arndt@lymph.DEC (03/27/85)
From the Evolution Ministry of Silly Ideas
Wayne Potts, biologist at Utah State U. specuates birds in flight may
have 'evolved' wave type flight patterns to protect against stragglers
being picked off by predators.
(Science Digest, Oct.'84, p.18)
Anthropologist Gordon Hewes believes pale hands may have evolved to help
humans signal. When asked about pale feet, he said they could be used to
signal as well and perhaps the genes for one affect the other or some such
drivel - he was mumbling by then.
( "Why Are Human Palms Pale?" Newscience,
December '83.)
See Science Digest, Aug.'83 for THE RUFFED-RABBIT MYSTERY. That mysterious
patch of hair on the rabit's chest - part of a defense mechanism???
One letter writer comments: "When cornered, the rabbit causes the
hair to stand up, thus drawing the attention of the predator (say its
a fox). Fascinated, the fox begins to wonder why rabits have that tuft
of hair, and then why rabbits exist at all, and even why predators
exist. While it is occupied with metaphysical questions, the rabbit
slinks away." Science Digest, Dec.'83, p.12, Letters.
___________________________________
See Casper, evolution explains everything. Isn't that neat? (It sure ain't
Science!)
Look, let's admit that there are some pretty far out claims on the part of
'scientists' who understand neither evolution or the limits of science.
That has been the point of some of the quotes I have listed (Popper,Medawar).
Is it only 'Churchmen' who oppose the advance of Science???
Regards,
Ken Arndt
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (03/27/85)
In article <1332@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: >Look, let's admit that there are some pretty far out claims on the part of >'scientists' who understand neither evolution or the limits of science. Of *course* there are Yo-Ho's in the scientific community. That's simply an application of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is trash (or the expletive of your choice.) What you see in print is merely the tip of an enormous iceberg of research of highly varying quality. Is it an indictment of science that some ideas espoused by scientists are ill-thought-out or at worst patently silly? I don't think so. It does bring out another aspect of the conduct of science, however, that the so-called creation "scientists" seem to take lightly: dialogue and peer review. The history of natural science is a history of competing theories and competing ideas. Among researchers working in the same area mutual criticism is more the norm than mutual admiration. This is healthy. It tends to weed out the junk and promote an environment for the synthesis of new ideas. Creationists seem to look at it as some sort of deficiency; the fact that natural scientists disagree indicates some kind of flaw in their world-view -- or so I gather from what I read. Creationists, in fact, go to great pains to *avoid* this kind of mutual critique. I remember reading that at a recent creationist conference the geocentrists were regarded tolerantly, if not warmly. This is the equivalent to a conference on evolution listing tolerantly to a Lysenkoist. More than likely they'd hoot him off the stage. When scientists attempt to engage creationists in legitimate scientific critique they appear to be invariably ignored. A case in point is the discussion of thermodynamics. No matter how many times the fallacies in the creationist interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics are pointed out, the same arguments are trotted out as if they were fact -- as if there had never been any criticism. Creationists will, no doubt, respond that scientists do the same thing: ignore their criticisms. I submit this is not the case. I have seen point-by-point refutations of virtually all of the creationist's major positions both in this newsgroup and in the more conventional media. I have seldom, if ever, seen equally comprehensive rebuttals by creationists -- merely statements like "You have to read the creationist literature" or "This is covered in ...." (when you find the reference, it never is -- I've found that these are generally restatements of the original argument.) At any rate, disagreement has a more than legitimate place in the conduct of science. It is essential if science is to take its pulse and insure that inquiry isn't going off in bizarre directions (at least not for too long.) It is good to remember that virtually all of the embarrassing frauds, gaffes and pieces of poor research found in the history of evolutionary inquiry were pointed out by other natural scientists, not by creationists. The lists of these that creationists so fondly provide are testimony to how well science works, not to its foibles. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/29/85)
> Is it only 'Churchmen' who oppose the advance of Science??? > > Regards, > > Ken Arndt > No, you're only a small (but vocal) subset of the very large class consisting of fools and the ignorant. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
lew@ihlpa.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (03/29/85)
Ken Arndt wants to know if it isn't fair to hold up wild speculations made in the name of evolution to ridicule. Well, basically I would say yes, but with two provisos. First, I'll warn for the nth time that all these criticisms of the scientific status of Darwinism are a separate issue from the FACTS of earth history, as established by dating of the fossil record. Second, maybe your presumption that these speculations are unverified and unverifiable isn't true. People are doing field work on behavioral evolution, though the results are often a bit tenuous. I recall seeing an account having to do with warning signals given by squirrels. An attempt was made to measure the statistical success of different behaviours. I was impressed by the results of nesting behavior studies in penguins and other colonial birds. It was long presumed that the birds brooded indiscriminately "for the good of the species". It was pointed out that this behavior was evolutionarily unstable, since freeloaders would "invade" the population. Field work showed that the birds do not brood eggs other than their own. Subsequent work has been done on how these birds are able to keep track of their own nest location in the seeming mass confusion. The first example that Ken cited about the wavy flight patterns of birds being selected for by predation is typical of a lot of current work. I think, to be fair, this is mostly theoretical, but often the theories suggest inquiries into more exact details of these behaviors, and I think these do qualify as predictions which can be verified. Fair enough? Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihlpa!lew