dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/25/85)
I hesitate to start up this controversy again, but I think that we're right on the brink of resolving at least part of the issue, so I'm going to make a stab at it. --- >>>> [Jeff Sonntag] >>>> Paul Dubois, writing on the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie >>>> evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out: >>> [Ernest Hua] >>> Indeed, quite a GROSS ERROR. >>[Paul DuBois] >>Yep. It comes from the Principle of Competitive Exclusion. Your side >>thought it up. Sorry. --- This exchange resulted in two responses: > [Stanley Friesen] > This is a complete misunderstanding of the principle of > Competetive Exclusion. All it says is that ecologically similar > species will exclude one-another from any given locality. That is > only one of a pair of ecologically similar spp will be found at any > one site. This says *nothing* abount adjacent localities, thus nearby > places may have a different one of the pair. Thus, a daughter sp and > a parent species could easily co-exist *temporally* at different > places. There is also an alternative response, called Competetive > Displacement, whereby features relating to environmental utilization > shift in the area of co-occurance to minimize competition, allowing > closely related spp to co-occur by means of differing ecological > specialization - bypassing Exclusion. This phenomenon is *observed*, > there are a number of examples of species pairs whith a narrow range > of geographical overlap which show divergent character displacement > in the area of overlap, and *only* in the area of overlap. ---- > [Keith Doyle] > You must remember, that evolution is itself an evolving science. There are > scores of evolutionary theories that have ALREADY been falsified, or are no > longer considered valid or 'up to date'. This is what science is all about. > Darwin is BY NO MEANS the last word on current evolutionary thought. It does > seem however, that creationists in general LOVE to dig up these ideas that > the scientific community has abandoned in favor of better ones. Certainly > these ideas provide plenty of grist for the creationist mill. --- First of all, I did not endorse "the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out", although that seems to be the impression conveyed by the first quoted fragment above. Perhaps this impression accounts for the response by Ernest Hua. The idea *is* mistaken, as far as I am concerned. I was never concerned to defend it. I said so before: >>>> I was not concerned to demonstrate the validity or invalidity of the >>>> idea that when species evolve the parent species must die. I was >>>> concerned to demonstrate that the idea did not originate with >>>> creationists, so it is an evolutionist FALLACY to imply that it did. The point I was originally trying to make (and still hold to) is that the implication was made that creationists were responsible for this idea. There are two things to consider: the idea's origin, and the way in which it is used. The latter is separate and I will comment on it below. Regarding the origin of the idea, the fact is that whether it is right or wrong, it was originally a concept engendered by evolutionary theory and promulgated by evolutionary theorists. This is simply a fact. Evolutionists who act (not all do) as though this is a ridiculous idea dreamed up by creationists should be disabused of the notion. The source of the concept is not from that quarter. Ok, can we agree on that? I hope so. Now, let's move on to the use of the idea. It was formerly held to be true by evolutionists, and even said to be a thing required by evolutionary theory. Evolutionists now find that it does not correspond to what they see in the paleontological record, and so it has been dropped. Instances such as Hyracotherium/Equus/Hyrax falsify it, for example. If it were true, then one would not find Hyracotherium grazing alongside, as it were, Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis in recent strata. This being so, I do not think that creationists should criticize evolution on the grounds that it "requires" parent species to die out. It does not. Perhaps we can agree on this point as well. On the other hand, it is still valid and useful to observe when "parent" species are found living or in recent strata along with their "descendents" for the reason that it may serve to correct false information given in evolutionary depictions of ancestral relationships. Such depictions convey the impression that evolutionists do still hold to this principle. Well, do they, or not? Not when pinned down, it seems. But it still crops up regularly in an implicit sense. Taking the horse again, for example, it is usually the case that Hyracotherium is presented as occurring in early strata and as having died out shortly after it arose (it is pictured only at the bottom of such illustrations). Its occurrence in more recent strata with modern horses is inconsistent with this and is not mentioned. It may be (and is) said that this does not contradict the proposed ancestral relationships. Perhaps not. It certainly does not strengthen them, however. And if it is positive evidence of anything, it is evidence of persistence, not evolution. The most the evolutionist can say is that such things are not inconsistent with evolutionary theory, which I at least find weak. The creationist says, given phenomena such as these and the abrupt nature of the appearance of the "stages" in horse evolution, that they are not stages at all. (That is, this seems to be the canonical creationist position. As usual, I don't know if I can agree with it or not.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/28/85)
> Taking the horse again, for example, it is usually the > case that Hyracotherium is presented as occurring in early strata and > as having died out shortly after it arose (it is pictured only at the > bottom of such illustrations). Its occurrence in more recent strata > with modern horses is inconsistent with this and is not mentioned. It > may be (and is) said that this does not contradict the proposed > ancestral relationships. Perhaps not. Why only perhaps? > It certainly does not > strengthen them, however. And if it is positive evidence of anything, > it is evidence of persistence, not evolution. The most the > evolutionist can say is that such things are not inconsistent with > evolutionary theory, which I at least find weak. Why do you find it weak? > The creationist says, > given phenomena such as these and the abrupt nature of the appearance > of the "stages" in horse evolution, that they are not stages at all. > (That is, this seems to be the canonical creationist position. As > usual, I don't know if I can agree with it or not.) > -- > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- The creationist says that they are not stages at all, but different 'kinds'. How does he explain the abrupt nature of the appearance of the different "stages"? Remember - the same dating methods which are used to show that the appearances are 'abrupt' (btw, anyone have any info on the accuracy of these methods? When we say 'abrupt' in the fossil record do we mean less than a million years, less than 100K years, less than 10K years, less than 1K years or what?) show that the "stages" appeared at different times. It seems that there are more than one possible position for creationists to take here, namely: 1.) Creation actually occurred on a geological timescale, not 'days', and new species were created in different geological eras. 2.) Everything was created at the same time, but modern horses avoided dying in places where they would leave fossils for many millions of years. 3.) The dating techniques used to date fossils are all incorrect. 4.) Everything was created at the same time, ~10-20K years ago, and God set the fossil record up to give the illusion of evolution. I'm sure there are more possibilities that I've missed, but let me deal with just these for the moment. 2.) and 3.) seem pretty unlikely, although 3.) is just a subset of 4.), I guess. 4.) looks like a strawman an evolutionist would set up, so I guess none of you would subscribe to that one. 1.) contradicts no well established facts that I know of, but I guess it would seem pretty unsatisfying to creationists. *PLEASE*, *PLEASE*, please, please, please, would the creationists on the net let me know (by mail or net, I don't care) which of these positions or what other positions they take? How can we have a meaningful discussion when you won't even tell us what your theory says? *You* can each go out and get volumes and volumes on evolution in order to research our position. *I*, on the other hand, can't even find out which of the mutually contradictory hypotheses expressed above is most commonly held by creationists. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "You can be in my dream if I can be in yours." - Dylan