🚀 go-pugleaf

<
(On Sat, 11 May 1996, Ed Conrad wrote to talk.origins, etc., in 
response to Michael Clark's accusation that he had used only
a portion of Charles Darwin's quote in which he expressed
serious doubts about the evolution of the eye: 
<
======================================================= 
<
The Ed Conrad Hurry-Up-I-Have-to-Catch-a-Train Version: 
<
> ``To suppose that the eye  (with so many parts all working together)  . . . 
>   could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, 
>   absurd in the highest degree." 
<
======================================================= 
<
The Charles Darwin Let-Me-Put-You-To-Sleep Version: 
<
>"'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for 
>adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different 
>amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic 
>aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I 
>freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said 
>that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common 
>sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of 
>Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted 
>in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple 
>and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, 
>each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if 
>further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is 
>likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to 
>any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of 
>believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural 
>selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be 
>considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be 
>sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself 
>originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in 
>which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it 
>does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their 
>sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, 
> endowed with this special sensibility."                         
>                                                 [Darwin, 1859, _The Origin of Species 
<
========================================================== 
<
  I thought I said what Darwin had said but Dave Iain Greig at
Ediacara U., a colleague of mine at Ediacara University, 
 said what I said wasn't what Darwin said because he said Darwin said 
 something more than what I said he said, then Steve Vickers of UK 
 sends an E-Mail and said he knows what Darwin said, which is not 
 entirely what I said he said,  so I said to myself, ` I'll say what 
 he said Darwin said even though I don't know if he really said it, 
 since this is what he said he had said. 
 > 
> Nice little song and dance, there, Zippy. Can you balance 
> a ball on your nose?                                 ---- Michael Clark 
<
Actually, Michael, it doesn't really matter what Darwin said or what 
these fellas said he said -- or what they said I didn't say -- since 
what I said, whether Darwin said it or not, isn't something that was 
vital to say, and I'm sort of saying he had painted himself into a 
corner and said what he thought he'd better say, else critics would 
say he really had nothing to say, even though he had said it. 
<
==============================================
<
Wonder what Darwin Would'ver Said About This:
<
> PETRIFIED BONES IN GIANT SLAB OF SLATE (COAL VEINS)I
<
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-002S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-003S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-004S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-005S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-006S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-007S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-008S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-009S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-010S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-011S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-012S.JPG

>
It means the bones have to be older than the material in which
they are encased..
>
Same as many thousands of other petrified bones, teeth 
and soft organs I've discovered between anthracite veins,
they offer the undeniable physical evidence that large land
animals -- man included -- had existed on earth while
coal was being formed some280 million years ago..
<
>       PSEUDOS' DENIAL OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
>       (Petrified coal-age bones, teeth and soft organs)
<
>  http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ManasOldasCoal/Discoveries.jpg 
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/ManasOldasCoal.jpg 
< http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/TestResults.jpg 
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/OldestTool.jpg 
<
 ==========================================
>
Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
> Man as Old as Coal