Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III

Religions > Atheism > Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	09 Dec 2003 01:42:15 PM
Object:	Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III

Part of Phase II is in
A collection of my better posts
http://tinyurl.com/y86r
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	13 Dec 2003 11:33:53 PM

1961 Litynski: the French rejected 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.
Compare posts on Rostand, Remy Chauvin, and
Schutzenberger, and my theory of natural selection essay's
mentions of Tetry and Grasse, linked to from
http://tinyurl.com/z59v
.

User: "Boikat"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	14 Dec 2003 07:33:43 AM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0312132138.4484341e@posting.google.com>...

1961 Litynski: the French rejected 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.

They are French. Darwin was a Brit. Of course they are going to
disagree with Darwin. What do you expect? Having said that, those
paragraphs only state that a couple of French scientists disagree with
Darwin, but it doesn't say *WHY* they disagree with him or indicate
what *they* think explains biodiversity.

Compare posts on Rostand, Remy Chauvin, and
Schutzenberger, and my theory of natural selection essay's
mentions of Tetry and Grasse, linked to from
http://tinyurl.com/z59v

Pththth on that.
Boikat
.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	13 Dec 2003 11:56:19 PM

david ford wrote:

1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection

Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:

1961??? If natural selection was "shredded", you'd think that in 42
years, that fact would have become common knowledge. Yet here it is,
2003, and evolution by natural selection is still the strongest theory
in the life sciences.
Enkidu
--
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we
go to church we're just making him madder and madder"
--Homer Simpson
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	14 Dec 2003 03:41:39 AM

In article <VOSCb.12510$m83.8203@fed1read01>,
Enkidu <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

david ford wrote:

1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection

Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:

And it's not as if no scientific study has been done on evolution and
the mechanisms by which it happened has been carried out in the past
42 years either.

Enkidu

--
John Hachmann, aa #1782

- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	14 Dec 2003 02:38:15 PM

johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <VOSCb.12510$m83.8203@fed1read01>,
Enkidu <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

david ford wrote:

1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection

Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:

And it's not as if no scientific study has been done on evolution and
the mechanisms by which it happened has been carried out in the past
42 years either.

Don't angst. david is just contributing to Glenn Morton's "Darwinism is
dead" page... you know, the one that repeats the claims made since 1860
or so...
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	14 Dec 2003 11:44:54 PM

In article <1g5zd6j.b1fu851tgj2wbN%

(John Wilkins) wrote:

johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <VOSCb.12510$m83.8203@fed1read01>,
Enkidu <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

david ford wrote:

1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection

Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:

And it's not as if no scientific study has been done on evolution and
the mechanisms by which it happened has been carried out in the past
42 years either.

Don't angst. david is just contributing to Glenn Morton's "Darwinism is
dead" page... you know, the one that repeats the claims made since 1860
or so...

I remember reading about that. That's when all the biologists burned
their textbooks and closed their labs and said that since Darwin had
it all figured out, there was no sense in doing any more work on the
subject. Or so the cretinists would have us believe.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782

- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	18 Dec 2003 10:43:49 PM

John Wilkins:
johac:
Enkidu:
david ford:

1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection

Litynski, Zygmunt. January 1961. "Should We Burn
Darwin?" _Science Digest_, 61-63. Paragraphs on 61-62:

And it's not as if no scientific study has been done on evolution and
the mechanisms by which it happened has been carried out in the past
42 years either.

Don't angst. david is just contributing to Glenn Morton's "Darwinism is
dead" page... you know, the one that repeats the claims made since 1860
or so...

Please describe two compelling lines of evidence
for Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Steele, Edward J., Robyn A. Lindley, Robert V. Blanden.
1998. _Lamarck's Signature: How Retrogenes Are Changing
Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm_ (Reading, MA:
Perseus Books), 286pp. This book is part of the Frontiers of
Science series, with Paul Davies as series editor. According
to the dust jacket, Steele is Associate Professor of Biological
Sciences at the University of Wollongong, New South
Wales, Lindley is Director of the Technology Innovation
Research Centre at the University of Wollongong, Australia,
and Blanden is in the Division of Immunization and Cell
Biology at the John Curtin School of Medical Research in
Canberra, Australia. From the Epilogue, a paragraph on 209,
and material on 210 and 220-221:
The Darwinian revolution was a resounding success, but
the problem with intellectual revolutions is that they
often harden into suffocating dogma-- and at their
apogee tend to be guarded by the holders almost as a
sacred mantra. For a while the dogma is useful, but then
an 'establishment' inevitably forms, the individuals of
which find it almost impossible to break ranks, because
if they do their careers and financial livelihood are put at
great risk. This is antithetical to the spirit of scientific
inquiry (yet sadly, an accurate commentary on the
human condition). Today it is an unfortunate fact that
_neo_-Darwinian ideas have evolved into almost a
religion within sections of the scientific establishment.
Neo-Lamarckian soma-to-germline gene feedback loops
are still resisted with an irrational passion in a few
quarters. This is particularly so amongst some
immunologists and population geneticists who still seem
wedded to the sterile concept, to us at least, of the
'neutral theory' of molecular evolution of Kimura. Yet
as we have shown here, the soma-to-germline concept
has great explanatory and predictive power for the
evolution and structure of the V-region gene families of
the vertebrate immune system.
....we are strongly motivated to address certain issues
arising from the widely read writings of Daniel C.
Dennett (a philosopher from Tufts University) and
Richard Dawkins (of Oxford University), both of whom
have emerged as late twentieth-century defenders of an
extreme and uncompromising brand of neo-Darwinism.
Stephen Jay Gould has recently called it 'Darwinian
Fundamentalism', and it has been also brilliantly
exposed by the mathematician and novelist David
Berlinski in his recent essay in _Commentary_ magazine
entitled 'The Deniable Darwin'.
.... For the aficionados we raise the issue of 'final
causes', a concept that a traditional neo-Darwinist might
incorporate into any form of Lamarckian inheritance.
The short answer is that 'divine purpose' or 'final causes'
are outside the scope of scientific work. However, it is
ironic that in his attempt to eliminate all traces of 'divine
intervention' or 'deliberate design' from his extreme
brand of neo-Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, in books
such as _The Blind Watchmaker_, sets himself up as the
supreme 'artificer of design'! This is lucidly explained
in David Berlinski's essay 'The Deniable Darwin'. Thus
all of his computer-based models demonstrating the
'power of natural selection' depend ultimately on
Dawkins setting all the selection criteria and the
sequential (algorithmic) rules for the desired result of
his selection program. Thus 'divine intervention' by the
programmer is intrinsic to all computer-based
evolutionary selectionist programs....
Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin" on the Discovery Institute website
http://tinyurl.com/ygrf
.

User: "Lenny Flank"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	09 Dec 2003 07:49:49 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0312091145.50ebb96a@posting.google.com>...

Part of Phase II is in

A collection of my better posts
http://tinyurl.com/y86r

BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When are we going to see your scientific theory of creation, Mr Ford.
Is there some sort of problem . . . . .?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	09 Dec 2003 06:24:39 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0312091145.50ebb96a@posting.google.com>...

Part of Phase II is in
A collection of my better posts

You've written several collections of URLs, not posts
that attempt to present an actual argument.
And you're referencing a single post that's
nothing *but* a collection of URLs.
Feel free to google "Daniel Joseph Min" as to why
this tactic isn't a bright idea. It's been done
before, and it doesn't work to the advantage of
the user.
-Chris Krolczyk
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	14 Dec 2003 03:44:51 PM

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:42:15 +0000 (UTC),

(david
ford), Message ID: <b1c67abe.0312091145.50ebb96a@posting.google.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;

Part of Phase II is in

A collection of my better posts
http://tinyurl.com/y86r

You've got to know something about a subject before you can do more than
***** upwind.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "R. Dunno"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	10 Dec 2003 12:21:18 AM

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:42:15 +0000 (UTC), david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Part of Phase II is in

A collection of my better posts
http://tinyurl.com/y86r

The turin shroud link with pics was excellent. An uncanny resemblance
to a barn owl hiding in a ripped lampshade.
http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	09 Dec 2003 11:23:41 PM

howard hershey <hersheyh@indiana.edu> in "Re: Chauvin
on "childhood hypotheses of biology"" on 3 Dec 2003:
david ford:
howard hershey on 1 Dec 2003:
david ford:

I don't know x 2. Do you know?

You mean, rather, that you don't care. It matters not to you

whether

the quotes you use come from a complete nut job with all sorts of

crazy

ideas.

Which individual(s), if any, that I have quoted do you consider

[hh]"a

complete nut job with all sorts of crazy ideas"?

Just like it doesn't matter whether the quotes are ancient or
out-of-context.

Which quotes, if any, that I have presented do you consider
[hh]"out-of-context"?

Almost all of them that are not simply out-of-date or from scientists
that were far outside the mainstream even in their own time and place.

What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age? If so, I take it that you
consider quotes of Charles Darwin [hh]"out-of-date."
1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
http://tinyurl.com/yj88
[hh]"almost all of them that are not simply out-of-date"
How were my 1996 Gilbert et al. and 1992 Orr & Coyne quotes [hh]"out
of context"?
Here are the quotes in question:
_Developmental Biology_ paper by Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff
http://tinyurl.com/yj9b
Orr & Coyne on Fisher
http://tinyurl.com/y86y
_American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
http://tinyurl.com/y86w
I see that you did not write an answer my question
Which individual(s), if any, that I have quoted do you consider [hh]"a
complete nut job with all sorts of crazy ideas"?
Let's try this. Which individual(s), if any, that I have quoted do
you consider [hh]"scientists that were far outside the mainstream even
in their own time and place"?
What are the most extreme ways in which those scientists were [hh]"far
outside the mainstream"?

I will grant that some of the [hh]"quotes are ancient"-- my oldest

quote

is probably from way back in 1859. Much has been learned of the
biological world since 1859, not all of it supporting 1800s

speculations

about matters biological.

how has the theory of NS survived?:
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, D. M. S. Watson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234718.51C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

All that matters to you is that the quote seems to
criticize evolution

My primary focus is the theory of natural selection.

Well, good. There are, if fact, reasonable grounds for saying that some
unspecified fraction of macroevolutionary change (repeated speciation
over time) is not a consequence of natural selection, but rather a
consequence of selectively neutral changes in isolated populations, some
of which, of course, also exhibit the localized specialization in form
and function we see in what we call subspecies.

[hh]"reasonable grounds for saying that some unspecified fraction of
macroevolutionary change"
Yes, it's usually best to leave matters unspecified and vague. That's
the hallmark of a good theory in science: vagueness.
Vague theories are also better in that they are much harder to
disprove than non-vague, highly-specific theories.
What are two of the more significant [hh]"reasonable grounds" of which
you speak?

If you wanted, however, to argue that natural selection is incapable of
generating speciation events or the amounts of change seen over
evolutionary time but that you, instead favor an alternative mechanism
such as a neutralist random walk of speciation events, you have a
strange way of doing so. Rather than presenting an actual argument and
using citations to point to the *evidence* supporting your argument you
make no argument and use quotations that seem to be the *opinions* of
scientists artfully presented so that they *seem* to support your
*opinion* about natural selection.

Some of the quotations contain arguments, or describe evidence. For
example,
1893 Weismann
http://tinyurl.com/yjbi
1961 Rostand
http://tinyurl.com/yj8c
1966 White
http://tinyurl.com/yj8q
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://tinyurl.com/ygpp

And you seem to be using these
quotes not just to argue that evolution did not (often? always?) occur
by a mechanisms (natural selection) you disagree with but to imply that
the authors did not think evolution happened at all. *That* is
intentionally misleading.

I have repeatedly said that I almost-exclusively quote
blindwatchmakingists.

You specifically *never* present what these
authors think takes the place of natural selection as a mechanism, even
though they do often discuss that.

I have mentioned what a few anti-neoDarwinian-mechanism individuals
think was responsible for blindwatchmaking:
Gould's 1980 rejection of the extrapolationist model; 1981 Lovtrup;
a fossil record request for Andrew M.
http://tinyurl.com/yjfv

Besides *opinions* are a dime a
dozen and that they come from someone with a degree doesn't mean they
are correct. Evidence presented in favor of a position, however, is not
as useless. Why do you only give (part of) the opinions without
presenting the evidence?

I have sometimes presented both opinions and opinion-informing
evidence. For example,
1932 Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"
http://tinyurl.com/y0s6
I argued at length in my
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
which has many quotations, some of which describe evidence.
What, by the way, are some of that essay's weak points?

In short, what you are doing *looks* like typical creationist
quote-mining used to imply that the authors disagree with *evolution*

Not so: as I have repeatedly said, I almost-exclusively quote from
blindwatchmakingists. Furthermore, I play up from time to time the
blindwatchmakingist credentials of some of those I quote:
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://tinyurl.com/y8c2
how do blindwatchmakingists "know" that life came from
non-life via non-intelligence-directed processes?:
Haeckel; Goodrich; Wells, J. Huxley, & Wells;
Simpson; Sagan; Dawkins; Johnson (a creationist)
http://tinyurl.com/yj7n

rather than that they do not think that natural selection explains
everything about evolution (or, in some cases, that they do not think
all evolution is a steady, constant change in form rather than a rapid one).

and seems to come from someone with "credentials"
that appear to give the criticism some "credibility".

[snip]

In your view, does Chauvin have credentials pertinent to a

discussion of

biological origins?
What in Chauvin's remarks do you disagree with?

It doesn't matter what Chauvin's views were or what credentials he has.
What matters is why *you* are using these ancient quotes the way you
do. I say that you are using them to try to imply that *evolution* did
not happen, not to imply that *evolution by natural selection* is not
the only mechanism by which evolution can or did happen.

You are entitled to your opinions and speculations about my motives/
motivations.

I actually agree. Evolution by natural selection is NOT the only
mechanism by which evolution can happen. Indeed, at the molecular
level, most of the evolutionary change observed is definitely due to
neutral drift events, with only rare and minor in extent (but important
in consequence) change attributable to natural selection.

What mechanisms were responsible for, and to what respective degree,
the following:
the biochemistry of vision
bacterial flagellum
the land animal--> whale transformation
the organisms that appeared during the Cambrian explosion
Do you have any references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature
backing up your answers?
Are you aware of _any_ published response by a neo-Darwinist to
Goldschmidt's challenge to neo-Darwinists?
http://tinyurl.com/yj7x
What are three biological structures, and three biochemical pathways,
if any, that you think neo-Darwinian natural selection _can_ account
for the arrival of?
What are three biological structures, and three biochemical pathways,
if any, that you think neo-Darwinian natural selection _cannot_
account for the arrival of?

And I also
agree that evolution tends to be episodic in the fossil record rather
than a smooth continuum. In both cases, we are talking about
preponderance of events rather than absolute exclusion of alternatives.

So if you want to discuss whether evolution occurs by natural selection
or neutralist explanations, I certainly would be happy to do that. If
you want to discuss whether evolution occurs by smooth continuous change
or episodically, I would be happy to do that.

If all you are doing, as I suspect, is implying that "since" natural
selection is the only possible mechanism of evolution, if I can present
quotes that seem to imply that 'natural selection cannot explain
evolution' then GODDIDIT, you are a quote-miner.

I don't think that neo-Darwinian natural selection is the only
proposed blindwatchmaking mechanism.
Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
blindwatchmakingist
http://tinyurl.com/yjau
.

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	10 Dec 2003 04:13:57 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0312092126.7d74ad17@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
Collections of URLs are still not an adequate form of argument,
David.
Did you bother to google "Daniel Joseph Min" in order to find
out why - and regarding self-referential ones, in particular?
-Chris Krolczyk
.

User: "Stanley Friesen"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	10 Dec 2003 08:34:57 AM

(david ford) wrote:

What makes a quote [hh]"out-of-date"-- age? If so, I take it that you
consider quotes of Charles Darwin [hh]"out-of-date."

Yes. As far as *modern* science is concerned, Darwin *is* out of date.
the modern theory of evolution is *derived* from his, it is not
identical to his. Darwin is *not* cited in modern refereed journals.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "gen2rev"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	10 Dec 2003 09:19:13 AM

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:23:41 +0000 (UTC),

(david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0312092126.7d74ad17@posting.google.com>:

howard hershey <hersheyh@indiana.edu> in "Re: Chauvin
on "childhood hypotheses of biology"" on 3 Dec 2003:

[snip]

The fact that you go on and on about the fossil record, for one. The
fossil record can neither prove nor disprove Natural Selection.
[snip the rest]
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	13 Dec 2003 10:47:39 PM

Replies to John Wilkins and gen2rev.
gen2rev on 10 Dec 2003:
david ford:

I argued at length in my
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
which has many quotations, some of which describe evidence.
What, by the way, are some of that essay's weak points?

The fact that you go on and on about the fossil record, for one.
The fossil record can neither prove nor disprove Natural
Selection.

Does my essay provide support for the claim that the known
fossil record doesn't prove the theory of natural selection?
If you would, kindly supply references for the claim that the
theory of natural selection isn't proved by the known fossil
record.
Feel free to also supply references for the claim that the
theory of natural selection isn't disproved by the known
fossil record.
Does the fossil _Archeopteryx_ provide evidence for the
theory of natural selection?
Does the known fossil record refute the claim that
blindwatchmaking occurs in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step
fashion?
Schindel, David E. 1982. "The gaps in the fossil record"
_Nature_ 297: 282-4. Schindel was a Curator of Invertebrate
Fossils in the Peabody Museum of Natural History and an
Assistant Professor of Geology at Yale University. The
article's first paragraph:
THE fossil record has been both a burden and a blessing
to evolutionary biologists-- a blessing because the
stratigraphical order in which fossils are arrayed
provides broad proof of change with time, but a burden
in that the gradual morphological transitions between
presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by
most biologists, are missing. Darwin and most of his
followers have resolved this dilemma by accepting the
blessing and dismissing the burden as an unfortunate but
inherent limitation in the fossil record resulting from
varying rates of sediment deposition.
Does the theory of natural selection make any predictions
about what we should see in the fossil record?
If so, what are two of those predictions?
Did Darwin mention any predictions of the theory of natural
selection in _Origin_?
If so, what are two of those predictions that he mentioned?
Does the fossil record provide evidence, one way or the
other, for the claim that an intelligent creator(s) created
different groups of organisms at different intervals in the
earth's history?
views of Cuvier, d'Orbigny, and Agassiz (all creationists)
http://tinyurl.com/z514
John Wilkins in "Re: Well what then caused God?" on 7 Dec 2003:
david ford:
Lenny Flank:
david ford:

Archaeopteryx is mentioned frequently by
blindwatchmakingists. I plan to summarize the
Archeopteryx chapter from Jonathan Wells
(a creationist), _Icons of Evolution: Science or
Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About
Evolution Is Wrong_ (2000).

Make sure you mention that Wells is a follower of "Father
Moon" who thinks that Sun Myung Moon is another Son of
God and is the younger brother of Jesus Christ.

Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
http://tinyurl.com/y6nd

In terms of the logical or formal content of Wells' arguments, I
agree that ad hominem is not a refutation. Wells falls (I would
say stands or falls, but that is by now unnecessary) by the quality
of his research and the rigor of his arguments.

What are two areas in which [JW]"Wells falls... by the
quality of his research and the rigor of his arguments"?

However, it is, I think, relevant to his motivations that he is
doing this with an a priori set against anything evolutionary or
Darwinian being right (even if we did not have his own words to
that effect), and that he gained his qualifications *in order to*
show them to be false, and did not arrive at his conclusions on
the basis of the research he so proudly claims. This does not
disqualify his conclusions - they may be right even if he were the
most despicable man on earth - but it explains why he does the
sort of egregious misrepresentations he does.

What are two of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you
think Wells has done?
Do any of the [JW]"egregious misrepresentations" you think
Wells has done involve _Archeopteryx_, and if so, how so?
.

User: "Stanley Friesen"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	14 Dec 2003 01:01:37 AM

(david ford) wrote:

Replies to John Wilkins and gen2rev.

The fact that you go on and on about the fossil record, for one.
The fossil record can neither prove nor disprove Natural
Selection.

Does my essay provide support for the claim that the known
fossil record doesn't prove the theory of natural selection?

Since I know of nobody in their right mind who *claims* that the fossil
record "proves" the theory of natural selection, this is largely a
useless thing to show.
The fossil record very strongly supports *common* *descent*, but the
time scale is too coarse to distinguish natural selection from other
mechanisms of alteration.

If you would, kindly supply references for the claim that the
theory of natural selection isn't proved by the known fossil
record.

Feel free to also supply references for the claim that the
theory of natural selection isn't disproved by the known
fossil record.

Does the fossil _Archeopteryx_ provide evidence for the
theory of natural selection?

It neither supports nor opposes it.

Does the known fossil record refute the claim that
blindwatchmaking occurs in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step
fashion?

No. It cannot, since the time scale of natural selection is decades to
millennia, and the time scale of the fossil record is, at its very best,
100s of millennia - two orders of magnitude larger than the time scale
of selection.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	24 Dec 2003 09:35:02 PM

H,R.Gruemm <psychotech@xpoint.at> in "Re: Newman: theory of
NS "falls far short of adequacy"" on 25 Nov 2003:
david ford:

It certainly would be good to hear of any currently-
known experimental and observational evidence for the
theory of natural selection, today being over 140 years
since Darwin propounded the theory in his _Origin_.
Before you or others describe the evidence for the
theory of natural selection discovered in the past 70
years, humor me for a moment, if you would (I know it
will be hard):

What experimental and observational evidence for the
theory of natural selection dates from before 1932? In
1932, the theory had been widely known for over 70
years. Many experiments had been done in the hope
of demonstrating the theory's validity. Would it be
accurate to say that in 1932, the theory of natural
selection abysmally lacked experimental and observational
confirmation?

No. It would be accurate to say that general relativity in 1915 (when
it was proposed) "abysmally" lacked experimental and observational
confirmation. Schwartzschild published his solution in 1916 and the
next solar eclipse was in 1919.

The 1919 eclipse experiment left something to be desired in terms of
providing confirmation for Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Good evidence for general relativity was known well before the 1919
experiment. See Steven Weinberg's _Dreams of a Final Theory_ (1993),
chapter V.

YOu forget the large amount of observational evidence that either
*Darwin* already listed in his works or which was found during the
19th century (Archaeopteryx, H.Erectus, genetics ...).

Please briefly describe 2 lines of observational evidence that Darwin
presented in his writings as support for the theory of natural
selection.
What exactly did Archaeopteryx derive from?
Into what exactly did Archaeopteryx transform?
Do you really consider the series _____, Archaeopteryx, _____
confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?
(If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature that concur?)
What exactly did H. Erectus derive from?
Into what exactly did H. Erectus transform?
Do you really consider the series _____, H. Erectus, _____
confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?
(If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature that concur?)
Please briefly describe how genetics provided confirmatory evidence
for the theory of natural selection in the years before 1932.
Also, please provide references to 2 papers in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature for the claim that genetics provides
confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
.

User: "Dana Tweedy"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	25 Dec 2003 02:46:08 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312241934.4d033778@posting.google.com...
snipping

Please briefly describe 2 lines of observational evidence that Darwin
presented in his writings as support for the theory of natural
selection.

One was comparison with directed selection by farmers and pigeon breeders,
another was camoflage and mimicry in animals. See chapter 4 of Origin of
Species:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-04.html

What exactly did Archaeopteryx derive from?

A feathered theropod.

Into what exactly did Archaeopteryx transform?

We don't know if Archae "transformed" into anything, or was a dead end.
However it's clear that since birds exist today, one or more of Archae's
relatives did leave descendants which modern birds are descended from. If
A. lithographica did speciate, it would have been into another species of
feathered theropod.

Do you really consider the series _____, Archaeopteryx, _____
confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?

No, more conformatory of the concept of common descent. Natual selection is
supported by other evidence.

(If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature that concur?)

I'm not aware that anyone claimed that individual species in the fossil
record were evidence for natural selection.
Here's some evidence of natural selection:
http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm

What exactly did H. Erectus derive from?

Most likely H. habilis, or H. ergaster

Into what exactly did H. Erectus transform?

H. erectus may have been the ancestor of H.neanderthalensis, and archaic
H.sapiens. Other phylogenic trees draw the ancestor of neanderthals and
modern humans as H. heidelburgensis There's a great deal of debate among
paleoentologists over the exact linage. See:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Do you really consider the series _____, H. Erectus, _____
confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?

Again, it's evidence of common descent. There is other evidence for natural
selection.
Snip the rest
DJT
.

User: "Howard Hershey"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	26 Dec 2003 04:04:49 PM

Dana Tweedy wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312241934.4d033778@posting.google.com...
snipping

Please briefly describe 2 lines of observational evidence that Darwin
presented in his writings as support for the theory of natural
selection.

What exactly did Archaeopteryx derive from?

A feathered theropod.

Into what exactly did Archaeopteryx transform?

Do you really consider the series _____, Archaeopteryx, _____
confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?

No, more conformatory of the concept of common descent. Natual selection is
supported by other evidence.

(If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature that concur?)

I'm not aware that anyone claimed that individual species in the fossil
record were evidence for natural selection.

Here's some evidence of natural selection:
http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm

What exactly did H. Erectus derive from?

Most likely H. habilis, or H. ergaster

Into what exactly did H. Erectus transform?

Do you really consider the series _____, H. Erectus, _____
confirmatory of Darwin's theory of natural selection?

Again, it's evidence of common descent. There is other evidence for natural
selection.

If David Ford were capable of independent thought rather than merely
stringing together excerpted quotes from other authors (which he
mistakenly thinks is a substitute for erudition), he might be able to
tell us how he thinks that the evidence for natural selection as a
mechanism which changes population genome frequency in the direction
that optimizes those phenotypes that are best adapted to local
conditions *could* be demonstrated *in* the fossil record rather than
merely being consistent with the fossil record.
To me, the evidence that natural selection, as an observation of the
mechanism which causes changes in population genome frequency in the
direction that optimizes those phenotypes that are best adapted to local
conditions is evidence from living organisms in current environments
(where all aspects of that definition can be experimentally demonstrated
and rates of change can be quantitated). As the above defined
mechanism, of course, natural selection only works on *existing* genetic
variance and not *hypothetical* genetic variance. So, the independent
fact that the ultimate source of all genetic variance is *mutation*
which is random wrt need does come into play. These *current*
experimental observations of how organisms work is the evidence that Mr.
Ford needs to counter if he wants to shred the Theory of NS.
The reason why the fossil record is not evidence for natural selection
is that we cannot, given the nature of the fossil record, know, with
certainty, what the selective forces were and what the genetic
composition of populations were. We can only infer what natural
selection could do in the past on the basis of inference of the nature
of selective forces observed in the present and the response (and rate
of response) via natural selection that can be observed in the present.
OTOH, what I *really* think Mr. Ford is objecting to is not the idea of
natural selection, per se, but the idea that natural selection (and
probably, although he doesn't say so, any other naturalistic mechanism)
can be inferred to be, in part, responsible for producing the observed
fossil record. That is, he thinks *some unspecified aspects* of the
fossil record are *inconsistent* with the observed ability and rate at
which NS can be *observed in the present* to change *morphology* (since
the fossil record is a record of morphologic change and not genetic
change, which is examined independently by sequence differences in
living organisms -- and which is also *consistent with* the idea that NS
plays a role in change over time or common descent, but is more
consistent with the idea that most *observed* genetic change in
organisms is selectively neutral drift). Given that the rate of both NS
and artificial selection can be measured in the present, given that the
rate and extent of morphological change which *can* be obtained by
artificial or natural selection in the present *with existing variance*
can be as quantitatively as large as many of the changes seen in, say,
human brain capacity over the much longer time of 5 million years (this
was a change which was actually quite rapid), given that the rate of
random mutation is observable, he has a tough job in justifying his
quantitative claim that NS *could not* produce the observed amount of
morphological change seen in fossil record in the time available for
that change. He doesn't make clear which *observed* feature of the
mechanism of NS working on random variation does not hold in the past.
Does he think that random variation did not occur in the past? That NS
did not bias organisms toward those features that were locally
beneficial in the past? That NS did not occur at all in the past? That
the rate of morphological change in the past was too fast to be
accounted for by NS by using extrapolation from current rates? I am
quite sure that Mr. Ford doesn't even know that those are the questions
he needs to be asking.
That is because David seems to not be capable of independent thought and
is only capable of quasi-mindlessly stringing together the secular
equivalent of Bible verses that have been taken either in (typically
from old or crank sources) or out (typically the ones from more recent
sources) of context to justify a previously decided upon position (such
a methodology of extracting Biblical quotes is used variously to justify
killing witches or not, hating homosexuals or not, keeping the
institution of slavery or not, beating one's children or not, handling
snakes or not, and drinking poison or not). That is a style of
'scholarship' which is quite common to fundamentalist preachers
(Christian, Muslim, and Hindu) and medieval scholastics (What did
Aristotle think about this?).
It is not, however, one that is used by modern scholars and certainly
not one used by modern (meaning since the Rennaisance) scientists. What
they do is try to examine and explore evidence that supports and that
which tests their ideas. For example, take the "assertion" that there
is no evidence supporting NS. That would mean that environments have no
effect in determining the genetic nature of the organisms exposed to
that environment. This is an eminantly testable hypothesis. And it has
been tested. Do you know what the results were? Or are you using a
definition of NS that is non-standard, such as a definition that
requires NS to invent new traits rather than distinguish among existing
phenotypic traits on the basis of their effects on reproductive success?
I suspect that Mr. Ford has a non-standard definition of NS, since he
thinks it doesn't happen in current environments.

Snip the rest

DJT

User: "H,R.Gruemm"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	25 Dec 2003 09:54:00 AM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0312241934.4d033778@posting.google.com>...

H,R.Gruemm <psychotech@xpoint.at> in "Re: Newman: theory of
NS "falls far short of adequacy"" on 25 Nov 2003:
david ford:

YOu forget the large amount of observational evidence that either
*Darwin* already listed in his works or which was found during the
19th century (Archaeopteryx, H.Erectus, genetics ...).

Of common descent.

(If "yes," are you aware of any papers in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature that concur?)

Are you being childish or what ? In order to determine that a fossil
is a transitional, we don't need the birth cetrificate of its
grandfather.
Regards,
HRG.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	29 Dec 2003 11:54:06 PM

H,R.Gruemm on 25 Dec 2003:
[snip]
A reply appears in the thread "Naive ?s on the
Blindwatchmaker Thesis," specifically at
http://tinyurl.com/28hra
Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.
More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
(Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp. This book is
based on lectures delivered at Princeton University in
January 1925. More was Professor of Physics at the
University of Cincinnati, and also wrote _The Limitations of
Science_. These extracts appear in the chapter "Introduction:
Evolution as Science and Faith." Paragraphs on 30-32:
As I am by training a physicist, it may be asked why I
undertake a discussion of biology and of evolution in
particular. My reasons are that there is a more urgent
need for a critique of biology as it is the science which
is furthest out of its field, and also its influence on life
and thought is more direct and readily seen than is that
of the physical sciences and, consequently, may be more
pernicious. While the physical sciences have
endeavoured to dominate thought, they do recognize
that the field of life lies outside their boundaries and
they continue to exclude its problems from their
discussions.
At least, the biologists cannot reproach me with being a
"paper philosopher," since I have had a pretty severe and
long training as a laboratory experimenter. I am quite
prepared to accept the conclusions of biological
experimentation and I shall depend on the statements of
biologists to show that they have not bridged the gap
between the organic and inorganic worlds; that they are
not prepared to explain living processes as physical
force and energy; that biological evolution as a guide to
human society is a delusion. Anyone trained adequately
in physics, which the biologists acknowledge to be the
foundation of their science, ought surely to be able to
follow and to understand their deductions. If this be not
true, how can biologists use the facts and laws of
physics with such freedom and assurance? And when
we remember that the data of biology must be
interpreted by historians, sociologists, philosophers, and
the clergy, before the doctrine of evolution can be used
as a guide to human affairs the argument becomes a
two-edged sword and cuts both ways. There are even
good grounds for believing that physics, with its
dependence on the technical use of mathematics, is the
most difficult and avoided of the sciences. Biologists
and social evolutionists preach its essential value as a
necessary foundation for their authority, but they
successfully avoid its practice and their interpretations
of its laws seem, at times, rather weird.
A paragraph on 12-13:
Again, the marvellous inventions of science and its
conquest of external conditions affect the imagination.
Criticism is abashed and overawed by the array of facts
which men of science have predicted and which have
been verified. And so we become convinced that the
facts of science are adequate as a basis for the most
elaborate and far-reaching hypotheses on all questions,
however contrary to experience and common sense they
may seem to be. Our doubts are dulled to a quiescence
which would, otherwise, be active if we kept clearly in
mind that science is based on the same sort of evidence
as are all other methods of human knowledge and that
men of science are, as Newton pictured them, wanderers
on the shore of a vast sea of unknown phenomena,
picking up here and there a bright coloured pebble or
shell.
Paragraphs on 21-24:
With what is now known to have been a pitifully meagre
supply of facts, observations, and experiments, the
Darwinians preached the gospel of evolution as an
established scientific law and crushed all opposition to
natural selection by hurling the anathema that, if you did
not believe, you were not fit to survive. Every trick of
habit and every reminiscent thought was traced back to
some mammalian or reptilian monster; even such
insignificant facts as that the hair on a man's wrist lay in
a certain direction were sufficient to link him with
simian ancestry; and daily search was made for the
"missing link."
All this restlessness and discussion resulted in one real
service. Interest was directed to the biological sciences
and they were cultivated as never before. Laboratories
multiplied, and the phenomena of life were studied
systematically. The results of this investigation have
been that, today, the evidence available supports our
faith in a general law of evolution. We accept it as we
accept the law of conservation of matter, not because it
can be proved to be true from experience, but because
without it natural law is not intelligible. The only
alternative is the doctrine of special creation which may
be true but is irrational. The origins of the human races
certainly go far back in time. But, on the other hand, the
causes and method of evolution have become a matter of
such doubt that the better biologists, themselves, admit
they are not on the track of any satisfactory proofs. In
addition to what may be called the scientific confusion
amongst biologists, they have been shocked, and even
dazed, by recent sudden attacks from the outside on
them and on their work. They are driven to the
defensive and agree with Professor Conklin who
introduces the subject of human evolution with the
outburst that: "During the past few years, and especially
within the past twelvemonth, there has been a
remarkable recrudescence of the old theological
opposition to the theory of evolution, especially as
applied to man."^9 [9: _The Direction of Human
Evolution_, Scribner's, 1922, 2d ed., p. v.] And he
characterizes this outbreak as the most ignorant,
frenzied, and intolerant that has ever been uttered
against this theory.
We now learn that after sixty years of persistent
research, the causes of evolution are unknown; natural
selection, with its catchwords of struggle for existence
and survival of the fittest, is losing ground; the despised
Lamarckism with its metaphysical background is
gaining in favour. Is it, then, surprising that laymen
should confuse mere faith in evolution of some sort with
the controversies as to its cause, and condemn the whole
doctrine? They remember, only too well, the haughty
assurance of the Darwinians that evolution was a
demonstrated fact and not a faith, and that natural
selection was an adequate cause. And with popular
acceptance of these assertions as truths, society was
reorganized according to the philosophy of naturalism
with the universe a machine. If now, the biologists
cannot tell us how evolution will proceed in the future
and what causes variations, how can we predict what we
should do or how apply evolution to guide us socially
and ethically? As a laboratory science evolution does
not especially interest us.
While this note of uncertainty and confusion is clearly
apparent in the minds of the biologists, they seem to
miss the point that evolution is a far broader subject than
a laboratory problem in biology; that it is one affecting
the entire physical and spiritual outlook of man. Instead
of aiding society to re-orientate itself, they still try to
soothe us into quiescence by saying our knowledge
merely is lacking but the mechanistic method still
remains the only true "open sesame." Let us, therefore,
withdraw for a time from discussing evolution and its
applications and gather more facts until we have
sufficient data wherewith to give the solution to the
world. They cannot understand that it is not more facts
which are needed but some little indication to show that
the laws of physics are adequate to include life and its
attributes. They are blind to the evidence that the world
is fast losing faith in the ability of science to solve the
riddle of man, to coordinate his physical and mental
worlds by scientific experiments and logical formulae,
and is turning again to the precepts of those who are
wise from human experience. Two or three examples
will be sufficient to show how biologists, who recognize
the revolt against scientific naturalism, propose to meet
the situation.
Professor Conklin, who by his scientific achievements
and by his position as biologist in Princeton University
exerts a great influence, sketches the probable direction
of human evolution with the avowed purpose of
combating these frenzied attacks on the study of
evolution. I may say at once, that I am quite in
sympathy with his purpose in so far as he opposes the
futile and foolish attempts to prohibit by law the
teaching of the science of biology and of evolution, or to
limit the full inquiry of biological phenomena. But, his
irritation under fire seems to have confused the clarity of
his scientific reasoning to such an extent that he fails to
distinguish between evolution as a scientific theory to be
investigated in the biological laboratory, which will
stand or fall on the evidence of scientific investigation,
and the metaphysical hypothesis of evolution as a guide
to social and religious affairs, which is not a problem of
biology.
On 28-29:
[after quoting 1922 Bateson: most all of what is quoted
is in http://tinyurl.com/2aq8z and
http://tinyurl.com/y2gg ] Again, we see that men of
science are still under the delusion that they are hounded
by a host of enemies. Can they contemplate the course
of history for the last half century and not see that
implicit belief in Darwinian evolution, accepted because
we naively believed in the facts and theories given us by
biologists, has dominated society? Is it astonishing that
a revolt occurs when the prop to our faith is thus
knocked out? It cannot reassure us to have Professor
Bateson tell us, at the close of his address, to be of good
cheer because the mystery may be solved tomorrow; we
cannot forget that, after sixty years of diligent search to
clear this mystery of the origin of species and of the
method of their variations, he confesses that not even a
beginning has been made. The tomorrow of the
biologist may be as long as the million years or so
necessary for the horse to eliminate his four toes.
The last paragraph of the chapter, on 33-34:
A final word should be given in justification of the fact
that I have based my criticism, and have placed most of
my emphasis, on the work and ideas of the founders of
the evolution theory, Lamarck, Spencer, Darwin,
Huxley, Fiske, and Haeckel. Objection will almost
certainly be made that, as their work has been
superseded or at least revised by modern scientific work,
I should criticise the facts and hypotheses of living
biologists. But the objection will not be just, if it is kept
in mind that the purpose of the book is not to discuss the
validity of evolution as a scientific biological theory but
rather to trace the effects of its application to the broader
fields of social life and religion. The doctrine of the
founders of evolution was clear and it was pronounced
with authority; today it is confused and broken with so
many crosscurrents that it is very doubtful if many of
those who confidently subscribe to the dogma of
evolution as the explanation of life, of society, and of
religion, know what it really requires us to believe. In
spite of the fact that much of the earlier specific work
has been discredited, it is equally true that modern
biologists are still using the ideas and methods of their
predecessors. If these ideas and methods are
fundamentally wrong, then the monistic and naturalistic
philosophy, which has followed from the doctrine of
evolution and which is still dominant, will fall also.
.

User: "AC"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	30 Dec 2003 12:03:34 AM

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 05:54:06 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

<snip>
NOt that old books are necessarily incorrect or invalid, but perhaps you
could explain why a book published nearly eighty years ago should be
considered as a refutation?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	30 Dec 2003 10:56:28 PM

AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> on 30 Dec 2003:
david ford:

Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.

More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
(Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp.

NOt that old books are necessarily incorrect or invalid, but
perhaps you could explain why a book published nearly
eighty years ago should be considered as a refutation?

The theory of natural selection was widely discarded by those "in the
know" in 1932, about 70 years after _Origin_ appeared. In 1932, solid
grounds existed for rejecting as plausible the hypothesized Darwinian
blindwatchmaking mechanism. In 1932, evidence from breeders and
laboratory experimenters refuted Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Widespread rejection of the theory of natural selection existed in
1932. Such widespread rejection based upon solid grounds happened
before, and it is presently happening again.
.

User: "AC"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	30 Dec 2003 11:06:41 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 04:56:28 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> on 30 Dec 2003:
david ford:

Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.

More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
(Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp.

NOt that old books are necessarily incorrect or invalid, but
perhaps you could explain why a book published nearly
eighty years ago should be considered as a refutation?

The theory of natural selection was widely discarded by those "in the
know" in 1932, about 70 years after _Origin_ appeared. In 1932, solid
grounds existed for rejecting as plausible the hypothesized Darwinian
blindwatchmaking mechanism. In 1932, evidence from breeders and
laboratory experimenters refuted Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Widespread rejection of the theory of natural selection existed in
1932. Such widespread rejection based upon solid grounds happened
before, and it is presently happening again.

Natural selection is still considered a mechanism, though not the only
mechanism. Your quote mines and 80 year old papers are not compelling,
David. Natural selection certainly does play a role in the evolution of
organisms.
I do enjoy it when you use words like "widespread' however. I find it so
very amusing that you will attach such rhetorical devices to quotes from 80
year old books.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	31 Dec 2003 12:21:00 AM

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

AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> on 30 Dec 2003:
david ford:

Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.

More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
(Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp.

NOt that old books are necessarily incorrect or invalid, but
perhaps you could explain why a book published nearly
eighty years ago should be considered as a refutation?

The theory of natural selection was widely discarded by those "in the
know" in 1932, about 70 years after _Origin_ appeared. In 1932, solid
grounds existed for rejecting as plausible the hypothesized Darwinian
blindwatchmaking mechanism. In 1932, evidence from breeders and
laboratory experimenters refuted Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Widespread rejection of the theory of natural selection existed in
1932. Such widespread rejection based upon solid grounds happened
before, and it is presently happening again.

Hmmm... in 1930 R A Fisher published _The Genetical Theory of Natural
Selection_, and in the 1930s, Sewall Wright began publishing his work
on genetic drift and selection. By the 1940s, Julian Huxley, Haldane,
Ford (another one, I hope not related) Dobzhansky and Mayr had developed
a consensus on natural selection as the main cause of adaptations. This
became known as the Modern Synthesis.
David, what parallel universe are you posting from?
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	31 Dec 2003 08:26:35 AM

John Wilkins <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> on 31 Dec 2003:
david ford:
AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> on 30 Dec 2003:
david ford:
df> Warning: dangerous comments below. Read at your own risk.
df>
df> More, Louis Trenchard. 1925. _The Dogma of Evolution_
df> (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 387pp.
AC NOt that old books are necessarily incorrect or invalid, but
AC perhaps you could explain why a book published nearly
AC eighty years ago should be considered as a refutation?
df The theory of natural selection was widely discarded by those "in
df the know" in 1932, about 70 years after _Origin_ appeared. In
1932,
df solid grounds existed for rejecting as plausible the hypothesized
df Darwinian blindwatchmaking mechanism. In 1932, evidence from
df breeders and laboratory experimenters refuted Darwin's theory of
df natural selection.
Here are a few supporting references:
1932 Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"
http://tinyurl.com/y0s6
Dobzhansky's 1937 redefinition of "evolution"; 1930 Radl
http://tinyurl.com/yst4z
how has the theory of NS survived?:
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
http://tinyurl.com/ywhge
1928 Erik Nordenskiold, 1922 Wilhelm Johannsen, 1869 Louis Agassiz (a
creationist)
http://tinyurl.com/2sncf
1925 Louis Trenchard More
http://tinyurl.com/3a9qw
1925 Osborn, in
Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn; 1940
Haldane on materialism; Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley on slow rate and
gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_
paper
http://tinyurl.com/34sq3
1922 Bateson, Lerner, Orwell
http://tinyurl.com/2aq8z
1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, Saunders & Ho
http://tinyurl.com/y2gg
Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://tinyurl.com/yiwv
1893 Weismann
http://tinyurl.com/yjbi
1959 Gertrude Himmelfarb on 1871 Darwin backtracking; 1892 Henry de
Varigny
http://tinyurl.com/2lov2
1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
http://tinyurl.com/yj88
df Widespread rejection of the theory of natural selection existed in
df 1932. Such widespread rejection based upon solid grounds happened
df before, and it is presently happening again.
JW Hmmm... in 1930 R A Fisher published _The Genetical Theory of
JW Natural Selection_, and in the 1930s, Sewall Wright began
publishing
JW his work on genetic drift and selection. By the 1940s, Julian
Huxley,
JW Haldane, Ford (another one, I hope not related) Dobzhansky and
JW Mayr had developed a consensus on natural selection as the main
JW cause of adaptations. This became known as the Modern Synthesis.
JW
JW David, what parallel universe are you posting from?
I'm aware of the Modern Synthesis.
my own indigestion with the Synthefish
http://tinyurl.com/y84x
However, for the moment I would like to discuss with you, John, the
claims and references I presented above about 1932.
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Shredding Theory of NS, Phase III	01 Jan 2004 05:48:45 AM

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

Lacking context and a book title (and sufficient internet access at home
to chase up your links - just give references and proper quotes, will
you?) I can't say. NS has always been argued to be adequate to explain
all aspects of evolution by Darwin and most of his followers.

Dobzhansky's 1937 redefinition of "evolution"; 1930 Radl
http://tinyurl.com/yst4z

Again, which page. I have a copy of Dobzhansky's book Give me a page and
a brief quote.

how has the theory of NS survived?:
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
http://tinyurl.com/ywhge

1929?

1928 Erik Nordenskiold, 1922 Wilhelm Johannsen, 1869 Louis Agassiz (a
creationist)
http://tinyurl.com/2sncf

Oh come on. Nordenskiold's book was written in 1924, well before your
"challenge date", and was published in 1928 in English. Even the second
edition predates your terminus ad quo. Johannsen is well known - he was
a macromutationist (and that opinion failed to survive past the
Synthesis) and *Agassiz*? in 1869? Sheesh. If you want Agassiz, how
about his view in 1873? "Darwin has placed the subject on a different
basis from that of all his predecessors, and has brought to the
discussion a vast amount of well arranged information, a convincing
cogency of argument..." (Lurie 383). Of course he did not become an
evolutionist, but he at least tried hard to understand it (misdefining
it and arguing against a strawman despite himself), which seems to be
more than you are doing.
Lurie, E. (1960). Louis Agassiz: A life in science. Baltimore and
London, Johns Hopkins University Press.

1925 Louis Trenchard More
http://tinyurl.com/3a9qw

And cenancestor of creationism, I am told.

1925 Osborn, in
Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn; 1940
Haldane on materialism; Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley on slow rate and
gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_
paper
http://tinyurl.com/34sq3

All this is too vague to even guess what you mean. Osborn was a
neo-Lamarckian well before this date (in 1894 he published in favour of
that view) and so he could be expected not to be in favour of
selectionist explanations (apparently he died in 1935 still a
neo-Lamarckian, well after it had been abandoned by the biological
community, despite Shaw and Koestler). As to the others (what is the
date of Saunders and Ho?) so what? There are differing views. Do *any*
of them deny that selection operates? None of them could do so, I
warrant.

1922 Bateson, Lerner, Orwell

George Orwell? Say what?

http://tinyurl.com/2aq8z
1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, Saunders & Ho
http://tinyurl.com/y2gg

Well before the synthesis. Well before Fisher. Well before Dobzhansy's
genetic experiments. Well before Sewall Wright. Well before every damned
thing that underpins modern reliance on selection as the mechanism of
adaptation.

Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://tinyurl.com/yiwv

1893 Weismann
http://tinyurl.com/yjbi

Hmmm, I happen to have this. What page? And guess what? Weismann was a
selectionist on most things (although he anticipates speciation by drift
at one point).

1959 Gertrude Himmelfarb on 1871 Darwin backtracking; 1892 Henry de
Varigny
http://tinyurl.com/2lov2

I have Himmelfarb. What page? Saying what?

1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
http://tinyurl.com/yj88

"A bit" <> "shredding the theory" david. That is pure weaseling.
Darwin's theory is not discarded by Darwin or anyone else of note in
these refs. As it happened, the assumptions on which Darwin backtracked
(blending inheritance) were false. Without those criticisms of Jenkin
and Mivart having force, he was more right in the first edition of the
Origin than the sixth or in the Descent.

df Widespread rejection of the theory of natural selection existed in
df 1932. Such widespread rejection based upon solid grounds happened
df before, and it is presently happening again.

JW Hmmm... in 1930 R A Fisher published _The Genetical Theory of
JW Natural Selection_, and in