Religions > Atheism > Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
05 May 2006 03:27:04 PM |
| Object: |
Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm
An Evening with Darwin in New York
GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON
The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural
History in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an
officially sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted
and defended at all costs.
In New York, it's been the season of blockbuster exhibits. Fra
Angelico and Van Gogh had spectacular shows at the Met, while a few
blocks north the Guggenheim offered the best retrospective of Russian
painting ever mounted. But the Museum of Natural History has grabbed
most of the headlines by putting on an elaborate show with a simple
title: Darwin. It's doubtful that a science exhibit has ever received
so much attention. Newsweek and CNN covered it as breaking news, while
the New York Times published a rave review and an approving editorial.
The show is also striking deep chords with the public. The night I
went, one bohemian-looking father was solemnly guiding his young son
through the displays about evolution as though this were catechism
class - which, in a way, it is for a modern secularist.
The show presents the life and ideas of the great evolutionist, and its
tone is frankly triumphalist. Darwin's theory, we are told,
"underlies all modern biology. It enables us to decipher our genes
and fight viruses, and to understand Earth's fossil record and rich
biodiversity.... [T]he theory remains unchallenged as the central
concept of biology." A subtext of the show is that scientific doubts
about the theory were cleared up long ago and that opposition now comes
only from Fundamentalists who insist on reading Genesis as a scientific
textbook. A bogey haunting the exhibit is Intelligent Design, which is
politely but firmly dismissed as a wedge for religious beliefs that
have no place in science.
Catholics, of course, are not troubled by the idea of evolution. As G.
K. Chesterton put it, "If evolution simply means that a positive
thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a
man, it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might
just as well do things slowly as quickly." Pope John Paul II, who
addressed the issue on several occasions, said that the Church has no
problem with evolution, or with the possibility that the first humans
had biological antecedents, so long as God is not kept out of the big
picture.
But the Church does have a problem when Darwinists become crusading
materialists bent on turning God into an irrelevancy. It's a mission
they find quite appealing. And once they start behaving like agents of
enlightenment, rather than scientists, they tend to play shell games
with the evidence. Their language becomes slippery and their
methodology dubious. But they get the result they want: a vague,
widespread impression among the "educated" public that Darwinism
has solved all the mysteries of creation. Darwin comes close to making
that claim, and so it's worth taking a critical look at what it has
to say. The show, it turns out, is almost a caricature of what Stephen
Jay Gould once called Darwinian fundamentalism.
We may as well begin with the fossils. The show tells us that
Darwin's theory helps us to "understand" the fossil record. This
is odd, because the exhibit's curator, the paleontologist Niles
Eldredge, has written extensively about how Darwin's idea of gradual
evolution has never been supported by the fossils and certainly
doesn't explain them. In Reinventing Darwin, Eldredge talks about a
problem that won't go away:
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It
never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields
zigzags, minor oscillations.... When we do see the introduction of
evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with
no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution
cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil
record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn
something about evolution.
This is the verdict of modern paleontology: The record does not show
gradual, Darwinian evolution. Otto Schindewolf, perhaps the leading
paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote that the fossils "directly
contradict" Darwin. Steven Stanley, a paleontologist who teaches at
Johns Hopkins, writes in The New Evolutionary Timetable that "the
fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from
one species to another." Eldredge writes in another book with Ian
Tattersall: "It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record
will not confirm this part of the theory [the existence of close
transitional forms] or Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a
miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this
prediction was wrong."
The failure of the fossils to confirm Darwin's theory was one reason
that paleontology went into a long eclipse after Darwin published his
book. The scientific establishment simply did not want to hear about
its findings. As John Maynard Smith puts it, "Any paleontologist rash
enough to offer a contribution to evolutionary theory [was told] to go
away and find another fossil and not bother the grownups" - the
"grownups" being the geneticists who controlled what Smith calls
the High Table of evolutionary discourse.
What do we actually know about the history of life on earth? Bacteria,
which are highly complicated packages of genetic information, appeared
3.8 billion years ago. The nucleated cell arrived perhaps 1.2 billion
years ago; its sudden advent, in the words of one scientist, "marks
the greatest known discontinuity in the sequence of living things."
This pattern of abrupt and spectacular jumps continued with the
Cambrian explosion 550 million years ago, when, within a geological
blink, the seas were teaming with mollusks, jellyfish, trilobites, and
other creatures for which there is not a single ancestral fossil.
Darwin wrote of the Cambrian: "The case at present must remain
inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against [my
theory]." Subsequent digging has not filled the gaps. Richard Dawkins
writes that it is as though the Cambrian fossils "were just planted
there, without any evolutionary history."
All the major body plans - arthropods, chordates, etc. - appeared
in the Cambrian or shortly thereafter. There have been no new ones
since, which is not what Darwin's model would predict. More
importantly, since the Cambrian, we see species being replaced by later
species, not evolving into them. New species appear fully formed and
change little or not at all until becoming extinct. (Ninety-nine out of
100 species are extinct.) Bats, orangutans, bees, turtles all appear
out of nowhere and remain pretty much what we see today. There are no
transitional forms to speak of. According to Schindewolf, the gaps
between species "are not to be blamed on the fossil record; they are
not an illusion, but the expression of a natural, primary absence of
transitional forms."
When he wrote the Origin of Species, Darwin was perfectly aware that
the fossil record did not support his theory. He accordingly titled his
chapter on the subject, "On the Imperfection of the Fossil Record,"
and assumed that future digging would supply the "innummerable"
transitional forms that were missing. This has not happened, and
according to the usual rules of science, that would be enough to
question his theory. But far from being daunted, modern Darwinists
resort to one of two strategies: They either adduce as evidence for
their theory data that really contradict it, or they devise patches,
like the theory of "punctuated equilibria," whose purpose is to
shelter the theory from empirical falsification.
Eldredge writes that Darwin's discussion of the gaps in the
geological record "is one long ad hoc, special-pleading argument
designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain away, the differences
between what he saw as logical predictions derived from his theory and
the facts of the fossil record." This would make an interesting text
for the fossil displays in Darwin. It would give a more accurate
picture of Darwin, who often resorted to sleight-of-hand logic, and tip
us off that paleontologists, whose digging is supposed to confirm his
theory, are unable to impose a Darwinian template on their data.
Chesterton once quipped that Darwinists seem to know everything about
missing links except for the fact that they're missing. But let us
move on through the exhibit. It's crowded, and we have reservations
at a nearby restaurant that serves an excellent sesame-crusted tuna,
done just so. We don't, by the way, know anything about the origin of
tuna - or of aquatic vertebrates in general. A former president of
the Linnaean Society, an expert on lungfish, writes, "Whatever ideas
authorities may have on the subject, the lungfish, like every other
major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in
nothing."
Much of the rest of the exhibit is devoted to illustrating "evolution
in action." A video shows the variety of finches on the different
Galapagos Islands. Another deals with the mutations of viruses and
bacteria. It's all very interesting, but it tells us nothing about
the origin of species. What it demonstrates is that life forms have a
certain variability within limits. But this "micro-evolution," as
it is sometimes called, never produces genuine novelties. Finches
remain finches, bacteria remain bacteria. The late Pierre P. Grasse, a
zoologist who was president of the French Academy of Sciences, was not
alone in flatly stating that these "within species" variations have
nothing to do with evolution, that they're no more than fluctuations
around a stable genotype, a case of minor ecological adjustment.
And that's all the exhibit can show: "variation" in action.
It's also all that Darwin is able to show in the Origin. He argues,
for example, that all the varieties of pigeons - carrier, short-faced
tumbler, pouter, turbit - probably descended from the rock pigeon.
But after establishing what breeders had already known for centuries
- that species can subdivide into varieties - he gives no concrete
examples of what he really needs to demonstrate: that evolution is this
process of variation writ large. After reading the Origin with more
care than most of his contemporaries, the geologist Charles Lyell wrote
to Darwin that it was an interesting theory, but that in future
editions he might want to "here and there insert an actual case."
Darwin's theory rests entirely on extrapolation, on "micro"
changes adding up to "macro" changes through natural selection.
Scientists like Gould, Eldredge, Grasse, and Stanley argue that such
extrapolation is unwarranted by the evidence, that "macro"
evolution must be de-coupled from "micro" evolution. In other
words, the phenomena show-cased in Darwin and most textbooks - the
frolics of fruit flies, the variations of birds on islands - are of
no relevance to the question, "Where do the higher animal groups come
from?" The late Richard Goldschmidt, a leading geneticist who taught
at Berkeley, spent years observing the mutations of fruit flies, the
pet insect of evolutionists, and concluded that biologists had to give
up Darwin's idea that an accumulation of small changes creates new
species.
But once you reject such extrapolations, you reject the core of
Darwin's theory, and the origin of species remains a scientific
mystery. To call the mutations of bacteria or finches "evolution"
is to fudge the issue. Species, no matter how adaptable, are hard-edged
and never cross major boundaries, as Darwin's theory demands. The
semantic shuffle from "variation" to "evolution" nonetheless
fools a lot of people. After visiting the exhibit, the Times editorial
writer marvels at the "malleability" of species. But neither the
fossils, nor breeding experiments, nor the study of sub-species (or
variations) in geographical isolates have produced a single case of one
species turning into another.
But wait a minute: Hasn't the theory been confirmed by modern
genetics? Darwin himself knew nothing about genetics, and Mendel's
book sat famously uncut on his library shelf. But the modern
understanding of the workings of DNA is supposed to support his theory.
Such, anyway, is the message of the exhibit. But is this really the
case?
Everything we know about DNA points to the fact that it programs a
species to remain what it is. Most genetic changes are small and
undramatic. Large mutations never produce viable novelties. Darwinists
can make up stories (they call them "inferences") about how random
beneficial mutations, which alone are highly improbable, can accumulate
in an organized manner to bring about genuine evolutionary advances -
for example, the echo-location apparatus of bats. But Grasse (who was
no creationist) dismisses such narratives as "day-dreams." He
compares genetic mutations to "a typing error in copying a text,"
adding that they "in time, occur incoherently. They are not
complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive
generations toward a given direction."
In fact, we don't know what genes do when (and if) one species turns
into another. Nobody has ever observed "speciation" on the genetic
level. Richard Lewontin of Harvard, dean of American geneticists,
writes that "we know nothing about the genetic changes that occur in
species formation." And again: "It is an irony of evolutionary
genetics that, although it is a fusion of Mendelism and Darwinism, it
has made no direct contribution to what Darwin obviously saw as the
fundamental problem: the origin of species."
Another Harvard evolutionist, the late Ernst Mayr, writes that he does
not know precisely how the "genetic revolutions" on which evolution
depends are accomplished. He simply infers that they must happen. In
other words, geneticists, like paleontologists, do not see the crucial
episodes of an evolutionary process which they assume to be true. For
geneticists, as for paleontologists, evolution is always happening
elsewhere.
This is not to say that evolution did not happen. Since species share
genetic coding and homologous structures, their common descent is a
plausible idea worth investigating. But the sweeping claims made by
Darwinists amount to a "science" swarming with facts that don't
address the real issue. Many cling to the theory because, they say,
there is no better explanation. But especially outside the
Anglo-American orbit, there are plenty of scientists who call
themselves evolutionists but are frankly agnostic about how it all
happens. And they don't buy Darwin. They are unconvinced that
evolution is gradual, that it's no more than an accumulation of
genetic copying errors, and that natural selection can achieve all the
startling results that Darwinists ascribe to it.
It was Darwin's mechanism of natural selection that put evolution on
the map, and the Natural History exhibit is full of testimonies about
its amazing creative powers, how it blindly produced all the rich
biodiversity we see today. But there are plenty of scientists -
Grasse, Gould, Stuart Kauffman, and Soren Lovtrup, to name just a few
- who don't think natural selection accomplishes very much. As
Hilaire Belloc quipped, science did not need Darwin to tell it that if
there's a flood the pigs will drown and the fish will survive. The
question is whether this is the mechanism that creates new species.
Natural selection simply eliminates what doesn't work. That's all
it can do. But the destruction of the unfit does not explain the origin
of the fit. As biologist Hans Driesch pointed out long ago, to say that
natural selection "creates" anything is a bit like answering the
question, "Why are there leaves on the tree?" with, "Because the
gardener didn't prune them away." Or, as Arnold Lunn put it, it's
like calling the Nazi air strikes creative because they left standing
Westminster Abbey. Lunn's analogy is apt, because most species
disappear in mass or local extinctions; their exit has little to do
with a Darwinian struggle for survival.
Natural selection tells us why polar bears survive in the artic snows,
but nobody has ever seen it assemble a bear step-by-step. Lovtrup
writes in Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth that natural selection has
never been shown to produce more than trivialities on the evolutionary
scale. Jacques Maritain, who accepted evolution and thought it could
work in a Thomistic framework, called natural selection a "pitiful
extrinsic mechanism" that is of no account in producing species.
Sometimes it takes a philosopher to notice the obvious.
There has always been an informed minority of skeptics about Darwin,
which makes nonsense of the show's claim that his theory is
"unchallenged." Those who doubt this might consult a technical
volume, Beyond Neo-Darwinism (Academic Press, 1984), in which two
American biologists, Gareth Nelson and Ron Platnick, write, "We
believe that Darwinism...is, in short, a theory that has been put to
the test and found false." Molecular biologist Michael Denton weighed
in with Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1986), in which
he showed that recent developments in molecular biology are at complete
variance with Darwinism. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (Free
Press, 1996) has caused a stir by pointing out that Darwinian evolution
is biochemically impossible. And more recently, the physics and
computer prodigy Stephen Wolfram published a 1,280-page tome, A New
Kind of Science (Wolfram Media, 2002), which questions the explanatory
power of natural selection.
Several years ago I had drinks with an evolutionary biologist who
happened to work at the Museum of Natural History. I waited until
he'd had a couple of beers, and then said: "You claim that
classical Darwinism is dead, and you're obviously not a creationist.
So, what do you believe?" His reply: "Look, we know that species
reproduce and that there are different species now than there were a
hundred million years ago. Everything else is propaganda."
We still lack a scientific explanation of how a batch of inorganic
material morphed itself over billions of years into kangaroos and
bombadier beetles. Man is a separate mystery altogether. The
explanatory glibness of a show like Darwin is unfortunate, since it
retards, rather than fosters, intelligent discussion about a
fascinating subject. What the show really demonstrates is that
Darwinism has turned into a public orthodoxy that must be defended at
all costs. This is not science, but the culture war conducted by other
means.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
05 May 2006 04:03:36 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> said:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm
An Evening with Darwin in New York
GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON
<...>
This is not to say that evolution did not happen. Since species share
genetic coding and homologous structures, their common descent is a
plausible idea worth investigating.
<...>
Cool.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
06 May 2006 12:47:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1146860824.743745.13240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm
An Evening with Darwin in New York
GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON
The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural
History in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an
officially sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted
and defended at all costs.
Evolution is amply supported by the evidence. Where's your's?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
05 May 2006 03:39:12 PM |
|
|
On 5 May 2006 13:27:04 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
The show presents the life and ideas of the great evolutionist, and its
tone is frankly triumphalist. Darwin's theory, we are told,
"underlies all modern biology. It enables us to decipher our genes
and fight viruses, and to understand Earth's fossil record and rich
biodiversity.... [T]he theory remains unchallenged as the central
concept of biology." A subtext of the show is that scientific doubts
about the theory were cleared up long ago and that opposition now comes
only from Fundamentalists who insist on reading Genesis as a scientific
textbook. A bogey haunting the exhibit is Intelligent Design, which is
politely but firmly dismissed as a wedge for religious beliefs that
have no place in science.
That about sums it up. Everything else in the article is superfluous,
really.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
05 May 2006 09:12:30 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146860824.743745.13240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural History
in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an officially
sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted and defended at
all costs.
You know, no matter how much you people lie, evolution is still the only
theory that fits the data.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.D. Heilman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
06 May 2006 11:25:20 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:NJidnZLoA_yTm8HZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146860824.743745.13240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural
History
in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an officially
sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted and defended
at
all costs.
You know, no matter how much you people lie, evolution is still the only
theory that fits the data.
What would be enlightening & beneficial, would be for someone
to actually take on the real subject matter of the post by Sound of
Trumpet rather than engaging in character assassination.
The the opinion of Sound of Trumpet is meaningless &
unimporintant, however, the quotes referenced back to
scientist such as Gould, Eldredge, Stanley etc. are significant.
These are sincere, honest scientist, but the opinions
presented from Gould, Eldredge etc. is not being addressed.
What makes their opinion important, is the fact that these
were dedicated, convinced Evolutionist.
RD
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
08 May 2006 09:49:37 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 May 2006 12:25:20 -0400, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in
<Y547g.12746$Sl4.10193@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:NJidnZLoA_yTm8HZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146860824.743745.13240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural
History
in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an officially
sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted and defended
at
all costs.
You know, no matter how much you people lie, evolution is still the only
theory that fits the data.
What would be enlightening & beneficial, would be for someone
to actually take on the real subject matter of the post by Sound of
Trumpet rather than engaging in character assassination.
The the opinion of Sound of Trumpet is meaningless &
unimporintant, however, the quotes referenced back to
scientist such as Gould, Eldredge, Stanley etc. are significant.
These are sincere, honest scientist, but the opinions
presented from Gould, Eldredge etc. is not being addressed.
What makes their opinion important, is the fact that these
were dedicated, convinced Evolutionist.
I ignore SoT since he makes long silly posts and never engages in
discussion. I will read the post in question and respond if you found
something of value. Out of context quote mining is not of value.
Before you ask me to read it take a quick look to see if the Quote
Mine Project has already done the work.
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.D. Heilman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
08 May 2006 09:19:07 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:mgmu52h6lq5s9dl77p0sj0r0atqkikmcht@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 May 2006 12:25:20 -0400, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in
<Y547g.12746$Sl4.10193@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:NJidnZLoA_yTm8HZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146860824.743745.13240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural
History
in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an
officially
sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted and
defended
at
all costs.
You know, no matter how much you people lie, evolution is still the
only
theory that fits the data.
What would be enlightening & beneficial, would be for someone
to actually take on the real subject matter of the post by Sound of
Trumpet rather than engaging in character assassination.
The the opinion of Sound of Trumpet is meaningless &
unimporintant, however, the quotes referenced back to
scientist such as Gould, Eldredge, Stanley etc. are significant.
These are sincere, honest scientist, but the opinions
presented from Gould, Eldredge etc. is not being addressed.
What makes their opinion important, is the fact that these
were dedicated, convinced Evolutionist.
I ignore SoT since he makes long silly posts and never engages in
discussion.
I read both his post and the article found @
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm
He went to the trouble of copying the article almost verbatim,
I didn't compare the two line by line, but the opinions offered
were not his. The article was written by one George Sim Johnson.
I will read the post in question and respond if you found
something of value. Out of context quote mining is not of value.
If someone gives a reference in support of his position, as long
as it is _not_ taken out of context, misquoted, puts 2 unrelated quotes
together to say something unintended by his author R presents a
quote that is irrevelent, but the wording superficially seems to
support his view. I don't see a problem when a quote is honestly
offered. Still, I recognize the fact that quotes are oftentimes
misapplied. But OTOH the charge*quote mining* can be nothing
but a lazy & unjust way to excuse the poster's comments.
Before you ask me to read it take a quick look to see if the Quote
Mine Project has already done the work.
A major problem I had was the fact that references that were
given were general quotes from works of scientist without giving
page numbers, which makes checking his reference a daunting
task. A 2/nd. problem I had was the ending paragraph. He touched
on chemicals --> life which was a confusing two different areas:
the origin of life itself (abiogenesis) & the origin of species
(evolution).
However, where he quoted Eldredge etc. I have personally read
_some_ the same statements in their works. So I'm satisfied,
these were not "quote mined".
Regards,
Rein
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
09 May 2006 10:44:13 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 May 2006 22:19:07 -0400, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in
<O_S7g.39269$MM6.12170@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:mgmu52h6lq5s9dl77p0sj0r0atqkikmcht@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 May 2006 12:25:20 -0400, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in
<Y547g.12746$Sl4.10193@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:NJidnZLoA_yTm8HZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146860824.743745.13240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural
History
in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an
officially
sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted and
defended
at
all costs.
You know, no matter how much you people lie, evolution is still the
only
theory that fits the data.
What would be enlightening & beneficial, would be for someone
to actually take on the real subject matter of the post by Sound of
Trumpet rather than engaging in character assassination.
The the opinion of Sound of Trumpet is meaningless &
unimporintant, however, the quotes referenced back to
scientist such as Gould, Eldredge, Stanley etc. are significant.
These are sincere, honest scientist, but the opinions
presented from Gould, Eldredge etc. is not being addressed.
What makes their opinion important, is the fact that these
were dedicated, convinced Evolutionist.
I ignore SoT since he makes long silly posts and never engages in
discussion.
I read both his post and the article found @
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm
He went to the trouble of copying the article almost verbatim,
I didn't compare the two line by line, but the opinions offered
were not his. The article was written by one George Sim Johnson.
I will read the post in question and respond if you found
something of value. Out of context quote mining is not of value.
If someone gives a reference in support of his position, as long
as it is _not_ taken out of context, misquoted, puts 2 unrelated quotes
together to say something unintended by his author R presents a
quote that is irrevelent, but the wording superficially seems to
support his view. I don't see a problem when a quote is honestly
offered. Still, I recognize the fact that quotes are oftentimes
misapplied. But OTOH the charge*quote mining* can be nothing
but a lazy & unjust way to excuse the poster's comments.
Before you ask me to read it take a quick look to see if the Quote
Mine Project has already done the work.
A major problem I had was the fact that references that were
given were general quotes from works of scientist without giving
page numbers, which makes checking his reference a daunting
task. A 2/nd. problem I had was the ending paragraph. He touched
on chemicals --> life which was a confusing two different areas:
the origin of life itself (abiogenesis) & the origin of species
(evolution).
However, where he quoted Eldredge etc. I have personally read
_some_ the same statements in their works. So I'm satisfied,
these were not "quote mined".
So lets see what he says about/by Eldredge:
(Quotes from
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm)
[begin quote]
We may as well begin with the fossils. The show tells us that
Darwin's theory helps us to "understand" the fossil record. This
is odd, because the exhibit's curator, the paleontologist Niles
Eldredge, has written extensively about how Darwin's idea of gradual
evolution has never been supported by the fossils and certainly
doesn't explain them. In Reinventing Darwin, Eldredge talks about a
problem that won't go away:
[end quote]
Well, that is deceptive, but you have gotten confused by the same
material. Eldredge absolutely accept common descent via descent with
modification. He absolutely accepts that random mutation, differential
reproductive success, and neutral drift are major drivers for
evolution. Any suggestion otherwise is deceptive at best. What
Eldredge does question is the details of speciation. He also explores
what "gradual" means. As I have pointed out many times "gradual" does
not mean at a constant slow speed, it means it occurs stepwise. And
Eldredge would absolutely agree that evolution/speciation occurs
random mutation by random mutation.
[begin quote]
Eldredge writes in another book with Ian
Tattersall: "It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record
will not confirm this part of the theory [the existence of close
transitional forms] or Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a
miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this
prediction was wrong."
[end quote]
I would like to see the full quote. Personally I think that Gould and
Eldredge misunderstood/misstated Darwin's position (which, in turn, I
think that Darwin was uncertain about). Anyway, it is Eldredge's
position that speciation tends to happen in small isolated sub-groups
rather than in the main population. While of interest and even likely
true it does not challenge common descent, natural selection, descent
with modification, or any other significant aspect of "Darwinism".
More to the point, what matters is not "Darwinism", but the modern
best available theory of evolution. It should not surprise us that the
theory has changed in 150 years of active research.
[begin quote]
Eldredge writes that Darwin's discussion of the gaps in the
geological record "is one long ad hoc, special-pleading argument
designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain away, the differences
between what he saw as logical predictions derived from his theory and
the facts of the fossil record." This would make an interesting text
for the fossil displays in Darwin. It would give a more accurate
picture of Darwin, who often resorted to sleight-of-hand logic, and
tip us off that paleontologists, whose digging is supposed to confirm
his theory, are unable to impose a Darwinian template on their data.
[end quote]
Slight-of-hand? Sorry, but I need a bit more to justify the claim of
dishonesty. The fossil record *absolutely* supports Darwin's primary
groundbreaking claim of Common Descent via descent with modification.
Any claim otherwise is just plain false.
[begin quote]
Darwin's theory rests entirely on extrapolation, on "micro"
changes adding up to "macro" changes through natural selection.
Scientists like Gould, Eldredge, Grasse, and Stanley argue that such
extrapolation is unwarranted by the evidence, that "macro"
evolution must be de-coupled from "micro" evolution.
[end quote]
Let's take an example of this "decoupling". We can't understand the
K-T event just by looking at mutations, we have to also understand the
bolide impact. To understand the New World/Old World monkey
distribution we need to understand plate tectonics. Again, none of
this contradicts Common Descent via descent with modification.
So, what of value did you see in the article?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.D. Heilman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
10 May 2006 01:20:01 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:47d162l9mbvlohro1dc1qqr0nv6cnc9ftc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 22:19:07 -0400, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in
<O_S7g.39269$MM6.12170@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:mgmu52h6lq5s9dl77p0sj0r0atqkikmcht@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 May 2006 12:25:20 -0400, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in
<Y547g.12746$Sl4.10193@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:NJidnZLoA_yTm8HZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146860824.743745.13240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural
History
in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an
officially
sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted and
defended
at
all costs.
You know, no matter how much you people lie, evolution is still the
only
theory that fits the data.
What would be enlightening & beneficial, would be for someone
to actually take on the real subject matter of the post by Sound of
Trumpet rather than engaging in character assassination.
The the opinion of Sound of Trumpet is meaningless &
unimporintant, however, the quotes referenced back to
scientist such as Gould, Eldredge, Stanley etc. are significant.
These are sincere, honest scientist, but the opinions
presented from Gould, Eldredge etc. is not being addressed.
What makes their opinion important, is the fact that these
were dedicated, convinced Evolutionist.
I ignore SoT since he makes long silly posts and never engages in
discussion.
I read both his post and the article found @
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm
He went to the trouble of copying the article almost verbatim,
I didn't compare the two line by line, but the opinions offered
were not his. The article was written by one George Sim Johnson.
I will read the post in question and respond if you found
something of value. Out of context quote mining is not of value.
If someone gives a reference in support of his position, as long
as it is _not_ taken out of context, misquoted, puts 2 unrelated quotes
together to say something unintended by his author R presents a
quote that is irrevelent, but the wording superficially seems to
support his view. I don't see a problem when a quote is honestly
offered. Still, I recognize the fact that quotes are oftentimes
misapplied. But OTOH the charge*quote mining* can be nothing
but a lazy & unjust way to excuse the poster's comments.
Before you ask me to read it take a quick look to see if the Quote
Mine Project has already done the work.
A major problem I had was the fact that references that were
given were general quotes from works of scientist without giving
page numbers, which makes checking his reference a daunting
task. A 2/nd. problem I had was the ending paragraph. He touched
on chemicals --> life which was a confusing two different areas:
the origin of life itself (abiogenesis) & the origin of species
(evolution).
However, where he quoted Eldredge etc. I have personally read
_some_ the same statements in their works. So I'm satisfied,
these were not "quote mined".
So lets see what he says about/by Eldredge:
(Quotes from
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm)
[begin quote]
We may as well begin with the fossils. The show tells us that
Darwin's theory helps us to "understand" the fossil record. This
is odd, because the exhibit's curator, the paleontologist Niles
Eldredge, has written extensively about how Darwin's idea of gradual
evolution has never been supported by the fossils and certainly
doesn't explain them. In Reinventing Darwin, Eldredge talks about a
problem that won't go away:
[end quote]
Well, that is deceptive, but you have gotten confused by the same
material.
If I have become confused then it's because it's confusing material.
But I did not approach this with a predisposition towards creationism.
Eldredge absolutely accept common descent via descent with
modification. He absolutely accepts that random mutation, differential
reproductive success, and neutral drift are major drivers for
evolution. Any suggestion otherwise is deceptive at best. What
Eldredge does question is the details of speciation. He also explores
what "gradual" means. As I have pointed out many times "gradual" does
not mean at a constant slow speed, it means it occurs stepwise. And
Eldredge would absolutely agree that evolution/speciation occurs
random mutation by random mutation.
I do not doubt that change over time occurred, but I'm convinced
that evolution occurred by fits and starts, rarely if ever by slow
gradual minute change. Change occurred by sudden bursts of
activity. I believe Niles Eldredge presents the facts as recorded in
& from the fossil record. But he and Gould argues that species
changed, figuratively speaking, as if they went behind a curtain &
reappeared in new garb. The word phrase they use is peripheral
isolates (terminology coined by the late Ernst Mayer). So I do not
see the above as deceptive. How did one species change so
abruptly into another? I don't have the answers, but I thinking that
the answer lies in a fuller understanding of the regulatory genes
(Homeobox genes).
[begin quote]
Eldredge writes in another book with Ian
Tattersall: "It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record
will not confirm this part of the theory [the existence of close
transitional forms] or Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a
miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this
prediction was wrong."
[end quote]
I would like to see the full quote. Personally I think that Gould and
Eldredge misunderstood/misstated Darwin's position (which, in turn, I
think that Darwin was uncertain about). Anyway, it is Eldredge's
position that speciation tends to happen in small isolated sub-groups
rather than in the main population. While of interest and even likely
true it does not challenge common descent, natural selection, descent
with modification, or any other significant aspect of "Darwinism".
More to the point, what matters is not "Darwinism", but the modern
best available theory of evolution. It should not surprise us that the
theory has changed in 150 years of active research.
On this we are in agreement, except on one point. I do not think that
G & E appealed so much to Darwin's opinion. Rather they arrived
at their position by appealing to the actual nature of the fossil record.
I think Darwin was unconforatable with stasis. And paleontologest
after Darwin searching for evidence of change saw *stasis* as
no data.
[begin quote]
Eldredge writes that Darwin's discussion of the gaps in the
geological record "is one long ad hoc, special-pleading argument
designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain away, the differences
between what he saw as logical predictions derived from his theory and
the facts of the fossil record." This would make an interesting text
for the fossil displays in Darwin. It would give a more accurate
picture of Darwin, who often resorted to sleight-of-hand logic, and
tip us off that paleontologists, whose digging is supposed to confirm
his theory, are unable to impose a Darwinian template on their data.
[end quote]
Slight-of-hand? Sorry, but I need a bit more to justify the claim of
dishonesty. The fossil record *absolutely* supports Darwin's primary
groundbreaking claim of Common Descent via descent with modification.
Any claim otherwise is just plain false.
I think "slight of hand* was an unfortunate turn of words. I don't
know where this quote came from. This is one complaint already
mentioned, he doesn't give specific references. I rather doubt
Eldredge would make such a statement. I would like to see ref.
regarding this quote.
[begin quote]
Darwin's theory rests entirely on extrapolation, on "micro"
changes adding up to "macro" changes through natural selection.
Scientists like Gould, Eldredge, Grasse, and Stanley argue that such
extrapolation is unwarranted by the evidence, that "macro"
evolution must be de-coupled from "micro" evolution.
[end quote]
Let's take an example of this "decoupling". We can't understand the
K-T event just by looking at mutations, we have to also understand the
bolide impact. To understand the New World/Old World monkey
distribution we need to understand plate tectonics. Again, none of
this contradicts Common Descent via descent with modification.
So, what of value did you see in the article?
Except for the problems I have alreaady stated: namely his failure
to give specific references for quotes, so one cannot confirm these
quotes which causes some suspicion. Also his final pargraph is
a misconception shared by many people. But in reality, he draws
no conclusion. This I think he leaves this to his readers. If his quotes
are accurate then I would have little problem with this article. It
certainly causes one to think.
BTW I greatly appreciate you defending me against Michael Grey.
He is now trying to change the meaning of his question from
exactly what scientific method....by substituting personal criteria
for scientific method.
You don't know anything about my past, so I would like to
explain a little about this. If you are not inteested delete this.
My father was a Jewish doctor in Germany in the late 1930s &
the early 40s. We, my father & his family escaped Germany
within inches with our lives. A friend of the family knocked
on a side window late one night & informed my father that
the police were to pick us up in the A.M. His name had been
posted on a bulletin board at the police station for arrest.
He knew what meant.
We left our home in Germany in the middle of the night in the
dead of winter with snow on the ground traveling at night hiding
at first in barns, sometimes in drainage pipes and dilapidated
and burned out buildings during the day. Then we
found an organization who helped us so we stayed in homes
of people who helped us. These people were Lutheran and
Catholic families. We had to leave my older sister along the
way because she had contracted pneumonia.
While my parents lived they never learned whether
she survived or not. Eventhough my parents, until they died
tried desperately to find her.
They appealed to the East Germany Government & we think
they really tried to be helpful, but they never learned of her fate.
I promised my mother, before she died, I would find her.
I personally went into East Germany after the re-unification
searching for her with no luck at first, but on a later trip I
found a member of a family, who had kept her for awhile.
But she had been passed around from family to family.
He informed me, that he thought she had later died.
We went to Switzerland, lived there for about a
year, then England where we resided for five years then Utah
where we lived for seven years. My mother became involved
with the Mormon Church & so did I in my youth, but mainly
for the youth programs i.e. dances, parties, youth associations
etc. Mormons have excellent youth programs.
But at my fathers insistence none of his children were ever
baptized into this religion. I read the Book of Mormon &
trash canned it. My father never practice medicine in this
country. He had a fluent command of six languages
including English. But his accent was so heavy that he
had difficulty being understood. He worked in labs.
After we worked off some debt it cost to get here, we
then moved East where my parents resided the rest of
their lives.
I left for the University at 18 never to look back.
That in a nut shell is the early years of my life. I married a
wonderful Methodist lady & I do occasionally attend church
with her. But I have no intentions of ever joining her Methodist
Religion. And no pressure is ever brought to bear on me to
join. So, where religion is concerned I'm not dedicated to
any. But I harbor no amosity towards Christians. Indeed we
probably would have never survived without their help. Still
I have considerable loyalty to my ethnic background & my
roots. I can't separate who I am from my past.
RD
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
10 May 2006 09:17:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 02:20:01 -0400, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in
<zDf8g.67302$Jk3.15332@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:47d162l9mbvlohro1dc1qqr0nv6cnc9ftc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 22:19:07 -0400, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in
<O_S7g.39269$MM6.12170@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:mgmu52h6lq5s9dl77p0sj0r0atqkikmcht@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 May 2006 12:25:20 -0400, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in
<Y547g.12746$Sl4.10193@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:NJidnZLoA_yTm8HZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146860824.743745.13240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural
History
in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an
officially
sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted and
defended
at
all costs.
You know, no matter how much you people lie, evolution is still the
only
theory that fits the data.
What would be enlightening & beneficial, would be for someone
to actually take on the real subject matter of the post by Sound of
Trumpet rather than engaging in character assassination.
The the opinion of Sound of Trumpet is meaningless &
unimporintant, however, the quotes referenced back to
scientist such as Gould, Eldredge, Stanley etc. are significant.
These are sincere, honest scientist, but the opinions
presented from Gould, Eldredge etc. is not being addressed.
What makes their opinion important, is the fact that these
were dedicated, convinced Evolutionist.
I ignore SoT since he makes long silly posts and never engages in
discussion.
I read both his post and the article found @
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm
He went to the trouble of copying the article almost verbatim,
I didn't compare the two line by line, but the opinions offered
were not his. The article was written by one George Sim Johnson.
I will read the post in question and respond if you found
something of value. Out of context quote mining is not of value.
If someone gives a reference in support of his position, as long
as it is _not_ taken out of context, misquoted, puts 2 unrelated quotes
together to say something unintended by his author R presents a
quote that is irrevelent, but the wording superficially seems to
support his view. I don't see a problem when a quote is honestly
offered. Still, I recognize the fact that quotes are oftentimes
misapplied. But OTOH the charge*quote mining* can be nothing
but a lazy & unjust way to excuse the poster's comments.
Before you ask me to read it take a quick look to see if the Quote
Mine Project has already done the work.
A major problem I had was the fact that references that were
given were general quotes from works of scientist without giving
page numbers, which makes checking his reference a daunting
task. A 2/nd. problem I had was the ending paragraph. He touched
on chemicals --> life which was a confusing two different areas:
the origin of life itself (abiogenesis) & the origin of species
(evolution).
However, where he quoted Eldredge etc. I have personally read
_some_ the same statements in their works. So I'm satisfied,
these were not "quote mined".
So lets see what he says about/by Eldredge:
(Quotes from
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm)
[begin quote]
We may as well begin with the fossils. The show tells us that
Darwin's theory helps us to "understand" the fossil record. This
is odd, because the exhibit's curator, the paleontologist Niles
Eldredge, has written extensively about how Darwin's idea of gradual
evolution has never been supported by the fossils and certainly
doesn't explain them. In Reinventing Darwin, Eldredge talks about a
problem that won't go away:
[end quote]
Well, that is deceptive, but you have gotten confused by the same
material.
If I have become confused then it's because it's confusing material.
But I did not approach this with a predisposition towards creationism.
Nor did I say you did. If I have by error accused you of that in the
past it is long past. I am not sure I understand your position, though
our last interchange clarified several issues, but I do know Biblical
creationism is not the issue.
Eldredge absolutely accept common descent via descent with
modification. He absolutely accepts that random mutation, differential
reproductive success, and neutral drift are major drivers for
evolution. Any suggestion otherwise is deceptive at best. What
Eldredge does question is the details of speciation. He also explores
what "gradual" means. As I have pointed out many times "gradual" does
not mean at a constant slow speed, it means it occurs stepwise. And
Eldredge would absolutely agree that evolution/speciation occurs
random mutation by random mutation.
I do not doubt that change over time occurred, but I'm convinced
that evolution occurred by fits and starts, rarely if ever by slow
gradual minute change.
We need to be very careful here. Evolution happens *all the time* by
gradual minute change. We can and do check this in real time.
Evolution happens by genetic mutations. The biggest group of mutations
are silent, that is a pretty small change. Most of the rest, it seems
from examination, are neutral. That is, they make so little change to
the organism that they have no detectable selective affect. Only a
very tiny number of mutations have any significant morphological
affect.
We need to be very careful what we mean by "evolution" and what we are
looking at. Gross morphological change may occur with a different
pattern than does genetic change and species change may occur with yet
another pattern. I suspect that by "evolution" in your comment you
mean successful large scale gross morphological change. Let us
consider our level of focus. If we look at the details in the genome,
as I discuss above, we find tiny little steps. If we pull way back and
look at the gross changes preserved in the fossil record we will see,
as you say, fits and starts. We will see slow changes in some places.
And often, as Gould and Eldredge describe, we see sudden changes *in
the fossils* because we don't capture the slower change elsewhere.
Change occurred by sudden bursts of
activity. I believe Niles Eldredge presents the facts as recorded in
& from the fossil record. But he and Gould argues that species
changed, figuratively speaking, as if they went behind a curtain &
reappeared in new garb.
A bad figure. But follow the theater metaphor. A movie/play is a
sample of the world, you can get a quick cut that just does not show
the slow changes that actually happen.
The word phrase they use is peripheral
isolates (terminology coined by the late Ernst Mayer). So I do not
see the above as deceptive. How did one species change so
abruptly into another?
It didn't. It changed slower, elsewhere. We just don't always have the
record of that. We do sometimes. But, again, the deception comes from
suggesting that Eldredge disagrees with common descent or descent with
modification.
I don't have the answers, but I thinking that
the answer lies in a fuller understanding of the regulatory genes
(Homeobox genes).
That is a piece, but only a piece. Go back to my discussion above. The
genetic changes are slow and steady (in some sense). But not all
*genetic* changes have the same affect of gross morphology. And only
such gross morphology is captured in the fossil record. A single
change can, for example, change the smell of an organism and lead to
either speciation or even have a selective advantage. That change will
not be capture in the fossils. A similar change can also add a segment
to a snake or lead to some other skeletonal difference. That will be
seen in the fossil record. You do realize that there is nothing in
Darwin or in modern evolutionary theory that requires that all
mutations have same scale results. There is a unfortunate but natural
human tendency to assume a smoothness to curves.
[begin quote]
Eldredge writes in another book with Ian
Tattersall: "It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record
will not confirm this part of the theory [the existence of close
transitional forms] or Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a
miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this
prediction was wrong."
[end quote]
I would like to see the full quote. Personally I think that Gould and
Eldredge misunderstood/misstated Darwin's position (which, in turn, I
think that Darwin was uncertain about). Anyway, it is Eldredge's
position that speciation tends to happen in small isolated sub-groups
rather than in the main population. While of interest and even likely
true it does not challenge common descent, natural selection, descent
with modification, or any other significant aspect of "Darwinism".
More to the point, what matters is not "Darwinism", but the modern
best available theory of evolution. It should not surprise us that the
theory has changed in 150 years of active research.
On this we are in agreement, except on one point. I do not think that
G & E appealed so much to Darwin's opinion. Rather they arrived
at their position by appealing to the actual nature of the fossil record.
You misunderstood me. Notice that the *quote* from the OP commented on
"Darwin's predictions". I agree that G&E appealed to the fossil
record. I also think that they exaggerated the difference between
their claims and Darwin's. That does not make them wrong by any means.
My point is simply that they in less disagreement with Darwin than
they imply.
I think Darwin was unconforatable with stasis. And paleontologest
after Darwin searching for evidence of change saw *stasis* as
no data.
I agree. Darwin was uncertain about this issue. He seemed to lean in
more than one direction. It is too his credit that when faced with
ambiguous evidence he refused to take a firm stand. *Nothing* about
the fossil record or PunkEek or the fossil record challenges Darwin's
major important insights. Darwin was dead on correct that:
1) All life on Earth descends from a common ancestral population,
2) That variation in species comes from descent with modification, and
3) That differential reproductive success due to inheritable changes
is a major causative factor in the observed diversity of life.
Note that there is nothing in that that says things have to happen at
a constant rate.
[begin quote]
Eldredge writes that Darwin's discussion of the gaps in the
geological record "is one long ad hoc, special-pleading argument
designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain away, the differences
between what he saw as logical predictions derived from his theory and
the facts of the fossil record." This would make an interesting text
for the fossil displays in Darwin. It would give a more accurate
picture of Darwin, who often resorted to sleight-of-hand logic, and
tip us off that paleontologists, whose digging is supposed to confirm
his theory, are unable to impose a Darwinian template on their data.
[end quote]
Slight-of-hand? Sorry, but I need a bit more to justify the claim of
dishonesty. The fossil record *absolutely* supports Darwin's primary
groundbreaking claim of Common Descent via descent with modification.
Any claim otherwise is just plain false.
I think "slight of hand* was an unfortunate turn of words. I don't
know where this quote came from. This is one complaint already
mentioned, he doesn't give specific references. I rather doubt
Eldredge would make such a statement. I would like to see ref.
regarding this quote.
[begin quote]
Darwin's theory rests entirely on extrapolation, on "micro"
changes adding up to "macro" changes through natural selection.
Scientists like Gould, Eldredge, Grasse, and Stanley argue that such
extrapolation is unwarranted by the evidence, that "macro"
evolution must be de-coupled from "micro" evolution.
[end quote]
Let's take an example of this "decoupling". We can't understand the
K-T event just by looking at mutations, we have to also understand the
bolide impact. To understand the New World/Old World monkey
distribution we need to understand plate tectonics. Again, none of
this contradicts Common Descent via descent with modification.
So, what of value did you see in the article?
Except for the problems I have alreaady stated: namely his failure
to give specific references for quotes, so one cannot confirm these
quotes which causes some suspicion. Also his final pargraph is
a misconception shared by many people. But in reality, he draws
no conclusion. This I think he leaves this to his readers. If his quotes
are accurate then I would have little problem with this article. It
certainly causes one to think.
BTW I greatly appreciate you defending me against Michael Grey.
He is now trying to change the meaning of his question from
exactly what scientific method....by substituting personal criteria
for scientific method.
You don't know anything about my past, so I would like to
explain a little about this. If you are not inteested delete this.
I will listen because I am always interested in people and their past.
But I will also say that we have to decouple the person from the idea.
You don't know about my past because I choose not to share.
My father was a Jewish doctor in Germany in the late 1930s &
the early 40s. We, my father & his family escaped Germany
within inches with our lives.
I am glad and I do understand that pain.
A friend of the family knocked
on a side window late one night & informed my father that
the police were to pick us up in the A.M. His name had been
posted on a bulletin board at the police station for arrest.
He knew what meant.
We left our home in Germany in the middle of the night in the
dead of winter with snow on the ground traveling at night hiding
at first in barns, sometimes in drainage pipes and dilapidated
and burned out buildings during the day. Then we
found an organization who helped us so we stayed in homes
of people who helped us. These people were Lutheran and
Catholic families. We had to leave my older sister along the
way because she had contracted pneumonia.
I am so sorry.
While my parents lived they never learned whether
she survived or not. Eventhough my parents, until they died
tried desperately to find her.
Words fail me.
They appealed to the East Germany Government & we think
they really tried to be helpful, but they never learned of her fate.
I promised my mother, before she died, I would find her.
I personally went into East Germany after the re-unification
searching for her with no luck at first, but on a later trip I
found a member of a family, who had kept her for awhile.
But she had been passed around from family to family.
He informed me, that he thought she had later died.
We went to Switzerland, lived there for about a
year, then England where we resided for five years then Utah
where we lived for seven years. My mother became involved
with the Mormon Church & so did I in my youth, but mainly
for the youth programs i.e. dances, parties, youth associations
etc. Mormons have excellent youth programs.
But at my fathers insistence none of his children were ever
baptized into this religion. I read the Book of Mormon &
trash canned it. My father never practice medicine in this
country. He had a fluent command of six languages
including English. But his accent was so heavy that he
had difficulty being understood. He worked in labs.
After we worked off some debt it cost to get here, we
then moved East where my parents resided the rest of
their lives.
I left for the University at 18 never to look back.
That in a nut shell is the early years of my life. I married a
wonderful Methodist lady & I do occasionally attend church
with her. But I have no intentions of ever joining her Methodist
Religion. And no pressure is ever brought to bear on me to
join. So, where religion is concerned I'm not dedicated to
any. But I harbor no amosity towards Christians. Indeed we
probably would have never survived without their help. Still
I have considerable loyalty to my ethnic background & my
roots. I can't separate who I am from my past.
Nor can anyone else. That does not mean we can change and grow and
learn, but we are always connected to our pasts. Thank you for your
story, it does help to understand some of your posts. Please do not
let these kneejerk (with the accent on that last syllable) atheists
bother you.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.D. Heilman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Worst Problems Come From Its Inner Contradictions |
11 May 2006 10:54:19 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:bar362l5b9auo60veh6f3pdfluvtre5r9e@4ax.com...
<snip>
page numbers, which makes checking his reference a daunting
task. A 2/nd. problem I had was the ending paragraph. He touched
on chemicals --> life which was a confusing two different areas:
the origin of life itself (abiogenesis) & the origin of species
(evolution).
However, where he quoted Eldredge etc. I have personally read
_some_ the same statements in their works. So I'm satisfied,
these were not "quote mined".
So lets see what he says about/by Eldredge:
(Quotes from
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0082.htm)
[begin quote]
We may as well begin with the fossils. The show tells us that
Darwin's theory helps us to "understand" the fossil record. This
is odd, because the exhibit's curator, the paleontologist Niles
Eldredge, has written extensively about how Darwin's idea of gradual
evolution has never been supported by the fossils and certainly
doesn't explain them. In Reinventing Darwin, Eldredge talks about a
problem that won't go away:
[end quote]
Well, that is deceptive, but you have gotten confused by the same
material.
If I have become confused then it's because it's confusing material.
But I did not approach this with a predisposition towards creationism.
Nor did I say you did. If I have by error accused you of that in the
past it is long past. I am not sure I understand your position, though
our last interchange clarified several issues, but I do know Biblical
creationism is not the issue.
Right, I don't place stock in the Biblical narrative. But I tend
to think there is/was something/some intelligent agent behind the
scene. I realize this may violate a rule of logic, nevertheless, _if_
there is an intelligence agency, I see no way to rule out this behind
the scene involvement. Especially an early involvement i.e. to get it
all started.
Eldredge absolutely accept common descent via descent with
modification. He absolutely accepts that random mutation, differential
reproductive success, and neutral drift are major drivers for
evolution. Any suggestion otherwise is deceptive at best. What
Eldredge does question is the details of speciation. He also explores
what "gradual" means. As I have pointed out many times "gradual" does
not mean at a constant slow speed, it means it occurs stepwise. And
Eldredge would absolutely agree that evolution/speciation occurs
random mutation by random mutation.
I do not doubt that change over time occurred, but I'm convinced
that evolution occurred by fits and starts, rarely if ever by slow
gradual minute change.
We need to be very careful here. Evolution happens *all the time* by
gradual minute change. We can and do check this in real time.
Evolution happens by genetic mutations. The biggest group of mutations
are silent, that is a pretty small change. Most of the rest, it seems
from examination, are neutral. That is, they make so little change to
the organism that they have no detectable selective affect. Only a
very tiny number of mutations have any significant morphological
affect.
I'm certain that change occurs, but it seems that evolution,
almost invariably, means a _loss_ of some function. For
example: blind cave fish descended from ancestors
capable of vision. Flightless birds descended from birds
fully capable of flight. The loss of the certain proteins or
enzymes causees some heritable genetic diseases. A
mutation in a single gene resulted in anthropoid apes &
humans the loss of ability to synthesize vitamin C.
We need to be very careful what we mean by "evolution" and what we are
looking at. Gross morphological change may occur with a different
pattern than does genetic change and species change may occur with yet
another pattern. I suspect that by "evolution" in your comment you
mean successful large scale gross morphological change. Let us
consider our level of focus. If we look at the details in the genome,
as I discuss above, we find tiny little steps. If we pull way back and
look at the gross changes preserved in the fossil record we will see,
as you say, fits and starts. We will see slow changes in some places.
And often, as Gould and Eldredge describe, we see sudden changes *in
the fossils* because we don't capture the slower change elsewhere.
G&E laid out the facts, they put them on the table. They, advanced
their P.E. theory to explain the facts in keeping with Darwin's
gradualism predictions. But the fossil record does not reveal these
finely graduated fossil forms grading gradually, imperceptibly into
new & different species. This failure, in the past has been attributed,
to poorly preserved fossils, a sparsely & sketchy ruminant of what
must have been a flourishing & vibrant past life. G&E advanced
the theory that change occurred at the peripheral of the species range
they called *peripheral isolates*.
But once the empirical evidence is recognized & accepted as reality,
yet Darwin's gradualism is sacrosanct, P.E. is a bridge. A bridge
with no support other than it _must_ have been.
Change occurred by sudden bursts of
activity. I believe Niles Eldredge presents the facts as recorded in
& from the fossil record. But he and Gould argues that species
changed, figuratively speaking, as if they went behind a curtain &
reappeared in new garb.
A bad figure. But follow the theater metaphor. A movie/play is a
sample of the world, you can get a quick cut that just does not show
the slow changes that actually happen.
This is the poor preservation of fossils that must have existed, except
they are the evidence of their past existence must come from evidence
other than the facts recorded in the strata.
The word phrase they use is peripheral
isolates (terminology coined by the late Ernst Mayer). So I do not
see the above as deceptive. How did one species change so
abruptly into another?
It didn't. It changed slower, elsewhere. We just don't always have the
record of that.
That is exactly the problem that wont go away.
We do sometimes. But, again, the deception comes from
suggesting that Eldredge disagrees with common descent or descent with
modification.
I didn't understand it quite that way. But given the writer represented
Eldredge in this way then he, the writer, is absolutely wrong. There
is no question that Eldredge's view is exactly as you presented,
Eldredge & | | | | | | | | |
