerard Trigo
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Moths
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
On 03-28-93, Barbara Brasfield wrote to Gerard Trigo:
>------------------------------------
While you may repeat it often enough to convince yourself, Roger Lewin
in Evolutionary Theory Under Fire (Science, 1980) wrote: "The central
question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some
of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
>------------------------------------
I don't need to convince myself -- my 30+ years of observations of
evolutionary data lead me to those conclusions.
A: That is his opinion
B: You neglect to give his reasons for saying no so that I can examine
them.
Gerard Trigo
Date: Sun Mar 28 1993 23:52:18
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: John Thompson
Subj: Primer.evo
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
JT>While the Gould and other quotes have been carefully dissected from their
JT>context to appear "anti-evolutionary",
Horse feathers, John. As far as I can recall the Gould quotes have not
been misrepresented and I have never at any time pretended that Gould
was anything but an evolutionist. If you can show any such intentional
twisting of quotes please feel free to correct them. Gould just enjoys
rattling the evolutionist cage a little but if what he says is true when
he is rattling then pointing out the "difficulties" in traditional
evolution isn't some sort of malicious crime. For instance when talking
with people that think science in all its forms is always empirical or
"scientific" it is helpful to use quotes from the establishment that
show just how erroneous that suppostion is...
Or for the folks that think that all scientists are unbiased and
embrace evolution because it was an excellent theory can read Professor
George Wald in Scientific American (The Origin of Life):
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay
lip-service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a
Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it
has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life
sciences and the earth sciences."
Denton's book *IS* an attack on
JT>evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, Denton (an Australian medical doctor
JT>and clinical microbiologist) is clearly over his head in discussing
JT>evolutionary issues in his book. We had a long-running debate on this in
JT>the SCIENCE echo last year; Jeff Otto and did I literature searches on
JT>Denton and could find no evidence that he has *EVER* published *ANY*
JT>research on evolutionary biology or molecular biology (the dust jacket of
JT>his book claims he is a world-renowned molecular biologist)
Could someone explain to me this apparent fetish of literature searches
as an attempt to prove something? Is publication in professional
journals some right of passage (sort of like a Bar Mitzvah) which
establishes once and forever in the eyes of all that this person can now
be accepted as a poobah of professional publications? Denton's book
questions orthodox Darwinism and Denton himself is an evolutionst who
subscribes to Gould's punctuated equilibria theory. Nowhere on the dust
jacket is the claim made that he "is a world-renowned molecular
biologist". It says the following: Michael Denton, an Australian
medical doctor and scientist who has lived and worked in London and
Toronto, is currently doing biological research in Sydney. On the other
side it says "...the evidence from his specialty, molecular biology,
lends them no support." No "world-renowned" anywhere to be found. I
have however detected a pattern - someone with the gall to question
aspects of Darwinism or evolution suddenly finds his/her character
questionable, education debatable, intelligence superficial, motives
dispicable...
Can we assume that every scientist doing research around the world is
something less than the scientist that gets published in a journal?
before or since
JT>his book. Jeff (and some others) did a very nice job in demolishing his
JT>arguments and revealing the superficial level of his knowledge in these
JT>areas. I believe Wes Elsberry (the EVOLUTION echo moderator) has a FAQ file
JT>on Denton available for freq.
Well, did Jeff (and some others) get their demolishing arguments
published in peer reviewed professional journals? Did you do a sweeping
literature search on Jeff (and some others) and if so what did you find?
Did Denton have the opportunity to address the arguments or was Jeff
(and some others) declared the winner through default? Were Jeff (and
some others) personally slammed and did they have claims attributed to
themselves that they never made? And did their arguments establish for
one and all to see - their depth of understanding, their incredible
heights of knowledge, the sheer elegance of their demolishing arguments?
My apologies to Jeff (and some others) for no insult is intended -it
just seems that the pomposity level sometimes approaches critical mass
and needs occasional release...
Date: Mon Mar 29 1993 00:29:22
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: Gerard Trigo
Subj: Dating Methods
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
GT>On 03-13-93, Barbara Brasfield wrote to Phil Nicholls:
GT>>------------------------------------
GT> "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep
GT> and serious... It should be of no surprise, then, that fully half of
GT> the dates are rejected. The wonder, is, surely, that the remaining
GT> half come to be accepted." (Robert Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in
GT> Error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981)
GT>>------------------------------------
GT>We only accept those radiodated materials as accurate that come from three
GT>separate sources to which we have sent each three samples. I believe that
GT>this is the case with most businesses and academically dated material
GT>nowadays. For example the recent dating of the "iceman" was done at
GT>Cambridge, Fermi and Stanford. The dates obtained from all three sources
GT>were consistant. In fact, if memory serves, the differences between the
GT>ratios in the labs was a mere .049:1 to .050:1. They are currently cross
GT>checking the date using the wood shaft of the axe in a dendrochronological
GT>dating method. The style of axe-head, copper flanged, puts the iceman as
GT>500 years younger than the radio-carbon date. So far, other artifacts
GT>place him in the same age range as indicated by the radiocarbon date.
GT>If the results are not consistent, new samples are sent and new dates
GT>obtained. That is how we can rely on radioactive dates. Most of the
GT>variances can be traced to either improper sampling or improper
GT>preparation of the samples -- not to the basic concept.
GT> Gerard Trigo
I appreciate your assessment of radiocarbon's dating accuracy but when
live clams have been dated as being thousands of years old, and freshly
killed seals date as having died over 1000 years earlier and then I read
comments like the following by Save-Soderbergh at the Proceedings of a
Nobel Symposium: "C14 was being discussed at a symposium on the
prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor
Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards
it, as follows, 'If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the
main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a
footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it.' Few
archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology
are innocent of having sometimes applied this method, and many are still
hesitant to accept C14 dates without reservation."
And in the Anthropological Journal of Canada, Robert Lee compared the
radiocarbon dating method to 13th century alchemy.
In reading one of Johanson's books (it was either Lucy or Lucy' Child)
it is mentioned somewhat in passing that when dating a particular fossil
the date arrived at did not jibe with the one they were expecting. They
then went back to the site and picked other rocks to date which then
yielded the age they were looking for.
I think you can see that I have run across material that would give me
pause to think that it is not merely a matter of improper sampling or
improper preparation.
Date: Fri Apr 02 1993 20:10:30
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: Phil Nicholls
Subj: Transitionals
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
PN>The question referred to humans a trilobites in the same STRATA, not
PN>necessarily in association with each other. Why is it that we never
PN>find trilobytes in upper strata. Why are they always below strata
PN>containing dinosaurs or mammals.
Using your own logic, why haven't we found humans in the same strata of
ice in which we have discovered the frozen mammoths? We know absolutely
that humans and mammoths existed at the same time, however even though
millions of mammoth bones and entire frozen mammoth remains have been
discovered throughout Siberia, we haven't found corresponding human
remains alongside them.
The geologic column is something of an arbitrary construct since the
fossils are used to date the strata and the strata is used to date the
fossil. The coelacanth was used to date strata older than 70 million
years because it was assumed that the coelacanth had been extinct for
that long. Of course we all know that several coelacanths have
been hauled aboard ships since 1938 which means that the strata
dated by fossilized coelacanths were misdated. The question is - how
many other dates are false because some assumed that they "knew" that
specie xyz died x million of years ago?
Edmund Speiker (Bulletin of the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists "Mountain Building and Nature of Geologic Time
Scale") said: "...I wonder how many of us realize that the time scale
was frozen in essentially its present form by 1840? A bit of western
Europe, none too well, and a lesser fringe of North American. All of
Asia, Africa, South American, and most of North American were virtually
unknown. How dared the pioneers (of this theory) assume that their
scale would fit the rocks in these vast areas, by far most of the world?
Only in dogmatic assumption - a mere extension of the kind of reasoning
developed by Werner from the facts in his little district of Saxony.
And in many parts of the world, notably India and South America, it does
not fit. But even there it is applied! The followers of the founding
fathers went forth across the earth and in Procrustean fashion made
it fit the sections they found, even in places where the actual evidence
litteraly proclaimed denial. So flexible and accommodating are the
'facts' of geology."
PN>For that matter, why is it we don't find any modern flowering plants
PN>until we get to upper strata? Why is it that reptiles always appear after
PN>amphibians and mammals after reptiles? Why is it that not a single human
PN>fossil is ever found in the deeper deposits?
There have been over 60 genera of spores, pollen, woody plants recovered
in the lower Cambrian. In a textbook (Botany -published in 1974) T.E.
Weier, C.R. Stocking and M.G. Barbour wrote that most evolutionists
continue to believe that land plants didn't evolve until 100 million
years or so after the trilibites died out, "Despite tempting fragments
of evidence, such as cutenized spores and bits of zylem dating back to
the Cambrian period..."
Valentin Krassilov (Causal Biostratigraphy, 1974) wrote: "It is worth
mentioning that continuous 'Evolutionary' series derived from the fossil
record can in most cases be simulated by chronoclines - successions of a
geographical cline populations imposed by the changes of some
environmental gradients."
Date: Sat Apr 03 1993 00:53:36
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: Gerard Trigo
Subj: Primer.Evo 1/
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
GT>On 03-27-93, Barbara Brasfield wrote to Joe Morlan:
GT>>------------------------------------
GT>JM>BB> There are a growing number of scientists who are removing
GT>JM>BB> various parts of the emperor's apparel.
GT>JM>Name five.
GT>1. Darwin's insistance on gradualism has been challenged by Gould and
GT> Eldridge and their punctuated equilibria theory.
GT>___---------------------------------
GT> First off this is a mechanism to explain evolution. It does not matter
GT>if the process was as gradual as envisioned by Darwin, or punctuated as
GT>envisioned by Gould. Invalidating either or both methods would not
GT>invalidate evolution.
This was a mechanism to explain the lack of transitional fossils in the
fossil record as Gould has pointed out in his writings. For decades the
concept of gradualism has been an integral part of the theory of
evolution. Although Gould is still very much an evolutionist, the fact
is still that he has attempted to remove the idea of slow gradualistic
changes. My contention still stands that an item of apparel has been
removed if Gould is correct. It is quite a leap to change from
gradualistic to punctuated.
GT>Barbara continues
GT>___---------------------------------
GT>2. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleotologist - British Museum of Natural
GT> History. American Museum of Natural History keynote address, Nov.
GT> 1981) "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary
GT> view, or let's call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had
GT> a sudden realization for over 20 years I had thought I was working
GT> on evolution in some way...It struck me that I had been working on
GT> this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about
GT> it... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
GT> evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried the
GT> question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History
GT> and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of
GT> the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a
GT> very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was
GT> silence for a long time and eventually one person said: 'I do know
GT> one thing - it ought not be taught in high school'."
GT>___---------------------------------
GT> This is bull.
GT> First off it is the usual straw Man tactic of taking part of a speech
GT>out of context. I think the man was talking about semantics here, not the
GT>observations of evolution.
GT> Second it is one man's opinion -- not supported by any real fact.
Your response seems to be an accusation without foundation or proof -
otherwise known as assumption with bias on your part. If you can prove
that I have altered Patterson's meaning then feel free to look it up and
print your correction. What part of the above quote did you have
difficulty understanding? What specific semantics do you think
Patterson was "talking here"?
As for his opinion not being "supported by any real fact" - I think that
was perhaps the point he was trying to make... That after spending 20
years working with the theory of evolution, he was unable to "point to
any one thing about evolution that was true." Patterson was Senior
Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.
GT> Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency. It is and has
GT>been observed in the field and laboratory. It is supported by both
GT>historical breeding techniques and methods, modern genetics and
GT>observations of the fossil record.
Those historical breeding techniques have shown that there are definite
limits to the amount of variation possible with artificial selection.
In fact if those same varieties produced by selection were allowed to
return to the wild, the more highly specialized would tend to die and
those left would tend to revert to the original type.
I don't quite understand the tendency to limit the theory of evolution
to "a change in allele frequency" as if to ignore that theories of
evolution encompass the Big Bang, geology unformitarianism, life
origins, gradual change from simple to complex forms, homology,
embryonic recapitulation, etc.
GT>You continue:
GT>___---------------------------------
GT>3. Arthur Koestler (Janus: A Summing Up) "I have quoted some voices of
GT> dissent coming from biologists in eminent academic positions. There
GT> have been many others, just as critical of the orthodox doctrine,
GT> thought not nearly as outspoken - and their number is steadily
GT> growing... The history of science shows that a well-established
GT> theory can take a lot of battering and get itself in a tangle of
GT> contradictions... In the meantime, the educated public continues to
GT> believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the
GT> magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection - quite
GT> unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be
GT> irrelevant and natural selection a tautology."
GT>___---------------------------------
GT>Critical of what orthodox doctrine -- it would help if you included the
GT>full context of the message.
Since the full context of the message is a book, I would find that
somewhat difficult to comply with. I think if you will reread the above
you can understand what Koestler is saying. First he points out that
there are voices of dissent from biologists in eminent positions
critical of the orthodox theory, that orthodox theory being that Darwin
has provided all the relevant answers by invoking random mutations and
natural selection.
GT>Seems to me he is criticizing the theory of natural selection on some
GT>grounds, but they are not clear what they are or why he is being critical.
GT>However the Theory of Natural Selection is just one theory proposed to
GT>explain the observation that life evolves. If that explanation fails, then
GT>a better one will be found that matches the observations.
It is obvious that he is criticizing the Darwinian theory of evolution
consisting of random mutations and natural selection. Part of the
emphasis of his book is the unscientific nature of Darwinism and he was
concerned that the education system was not informing people about the
discontent held by some biologists.
GT>___---------------------------------
GT>4. Roger Lewin (Evolutionary Theory Under Fire. Science, Nov. 1980)
GT> "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the
GT> mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain
GT> the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to
GT> the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can
GT> be given as a clear, No."
GT>___---------------------------------
GT>nother straw man argument. It does not give the reasons for his
GT>conclusion, which may be erroneous, and IMHO probably are. I personally
GT>see no problem with micro-evolution resulting in speciation events over
GT>time.
>>> Continued to next message
Date: Tue Apr 06 1993 02:58:06
From: Wesley R. Elsberry
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Re: Completeness Of The
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
In a msg on , Barbara Brasfield of 1:3606/2 writes:
CW> BB> Dr. David Raup in "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology"
CW> BB> pointed out that the 250,000 species of plants and animals in museums
CW> BB> do not support Darwin's gradual evolving theory.
CW> Yet there are many paleontologists that see no such problem. Does Dr.
CW> Raupcarry more weight simply because his ideas agree with yours, and all
CW> othersare not considered?
BB> Does Dr. Raup carry less weight with you simply because his ideas
BB> don't
BB> agree with yours? :)
I suspect that Dr. Raup's comments have been stripped out of context, and
that I will withhold attempting to judge his opinion until I see it
myself.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 509-627-6267 (1:347/103)
Date: Wed Jun 09 1993 08:44:00
From: Dave Horn
To: Mark Arvid Johnson
Subj: Allele Frequency Def.
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
-=> Mark Arvid Johnson dropped this litted tidbit on Dave Horn <=- MAJ> I am still waiting to see if you will acknowledge that you were wrong
MAJ> about Gould and Grasse not challenging the allele frequency definition
MAJ> of evolution.
We saw (in the SCIENCE echo) an excellent confirmation of Gould's
acceptance of allele frequency changes as a reasonable definition of
evolution. In fact, this definition is just one of many. I am under no
obligation to acknowledge an error that I did not commit.
I think that Wes is absolutely right about this penchant of yours
for quoting. All it does is show that some authorities on some things
are simply wrong. And all YOU'RE getting out of it is a little typing
practice.
Date: Sat Jun 26 1993 18:06:00
From: Mark Arvid Johnson
To: Dave Horn
Subj: Allele frequency defintion
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
-=> Quoting Dave Horn to Eddie Johnston <=- DH> Evolution is both a fact and a set of theories.
DH> The fact of evolution has to do with the observed changes in allele
DH>frequencies in a population.
"In the chapters that follow the reader will learn what place and
significance we attach to variations in the gene composition of natural
populations. NO experiment justifies the assimilation of demographic
changes of population to a slice of evolution as an innovative, creative
process." ibid, p.171
Nor are these the only scientists to contest the allele frequency definition
of evolution. Ayala, Mayr, and Stebbins do as well (quotes on request)
Earlier, on the SCIENCE echo, you had been claiming that neither Gould nor
Grasse challenged the allele frequency definition of evolution. I wonder if
you are man enough to admit your mistake yet.
Date: Sat Jun 26 1993 19:29:02
From: Mark Arvid Johnson
To: Jeff Doles
Subj: Allele frequency definition
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
DH> The fact of evolution has to do with the observed changes in allele
DH>frequencies in a population.
JD> Has any scientific determination been made as to whether the changes
JD> in these allele frequencies over time in a population are limited or
JD> unlimited?
There is no unequivocal evidence that microvariation (changes in allele
frequencies) can be extrapolated up to what is called evolution.
"There was, however, a singular absence of any proof that macro-evolutionary
phenomena are indeed caused by the same genetic mechanism that characterizes
intrapopulational variation" Ernst Mayer, _Toward a New Philosophy of
Biology_, p.399
Date: Tue Sep 08 1992 18:44:56
From: Mick James
To: John Thompson
Subj: Created Evolution
Attr:
science -------------------------------
This is the 1st of 3 messages in which I quote NON-creationists to
show the failure of evolution as science.
EVOLUTION: HOW FIRM A FOUNDATION?
(1 of 3)
Professor Louis Bouroune, former Director of the Strasbourg
Zoological Museum, as quoted in The Advocate March, 1984
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. It has helped
nothing in the progress of science."
Professor of Anthropology Loren Eiseley, in "The Immense Journey"
(Random House Publishing 1955)
"With the failure of many efforts science was left in the somewhat
embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living
origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the
theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself
in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's
own: namely, the assumption that what, ,after long effort could not
be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the
primeval past."
Albert Fleishman, Professor of Comparative Anatomy at Earlangen
University as quoted in "Victoria Institute" Volume 65
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are
becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer
square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for
our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of descent
has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not
the result of scientific research, but purely the product of
imagination."
Stephen J. Gould Natural History Vol. 93; Feb. 1984
"I regard the failure to find a clear vector of progress in life's
history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record...we have
sought to impose a pattern that we had hoped to find on a world that
does not really display it."
Arthur Koestler, in "Janus: A Summing Up" (Vintage Books, 1978)
"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin
has provided all the relevant answers by the magical formula of
random mutations plus natural selection, quite unaware of the fact
that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural
selection a tautology."
J.T.Bonner reviewing a book entitled "The General Theory of Evolution",
in Science Vol.133 March 1961
"This is a book with a disturbing message; it points to some ,unseemly
cracks in the foundations. One is disturbed because what is said
gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down
but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. ...The
particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to
the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what
group arose from what other group..We have all been telling our
students for years not to accept any statements on its face value but
to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to
discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice."
Canadian geologist, the late Sir William Dawson, in his work,
"Story of the Earth and Man" wrote;
"It (evolution) is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is
utterly destitute of proof."
Astronomer Fred Hoyle in his book "The Intelligent Universe"
"...as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome
complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating
by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out.
Life could not have arisen by chance."
K. Hsu as quoted in Earthwatch March, 1989
"The law of natural selection is not, I will maintain, science. It is
an ideology, and a wicked one, and it has as much interfered with
our ability to perceive the history of life with clarity as it has
interfered with our ability to see one another with tolerance..."
K. Hsu
eology 532,534 (1986)
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry:
The
emperor has no clothes."
Professor Lovtrup, zoophysiologist at University of Umea (Sweden)in his
work "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth" (1987)
"..to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why
has it not been abandoned? I think the answer to this question is
that current evolutionists follow Darwin's example..they refuse to
accept falsifying evidence."
Evolutionist J.T. Bonner in "The Ideas of Biology" 1962
"The study of early evolution really amounts to educated guesswork."
Mick
Date: Tue Nov 03 1992 01:17:00
From: Andrew Cummins
To: Wesley R. Elsberry
Subj: Tree Rings 2/2
Attr: recvd
college -------------------------------
>>> Continued from previous message
Extended Chronologies are hardly reliable (and using them to index C-14
dates is even less reliable). I have noticed that evolutionists seem to
suffer from exaggerated notions of reliability of their conclusions. I
maintain that these numbers are exaggerated. But, even as is, they do
not ruin the creationist's position. But, I might ask why don't these
dates go further back, after all, finding a preserved tree, to extend
this chronology, which grew for a few thousand years, would make clear
that the young-Earth creationists are in trouble. Why can't such a
tree be found?
"Where environmental factors are severely limiting to growth, missing,
false, and discountinious rings are common place." It is relatively rare
for a ring to be missing (no growth for that year, and I'm sure they
used whatever equipment necessary to detect rings, even if the ring was
just a few cells thick). False rings are relatively common. Of course,
with some species of trees, under certain conditions, these things are
minimal. "It is not possible to know how many missing or multiple [two
or more rings in a year] rings will be found in material of a given
species in a given habitat until a number of collections of material
from an area have been checked."
Which brings me to the problems of the above dates. Without a lot of
samples, it is *not* possible to identify all the false rings. As
living trees were used, I'll be generous and assume that the oldest
living tree they used (for the 7104 date) was 4,000 years old (just
because a tree is old doesn't mean that matching dead trees can be
found, most species of trees can't even live for 2,000 years, I'll bet
some research will show that the living trees used were much less than
2,000 years old). With that a "few additional samples" (quoting your
post) were used to extended this range over 3,000 years. Three thousand
years with just a few samples?! And, consider that these samples (which
have been dead for thousands of years) are probably less than ideal.
Even in fresh trees, it is often impossible to identify false rings
without examining multiple samples from other trees for the same time
period and location. Also, "cross dating would be simple if all trees in
a given area contained the same pattern of wide and narrow rings. They
do not."! How could they identify false rings? It is absurd to think
that they could. These studies are just estimates, biased with the
belief that the earth is billions of years old. No information was
provided as to how this 7104 was extended to 8681 (the oldest tree-ring
date that I have ever seen).
As for the last date that you gave (7272), just for discussion (and as
you have not provided detailed information), let's assume that most of
the 1000 pieces of wood are from 500BC or later. "Therefor, it could be
stated that the collection was cross dated back to [500BC], and that
dates prior to [500BC] were based *only on simple ring counts*. ([]
indicate changed numbers from original, * mine) They couldn't do much
more than just count rings, having no idea how many extra rings existed,
even assuming they managed to correctly link the pieces. Bottom line,
it is very reasonable for me to conclude that the dates are exaggerated.
My quotes are from _Collecting, preparing, cross dating, and measuring
tree increment cores_ by Richard L. Phipps, U.S. Geology Survey.
Date: Fri Nov 13 1992 15:46:14
From: Mike Tennant
To: Chris Bonds @ 963/2
Subj: Re: Science
Attr:
college -------------------------------
CB@9> You wrote "the fossil record shows no evidence of gradual change."
CB@9> What would it take for you to see gradual change evidenced in the
CB@9> fossil record? A continuous series of imperceptibly changing
CB@9> organisms? No evolutionist believes that evolution happened that way.
Then what kind of an evolutionist is he? That's exactly what the "theory"
claims happened, at that's what we should see.
CB@9> But there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record that can't be
CB@9> explained otherwise. Just one example of intermediate forms: the
CB@9> different types of three-horned dinosaurs (of the Triceratops type) are
CB@9> clearly distinct species spread out over a large span of time in the
CB@9> Cretaceous. ARe we to say that they are merely "variations" of the
CB@9> same "kind" of animal--like different breeds of dogs? I doubt it.
I beg to differ with you on this point as well. These creatures were
completely dinosaurs, not dino-birds or frogasauruses (except on "The
Flintstones"). There is nothing to link them with each other. They're still
distinct species, with no forms showing one gradually changing into another.
With all those millions of years of time in which these creatures supposedly
lived, one would think there'd be at least a *few* intermediate forms.
CB@9> Cretaceous. ARe we to say that they are merely "variations" of the
CB@9> same "kind" of animal--like different breeds of dogs? I doubt it.
CB@9> True, there are a few fossils--the ichthyosaur, for example--which
CB@9> don't seem to have any immediate predecessors. But nobody believes
CB@9> they were specially created or that they were macromutations. All life
Excuse me, but am I to understand you're calling me a nobody? I happen to
believe these creatures were specially created (although I certainly would not
call them macromutations). The fact that the majority does not believe
something does not make it false; remember how many people believed in
spontaneous generation before Pasteur showed otherwise?
CB@9> on this planet is made out of the same basic stuff--DNA--and the
CB@9> zillions of of forms all evolved as a result of random mutations which
CB@9> favored survival. THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION that makes scientific
CB@9> sense.
Neither does this one. This explanation is NOT scientific. Science can only
deal with the present and not with the past. What is seen in the present can
provide *clues* to the past, but it cannot provide a clear picture. Outside
knowledge is required. Our knowledge of the present tells us that new life
forms are not appearing and that mutations are harmful. How, then, can we say
that production of new life forms by random mutations makes scientific sense?
It doesn't!
CB@9> You and many others make the fatal mistake of saying that
CB@9> because our knowledge of a process is not perfect, we must abandon our
CB@9> hypotheses and theories and look to the Bible for answers, since there
CB@9> are none of these maddening contradictions in the Bible. But science
CB@9> says that one should hold on to a theory as long as it is the best
CB@9> explanation that fits the facts. Evolution isn't something that Darwin
CB@9> just dreamed up on a lark one day to make Christians angry. And the
CB@9> Devil didn't make him do it either!
Our knowledge of the process of evolution is not only not perfect, it is
ABSENT. For proof, I quote Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British
Museum of Natural History), who said:
...for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question
to various people and groups of people.
Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution,
any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that
question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural
History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it once
on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the
University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists,
and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually
one person said, "I do know one thing--it ought not to be
taught in high school."
And, no, TRUE theories and hypotheses need not be abandoned if they are not
completely perfect; clearly false ones, on the other hand, ought to be done
away with before they are formulated.
Furthermore, the idea that one cannot discard an old paradigm until a new one
comes along to take its place is bunk, too. Science does not tell us this;
scientists do. For this, I quote Norman Macbeth, a member of the systematics
group of the American Museum:
In my lecture to this group, I pointed out that they
succumbed repeatedly to the idea that if you want to crit-
icize a theory you ought to offer something better. This
I regarded as a complete error...it doesn't hold water.
There is no duty to put something better in its place....I
called this the "best-in-field fallacy."...If the others
are hopeless failures like Lamarckism, orthogenesis, or--as
they used to think--the hopeful monsters, it doesn't do Dar-
winism much credit to be a little better than they are....They
say this is the best theory, therefore, it must be good.
The Blind Watchmaker thesis fails, too. It is very obvious that
highly complex mechanisms are the result of a designer, not chance.
Nobody (to use your terminology) believes that a watch just builds
itself by chance; neither should anybody believe complex organisms
arose by random accidents.
Agent 86