Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
david ford schreef:
tbonepower07@gmail.com wrote:
Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and viruses
evidence enough for skeptics? If it can be shown that evolution occurs
in bacteria/viruses, why doesn't this prove to skeptics that evolution
is possible in other organisms?
From
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
Ooops... I underestimated talkorigins.org.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
See also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html
<quote>
"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution
as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it
primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of
the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data
[concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its
analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their
search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ...
plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre
P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York,
1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)
</quote>
Come up with something *fresh* willya?
Maybe I will someday.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html
Grasse and the "Myth of Evolution"
Even until the 1970s there was at least one famous
French scientist of the "old school," Pierre P. Grasse,
who continued to voice strong reservations concerning
Darwin's particular explanation (and the Neo-Darwinian
explanation) of "how" evolution occurred.
1961 Litynski: the French reject the theory of natural selection
Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:
Perhaps the most significant single fact in last year's
development of French scientific thought is that the
above orthodox explanation of evolution [involving "the
hundred-year-old Darwin principle of _natural
selection_"] has been badly shaken. Often criticized in
the past, it has now come under such heavy fire that the
way seems to be open, in France at least, to a new
theory of the origin of species. Thus, at the time of his
first conquests in space, man takes a new look at life, at
himself, and at his possibilities.
As long as two years ago the offensive was prepared by
Rene Sudre, an outspoken foe of Darwinism, the science
editor of the learned _Revue de Deux Mondes_, France's
oldest journal and one proverbially cautious in anything
it promotes. In two highly controversial articles Sudre
did not mince words in denouncing the "absurd dogmas"
of the generally accepted classical theory of evolution.
This year saw the controversy rapidly growing, until
recently it culminated in the title "Should We Burn
Darwin?" spread over two pages of the magazine
_Science et Vie_.
The article, by the science writer Aime Michel, was
based on the author's interviews with such specialists as
Mrs. Andree Tetry, professor at the famous _Ecole des
Hautes Etudes_ and a world authority on problems of
evolution, Prof. Rene Chauvin and other noted French
biologists, and on his thorough study of some 600 pages
of biological data collected, in collaboration with Mrs.
Tetry, by the late Michael Cuenot, a biologist of
international fame.
Aime Michel's conclusion is significant: the classical
theory of evolution in its strict sense belongs to the past.
Even if they do not publicly take a definite stand, almost
all French specialists hold today strong mental
reservations as to the validity of natural selection.
1961 Rostand
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310280012200.31488-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
1970 Chauvin on "childhood hypotheses of biology"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311281553180.20099-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Schutzenberger:
wasn't a creationist; options for the blindwatchmakingist
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980527000035.6222A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
_Commentary_ letter
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980505233721.19820A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1966 Wistar symposium paper
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980504231554.22521A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
interview part 1 of 2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980512014917.3590B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
interview part 2 of 2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980512015253.3590C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Not
surprisingly, Grasse is quoted FIVE TIMES in The
Revised Quote Book, because he wrote of the "myth of
evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and
explained phenomenon."
However, the editors of The Revised Quote Book
neglect to tell their readers that in the same book by
Grasse from which they have quoted, Grasse also
stated in the most unequivocal terms: "Zoologists and
botanists are nearly unanimous in considering
evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis.
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
Vestigial Organs, Biogeography, Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
_Basilosaurus_'s purported vestigial leg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Mayr and G. Nelson & N. Platnick on biogeography
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990719222253.1868077A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Bogus 'Vestigial Leg' Claims
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910142302001.6397-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
I agree with
this position and base it primarily on documents
provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living
world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data
[concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry,
through its analytical data, directs biologists and
provides guidance in their search for affinities between
groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important
part in the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre P.
Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic
Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)
Of course, Grasse also tipped his hat to the French
"father of evolution," Lamarck, stating: "Lamarckism,
which is no less logical than Darwinism ... is a tempting
theory ... and we would not be surprised to learn from
molecular biology that some of its [Lamarckism's]
intuitions are partly true...it should be considered today
a way of thinking, of understanding nature, rather than
a strict doctrine entirely oriented toward the explaining
of evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, p. 8)
Grasse wasn't a Lamarckian. Grasse was an agnostic about the
mechanism(s) responsible for alleged-blindwatchmaking-- see
Dobzhansky's famous book review of a Grasse book.
The authors of The Revised Quote Book lifted Grasse's
phrase, "the myth of evolution," out of context, trying to
deceive others into believing that Grasse was doubtful
of evolution even though he stated he "agreed" with the
"nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that
"evolution" was an historical scientific "fact." Grasse
simply disagreed with explanations of exactly "how"
evolution occurred. He felt the "how" part was not a
"simple, understood, and explained phenomenon."
"The authors of The Revised Quote Book lifted Grasse's phrase, 'the
myth of evolution,' out of context"
From
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
Andree Tetry was Joint Director of the "famous"42 Ecole des Hautes
Etudes [43] (School of Higher Studies), "one of France's most eminent
biologists,"44 and most importantly, "a world authority on problems of
evolution."45 In an article appearing in "one of the greatest
histories
of science ever produced,"46 she wrote,
However, despite its many advantages, and despite the mathematical
analysis of Fisher (1930), Wright, (1931) and Haldane (1932), the
synthetic theory fails to account for all the observed phenomena.
Thus, it cannot really be said to explain the emergence of
coaptations (Cuenot), or of 'tools' (Cuenot and Tetry) based on the
mutual adjustment of two independent parts. And it is hard to
believe that such complex organs as the human brain really have
resulted from purely fortuitous mutations. Complex organs
introduce new elements, new co-ordinations, and a different
architecture and organization. In order to be effective, an
evolutionary mutation must adjust itself to the preceding mutation,
and occur at precisely the right place and time. Even large-scale
pleiotropic effects are unable to account for the characteristic
correlations and co-ordinations found in all living organisms. No
wonder, therefore, that J. Kalin has called the synthetic theory a
kind of 'synthetic euphoria', and that even such eminent members of
the American school as Waddington and Olson have mentioned
difficulties and raised objections.47
Tetry ends her article with the paragraph,
In point of fact, none of the theories we have been discussing
provides an entirely satisfactory account of all the facts of
evolution, particularly of the emergence of taxonomic groups and of
adaptations.48
That was a Frenchwoman. Let's hear now from a Frenchman, namely
Pierre-
Paul Grasse. We will look at his credentials, thoughts on
neo-Darwinism, and thoughts on the neo-Darwinian conception of
mutations
as material suitable for natural selection's fashioning of evolutionary
novelties.
A) Credentials.
Grasse served as Director of the Laboratoire d'Evolution des Etres
Organises (Laboratory of the Evolution of Living Beings) at the
Universite de Paris VI, where he was responsible for much investigation
of the mechanism responsible for blindwatchmaking.49 In the Preface to
his _Evolution of Living Organisms_ (1977), Grasse states,
Half a century of research in various disciplines of zoology and
general biology has given me some insight into the realities of the
living world.
While reviewing the French edition of the book, a key architect of the
neo-Darwinian synthesis and enthusiastic supporter of the theory of
natural selection, Theodosius Dobzhansky, comments,
Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him. He is the
most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28
volumes of "Traite de Zoologie", author of numerous original
investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His
knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic, and his book is
replete with interesting facts that any biologist would profit by
knowing.50
B) Thoughts on neo-Darwinism.
Dobzhansky notes that Grasse's book "is a frontal attack on all kinds
of
'Darwinism.'"51 At one point in the work, Grasse asks,
When is Darwinian doctrine going to be subjected to a thorough,
critical reevaluation?52
Grasse intends his book to contribute to the overdue critical
reevaluation, for he writes,
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as
a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about
the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that
theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The
deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people,
owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse
to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.53
He notes that
many Anglo-Saxon and a few French biologists... write without the
slightest hesitation that the evolutionary mechanism is known in
detail with a high degree of certainty. We have gone from
Darwinism into neo-Darwinism, and, very recently, to
ultra-Darwinism, which... claims to be the sole custodian of truth
in regard to evolution....54
and opines that
Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses
incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires
fallacious interpretations. .... Through use and abuse of hidden
postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a
pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very
heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and
biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental
concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.55
C) Thoughts on the neo-Darwinian conception of mutations as material
suitable for natural selection's fashioning of evolutionary novelties.
Grasse notes that according to neo-Darwinism,
mutations + natural selection = blindwatchmaking.56
Mutations-as-blindwatchmaking-material is **_THE_** critical component
of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. Demolish the mutations-as-
blindwatchmaking-material component of the equation, and you demolish
natural-selection-as-creator. With NS-as-creator demolished, all that
remains is NS-as-destroyer: NS-as-destroyer was always there, always
operating, but with NS-as-creator gone, only NS-as-destroyer remains.
To reiterate the key point to remember, If you demolish the
mutations-as-blindwatchmaking-material component of the Darwinian
equation, you demolish the possibility that natural selection as a
blindwatchmaking force can exist.
Grasse demolishes the mutations-as-blindwatchmaking-material component
of neo-Darwinism. For starters, Grasse observes that the "conditions
necessary for mutations to contribute to the genesis of complex organs"
are "opportune occurrence, harmony with preexisting conditions, and
coordination with other mutations."57 As for whether mutations occur
in
"harmony with preexisting conditions," consider that
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary
to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations
toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do
so in disorder, no matter how.58
Regarding the necessity of a mutation to occur at the right time _and_
the right place _and_ in coordination with fellow mutations that
themselves occurred at the right times and right places, Grasse says
Darwinism relies upon the regular occurrence of "miracles":
The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants
to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian
theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal
would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events.
Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal
probability could not fail to occur. Much as in _The Swiss Family
Robinson_..., rescue would always occur at the right moment, and
this would have had to have happened throughout the ages.59
At another point, Grasse taunts Darwinians with questions:
...."Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two
separate components of the body and producing structures that fit
one another precisely? Tell us, have you ever beheld three, four,
or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing
coordinated effects? And yet you have observed and described
thousands upon thousands of mutations. The huge populations of
animals and humans bear witness to their frequency. In any man the
number of mutated genes is extremely high. The mutations are
nondescript, monstrous, or pathological, and are invariably,
repeat, invariably incoherent. And yet it is by that that you
claim to explain the biological order, and make evolution
intelligible?"60
By way of illustrating his points, Grasse examines "the eye, the
genesis
of which is a major challenge to evolutionists."61 He sketchily
describes the eye with
We need not belabor the diversity of the transparent parts, on the
relationships between the intraocular fluid (aqueous humor) and the
venous system (Schlemm's canal), among others. The complexity of
the retina, of the sheaths, etc., need not detain us either; all
this is extremely well known, but we must say that no recent
publication inspired by Darwinism even mentions it.62
There follows a rough outline of the connections between the eyes and
brain, after which he remarks,
In fact, the picture we have just sketched is even more complex; we
did not consider the molecular structure which shows as many
peculiarities of adaptation as the macrostructure (the subtleties
of which were sometimes mistaken for imperfections; see Ivanoff,
1953), and we have neglected entirely the chemistry of a complex
organ capable of multiple adjustments.63
Grasse compares the probability of dust producing a 16th-century
engraving [64] with the probability of mutations leading to the eye's
formation (which of the 40 to 60+ eyes that Dawkins believes appeared
independently via the operation of NS-as-creator, I don't know):
The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's
"Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy
errors [i.e. mutations] in the DNA molecule leading to the
formation of the eye; besides, these errors had _no relationship
whatsoever_ with the function that the eye would have to perform or
was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but
science must not indulge in it.65
Observes Grasse,
Darwin (1859) devotes four and a half pages of the "Origin of the
Species" to the eye and its genesis, possibly thanks to innumerable
mutants, to natural selection, and to time. But we note that he
does not overcome any of the obstacles raised against his doctrine
by "reality."66
.
|
