Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> This is too simplistic. What Acanthostega showed was that legs preceeded
> walking on land. I t provides link in a sequence from marine/pond fish to a
> terestial amphibian. Of course the fossil record does not show one species
> merging into another and more than the archeological dig on a battlefield
> will show one soldier killing another. What it does show are a variety of
> sequences of minor changes over time so that one must postulate either an
> external force returning at frequent intervals to do the annual model revamp
> or there is common descent. This is what Darwin wrote in 1844;
>
> "I must premise that, according to the view ordinarily received, the myriads
> of organisms, which have during past and present times peopled this world,
> have been created by so many distinct acts of creation. . That all the
> organisms of this world have been produced on a scheme is certain from their
> general affinities; and if this scheme can be shown to be the same with that
> which would result from allied organic beings descending from common stocks,
> it becomes highly improbable that they have been separately created by
> individual acts of the will of a Creator. For as well might it be said that,
> although the planets move in courses conformably to the law of gravity, yet
> we ought to attribute the course of each planet to the individual act of the
> will of the Creator. "
Let me be a little less simplistic then.
Most people herein seem to believe or disbelieve in evolution at the
100% level. I happen to believe in evolution at about the 95% level.
(That is down from 99% in the past.) I shall talk about the 5%
disbelief.
As a kid, evolution was widely accepted but not explicitly taught in the
public schools I attended. (It just wasn't considered to be very
important.) However, I was a bookworm and read much about it. I always
accepted it to be true.
Eventually I got a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species and the Descent of
Man." I thought that Darwin was a real genius and that his "survival of
the fittest" (If I may call it that) was a powerful tautology that could
be applied even to non-living things such as the evolution of galaxies.
One thing upsetting me, however, was Darwin's own discussions about the
lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Now I don't mean that
in the way that others on this list mean it. I am not talking about why
an occasional link may be missing. Rather I mean that why don't we find
the situation to be one wherein the literally thousands of samples
mutants or transitional forms to every one sample of the stable forms
-- by absolute quantity, not type. That would seem to be the logical
consequence of Darwinian evolution. Also consider the world as it exists
today. Forget about fossils. Why are there not 1000 different forms of
tiger mutants for every "normal" tiger? Did evolution suddenly stop
happening with tigers? Same for all other animals.
Now there was an alternate theory advanced by Gould. I know just a
little about it but it seemed a better match to the data than does
Darwin's - or Dawkin's - notions from my layman perspective. I also know
that NOVA suppressed one of their own shows with Gould's views. My
perception is that despite a better match to a great deal of the most
recent evolutionary data, "evolutionists" reject it because it gives an
opening for "creationists" to say "aha".
According to Milkman, I believe, "Science walks on 2 feet: Theory and
Experiment". We can't experiment much with evolution, but we certainly
can try to have a theory that meshes with ALL of the facts --- not just
the ones that are cherry picked to support the model of evolution that
one favors.
Do I think that scientists are intentionally fudging the data? No!
Do I think that prejudice is showing? Absolutely.
IMHO
Comments?
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 21 2002 - 14:09:10 EDT