"The theory of evolution is outstandingly the most
important theory in biology."
-- Mark Ridley, _Evolution_,
Blackwell Scientific, Boston, 1983.
Herb Huston (huston@access1.digex.net) wrote:
: In article <19961116042400.XAA06908@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: <abiele7000@aol.com> wrote:
: } "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
: } punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor
of the
: } theory of evolution as opposed to special creation..." Mark
Ridley,
: } "Who Doubts Evolution", New Scientist, Vol. 90, No: 1259, June
25,
: } 1981.
:
: What did Ridley write in the next sentence?
[...rest deleted...]
This is an interesting article, and it is quite surprising
that
any "creationist" would want to call attention to it. By the
way,
it is on pages 830-832 of that issue.
`Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin;
it is the
creationists and the media.' (page 830)
`In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist
or
punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of
evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that
the theory of evolution is unproven.
`So what is the evidence that species have evolved?
There have
traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the
"fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about.
The
three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from
biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.'
(page 831)
`These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability
of
species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made,
not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative.
Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the
presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs),
in nature.' (page 832)
The best introduction and philosophical demolition of TCism I know is by Mark Ridley: _Evolution and classification: the reformation of cladism_ Longman 1986. It's not at all too abstruse for a lay dedicated reader.
"No real evolutionist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution over creation." {Quote by Mark Ridley, zoologist, New Science magazine, June 1981 page 831.}
MARK RIDLEY, Oxford, "....a lot of people just do not know what evidence
the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence
is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record..
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist,
uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution
as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831
[Quote]
# DON'T USE THE FOSSILS, MARK RIDLEY, Oxford, "....a
lot of people just
# do not know what evidence the theory of evolution
stands upon. They
# think that the main evidence is the gradual descent
of one species
# from another in the fossil record.. In any case,
no real evolutionist,
# whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the
fossil record as
# evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as
opposed to special
# creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam, all in one little package. Isn't economizing fun?
[End quote]
"The usual objection to examples such as these is that
they are on too
small a scale. A critic of evolution will admit small changes
within a
species, but deny that these changes could accumulate sufficiently
to produce
large-scale change. No one, he will declare, has ever seen the
origin of a
new species. But this is an error. The exact form of the
error will depend
on the concept of species that the critic holds. There are two
main concepts:
morphological and reproductive. According to the morphological
species
concept, species are defined by the similarity of appearance of their
members.
According to the reproductive concept, the species is defined by
interbreeding: if two individuals can breed together, they are members
of the
same species; if they cannot (unless they are of the same sex, or
reproductively immature) they are members of different species.
The varieties
of dogs would serve as an example of artificially created new species
in the
morphological sense. The differences between extreme varieties
of dogs--such
as the Pekinese and the Great Dane--are much larger than the normal
morphological differences between species. An African hunting
dog and a wolf,
for instance, are classified as separate subfamilies, but they look
more alike
than a Pekinese and a Great Dane.
"New species have been created in the reproductive sense,
too. Most
examples come from agriculture and horticulture. Hundreds of
new plant
species have been experimentally manufactured....Let us consider the
best-
known case, the flowerpot primrose /Primula kewensis/...They can interbreed
with other members of their own species, but not with members of any
other
species."
-p. 4, The Problems of Evolution
by Mark Ridley
[Quote]
The real truth concerning the fossil record is:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor
of the
theory of evolution as opposed to special creation..." Mark
Ridley,
"Who Doubts Evolution", New Scientist, Vol. 90, No: 1259, June
25,
1981.
[End quote]
Then evolution is certainly not any sort of a fact, since
there is NO evidence that supports it. Our primary evidence
for evolution would necessarily be found in the fossil
record. It did NOT support evolution in Darwin's time as he
admitted, and it does not support it today as the following
evolutionist statement shows;
"Palaeontologists disagree about the
speed and
pattern of evolution. But they do not --- as much recent
publicity has implied --- doubt that evolution is a fact.
The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the
fossil record."
"Some palaeontologists maintain that animals
have
evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate
stages from one form to another. Others point out that
fossils record offers no firm evidence for such gradual
change. What really happened, they suggest, is that any one
animal species in the past survived more or less unchanged
for a time, and then either died out or evolved rapidly into
a new descendant form (or forms). Thus, instead of gradual
change, they posit the idea of "punctuated equilibrium". The
argument is about the actual historical pattern of
evolution; but outsiders, seeing a controversy unfolding,
have imagined that it is about the truth of evolution ---
whether evolution occured [sic] at all.
"This is a terrible mistake; and it springs,
I believe,
from the false idea that the fossil record provides an
important part of the evidence that evolution took place. In
fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate set of
arguments --- and the present debate within palaeontology
does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports
evolution."
(Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), "Who doubts
evolution?" New Scientist, vol.90, 25 June 1981, p.830)
Just the OPPOSITE. It is evolutionists who have denied
the reality of the fossil record. Some even say;
"In any case, no real evolutionist,
whether gradualist
or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in
favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special
creation."
(Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), "Who doubts
evolution?" New Scientist, vol.90, 25 June 1981, p.831.)
If so, evolutionary biologists will feel new pressure to
explain how punctuated equilibrium could actually work, a
topic about which "there are a lot of hypotheses and not
many facts," says evolutionary theorist Mark Ridley of Emory
University in Atlanta. One mystery is what would maintain
the equilibrium in punctuated equilibrium, keeping new
species from evolving in spite of environmental vagaries.
Despite the "missing links" in the fossil record, few evolutionists
have abandoned their faith in the so called "fact" of evolution.
In an
article defiantly titled "Who Doubts Evolution," Oxford zoologist Mark
Ridley declared:
"If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment,
it will be no use prating on about what the fossils say.
No good
Darwinian's belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence
for
gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it."
(_New
Scientist_ 90:830-8)
We may conclude that the beliefs of "good Darwinians" are not supported
by the fossil record while the beliefs of "good creationists" are.
"...no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses
the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution
as opposed to special creation..." [3]
[...]
[3] Ridley, Mark, "Who Doubts Evolution?", _New Scientist_, Vol.
90, No. 1259, (June 25, 1981), pp. 830-832.
As a result, many modern evolutionsit agree with the following assessment:
"In any case, no real evolutionist..
uses the fossil record as
evidence in favor of the
thery of evolution as opposed to
special creation..."(Mark
Ridley, 1981).