richardb@fear+loathing.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (10/25/89)
Hello net world. It has come to my attetion that some people have been complaining about my comments of the book _Evolution:A Theory iIn Crisis_ by Michael Denton. I has said that I didn't read the book yet but it was probably bullshit anyway. Then someone bitch on how the Evidence should be carefully weighed before making such a judgment. (I think this was a creationist fellow. Well, that pissed me off. So here are some explaination and part of a BOOK REPORT. Part A: No, I had not read the book when I made those statements. But those statements were not made offhand either. I've read numerous references to this book by Gould and others, and I was sort of taking these into consideration when those statments were made. Part B: I am now reading that book. I've gotten up to page 90 (chapter 4) and I've put together a partial report on my readings and impressions. General comment2: A few come to mind. 1. When I started to read this book, I kept thinking that I could have made a mistake shooting my mouth off on the net. The start actualy seemed sincere and (semi) scientific. 2. As I read through, I kept comming across references to "wild chance" and "total randomness" comments on natural selection. I started keeping a list of these comment. In the first 90 pages there are references to randomness in the preface i1, pages 43,53,60,61,66 and a few other places I havn't kept track of. It was iteresting to note that with each successive reference to randomness, the tone of the book seemed to be more-and-more mocking and less-and-less scientific. 3. In fact, the general tone of the book started out as an interesting survey of evolutionary thought and theory (peppered with randomness remarks) and was quite informative, polite, and generally surprising. It was during this time I started thinking I had made a mistake. I could see no wrong. What I saw was a writer starting to present the work under discussion and starting to build up a "framework" of points to ponder. 4. As I progressed passed page 60, the politeness disappeared and the true purpose of the book shined through. Simplistic ideas about evolution were set up and demolished in the next paragraph. Important details and observations of evolutionary workers were cast away in a couple of brief sentences. Darwin himself was dragged through the dirt and even the entire scientific community was accused of being brainwashed. I will give specific examples of these later in this reported. 5. Mr. Denton's credentials. He is an M.D. No mention was given on any specific research in his field that may relate to the evolution arguement. As I read on, the fact that he was an MD was inconsequential; he was clearly speaking in a personal, opinionated tone. The Report. (Part 1) I present a list of objections or comments along with page numbers. These comments are aimed at the most objectionable parts. Objections to semi-objectionable parts or simplistic explainations are not presented here. Otherwise I would have to write a book. Page 43. A statement of "pure chance". Mr Denton is perhaps not aware that the current state of the world is just one of many states which may of happend, depending on many different non-planned events in the past. He keeps repeating that we are all here out of pure chance, without realizing that _something_ must (or could) occupy this space in time and we just happen to be that _something_. Why not call chance or randomness _undirected change_ ?? Page 55-58. He is explaining the fact (not theory :^)) that gaps exist in the geological record and the lack of "clear" intermediate species. (more on this later) His arguement is a simplistic one, based on the concept of what we can't see with our very eyes is not there. This seems to be an attempt on demolishing Darwin by concentrating on one aspect of evolutionary theory as presented 100 years ago. He immediately discount all intermediate forms in two sentences. The forms discussed are Hipparion (discount due to the fact that mutent 2-toe horse are born today), Halitherium, Zeuglodon (no apparent link between whale and carnivores), and Archaeopteryx (it had flight feather; therefore it WAS a bird). I saw no semi-scientific discssion on compartive anaminoty (from an M.D. viewpoint). This was clearly a personal, opinioniated view. Page 60. His view of the mechanics of evolution states that any intermediates that do form must somehow breed with ALL members of the originating species in order to replace it. He then gives some ridiculus mathimatical formulea for this and of course concludes that it can't be done anyway. Page 60. The famous evolving Eye Example is presented here in all its glory, with the belief that anything so "perfect" could not have been evolved by "pure chance". Page 63-64. Darwin's view of"blending" (inheritence) is demolished, even if thsi view is no longer regarded. Ends chapter two be blaming evolution for all of today's ills. Page 70. FINALLY! THE QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT!!!! Here it is, Gould and Eldredge (with reference to the original article) quoted out of context. They seem to be say "yes, we agree that the slow-pace evolutionary model is hard to believe" with the general inpression that they disagree with all of evolution. Of course, Denton does not mention that G&E are only discussing their view of punctuated equilibrium and that they are otherwise completly sure that evolution has and is happening. They were only nit-picking on the details of the mechanics. Page 74. The terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" were somehow slipped into the discssion. Apparently, he is in COMPLETE accordane with "micro-evolution" and completely reject "macro-evolution". (There's a difference?). Also mentions that all biologist and scientists are pressured and brainwashed into aggreeing with common evotionary theory.. Page 75. Long arguement on "macroevolution" is just a theory, not a shred of fact. Page 76.""macro-evolution" is pertrified into metaphyiscal dogma" Page 81. Finally defines the word "species". (reproductive isolation, etc) .Ok explanation but not consistent with the next section (dealing with "derived species). Page 72-86. Case studies on peppered moth,herring + blacked back gull, hawaiian insects, hawaiian fruitflies, hawaiian honeycreepers, Caribbean lizards and wood warblers prove his view of "micro-evolution". Then says that this does not apply to the concept of "macro-evolution" and states "macro-evolution" is false. What about his definition of species on page 81? This is the old "derived-species/trans-species" arguement. END of part 1. As you can see, there's lots to bitch about in this book. I guess I was overdoing it a bit, going page-by-page. This brings me back to first point. What about the original poster, who asked about the book? Are you reading it? What are your impressions? What about the other guy that complained about fairness in weighing the evidence. Have you read the book. If so, what are your impression. I've cross-posted this to talk.religion.misc and talk.origins. (and to sci.bio since shipping things to just talk.* groups doesn't seen to work) -- Help wipe out sci.aquaria in your lifetime. Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardb