Michael Siemon <mlsiemon@sonic.net> wrote:

AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote:

david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, William Barwell wrote:
david ford wrote:

Newman, Horatio Hackett. 1932. _ Evolution, Genetics and
Eugenics_ (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press),
620pp. Newman was a Professor of Zoology at the University
of Chicago. The end of the section "Experimental Support of
the Effectiveness of Natural Selection" and the beginning of
the section "The Present Status of Natural Selection," on
395-6:

Hey, some creationist had to dig around in an ancient book from 1932 to
diss Darwin?

....

Why show your vast ignorance rooting around ancient books?

You ask "Why?" I ask "Why not?"

Because science, including biology, has travelled a long way in seventy
years.

Particularly in light of the rather curious fact that Newman's 1932
would have been nearly contemporary with the very beginning of the
"Modern Synthesis"[*] which rescued Natural Selection from a whole
raft of incredulity, misunderstanding and trivialization that had been
dominant for most of the 20th century up to that time.
--- [*]
Fisher's 1930 _The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection_. Perhaps, if
David is even marginally honest and competent, he can point to some
passage in Newman effectively refuting Fisher?

[I think not; he seems
more like a typical "conservative" longing to return to days in which
incredulity, misunderstanding and trivialization can pass for
biology.]

Of course, Fisher's book was unintelligible to most biologists until
after WWII, as that level of maths was not required to do biology much
before then.