Pierre Grasse' Quotes to Check
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)
>------------------------------------
5. Pierre-Paul Grasse (Evolution of Living Organisms, Past President
of the French Academy of Science). "To insist, even with Olympian
assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this
fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and
not in accordance with the facts."
___---------------------------------
Again, one man's opinion. I do not know what "facts" he is talking
about, but I see several chemical and biological facts that support the
inorganic origin hypothesis. You have not presented anything here, which
can be even remotely considered damaging to evolution or evolutionary
thought.
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: 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."
Or if one encounters the oft repeated axiom that scientists deal with
facts and will abandon any theory that doesn't jibe with the facts
they can read Pierre-Paul Grasse' (Evolution of Living Organisms):
"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians
put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes
unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their
sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the
inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."
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: 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.
Pierre Grasse' said this concerning evolution as you define it:
"The 'evolution in action' of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply
the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes,
geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained
practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a
result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, DOES NOT
IMPLY EVOLUTION, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic
species."
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: 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.
MAJ> In any case I have an even more direct reference from
MAJ> Grasse, viz.
MAJ>
MAJ> "The role of natural selection in the present world of living things
MAJ> is concerned with the balance of populations; it is primarily of
MAJ> demographic interest. To assert that population dynamics gives a
MAJ> picture of evolution in action is an unfounded opinion, or rather a
MAJ> postulate, that relies on not a single proved fact showing that
MAJ> transformations in the two kingdoms have been essentially linked to
MAJ> changes in the balance of genes in a population. Pierre P. Grasse,
MAJ> _Evolution of Living Organisms_, p.170
I think you need to learn a little something about the people you
presume to quote. Grasse here is attempting to redefine natural selection
to suit his own paradigm. Grasse expressed biological opinions that were
heavily influenced by H. Bergson, who was not a biologist but a philosopher.
Bergson (and Grasse) believed in a sort of "creative evolution" and, in
fact, that was the title of Bergson's text which heavily influenced
Grasse's "scientific philosophy." Bergson attempted to explain evolution
as a result of some sort of mysterious factor called the _elan vital_,
which is best translated as a "vital drive." Bergson was also what
is known as a neo-Lamarckian and Grasse followed suit.
Bergson believed that the mechanism for evolution was not observable
and Grasse agrees with this, as well. The rationale for this rather
odd interpretation of evolution is more chauvanistic than anything else.
Both are French, and France was the only major scientific nation to NOT
contribute substantially to a formation of a coherent evolutionary
synthesis. Since you like quotes so much, allow me to note Ernest
Boesiger, who said, "France today (1974) is a kind of living fossil in
the rejection of modern evolutionary theories: about 95 percent of
all biologists and philosophers are more or less opposed to Darwinism."
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.
"The role of natural selection in the present world of living things is
concerned with the balance of populations; it is primarily of demographic
interest. To assert that population dynamics gives a picture of evolution
in action is an unfounded opinion, or rather a postulate, that relies on not
a single proved fact showing that transformations in the two kingdoms have
been essentially linked to changes in the balance of genes in a population."
Grasse, _Evolution of Living Organisms_, p.170
"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.
"To assert that population dynamics gives a picture of evolution in action
is an unfounded opinion, or rather a postulate, that relies on not a single
proved fact showing that transformations in the two kingdoms have been
essentially linked to changes in the balance of genes in a population"
Grasse, _Evolution of Living Organisms_, p.170
"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."
Pierre-Paul Grasse, former President of the French Academy of Sciences,
in a work entitled "Evolution of Living Organisms 202" (1977)
"...the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up
to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in
conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major
problems involved."
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."
French Zoologist Pierre P. Grasse in "Evolution of Living Organisms"
1977
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants
to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory
is even more demanding; a single plant, a single animal would require
thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus miracles
would become the rule: events with infinitesimal probability could
not fail to occur...There is no law against day-dreaming, but science
must not indulge in it."
(there is more to come.. to be continued)
Mick