On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:21:55 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:

catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<i36a405d1r67oqrspqsarf3gf1l6mpaqbn@4ax.com>...

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:24:37 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

Darwinian Natural Selection is the only theory which even tries to
explain (rather than just account for) adaptaion. There is no choice
for any honest person, but to subscribe to evolution. Even if nothing
had been discovered since Darwin, the case would still be compelling.

That's not what Darwin said.

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one
species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a
single species has changed): nor can we prove that
the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the
groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why
some species have changed and others have not.
The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult
to understand precisely and in detail than the former
case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

First of all, the quote is from a "P.S." to a letter to G. Bentham, May 22,
1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. _The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Vol.
1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10]:

The letter itself is discussing, interestingly enough, the facts that will
eventually lead to the theory of Punctuated Equilibria:

The objection . . . of certain forms remaining unaltered
through long time and space, is no doubt formidable in
appearance, and to a certain extent in reality according to
my judgment. But does not the difficulty rest much on our
silently assuming that we know more than we do? . . . [I]n
judging the theory of Natural Selection, which implies that
a form will remain unaltered unless some alteration be to
its benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should
change much slower and much less, and some few should
have changed not at all under conditions which to us (who
really know nothing what are the important conditions)
seem very different.

<http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters2_04.html>

In essence, Darwin is saying that the stasis in the *morphology* of species
found in the fossil record is partly due to the imperfection of the record
itself *and*, possibly, partly due to differential rates of change in
species. While Darwin's default position was for gradualistic change in
species, all things are relative. He saw that some change in species could
take much longer than others and, of course, the Punctuated Equilibria
theorists only claim that change tends to come "rapidly" in geologic terms
but over very long times in human terms.

Now to the actual quote:

P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at
present be grounded entirely on general considerations.
(1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for
existence; and the certain geological fact that species do
somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under
domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from
this view connecting under an intelligible point of view
a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove
that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that
a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the
supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork
of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have
changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me
hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail
than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask
in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why
one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one
plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact
that they have not been modified does not seem to me a
difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on
other arguments.

Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be seen to operate and
serves as a single coherent explanation for many diverse phenomena. Even
if all the details of the individual phenomena are not known, the
"consilience", in William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently
explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for its status as a
"vera causa". [See <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/>] Add to
that the fact that the fossil record generally shows change in life over
time and the clear analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial
support for his proposed mechanism.

As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the
evidence at the time, before *genetics*, there wasn't enough detail in the
fossil record (the only evidence available) to say that a *particular*
species was the descendant of a *particular* earlier species. By the same
token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any
*particular* species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with
all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other
genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only
to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant.

The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily
possible to determine just *what* about a trait makes it advantageous,
given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the
environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories"
that Gould would inveigh against 120 years later. Once again, this is an
excellent example of just how deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood
his theory.

[...]

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

The ultimate tragedy of creationism:

The inability to distinguish between one's personal ignorance and god.

- Howard Hershey -

Thank you Catshark, for researching this instance of quote mining. I
have done similar myself and know how much work it can be.

To Pastor Dave I say that you met my honest assessment with a
dishonest response. What makes you so sure your point of view is so
right when it leads you into dishonesty?

This is the symptom of the deep spiritual problems which lay at the
heart of fundamentalist Christianity and the reason why even if there
were no evidence for evolution I would still not follow your road.
After all, my Christian upbringing left me with no memories of Jesus
telling people to lie.

Another reason I could not follow you is that you don't even use your
real name, whereas I am tracable. If anyone wanted to take me to task
for what I do, they could find me quite easily, so I am accountable
for what I do.

You Christian fundamentlists are sneak thieves who lie from behind the
safety of another lie. When you are honest, I will listen.

How was I dishonest? Darwin said what I stated. Just
because the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium later came
about, that does not negate what Darwin said.

What is dishonest, is to claim that because someone
later came up with that idea, that Darwin saying what
he did, was only an attempt to lead us in that
direction. All darwin was saying, is that he doesn't
know, he can't explain it, but yet, we should believe
it anyway.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:21:55 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:

Thank you Catshark, for researching this instance of quote mining. I
have done similar myself and know how much work it can be.

To Pastor Dave I say that you met my honest assessment with a
dishonest response. What makes you so sure your point of view is so
right when it leads you into dishonesty?

This is the symptom of the deep spiritual problems which lay at the
heart of fundamentalist Christianity and the reason why even if there
were no evidence for evolution I would still not follow your road.
After all, my Christian upbringing left me with no memories of Jesus
telling people to lie.

Another reason I could not follow you is that you don't even use your
real name, whereas I am tracable. If anyone wanted to take me to task
for what I do, they could find me quite easily, so I am accountable
for what I do.

You Christian fundamentlists are sneak thieves who lie from behind the
safety of another lie. When you are honest, I will listen.

How was I dishonest? Darwin said what I stated. Just
because the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium later came
about, that does not negate what Darwin said.

What is dishonest, is to claim that because someone
later came up with that idea, that Darwin saying what
he did, was only an attempt to lead us in that
direction. All darwin was saying, is that he doesn't
know, he can't explain it, but yet, we should believe
it anyway.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:07:33 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<oq1740ln2aajmun2et0lep35csosb7pn6p@4ax.com>...

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:33:11 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.

I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.

That's assuming that they do what you believe they do.
There is no proof of that.

We all have to live with that, whether we are willing to admit it or
not.

I have reviewed the evidence and think the case proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

Darwinian Natural Selection is the only theory which even tries to
explain (rather than just account for) adaptaion. There is no choice
for any honest person, but to subscribe to evolution. Even if nothing
had been discovered since Darwin, the case would still be compelling.

That's not what Darwin said.

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one
species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a
single species has changed): nor can we prove that
the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the
groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why
some species have changed and others have not.
The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult
to understand precisely and in detail than the former
case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.


"If something in science suddenly becomes
so sacrosanct that you can't question it,
then it ceases to be science," he said.
"And I really think that's what's become
of Darwinism." - Roger DeHart


"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that
fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the
conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination
of the work of those paleontologists who have been
particularly concerned with the relationship between
paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that
of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness
of the fact that the record of evolution, like any
other historical record, must be construed within a
complex of particular and general preconceptions not
the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has
occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any
evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with
it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary
theories, and revolutionary theories and special
creationist theories and even historical theories."
(Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P.
Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)


"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes tow features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca>, Message ID:
<Xns94A364C0F168Fdoldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211> wrote in alt.atheism;

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fsdh4012f8uehi65a8fqk0ghpddotk8pvo@4ax.com:

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:10:07 +0000 (UTC), catshark
<catshark@yahoo.com> spake thusly:

Darwin said what he said because he was *honest*

If he was honest, he would have moved on to something
else, instead of promoting a falsehood, for which he
had no evidence.

Darwin was a lot more honest, both with himself and with his readers
than YOU are, "Pastor." Before you cast stones in that pond you have
a lot of work to get the beam out of your own eye. And all you've
done so far is sit around denying that it exists. You're like an
atheist denying God only you have more evidence before you of what
you're denying than the atheist has. So what's YOUR excuse?

What is there to 'deny?'

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.

If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it? Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses. Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.

Illogical twits.

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it? Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses. Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.

Illogical twits.