🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3371E9DE.4767@boeing.com>, Fred McGalliard
<frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote:

 | James S. Lovejoy wrote:
 | > 
 | >(some comments that John Gardner wrote excluded for brevity)
 | 
 | > Well that's your problem.  Evolution the theory, doesn't predict, and
 | > evolution the fact doesn't show the _miraculous_ transformation of one
 | > species into another.  The facts show the _natural_ transformation of
 | > one species into another, rather like the theory predicts.
 | 
 | Jim. The "facts" include an awful lot of left handed assumptions about
 | what and why some changes take place in species populations, usually
 | long dead ones. There is precious little real "evidence" for such
 | changes that would hold up aginst even a mild friendly review. This is
 | not entirely surprising, since transitional forms would hardly be
 | expected to be very succesful. It does however suggest that we be less
 | than bold about accepting the conclusion of the theory as proved.

1. You have, of course, read at least *one* of the classic texts in the
field? And critically examined every piece of evidence presented, along
with the arguments therein. So as not to rest too heavily on a knowledge of
modern molecular biology, try Ernst Mayr's 1963 Animal Species and
Evolution. It's only some 770 odd pages of literature review. And it has
stood the test of time. If you don't have the time to read that, try his
1970 Populations, Species and Evolution, which is abridged from the 1963.
Then come back and show how the facts given there are false, or
misconstrued or wrongly interpreted. I'm especially interested to hear how
you deal with the populational structure of species and the distribution of
traits in a polytypic species. A discussion of ring species would be nice.

2. Transitional forms can be very functional. Just because an organic
subsystem has one function is no reason to think it can't have two or more
(most organs have several roles), and therefore a new function can be
superimposed on a perfectly good functional system. Therefore, transitional
forms are *not* less functional than their ancestors.

3. Theories do not get "proved". Anyone in science knows that. Theories get
demonstrated, or more secure, or extended. They rarely get disproven once
they are well articulated, though they may get replaced by a better theory.
You have a better theory, perhaps? Before you answer: think of this - I
want to hear your detailed and knowledgeable model of how species are as
they are, and why they cannot change, not just some half-baked attack on
evolutionary theory. If you must attack evolutionary theory, try to attack
the real thing, not some strawman caricature of evolutionary views that
were abandoned in the 1930s or 1840s or whatever.

Then we'll see whose assumptions are left handed.

-- 
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research [Remove .UNSPAM from header address]
<http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins><mailto:wilkins@wehi.edu.au>
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed. - Capote