dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/28/85)
>> { from: Lief Sorensen, Hewlett Packard Co. } >> ... >> This evidence is a puzzle to evolutionists. Darwin, in his >> Origin of the Species, states, "To the question why we do not >> find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed ear- >> liest period prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfac- >> tory answer." Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia >> University also agree with this evidence when they state "Why >> should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million >> years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the >> preceding two billion years?...If there has been evolution of >> life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older >> than Cambrian is puzzling." This quote taken from Stratigrapy >> and Life History, Page 102.h > [Keebler] > Another creationist flaw: You cannot easily justify using the AB- > SENCE of evidence as evidence itself. Absence of evidence simply > makes the theory which depends upon the evidence questionable. It > does not, by any means, support other theories. You'd better go tell Gould, Stanley, Eldredge, Ager, etc., that they can't use stasis (lack of evidence of change) as support for their propositions regarding the nature of the stratigraphic record... >> When it comes right down to it, species are the only real >> entities in nature. All higher categories are based on the sub- >> jective judgment of specialists. Linnaeus placed all the varied >> marsupials (i.e. pouched mammals, such as oppossums, kangaroos, >> etc.) in a single genus, Didelphis. Today workers usually place >> them in an order (or still higher catagory) divided into many >> families and genera. One man's "genus" is another man's "fami- >> ly". > There is nothing to justifiy your claim that species are the only > "real entities". In addition, you would not classify a bacteria > with an elephant. The classification hierarchy is not whimsical, > as you so suggest. First sentence is true. The meaning of species has never been agreed on. But whimsey is not suggested. Lief simply points out a fact of taxonomic controversy. Are you suggesting that there *is* a classification scheme that everyone can agree on? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |
hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (04/30/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) > > >> { from: Lief Sorensen, Hewlett Packard Co. } > >> ... > >> This evidence is a puzzle to evolutionists. Darwin, in his > >> Origin of the Species, states, "To the question why we do not > >> find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed ear- > >> liest period prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfac- > >> tory answer." Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia > >> University also agree with this evidence when they state "Why > >> should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million > >> years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the > >> preceding two billion years?...If there has been evolution of > >> life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older > >> than Cambrian is puzzling." This quote taken from Stratigrapy > >> and Life History, Page 102.h > > > [Keebler] > > Another creationist flaw: You cannot easily justify using the AB- > > SENCE of evidence as evidence itself. Absence of evidence simply > > makes the theory which depends upon the evidence questionable. It > > does not, by any means, support other theories. > > You'd better go tell Gould, Stanley, Eldredge, Ager, etc., that they > can't use stasis (lack of evidence of change) as support for their > propositions regarding the nature of the stratigraphic record... Stasis is not simply the lack of evidence of change. It will have to be supported with evidence of the continual existence of the subject. (If something died out, there would certainly be no evidence of change, but that is hardly support for stasis.) > >> When it comes right down to it, species are the only real > >> entities in nature. All higher categories are based on the sub- > >> jective judgment of specialists. Linnaeus placed all the varied > >> marsupials (i.e. pouched mammals, such as oppossums, kangaroos, > >> etc.) in a single genus, Didelphis. Today workers usually place > >> them in an order (or still higher catagory) divided into many > >> families and genera. One man's "genus" is another man's "fami- > >> ly". > > > There is nothing to justifiy your claim that species are the only > > "real entities". In addition, you would not classify a bacteria > > with an elephant. The classification hierarchy is not whimsical, > > as you so suggest. > > First sentence is true. The meaning of species has never been agreed > on. But whimsey is not suggested. Lief simply points out a fact of > taxonomic controversy. Are you suggesting that there *is* a > classification scheme that everyone can agree on? Certainly not. But there is a large degree of agreement in all levels of subdivisions. There are, of course, the "borderline" cases, but you simply do not see biologists arguing over the proper kingdom of gophers. ___________________________________________________________________________ Living long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (05/03/85)
> > >> When it comes right down to it, species are the only real > > >> All higher categories are based on the sub- > > >> jective judgment of specialists. > > >> One man's "genus" is another man's "fami- > > >> ly". > > > > > There is nothing to justifiy your claim that species are the only > > > "real entities". In addition, you would not classify a bacteria > > > with an elephant. The classification hierarchy is not whimsical, > > > as you so suggest. > > > > First sentence is true. The meaning of species has never been agreed > > on. But whimsey is not suggested. Lief simply points out a fact of > > taxonomic controversy. Are you suggesting that there *is* a > > classification scheme that everyone can agree on? > > Certainly not. But there is a large degree of agreement in all levels > of subdivisions. There are, of course, the "borderline" cases, but > you simply do not see biologists arguing over the proper kingdom of > gophers. Ah, but there is an agreed upon meaning of species. To quote the paleontologist Roger J. Cuffy: "Low-rank taxa - the many species known to us - have a real existance in nature, in that they consist of populations or morphologically similar, actually and potentially interbreeding individuals which live during a continuous segment of geologic time. On the other hand, high-rank taxa - those above species rank, from genera up through phyla - do not have a real existance in nature in quite the same sense that species do. Instead, higher taxa of various ranks are simply the scientists' mental abstractions by which the many species comprising the organic world are grouped according to the various degrees of over-all morphological similarity displayed. The practice has developed among modern taxonomists that higher rank classifications, which are initially based upon observable degrees of morphologic similarity between species, also should reflect evolutionary ancestor-descendent relationships among those species as much as possible." -- Lyle McElhaney {hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc