dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
>>> [Bill Jefferys] >>> For more specific examples, Roger J. Cuffey, in "Paleontologic Evidence >>> and Organic Evolution", which is reprinted in *Science and Creationism*, >>> gives references to over 100 papers in the literature which document >>> transitional forms at many different levels (species, genus, etc.). >> >> [DuBois] >>You have, I take it, read all of them and concluded that they each >>conform to the very highest standards of scientific inquiry, and that >>none of them contain any questionable methods of investigation or >>dubious conclusions. > [Bill] > No, I haven't read them. There is no reason for me to do so. Cuffey > is a competent paleontologist, and the assertion that they document > transitional forms is his. Your appear to be trying to > divert attention from the fact that you don't have a good counter > to his claim. Your tone is dangerously close to that of an *ad hominem* > attack. If you feel that these papers are in error, then *you* should > be reading them and criticising them, rather than attempting to > sidestep the issue with irrelevant comments. Not at all. I'm sure he is competent, but there is a lot of controversy in this area. (The "point of view" sections of Systematic Zoology, are a good example of this.) My comment was not a slam at all,and surely not ad hominem (although it was too sarcastic; I apologize). It is simply a fact that any given paper is very likely to be subject to disagreement. So 100 papers is simply 100 papers which are going to be fought over. (I realize that this is an overly general statement which, to be compelling, should be demonstrated by showing controversy in regard to the papers in question. I think you get my meaning, though.) I also did not sidestep the issue in that I pointed out the non-consensus on the level at which the transitions lie - where other competent paleontologists disagree. I still think that one ought to be able to expect some agreement on this, and I don't see any. >>------- >>[On Archaeopteryx] > [Paul gave a number of quotations expressing varying views on the > nature of Archaeopteryx. He then says:] >>There is clearly no consensus. It is not clear if it is a transition or >>not, whether it flew or not, whether it led to modern birds or not, etc. >>The fact that there is such disagreement shows that there is little hope >>of achieving a clear resolution of this issue. > Your last quotation disagreeing with the contention that Archaeopteryx > is a transitional form was from 1965, and most were considerably older. Quite so. From which it appears (to me) that over time Archaeopteryx's status moved more and more towards being an intermediate the longer it stayed the only candidate for the transitions which the theory required. Which (to me) demonstrates the power which a theory can have over men's minds. > We may never know the exact place of Archaeopteryx in the evolution of > birds, but there is little doubt today that it is indeed a transitional > form exhibiting both reptilian and birdlike characteristics. That it had both reptilian and birdlike characteristics is obvious and has always been known and agreed on. Its status as a transitional form is what has always been debated. > At the > 1984 Archaeopteryx Conference, according to *Nature* (February 7. 1985, > pp. 435-436), "the consensus was in favor of a theropod ancestor for > *Archaeopteryx*", though it wasn't unanimous. That's right. It wasn't. > Also, "The question of > whether *Archaeopteryx* was arboreal or terrestrial was answered by > Derek Yalden (University of Manchester), who proved to the satisfaction of > everyone that the claws on the wings were adapted for climbing > squirrel-like up tree-trunks." (You mentioned in your article that > there was some dispute on this point). I stand corrected. >>------------- >>Augusta [1961] indicates that H. von Meyer reported (in 1861) the first >>finding, of a feather discovered near Solnhofen in 1860, in Upper >>Mesozoic (Jurassic) strata. Later in 1861, the remains of a complete >>(almost) skeleton were found by Solnhofen. In 1988 [sic], in a quarry near >>Eichstatt, the second skeleton was found. This is the one we always see >>the picture of (the one with the head folded back in an uncomfortable >>looking manner). In 1956, the third skeleton was found, also near >>Solnhofen. It was poorly preserved. Etc. We now have at least five >>skeletons. All of them had feathers. Thanks for pointing out the bad date. It should have been 1877. (lateral translation error by one base unit of the right hand on the keyboard!) > The *Nature* article referenced above has a picture of the Eichstatt > specimen, with the caption, "...was considered to be a dinosaur of the > genus *Compsognathus* until the faint feather impressions were noticed". > These impressions were not noticed until 1972. The picture refers to the second Eichstatt skeleton. The first one the best-preserved specimen we have, and the feathers are clearly visible. The fifth Archaeopteryx specimen is probably the one referred to. And I think that the fifth one is probably the specimen which Kenneth Miller was talking about in the quote you gave a while back, where he said that the first A. fossils were classified as dinosaurs. That claim is still erroneous, but it is true that at least one A. was misclassified. John H Ostrom ("Reply to 'Dinosaurs as Reptiles'", Evolution, 28(3), Sept 1974, 491-493) documents the point about Archaeopteryx being classified as dinosaur - "Were it not for the feather impressions, Archaeopteryx would never have been classified as avian, but would have been labeled dinosaurian. That, in fact, is exactly what happened in the instance of the fifth Archaeopteryx specimen just reported by Mayr (1973). In the absence of distinct feather imprints, that specimen was long believed to be a small specimen of Compsognathus." The Mayr reference is: F X Mayr, "Ein neuer Archaeopteryx", Fund. Palaont. Zeitschrift, 47, 1973, 17-24. By the way, you raised the point before about there being some dispute about the status of the "bird" fossils older than Archaeopteryx. Ostrom is the one who made the identification. So there may be at least some competency about the judgment. > Again, there could be > no clearer proof that Archaeopteryx was indeed a transitional form. Yep. It had both reptilian and avian characteristics. >>-------------- >>[DuBois] >>"Living fossil" is an *evolutionist* concept. I have pointed this out >>in the past [1984]. > Oh, I knew that the idea of "living fossils" originated with evolutionists. > I believe that you and Ethan Vishniac had an extensive discussion of the > issue last summer. I didn't mention it because it is completely > irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, and the point you clearly > have missed. Which is: The existence of "living fossils" is in no way > inconsistent with evolution. Creationist fantasies that "living fossils" > somehow contradict evolution are wholly erroneous. That's true. Living fossils don't contradict evolution because nothing does. Not an increase in complexity. Not stasis. Not a decrease in complexity. Evolution thus reduces to description void of explanatory value. Not so long ago, continual upward progress USED to be a big theme of evolutionists and stasis WAS inconsistent with that. (Obviously this proves nothing about the current state of affairs - and creationists ought to realize this fact, if they don't already.) >>---------------- >>Hitching [1982] comments: >> >>(i) No series of horse fossils is complete anywhere in the world. To >>move up in a complete series requires that one bounce from continent to >>continent. Even if one accepts this, the number of fossils and the >>relative ordering is subject to a good deal of dispute. > Yet two pages later in his book, Hitching shows a chart ("one of many > conflicting versions of horse ancestry") which shows the entire > main line of the development of the horse, from Eohippus to Equus, > as taking place in North America. And then (in the same diagram) Equus goes to Eurasia, turns into the modern horse and comes back to North (and South) America. Proving my point. Come on, Bill. Did you think I wouldn't look it up? > There are occasional side shoots, > but they are not on the main line. To my knowledge, this is in > agreement with current understanding. So Hitching's own book contradicts > the idea that one has to "bounce from continent to continent". And so > what if there is controversy about the exact ordering? Controversy is > quite normal in good science. You're the one that talked about the "facts" of the ordering, Bill. Are there facts, after all? Or just controversy? >> >>(ii) The first horse (Eohippus) didn't look much like one - in fact it >>looks a lot more like an animal that lives *today* - the Hyrax (or >>daman). Also, Eohippus fossils have been found alongside two modern >>horses (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) in surface strata. >> > Since when does evolution predict that an organism should closely > resemble its remote ancestor? That would be the Creationist > prediction, and it is not in agreement with the fossil record! > As for the Hyrax, is this not an appeal to the "living fossil" > argument? No, it's an appeal to the possibility that Hyrax neither changed nor had an offshoot group that changed into horses. >>(iii) Trends are not so pretty as often depicted. The first three horse >>fossils (Eohippus, Orohippus, Epihippus) decline (not increase) in size. >>The sequence from many toes to one toe is similarly irregular - replete >>with regressions and contradictions. > Since when does evolution predict that evolution takes place in a > continuous, monotonic progression? Does it or not? There's been a lot of evolutionary writing *on the horse* that paints exactly that picture. > Since when does evolution predict that evolution takes place in a > continuous, monotonic progression? Since never, I guess. It "predicts" everything, and therefore, nothing. > Actually, it is surprising that Creationists are as fond > of Hitching's book as they seem to be. It is clear that Hitching > does not dispute the fact of evolution. I think that it is partly > because when Hitching points out difficulties with *Darwinism*, > Creationists imagine that Hitching is actually attacking *evolution*. > Nothing could be further from the truth. Hitching says, on p. 4: > ... > And so on. Creationists must not have read this book very carefully > if they believe that it gives any support to their cause. I know he's an evolutionist. I know he doesn't think much of creationism. I've read it carefully - twice. But while it is obviously not a creationist book (just as Macbeth's book isn't), it contains material helpful to some of the points which I wished to make - so I used it. So what? Is evolutionary material reserved for the exclusive use of evolutionists? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (04/21/85)
Although I have promised to stay out of this controversy in general, I have to respond to Paul Dubois' latest comments. [On Cuffey's bibliography of papers supporting the existence of transitional forms] > > It is > simply a fact that any given paper is very likely to be subject to > disagreement. So 100 papers is simply 100 papers which are going to be > fought over. (I realize that this is an overly general statement > which, to be compelling, should be demonstrated by showing controversy > in regard to the papers in question. I think you get my meaning, > though.) > OK, then, why don't you demonstrate your point by documenting the controversy you claim is there? Let's see if it is really relevant to the question of the existence of transitional forms, or if (as is most of the controversy that Creationists quote) it is actually about entirely different issues. [on Archaeopteryx] > That it had both reptilian and birdlike characteristics is obvious and > has always been known and agreed on. Its status as a transitional form > is what has always been debated. [Much left out] > > Again, there could be > > no clearer proof that Archaeopteryx was indeed a transitional form. > > Yep. It had both reptilian and avian characteristics. > Well, it appears that Paul agrees that Archaeopteryx was transitional. Since that was my point, can we go on to something else? > >>-------------- > Not so long ago, continual upward progress USED to be a big theme of > evolutionists and stasis WAS inconsistent with that. (Obviously this > proves nothing about the current state of affairs - and creationists > ought to realize this fact, if they don't already.) > A wrong argument is wrong no matter who makes it. > >>---------------- > >>Hitching [1982] comments: > >> > >>(i) No series of horse fossils is complete anywhere in the world. To > >>move up in a complete series requires that one bounce from continent to > >>continent. Even if one accepts this, the number of fossils and the > >>relative ordering is subject to a good deal of dispute. > > > Yet two pages later in his book, Hitching shows a chart ("one of many > > conflicting versions of horse ancestry") which shows the entire > > main line of the development of the horse, from Eohippus to Equus, > > as taking place in North America. > > And then (in the same diagram) Equus goes to Eurasia, turns into the > modern horse and comes back to North (and South) America. Proving my > point. Come on, Bill. Did you think I wouldn't look it up? > Come on, Paul, don't be obtuse. The claim made by Hitching is that one has to bounce from continent to continent to get a complete horse series. That is contradicted by his own figure, which shows the entire main line of the evolution of the horse, up to Equus itself, in North America. Equus (modern horse *is* Equus) then established itself on the Eurasian continent, presumably via the land bridge that periodically connected it to the North American Continent. Subsequently the Indians wiped out the horse (along with most large mammals) in the Americas, and it was brought back to North America by the Spaniards. The latter fact is documented in the historical record, and the fact of the extinction of large mammals by native Americans is well documented in the recent paleontological record. I stand by my statement. > > There are occasional side shoots, > > but they are not on the main line. To my knowledge, this is in > > agreement with current understanding. So Hitching's own book contradicts > > the idea that one has to "bounce from continent to continent". And so > > what if there is controversy about the exact ordering? Controversy is > > quite normal in good science. > > You're the one that talked about the "facts" of the ordering, Bill. > Are there facts, after all? Or just controversy? > I am not aware of any evidence that the entire development of the horse, to Equus, did not take place in North America. Are you? That is the only claim I made. > > Since when does evolution predict that evolution takes place in a > > continuous, monotonic progression? > > Does it or not? There's been a lot of evolutionary writing *on the > horse* that paints exactly that picture. > A wrong argument is wrong no matter who makes it. > > That's true. Living fossils don't contradict evolution because nothing > does. Not an increase in complexity. Not stasis. Not a decrease in > complexity. Evolution thus reduces to description void of explanatory > value. > ...[and] > > Since when does evolution predict a > > continuous, monotonic progression? > > Since never, I guess. It "predicts" everything, and therefore, > nothing. > Baloney. You have used this bogus argument twice in this article, and many times in the other articles you posted recently. You make an assertion that evolution ought to predict something that it doesn't. Perhaps it was also said by evolutionists, but that's irrelevant if the assertion is wrong. When I point out that evolution in fact makes *no* such assertions, you claim that this shows that evolution can predict anything, therefore predicts nothing. This is absolute hogwash. For the record, this is called "demolishing a straw man". Evolution makes many very specific predictions which can, and have, been tested. That the distance between protein sequences should be correlated closely with the degree to which two species are related, to give only a single example. Creationism makes no such predictions since by its very hypotheses, the Creator, being all-powerful, can do anything He pleases. There are numerous observations which could in principle disprove evolution. There are none that could in principle disprove creationism. That is why evolution is a science and creationism is not. But no one claims that evolution theory can "predict" the future evolution of a species given its past evolution, as you imply it should. If some evolutionists claim that it can, well they are wrong. It is impossible to make such predictions since evolution is driven largely by stochastic processes and unique events (such as meteorite impacts resulting in great extinctions). > > Actually, it is surprising that Creationists are as fond > > of Hitching's book as they seem to be. It is clear that Hitching > > does not dispute the fact of evolution. I think that it is partly > > because when Hitching points out difficulties with *Darwinism*, > > Creationists imagine that Hitching is actually attacking *evolution*. > > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Hitching says, on p. 4: > > ... > > And so on. Creationists must not have read this book very carefully > > if they believe that it gives any support to their cause. > > I know he's an evolutionist. I know he doesn't think much of > creationism. > > I've read it carefully - twice. But while it is obviously not a > creationist book (just as Macbeth's book isn't), it contains material > helpful to some of the points which I wished to make - so I used it. > So what? Is evolutionary material reserved for the exclusive use of > evolutionists? > No, but to quote from Hitching's book as if he were arguing against evolution, when he is not, strikes me as being, at the very least, disingenuous. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (04/22/85)
> Subsequently the Indians > wiped out the horse (along with most large mammals) in the Americas, and > it was brought back to North America by the Spaniards. The latter fact is > documented in the historical record, and the fact of the extinction of > large mammals by native Americans is well documented in the recent > paleontological record. I stand by my statement. You are forgetting that Paul believes in *recent* creationism. How do we know the Spanish empire ever existed? "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (04/28/85)
In article <946@uwmacc.UUCP> Paul Dubois writes: >That's true. Living fossils don't contradict evolution because nothing >does. Not an increase in complexity. Not stasis. Not a decrease in >complexity. Evolution thus reduces to description void of explanatory >value. >.......... >Since never, I guess. It "predicts" everything, and therefore, >nothing. Paul, you seem rather bothered by the (erroneous, I think) belief that the evolutionary theory has no predictive value. I'm curious as to exactly what predictive value you think the creationist theory has? --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)