Shuan writes:
> Moreover, another person, Alfred Russell Wallace, independently came to
same
> conclusion as Darwin re evolution by natural selection. They coauthored
> together the paper that fist advanced the theory of evolution by
natural
> selection.
More accurately, when Darwin received Wallace's paper and realized he was
reading something he could have written himself; dumbfounded and at a loss
what to do, he consulted friends. They suggested he write a precis of his
argument, and that both papers would be read in their absence at a meeting
of the Linnaean Society. I believe this happened in 1858. Darwin realized
that he could no longer hold off publishing, and produced _The Origin of
Species_ the following year. The entire press run was sold out the first
day, and the rest is history--and controversy.
The fact that both men independently had developed the same theory to
account for the evident fact of evolution argued well for the power of the
theory. One hundred fifty years later Natural Selection remains the
centerpiece of a more developed, expanded, and nuanced theory to account for
evolution.
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shuan Rose" <shuanr@boo.net>
To: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>; "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>; <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "Dan Pugh"
<DPugh@IWIF.com>; "John Woodworth" <towed@toad.net>; "Pin H. Chen"
<phchen@chencompserv.com>; "Rick Grill" <rgrills@mde.state.md.us>; "Ron
Scheller" <rschelle@allegisgroup.com>; "Tim Griffin" <timkat@toad.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: A matter of trust?
> Its worth pointing out once again that Darwin was an orthodox Anglican who
> intended to go into the ministry when he went on the Beagle and later
began
> convinced about evolution.
> Moreover, another person, Alfred Russell Wallace, independently came to
same
> conclusion as Darwin re evolution by natural selection. They coauthored
> together the paper that fist advanced the theory of evolution by natural
> selection. For more info, see
>
> http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/darwin/darwindex.html
>
> That two persons, working independently in different parts of world, came
up
> the same theory, significantly boosts the conclusion that the theory of
> evolution follows from the evidence, rather than is an a priori
conclusion.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:10 PM
> To: Walter Hicks; Shuan Rose
> Cc: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net; Asa
> Subject: Re: A matter of trust?
>
>
> 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. "
>
> What is interesting is to read his notebooks of 1836 to 1838 and see how
he
> gradually became totally convinced that evolution had occurred. It was not
> by assuming evolution in the first place.
> Again I think many have successfully cast doubt on evolution implying it
is
> an a priori decision. Historically evolution came slowly and the ideas of
> Lamarck , E Darwin and Chambers (Vestiges) were not accepted because of
the
> lack of evidence.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
> To: "Shuan Rose" <shuanr@boo.net>
> Cc: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 11:15 PM
> Subject: Re: A matter of trust?
>
>
> > I tend to support evolution. However, I do have to say that those
> > proving its existence do so by assuming it it is correct to begin with.
> > Example below.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Shuan Rose wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vern,
> > > Check out
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html.
> > >
> > > The link below shows a transitional fossil
> > >
> > >
>
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Acanthostega&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates
> > >
> > >
> > > This link profiles the person who has spent forty years looking
> > > for and working on these fossils, so her explanation carries more
> > > weight to me than all those critics who have never even seen a real
> > > fossil. She lays out the whole theory of the transition, and answers
> > > the question of how digits developed from fins
> >
> > That is fine but consider the words on that web site carefully. they
> > are:
> >
> > "It's a classic chicken-and-egg conundrum: Did the distant ancestors of
> > land animals come
> > ashore and then evolve legs, or did they evolve legs and then come
> > ashore? This is a daunting
> > question considering the fish-to-four-legs transition took place some
> > 370 million years ago.
> > For decades, the former proposition held sway: land first, then legs.
> > But Jenny Clack changed all that.
> >
> > On an expedition to Greenland in 1987, this University of Cambridge
> > paleontologist
> > unearthed remains of a creature from the Devonian Period (408-360
> > million years
> > ago) that skulked around swamps on four legs. Through careful study of
> > the
> > anatomy, Clack determined that this creature, known as Acanthostega,
> > nevertheless didn't have a leg to stand on -- that is, these rudimentary
> > limbs could
> > not support the animal's weight. But they do support the notion that
> > legs came
> > first. In this interview, Clack gives particulars of her field-shaking
> > discovery and its impact."
> >
> >
> > It does not say that Clack has shown how land animals evolved for sea
> > animals. That is a GIVEN!
> >
> > What Clack has done is to replace one theory of how with another theory
> > of how.
> >
> > >
> > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/clack.html
> > >
> > > Also the link below, from Glenn Morton's site.You may want to email
> > > the question to him. He can answer your question in detail.
> > >
> > > http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm
> > >
> > > Seek and ye shall find, Vern. The question is, do you really want to
> > > find that for which you are seeking?
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> >
> > How many people who believe in evolution are seeking a different answer?
> >
> >
> > --
> > ===================================
> > 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 - 17:40:43 EDT