| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2006 09:49:58 PM |
| Object: |
Re: OT: Christ died for Adam's sin, not ours |
Robert Weldon wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1155310258.631866.200110@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Draft 1. I might edit and re-post this.
Jim Willemin wrote:
I apologize for the off-topic post, but there are quite a few thoughtful
folks here in the Christian tradition (e.g. James Goetze, Stanley
Friesen,
others) and possibly in other traditions, who may help me make sense of
on
idea that came to me after seeing a group of devout folks witnessing on a
street corner in Fulton, NY yesterday. The placards they carried read
"Christ died for our sins".
"The placards they carried read 'Christ died for our sins'."
-major snippage
Boy, you sure waste a lot of bandwidth to say nothing, don't you?
Yes.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311302356490.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
1971 Salisbury's Doubts about the Synthetic Euphoria
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402290951.48d08417%40posting.google.com
1967 Macbeth calls for "a full disclosure"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405231903.3eb81283%40posting.google.com
1950 Anthony Standen on the T0E
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403061926.298a316f%40posting.google.com
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: 1953 C.P. Martin; 1903 Orville Wright; George Orwell |
25 Aug 2006 10:07:06 AM |
|
|
Augray wrote:
On 24 Aug 2006 07:18:41 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1156429121.796573.44560@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 20 Aug 2006 19:49:45 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1156128585.078756.149340@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 18 Aug 2006 07:34:31 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155911671.565097.179500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote in "Re: OT: Christ died for Adam's sin, not ours":
On 15 Aug 2006 07:35:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155652543.304560.205890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
How is this relevant
It's not.
Then why bother?
[snip]
From your perspective, and given what you know, do you believe
[Martin]"that the mutation-selection theory is wholly convincing as a
means of explaining natural evolution"?
Do you consider [Martin]"the mutation-selection theory beyond all
doubt" established?
How is Martin relevant to your essay?
My essay dissects the [Martin]"mutation-selection theory."
This is a phrase that never appears in your flawed essay.
Do you agree with this?:
Ford's essay discusses the [Martin]"mutation-selection theory."
That's not what your essay title says.
Have you read the entirety of my essay?
Do you agree with this?:
Ford's essay discusses the [Martin]"mutation-selection theory."
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
And the uselessness of the essay hasn't changed.
Do you consider [Martin]"the mutation-selection theory beyond all
doubt" established?
From your perspective, and given what you know, do you believe
Martin]"that the mutation-selection theory is wholly convincing as a
means of explaining natural evolution"?
It has its place.
Do you believe that [Martin]"the mutation-selection theory" _isn't_
[Martin]"wholly convincing" in explaining the origination of certain
features in the world of biology?
If 'yes,' what are some of those features?
Considering that Martin wrote over 50 years ago, before the mechanism
of inheritance was understood, I'd say that at this point, his opinion
piece is virtually irrelevant.
Do you consider [Martin]"the mutation-selection theory beyond all
doubt" established?
Yes.
What are 2 of the stronger lines of laboratory experiment data helping
to establish [Martin]"beyond all doubt" [Martin]"the mutation-selection
theory"?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
One literature search for "mutation"; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
Martin, C.P. January 1953. "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution"
_American Scientist_, 100-106. Martin was with McGill University. On
100:
There is no doubt of agreement among biologists
that species evolve; certainly an overwhelming
majority of them believe that evolution proceeds by
mutations and natural selection. Nevertheless there
are some like myself who cannot see that the
mutation-selection theory is wholly convincing as a
means of explaining natural evolution and, perhaps
erroneously, we believe that our dissent is not so
much due to a failure to master the facts as to our
grasp of some facts which we think some
geneticists are apt to overlook. .... Certainly I, and
most of my fellow recusants, unreservedly accept
every established fact in genetics. But we feel that
none of these facts, nor all of them together,
establishes the mutation-selection theory beyond all
doubt. As to our fewness, it must be remembered
that unless we command independent means of
publication it is very difficult for us to obtain a
hearing today.
Do you agree with this Martin?:
Martin, C. P. 1953. A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution. American
Scientist 41(1):100-106. On page 105:
That species have evolved seems to be beyond all reasonable
doubt.
[Martin]"species have evolved"
Meaning of [Martin]"evolved"?
Are you saying that you didn't read Martin's essay, and therefore
don't know what he meant?
No.
I "read Martin's essay" a long while ago.
[Augray]"Do you agree with this Martin?:"
[Martin]"species have evolved"
Meaning of [Martin]"evolved"?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Raup's letter to _Science_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
[snip]
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Orville Wright in a 7 June 1903 letter. Cited by Richard
Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist"
_American Scientist_ (Jan 1952), 84-98, 135, 84:
....but if we all worked on the assumption that what is
accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope
of advance.
How is Wright relevant to your essay?
It isn't.
Then why bother?
George Orwell in a previously unpublished preface to _Animal Farm_,
published posthumously in _Times Literary Supplement_. Cited in W.H.
Thorpe, _Purpose in a World of Chance_ (1978), who is in turn cited in
Alan Hayward, _Creation and Evolution_ (1985), 21:
At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas,
which
it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without
question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this or that or
the
other, but it is 'not done' to say it.
How is Orwell relevant to your essay?
It isn't.
Then why bother?
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Still flawed, because it confuses Gradualism with Natural Selection.
Did Darwin use the term [Augray]"Gradualism"?
He used the word "gradual".
I agree that Darwin "used the word 'gradual'".
In what context?
See
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.literature.org&sitesearch=www.literature.org&client=pub-7416764480725418&forid=1&channel=7265410994&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23000066%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23FFFFFF%3BVLC%3A000033%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A330099%3BALC%3A000066%3BLC%3A000066%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A000066%3BGIMP%3A000066%3BS%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.literature.org%2F%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en&q=darwin+gradual&sa=Search+
To the best of your knowledge, did Darwin ever use the term
[Augray]"Gradualism"?
Is it important that he did? Would his use of the word. or lack
thereof, change your argument?
Yes; it might.
It's a simple question:
To the best of your knowledge, did Darwin ever use the term
[Augray]"Gradualism"?
Compare
http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=active&client=pub-7416764480725418&channel=7265410994&cof=FORID%3A1%3BGL%3A1%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BT%3A%23000000%3BLC%3A%23000066%3BVLC%3A%23000033%3BALC%3A%23000066%3BGALT%3A%23000066%3BGFNT%3A%23000066%3BGIMP%3A%23000066%3BDIV%3A%23000066%3BLBGC%3A330099%3BAH%3Acenter%3B&domains=www.literature.org&q=darwin+gradualism&btnG=Search&sitesearch=www.literature.org
with:
Augray: I use these terms {[A]"Natural Selection" and [A]"Gradualism"}
in the same sense as Darwin.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Augray: A completely useless essay, since it confuses Gradualism with
Natural Selection.
df: What exactly is [A]"Natural Selection"? What exactly is
[A]"Gradualism"?
Augray: I use these terms in the same sense as Darwin.
df: What was the sense in which Darwin used the word "Gradualism"?
Augray: Gradualism is the rate of change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: 1953 C.P. Martin; 1903 Orville Wright; George Orwell |
25 Aug 2006 08:41:07 PM |
|
|
On 25 Aug 2006 08:07:06 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1156518426.412321.248510@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 24 Aug 2006 07:18:41 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1156429121.796573.44560@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 20 Aug 2006 19:49:45 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1156128585.078756.149340@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 18 Aug 2006 07:34:31 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155911671.565097.179500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote in "Re: OT: Christ died for Adam's sin, not ours":
On 15 Aug 2006 07:35:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155652543.304560.205890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
How is this relevant
It's not.
Then why bother?
[snip]
From your perspective, and given what you know, do you believe
[Martin]"that the mutation-selection theory is wholly convincing as a
means of explaining natural evolution"?
Do you consider [Martin]"the mutation-selection theory beyond all
doubt" established?
How is Martin relevant to your essay?
My essay dissects the [Martin]"mutation-selection theory."
This is a phrase that never appears in your flawed essay.
Do you agree with this?:
Ford's essay discusses the [Martin]"mutation-selection theory."
That's not what your essay title says.
Have you read the entirety of my essay?
Yes, I have.
Do you agree with this?:
Ford's essay discusses the [Martin]"mutation-selection theory."
It touches on it, but spends a lot of time on topics unrelated to it.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
And the uselessness of the essay hasn't changed.
Do you consider [Martin]"the mutation-selection theory beyond all
doubt" established?
From your perspective, and given what you know, do you believe
Martin]"that the mutation-selection theory is wholly convincing as a
means of explaining natural evolution"?
It has its place.
Do you believe that [Martin]"the mutation-selection theory" _isn't_
[Martin]"wholly convincing" in explaining the origination of certain
features in the world of biology?
If 'yes,' what are some of those features?
Considering that Martin wrote over 50 years ago, before the mechanism
of inheritance was understood, I'd say that at this point, his opinion
piece is virtually irrelevant.
Do you consider [Martin]"the mutation-selection theory beyond all
doubt" established?
Yes.
What are 2 of the stronger lines of laboratory experiment data helping
to establish [Martin]"beyond all doubt" [Martin]"the mutation-selection
theory"?
Bacteria developing antibiotic resistance comes to mind.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
One literature search for "mutation"; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
Martin, C.P. January 1953. "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution"
_American Scientist_, 100-106. Martin was with McGill University. On
100:
There is no doubt of agreement among biologists
that species evolve; certainly an overwhelming
majority of them believe that evolution proceeds by
mutations and natural selection. Nevertheless there
are some like myself who cannot see that the
mutation-selection theory is wholly convincing as a
means of explaining natural evolution and, perhaps
erroneously, we believe that our dissent is not so
much due to a failure to master the facts as to our
grasp of some facts which we think some
geneticists are apt to overlook. .... Certainly I, and
most of my fellow recusants, unreservedly accept
every established fact in genetics. But we feel that
none of these facts, nor all of them together,
establishes the mutation-selection theory beyond all
doubt. As to our fewness, it must be remembered
that unless we command independent means of
publication it is very difficult for us to obtain a
hearing today.
Do you agree with this Martin?:
Martin, C. P. 1953. A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution. American
Scientist 41(1):100-106. On page 105:
That species have evolved seems to be beyond all reasonable
doubt.
[Martin]"species have evolved"
Meaning of [Martin]"evolved"?
Are you saying that you didn't read Martin's essay, and therefore
don't know what he meant?
No.
I "read Martin's essay" a long while ago.
Yet you have no trouble citing him. Could it be that you really didn't
understand his thesis?
[Augray]"Do you agree with this Martin?:"
[Martin]"species have evolved"
Meaning of [Martin]"evolved"?
From your recollection of Martin, what possible meanings might the
word "evolved" have?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Raup's letter to _Science_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
[snip]
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Orville Wright in a 7 June 1903 letter. Cited by Richard
Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist"
_American Scientist_ (Jan 1952), 84-98, 135, 84:
....but if we all worked on the assumption that what is
accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope
of advance.
How is Wright relevant to your essay?
It isn't.
Then why bother?
George Orwell in a previously unpublished preface to _Animal Farm_,
published posthumously in _Times Literary Supplement_. Cited in W.H.
Thorpe, _Purpose in a World of Chance_ (1978), who is in turn cited in
Alan Hayward, _Creation and Evolution_ (1985), 21:
At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas,
which
it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without
question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this or that or
the
other, but it is 'not done' to say it.
How is Orwell relevant to your essay?
It isn't.
Then why bother?
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Still flawed, because it confuses Gradualism with Natural Selection.
Did Darwin use the term [Augray]"Gradualism"?
He used the word "gradual".
I agree that Darwin "used the word 'gradual'".
In what context?
See
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.literature.org&sitesearch=www.literature.org&client=pub-7416764480725418&forid=1&channel=7265410994&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23000066%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23FFFFFF%3BVLC%3A000033%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A330099%3BALC%3A000066%3BLC%3A000066%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A000066%3BGIMP%3A000066%3BS%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.literature.org%2F%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en&q=darwin+gradual&sa=Search+
So, what do you get out of the following quotes from Darwin?:
That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual
manner, there can hardly be a doubt.
The similarity of pattern in the wing and leg of a bat, though
used for such different purposes, -- in the jaws and legs of a
crab, -- in the petals, stamens, and pistils of a flower, is
likewise intelligible on the view of the gradual modification of
parts or organs, which were alike in the early progenitor of each
class.
When we see any structure highly perfected for any particular
habit, as the wings of a bird for flight, we should bear in mind
that animals displaying early transitional grades of the
structure will seldom have survived to the present day, for they
will have been supplanted by their successors, which were
gradually rendered more perfect through natural selection.
No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural
selection, except by the slow and gradual accumulation of
numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations.
When further improved by the same slow and gradual process, they
will spread more widely...
In plants the same gradual process of improvement through the
occasional preservation of the best individuals...
...it would be extremely bold to maintain that no serviceable
transitions are possible by which these organs might have been
gradually developed.
Everyone who believes in slow and gradual evolution, will of
course admit that specific changes may have been as abrupt and as
great as any single variation which we meet with under nature, or
even under domestication.
To the best of your knowledge, did Darwin ever use the term
[Augray]"Gradualism"?
Is it important that he did? Would his use of the word. or lack
thereof, change your argument?
Yes; it might.
Why? In your "Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection" essay,
you wrote the following sentence:
In the article, G&E examine several claims of alleged gradualism
in the fossil record.
And this:
In the only case that G&E found to be a good example of
gradualism, 4 out of 9 traits showed gradualism.
And you wrote this as well:
From numerous, small mutations collected together by natural
selection, we get gradualism. Both numerous, small mutations--
and consequently, gradualism-- and natural selection are required
to have neo-Darwinism...
If it turns out that Darwin didn't use the term "Gradualism", would it
render your statements above invalid?
It's a simple question:
To the best of your knowledge, did Darwin ever use the term
[Augray]"Gradualism"?
I don't know.
Compare
http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=active&client=pub-7416764480725418&channel=7265410994&cof=FORID%3A1%3BGL%3A1%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BT%3A%23000000%3BLC%3A%23000066%3BVLC%3A%23000033%3BALC%3A%23000066%3BGALT%3A%23000066%3BGFNT%3A%23000066%3BGIMP%3A%23000066%3BDIV%3A%23000066%3BLBGC%3A330099%3BAH%3Acenter%3B&domains=www.literature.org&q=darwin+gradualism&btnG=Search&sitesearch=www.literature.org
with:
Augray: I use these terms {[A]"Natural Selection" and [A]"Gradualism"}
in the same sense as Darwin.
Note the word "term".
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Augray: A completely useless essay, since it confuses Gradualism with
Natural Selection.
df: What exactly is [A]"Natural Selection"? What exactly is
[A]"Gradualism"?
Augray: I use these terms in the same sense as Darwin.
df: What was the sense in which Darwin used the word "Gradualism"?
Augray: Gradualism is the rate of change.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Christ died for Adam's sin, not ours |
16 Aug 2006 09:55:35 PM |
|
|
Augray wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:35:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155652543.304560.205890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 19:24:55 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155608695.055878.176230@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 04:13:58 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155554038.500747.216240@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Augray wrote:
david ford wrote:
Robert Weldon wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1155310258.631866.200110@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
A completely useless essay, since it confuses Gradualism with Natural
Selection.
In the last of his paragraphs below, atheist Julian Huxley answers "no"
to a
question that he poses. Do you agree with Huxley's "no" answer?
Not really.
Huxley, Julian. 1953. (Great Britain: Penguin Books, reprinted
1968), 167pp. J. Huxley was one of the architects of the
Synthetic Euphoria, and the author of _Evolution: The Modern
Synthesis_ (1943). From the chapter "How Natural Selection
Works," paragraphs on 43-49:
[snip the rest]
Do you agree with this Larry Moran?:
Gould's defense of saltation as a possible mode
of evolution is now widely accepted.
==
Today nobody seriously questions the possibility of
evolution by saltation.
See
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bb5ljo%24ve4%241%40bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca
How is this relevant
It's not.
Then why bother?
[snip]
I decline to answer.
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
"2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence
of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. George
Mivart^34, Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'-- of what
possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The
dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and
adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediary
stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in
retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after
greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for'
insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey^35, a
proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or
even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in
the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many
cases, the intermediates never existed."
From
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Christ died for Adam's sin, not ours |
19 Aug 2006 09:08:37 AM |
|
|
On 16 Aug 2006 19:55:35 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155783335.917053.10720@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:35:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155652543.304560.205890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 19:24:55 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155608695.055878.176230@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 04:13:58 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155554038.500747.216240@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Augray wrote:
david ford wrote:
Robert Weldon wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1155310258.631866.200110@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
A completely useless essay, since it confuses Gradualism with Natural
Selection.
In the last of his paragraphs below, atheist Julian Huxley answers "no"
to a
question that he poses. Do you agree with Huxley's "no" answer?
Not really.
Huxley, Julian. 1953. (Great Britain: Penguin Books, reprinted
1968), 167pp. J. Huxley was one of the architects of the
Synthetic Euphoria, and the author of _Evolution: The Modern
Synthesis_ (1943). From the chapter "How Natural Selection
Works," paragraphs on 43-49:
[snip the rest]
Do you agree with this Larry Moran?:
Gould's defense of saltation as a possible mode
of evolution is now widely accepted.
==
Today nobody seriously questions the possibility of
evolution by saltation.
See
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bb5ljo%24ve4%241%40bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca
How is this relevant
It's not.
Then why bother?
[snip]
I decline to answer.
Why?
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
No.
"2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence
of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. George
Mivart^34, Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'-- of what
possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The
dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and
adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediary
stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in
retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after
greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for'
insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey^35, a
proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or
even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in
the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many
cases, the intermediates never existed."
From
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
But then, as you well know, Gould follows with this:
I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs,
complete in all their complex and integrated features--a fantasy
that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to
selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating old
models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for
the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not
imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved
forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws?
Such a change would scarcely establish the _Bauplan_ of the
gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction
of agnathan design--the building of a true shoulder girdle with
bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous
origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and
selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated
modifications.
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but
are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, S. J. 1983. Evolution as Fact and Theory. In "Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes". New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Christ died for Adam's sin, not ours |
20 Aug 2006 10:11:43 PM |
|
|
Augray wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 19:55:35 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155783335.917053.10720@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:35:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155652543.304560.205890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
How is this relevant
It's not.
Then why bother?
[snip]
I decline to answer.
Why?
"Why?"
I decline to answer.
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
No.
Do you _agree_ with this 1980 peer-reviewed Gould?:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary
stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases,
has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Surrounding material in
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
"2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence
of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. George
Mivart^34, Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'-- of what
possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The
dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and
adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediary
stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in
retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after
greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for'
insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey^35, a
proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or
even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in
the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many
cases, the intermediates never existed."
From
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
But then, as you well know, Gould follows with this:
I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs,
complete in all their complex and integrated features--a fantasy
that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to
selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating old
models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for
the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not
imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved
forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws?
Such a change would scarcely establish the _Bauplan_ of the
gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction
of agnathan design--the building of a true shoulder girdle with
bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous
origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and
selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated
modifications.
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but
are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, S. J. 1983. Evolution as Fact and Theory. In "Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes". New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
The 1983 not-peer-reviewed Gould statement [Gould]"Transitional forms
are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between
larger groups." contains a complete inversion of actual observations:
the reality is that morphologically-'intermediate' forms are abundant
within the 'species' level (much like is the case with living dogs),
while morphologically-'intermediate' forms linking high levels of
classification are lacking, and more obviously so the
higher in classification level one goes.
1980 peer-reviewed Gould:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary
stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases,
has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Christ died for Adam's sin, not ours |
21 Aug 2006 06:13:25 PM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2006 20:11:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1156129903.516314.11580@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 19:55:35 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155783335.917053.10720@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:35:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155652543.304560.205890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
How is this relevant
It's not.
Then why bother?
[snip]
I decline to answer.
Why?
"Why?"
I decline to answer.
What are you afraid of?
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
No.
Do you _agree_ with this 1980 peer-reviewed Gould?:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary
stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases,
has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.
Just what do you think that Gould is stating here?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Surrounding material in
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
"2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence
of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. George
Mivart^34, Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'-- of what
possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The
dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and
adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediary
stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in
retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after
greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for'
insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey^35, a
proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or
even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in
the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many
cases, the intermediates never existed."
From
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
But then, as you well know, Gould follows with this:
I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs,
complete in all their complex and integrated features--a fantasy
that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to
selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating old
models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for
the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not
imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved
forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws?
Such a change would scarcely establish the _Bauplan_ of the
gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction
of agnathan design--the building of a true shoulder girdle with
bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous
origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and
selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated
modifications.
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but
are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, S. J. 1983. Evolution as Fact and Theory. In "Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes". New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
The 1983 not-peer-reviewed Gould statement [Gould]"Transitional forms
are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between
larger groups." contains a complete inversion of actual observations:
And you base this claim on what, exactly?
the reality is that morphologically-'intermediate' forms are abundant
within the 'species' level (much like is the case with living dogs),
while morphologically-'intermediate' forms linking high levels of
classification are lacking, and more obviously so the
higher in classification level one goes.
Then why did Gould and Eldredge write that
Phyletic gradualism has been well documented, again across all
taxa from microfossils to mammals.
[Gould and Eldredge. 1993. Punctuated equilibrium comes of age.
Science 366:223-227]
1980 peer-reviewed Gould:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary
stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases,
has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.
1993 peer-reviewed Gould and Eldredge:
Phyletic gradualism has been well documented, again across all
taxa from microfossils to mammals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Christ died for Adam's sin, not ours |
22 Aug 2006 03:37:19 PM |
|
|
Augray wrote:
On 20 Aug 2006 20:11:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1156129903.516314.11580@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 19:55:35 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155783335.917053.10720@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:35:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155652543.304560.205890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
How is this relevant
It's not.
Then why bother?
[snip]
I decline to answer.
Why?
"Why?"
I decline to answer.
What are you afraid of?
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
No.
Do you _agree_ with this 1980 peer-reviewed Gould?:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary
stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases,
has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.
Just what do you think that Gould is stating here?
Do you ask about Gould above, or below?
Do you _agree_ with the above Gould?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Surrounding material in
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
"2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence
of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. George
Mivart^34, Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'-- of what
possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The
dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and
adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediary
stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in
retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after
greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for'
insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey^35, a
proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or
even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in
the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many
cases, the intermediates never existed."
From
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
But then, as you well know, Gould follows with this:
I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs,
complete in all their complex and integrated features--a fantasy
that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to
selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating old
models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for
the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not
imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved
forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws?
Such a change would scarcely establish the _Bauplan_ of the
gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction
of agnathan design--the building of a true shoulder girdle with
bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous
origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and
selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated
modifications.
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but
are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, S. J. 1983. Evolution as Fact and Theory. In "Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes". New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
The 1983 not-peer-reviewed Gould statement [Gould]"Transitional forms
are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between
larger groups." contains a complete inversion of actual observations:
And you base this claim on what, exactly?
Reading and pondering remarks by paleontologists such as Gould and
Simpson.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1944 Simpson: "some paleontologists...insist on taking the record at
this face value"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156272811.786756.225290%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
the reality is that morphologically-'intermediate' forms are abundant
within the 'species' level (much like is the case with living dogs),
while morphologically-'intermediate' forms linking high levels of
classification are lacking, and more obviously so the
higher in classification level one goes.
Then why did Gould and Eldredge write that
Phyletic gradualism has been well documented, again across all
taxa from microfossils to mammals.
[Gould and Eldredge. 1993. Punctuated equilibrium comes of age.
Science 366:223-227]
What are the 2 most-impressive examples of [1993 G&E]"phyletic
gradualism" you're aware of?
Eldredge, Niles and Stephen Jay Gould. 1972. "Punctuated Equilibria:
An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism" in _Models in Paleobiology_,
T.J.M. Schopf, editor. Reprinted in Eldredge's _Time Frames: The
Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated
Equilibria_ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), 240pp., 193-223. On
197, 199, 206:
Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the
rarity of transitional series remains as our persistent
bugbear. From the reputable claims of a Cuvier or
an Agassiz to the jibes of modern cranks and
fundamentalists, it has stood as the bulwark of anti-
evolutionist arguments: "For evolution to be true,
there had to be thousands, millions of transitional
forms making an unbroken chain" (Anon., 1967--
from a Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlet). ....
Although phyletic gradualism prevails as a picture
for the origin of new species in paleontology, very
few "classic" examples purport to document it. A
few authors (MacGillavry, 1968, Eldredge, 1971)
have offered a simple and literal interpretation of
this situation: _in situ_, gradual, progressive
evolutionary change is a rare phenomenon. But we
usually explain the paucity of cases by a nearly
ritualized invocation of the inadequacy of the fossil
record.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Gould, at the outset of
views of Cuvier, d'Orbigny, and Agassiz (all creationists)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980819011221.8126B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Stanley, Steven M. 1981. _The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils,
Genes, and the Origin of Species_ (NY: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers),
222pp. On 165:
There is no doubt that the new punctuational
movement will bring joy to the hearts of creationists--
those who claim species to be discrete entities that
a divine being brought separately to life and placed
upon the earth. The fossil record, in offering the
punctuational message that distinctive forms
somehow appear suddenly and, once established,
change slowly, would appear to be playing into the
creationists' hands.
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), G&E:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
1980 peer-reviewed Gould:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary
stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases,
has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.
1993 peer-reviewed Gould and Eldredge:
Phyletic gradualism has been well documented, again across all
taxa from microfossils to mammals.
1989 Christopher Wills on insignificance of known cases of gradual
'evolution' in fossil record
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bhf4m%24eta%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Christ died for Adam's sin, not ours |
22 Aug 2006 09:23:52 PM |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2006 13:37:19 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1156279039.574114.114670@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 20 Aug 2006 20:11:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1156129903.516314.11580@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 19:55:35 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155783335.917053.10720@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:35:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1155652543.304560.205890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> :
Augray wrote:
How is this relevant
It's not.
Then why bother?
[snip]
I decline to answer.
Why?
"Why?"
I decline to answer.
What are you afraid of?
Well?
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
No.
Do you _agree_ with this 1980 peer-reviewed Gould?:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary
stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases,
has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.
Just what do you think that Gould is stating here?
Do you ask about Gould above, or below?
Above.
Do you _agree_ with the above Gould?
Since, in my experience, what you derive from a passage is usually
quite different from the intent of the author(s), why don't you tell
me what you *think* Gould is saying, and then I'll answer.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Surrounding material in
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
"2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence
of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. George
Mivart^34, Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'-- of what
possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The
dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and
adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediary
stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in
retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after
greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for'
insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey^35, a
proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or
even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in
the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many
cases, the intermediates never existed."
From
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
But then, as you well know, Gould follows with this:
I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs,
complete in all their complex and integrated features--a fantasy
that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to
selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating old
models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for
the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not
imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved
forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws?
Such a change would scarcely establish the _Bauplan_ of the
gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction
of agnathan design--the building of a true shoulder girdle with
bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous
origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and
selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated
modifications.
Do you disagree with any of this Gould?:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but
are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, S. J. 1983. Evolution as Fact and Theory. In "Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes". New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
The 1983 not-peer-reviewed Gould statement [Gould]"Transitional forms
are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between
larger groups." contains a complete inversion of actual observations:
And you base this claim on what, exactly?
Reading and pondering remarks by paleontologists such as Gould and
Simpson.
Please be specific.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1944 Simpson: "some paleontologists...insist on taking the record at
this face value"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156272811.786756.225290%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Answered in news:nc7ne29v2qqekutr2age9smkebdd6mb349@4ax.com
the reality is that morphologically-'intermediate' forms are abundant
within the 'species' level (much like is the case with living dogs),
while morphologically-'intermediate' forms linking high levels of
classification are lacking, and more obviously so the
higher in classification level one goes.
Then why did Gould and Eldredge write that
Phyletic gradualism has been well documented, again across all
taxa from microfossils to mammals.
[Gould and Eldredge. 1993. Punctuated equilibrium comes of age.
Science 366:223-227]
What are the 2 most-impressive examples of [1993 G&E]"phyletic
gradualism" you're aware of?
Does it matter? Gould and Eldredge obviously thought that it was [G&E]
"well documented". Since you seem to be quite fond of citing them, I'm
surprised that you don't simply accept what they say.
Eldredge, Niles and Stephen Jay Gould. 1972. "Punctuated Equilibria:
An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism" in _Models in Paleobiology_,
T.J.M. Schopf, editor. Reprinted in Eldredge's _Time Frames: The
Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated
Equilibria_ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), 240pp., 193-223. On
197, 199, 206:
Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the
rarity of transitional series remains as our persistent
bugbear. From the reputable claims of a Cuvier or
an Agassiz to the jibes of modern cranks and
fundamentalists, it has stood as the bulwark of anti-
evolutionist arguments: "For evolution to be true,
there had to be thousands, millions of transitional
forms making an unbroken chain" (Anon., 1967--
from a Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlet). ....
Although phyletic gradualism prevails as a picture
for the origin of new species in paleontology, very
few "classic" examples purport to document it. A
few authors (MacGillavry, 1968, Eldredge, 1971)
have offered a simple and literal interpretation of
this situation: _in situ_, gradual, progressive
evolutionary change is a rare phenomenon. But we
usually explain the paucity of cases by a nearly
ritualized invocation of the inadequacy of the fossil
record.
What does this have to do with Natural Selection?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Gould, at the outset of
views of Cuvier, d'Orbigny, and Agassiz (all creationists)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980819011221.8126B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Stanley, Steven M. 1981. _The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils,
Genes, and the Origin of Species_ (NY: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers),
222pp. On 165:
There is no doubt that the new punctuational
movement will bring joy to the hearts of creationists--
those who claim species to be discrete entities that
a divine being brought separately to life and placed
upon the earth. The fossil record, in offering the
punctuational message that distinctive forms
somehow appear suddenly and, once established,
change slowly, would appear to be playing into the
creationists' hands.
What does this have to do with Natural Selection?
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), G&E:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Unsurprisingly, still useless.
1980 peer-reviewed Gould:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary
stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases,
has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.
1993 peer-reviewed Gould and Eldredge:
Phyletic gradualism has been well documented, again across all
taxa from microfossils to mammals.
1989 Christopher Wills on insignificance of known cases of gradual
'evolution' in fossil record
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bhf4m%24eta%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Debunked in
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9bf6927b7543c121
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
