bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (03/02/85)
> 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.). > >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. 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. >------- >[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. 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. 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. 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). >------------- >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. 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. Again, there could be no clearer proof that Archaeopteryx was indeed a transitional form. >-------------- >> [Bill Jefferys] >> Contrary to what Ray says, it is quite possible for *Archaeopteryx* to have >> existed simultaneously with birds that evolved from it. Creationists >> have a curious misconception, as seen by their constant references to "Living >> Fossils", that evolution predicts the extinction of one species if some of its >> representatives evolve into something else. This is completely wrong. >> It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for one isolated breeding >> population to evolve into something else, while another isolated breeding >> population of the same species, because of differing circumstances, does not. >> This results in the "daughter" species coexisting with its "parent". > >This paragraph contains two errors: > >"Living fossil" is an *evolutionist* concept. I have pointed this out >in the past [1984]. > >Evolutionists developed the idea. Some evolutionists realize this, some >(as, apparantly, Bill) do not. Some creationists realize this, some do >not. Some creationists realize that it is not necessary to evolutionary >theory, some do not. 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. You say: >Also, the "curious misconception" that "evolution >predicts the extinction of one species if some of its representatives >evolve into something else" is a product of *evolutionary* minds (for >example, Darwin's). It may be wrong, but it was not made up by >creationists. Your rebuttal may be valid; it hardly applies only to >creationists. It doesn't make Creationist arguments based on "living fossils" any more valid if certain evolutionists also misapplied them. I reject the "living fossil" argument *no matter who uses it*, because it is simply invalid. >---------------- >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. 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. > >(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? >(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? 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: "Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms. "We can be as sure about this as we are sure that ancient civilizations once existed on Earth but no longer function. The archaeological record tells us about these relatively recent times, and the fossil record about earlier ones. If you walk along the trails leading down to the depths of a great fissure such as the Grand Canyon, you can see some of the stages of evolution illustrated by the fossils in front of your eyes. The Earth is old, belongs to an even older universe, and life forms have been upon it for about three quarters of its existence. "On the other hand Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, its modern version) is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great efforts, been proved." And later, (p. 97) he says: "If you once become committed to an unalterable explanation (the Biblical one), and you are forced to fit all facts within this framework, allowing no other possibility, you have BY DEFINITION become unscientific [emphasis added - whj]. However much sympathy we may have for belief in a Divine first cause shaping the forces that created the Universe, and however well-meaning the scientific creationists may be, the straitjacket of Genesis 1-11 is so restricting that to make *all* evolutionary facts fit within it inevitably ends in a perversion of science." And still later (p. 102, referring to *The Genesis Flood*, by Morris and Whitcomb): "But the book's weaknesses, on any objective reading, are also readily apparent. There is the selective quotation of cautious scientific doubts--a confession of ignorance about a particular geological difficulty is cited in order to throw doubt on geological knowledge as a whole. This is a widely used technique in books and articles stemming from ICR and elsewhere. Reading creationists on the subject of ancient man, for instance, you would never gather that fossils available for study now come from a wide variety of places, and however fallible, dubious and self-seeking individual fossil finds may be, they fit into a *general* pattern of man having evolved from an apelike ancestor at some point during the last six million years. "Instead, the evidence offered by creationists invariably consists of the most obvious frauds and fossil fancies, together with three or four anomalous skeletons and skulls uncovered during the latter part of the nineteenth century in strata apparently tens or hundreds of millions of years old (e.g., those at Calaveras, Castenedolo, Olmo, Abbeville, Natches), which present individual problems for archaeologists, but can almost certainly be explained as fakes or intrusive burials. "Here, as throughout *The Genesis Flood*, we are constantly asked to accept the *least* likely solution--the opposite of both science and common sense--which demands the most parsimonious explanation for the greatest body of facts. If there is no evidence at all in the creationist's favor, guesswork takes its place..." And so on. Creationists must not have read this book very carefully if they believe that it gives any support to their cause. >------------------- >> K. Miller: "Gish also mentioned Nebraska Man, for which the evidence turned >> out to be a number of fossilized pig's teeth. However, what he failed to >> mention was that since the discovery of Nebraska Man in 1922, it was >> contested by scientists worldwide. In fact, in every case that creationists >> have pointed out that scientists made errors, the errors were >> originally discovered by scientists themselves - not by creationists >> who have made no significant contribution to the literature of >> evolution." > >I do not think that one would expect creationists to make significant >contributions to the literature of *evolution*. It's bad enough that we >can't support our own side of the argument. Do we now have to support >the other side, too? :-) > Paul, Creationists claim that they are doing *Science*. No one is asking them to support any particular "side" ... in fact, that would be antiscientific. It would be good for *Science* if a long-held belief were shown to be wrong, no matter who did it. But to do that, you have to make observations, you have to do field work, you have to publish. What creationists are even attempting to do that? I am aware of only two: Carl Baugh and his "human tracks" (actually they are dinosaur tracks and other natural features, according to the scientists that have examined them), and Robert Gentry and his polonium haloes (which have been explained to the satisfaction of most physicists, although Gentry doesn't accept the explanation). Other than that, as far as I can see, a vast wasteland. At the ICR and CRS, the principal activity is the generation of propaganda. One cannot by any stretch of the imagination call it "doing science". My point was that although creationists pretend to be scientists, it is easy to tell that they aren't doing science, because they haven't made any contributions to science. The claim that creationism is "scientific" is therefore a hollow one. -- "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)