🚀 go-pugleaf

Greetings James and the group,

thorain@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <39319337.9892307E@flashcom.net>,
>   Bob <rdwillia@flashcom.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > thorain@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <392D541C.4716E969@flashcom.net>,
> > >   Bob <rdwillia@flashcom.net> wrote:
> > > > Greetings James Powell and the group,
> > >

This post is getting so long and is so far removed from the original
question of Teaching Evolution that this reply will make major snips with a
version of a summary, in an attempt to get back closer to the point. If you
feel that this is fatal to your argument, I apologize and expect you may not
reply.

Summary.

My original position was a posting of the "16 Theses" which were felt to be
valid objections to the current Theory of Evolution. The page contains a
request to various members of the education community to include these
Theses in the teaching of  Evolution, if they are not found to be in error.

Many replies have been made with various arguments as well as comments, to
support that  idea that these Theses are wrong, immaterial, are based on a
lack of understanding of the author, etc.. Several posts have directly
offered refutations by argument, and some others, such as yours, have
offered refutations based on what I have called "ad hominem" arguments,
quotes from (say) Gould that are proffered as a refutation of the Theses.
My position is that this is not direct argument, rather "collateral"
argument and does not actually refute the Theses. Your position is that
these arguments contain the necessary information to refute the Theses, and
this constitutes the proof that they are wrong.

Examples of a few comments in the thread:

> > > You are imprecise in your wording leading to unnecessary confusion.
> > > Explain what you mean by 'development'.
> Very few, if any, biologists postulate evolution from an atomic basis.
>
> > > I refer you to the  essay "Betting on Chance" by Stephen Jay Gould (in
> the collection
> Eight  Little Piggies) for the realtionship between randomness and
> evolutionary theory.

> > But, looking ahead, you  have quoted Gould a number of times, from an
> > "authoritarian" standpoint. Let us look at this from the standpoint
> of an "ad hominem" argument (which is unquestionably what you're argument
> is).

> In other words, you are too lazy to read the published works that
> refute your 'theses'. Copyright laws (and respect for the original
> authors) prevent me from simply posting their arguments.

> (Note however, that several hypothetical
> > > scenarios have been presented, which are apparently unanswerable -
> Theses 14
> > > suggests only one of many possible new proto-species demanded by
> Darwin's
> > > theory. Where is it, or anything like it? Why not?)

>  > What? Your "super bat"? The fact that you sincerely believe this as an
> example against evolution shows the need for further education on your
> part.

> Here are the relevant sections from the 1995 National
> Science Education Standards:

Snip of these Standards. (Thanks for posting them - very informative). What
do I object to? Not wanting to get further off the subject may I say almost
all the assumptions made therein. It is all based on a "prior" belief in
Evolution. Admittedly, this type of answer is what I have objected to from
you in the past.

> As to Darwin and Wallace - only someone who has not read one of the
> many books published about this subject would think that Darwin 'stole'
> anything from Wallace.

Read "A Delicate Arrangement" by Arnold Brackman.

> "There is, of course, no question that one species can cause the
> extinction of another species. The introduction of the Nile perch into
> Lake Victoria in Africa has resulted in the extinction of several
> hundred endemic species of cichlid fishes.

Agreed.

If you, or anyone, would like to refute one single (simple) idea of a
Thesis, try # 12:

"The "fitness" of many species is limited by a factor unknown to Science."

Kindly explain how the Darwinian feature of "Survival of the Fittest"
(Natural Selection, Differential Reproductive Success", etc.) can account
for the "very expensive" acorn of the Oak tree after 100 million or so years
of the Oak becoming the "fittest". (You yourself have raised the issue of
"economy" as being a factor in evolution.) It should be noted, that this
argument, unrefuted, is FATAL to the crux of Darwin's theory. It is only ONE
of the Theses.

It is obvious that if the much vaunted "mutations" that are constantly being
"Selected" to be the fittest, have occurred in the Oak, why haven't they
produced a seed more in line with those of the Cottonwood tree, (far more
efficient), or even a much more efficient (more "fit") seed such as that of
the ubiquitous Dandelion? These genetic features are numerous throughout
species, and if evolution is true, similar characteristics have "evolved"
1000's of times. Note that every Oak is in competition with all other plants
for resources, and its greatest competition would be with other Oaks. Thus,
a smaller, more efficient, inedible, widely dispersed, seed would be crucial
to survival of a varied (more fit) species. Such a "mutation", would be a
immense improvement to the species. Witness the Dandelion.

A dandelion will produce about 200 seeds/plant, altogether containing maybe
1% as much in resources as an acorn; further, this seed is wafted into the
air and can be carried hundreds of miles for replanting. It does not appear
to be a source of food, thus there will be no loss to predation, which has
to be a heavy penalty to the Oak. (Just look at all the Squirrels and Jays).
There is no question that this system is a dozen orders of magnitude (or
more) efficient than the production of an acorn. How can this be, after 100
million years of "evolution" of the Oak to be the "fittest"? Dandelions,
e.g., are far more numerous than Oaks. Please explain, using currently
accepted Darwinian theory.

And yes, Darwin was aware of this problem, and while he essentially ignored
it in later editions after it was called to his attention, he simply stated
a "principle" that things do not evolve to "perfection", only to a certain
degree of "fitness". Great explanation. Where is there a shred of evidence
for the "cause" of this? What puts the "brakes" on evolution? Perhaps you
can explain this also. It is only an explanation if evolution is TRUE. But
that is the argument. Perhaps you are able to explain it.

And perhaps this whole concept is in error. (your argument  is awaited). But
it illustrates to me the teaching of an erroneous concept which can only
have a deleterious effect of those who blindly accept the idea, in hope of
passing a test, perhaps. Students, particularly the young, are learning the
absolutely crucial process of conceptual thought from examples such as this.
And that is wrong. Forget that Johnny and Jonna cannot read; can they THINK
properly? A rational thinking process would quickly produce a good reader.

The concept of Natural Selection, is another example. There is not a
rational explanation for the process. Nowhere can you find an agreed upon
definition of HOW it works. Everyone who believes it *must*  work, does so
because Evolution is a "fact". Therefore it must be the cause. Even many
evolutionists agree that the above scenario is correct. (See quotes below.)
Yet is taught as unquestionable truth. This can only be the cause of much
muddled thinking.

To close, here are some "ad hominem" quotes on the subject of evolution.
This is acknowledged as leaving the world of argument, but it seems that
quotations are some form of proof, at least if they support evolution.
[comments by Bob]

Source: " http://www.goodschools.com/darwin.htm"

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing in
the progress of science.  It is useless."  (Professor Louis Bounoure,
Former: President of the Biological Society of Stassbourg, Director of the
Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French national
Centre of Scientific Research, writing in "The Advocate," March 8, 1984, p.
17)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great
con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.  In
explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."  (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian,
Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission.  As quoted in:  "Evolution and the
Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, Title Page) [Comments:
strong language, applicable to the Evangelists such as Dennett, Dawkins, and
Gould.]

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent
to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history
books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious
an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
(Malcom Muggeridge, Well-known Journalist and Philosopher, Pascal Lectures,
University of Waterloo) [Comment:] (Former author of Punch Magazine)

The following citations are from I.L. Cohen's "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in
Probability," New Research Publications, Inc., 1984. Cohen is a
Mathematician, Researcher, a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences, and
an Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.) :

 "� every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended
thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by scientifically
established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability
concepts.  Darwin was wrong."  (p.209)
"� The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science." (p.
210)

Note that they are all not biologists; but the concepts of Natural
Selection/Survival of the Fittest are very simple in principle and once
these propositions are studied with an open mind it becomes evident that
they are meaningless. This is born out in the arguments in the 16 Theses.
Your rebuttal, by direct argument, of Thesis # 12, above, or any other, is
invited.

Regards,
Bob
Ref: "http://www.flash.net/~rdwillia/darwinian_evolution.htm"