On Wed, 5 Jul 1995 12:38:51 -0400 you wrote:
TG>Abstract: 1. Most cladists believe that cladograms are the result
of evolution even though they don't employ evolutionary assumptions
into their taxonomic methods. Creationists use these disagreements
among evolutionists to suggest that evolution is not true.
SJ> 2. Creationists don't necessarily claim that cladists are not
still evolutionists, but whether they are all necessarily *Darwinists*
is another matter.
TG>I believe Stephen Jones recently alluded to some claims that
cladists weren't committed to evolution as well.
I do not deny that cladists are still evolutionists. Whether they are
Darwinists is another matter: there is a distinction. P.P. Grasse
the eminent French Zoologist called himself an evolutionist, but was
committed to destroy the "myth of evolution" (ie. Darwinism). See
Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p174.
Patterson, a notable cladist for example has had some sharp and public
disagreement with Darwinists. See DOT, p204. He still "continues to
accept `evolution' as the only conceivable explantion for certain
features of of the natural world" (DOT, p173), but in a private
address to staff at the American Museum of Natural History, in 1981,
Patterson claimed to have a "non-evolutionary view", and that after
"twenty years" of "working on evolution" that "there was not one thing
I knew about it." (Snelling A., "The Revised Quote Book", 1990,
Creation Science Foundation, Brisbane, p4).
TG>...nearly all cladists would admit that the phylogeny stands
>behind the cladogram and that the evolutionary process produces the nested
>patterns and that there were ancestors. Even Colin Patterson is an
>evolutionist...
See above. There is vagueness in the use of this word "evolutionist".
It means all things to all men. Even Creation-Scientists can be said
to be "evolutionists" because they believe in some aspects of
"evolution", eg. micro-evolution. Patterson may believe in evolution
(I am sure he does), but is he a *Darwinist*?
TG>Their point is simply to put systematics (and thus the discernment
>of the phylogeny given the evolutionary explanation for the
>cladogram) on a more rigorous scientific basis that avoids the
>subjectivity of evolutionary systematics.
Yes. And that "subjectvity" of interpretation is what creationists
most often disagree with about Darwinism. No one would object to the
objective classifying of similarities between organisms, that cladists
do. That is a real, empirical science. It is the subjective
historical interpretation and metaphysical assumptions that Darwinists
make from those similarities that is what the whole Creation v
Evolution debate is all about.
TG>Again, I see this to be a case where creationists are taking
>internal squabbles among evolutionists and trying to convey to the
>general public that evolutionists can agree among themselves and
>don't even believe their own theory anymore.
Indeed, there are more than mere "internal squabbles" among at
least some Darwinists and Cladists, as Dawkins points out:
"The fact is almost too bizarre to credit, but some of the leading
`transformed cladists' profess an actual hostility to the idea of
evolution itself, especially to the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Two of them, G. Nelson and N. Platnick from the American Museum of
Natural History in New York, have gone so far as to write that
`Darwinism...is in short a theory that has been put to the test and
found false.' " (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin,
p283)
The point is that the impression of a monolith "theory of evolution",
that is presented to the general public, is a myth. No one doubts
that non-creationists must believe in something called "the fact of
evolution", even if they disagree fundamentally on its tempo and mode.
But it is precisely the tempo and mode that is the main issue:
"But consider Colin Patterson's point that a fact of evolution is
vacuous unless it comes with a supporting theory. Absent an
explanation of how fundamental transformations can occur, the bare
statement that "humans evolved from fish" is not impressive. What
makes the fish story impressive, and credible, is that scientists
think they know how a fish can be changed into a human without
miraculous intervention..."Evolution" in the sense in which, these
scientists use the term is a mechanistic process, and so the content
of any "fact" that is left when the mechanism is subtracted is
thoroughly obscure. ("Darwin on Trial", p12).
TG>My own assessment is that cladistics is probably a useful
>corrective to some trends in biology in the middle of the 20th
>century and that it does seem to put systematics on a more firm
>foundation...Similarity (or common features) does not necessarily
>imply biological ancestry...Conversely, the nested patterns are
>perfectly good evidence for evolution.
This is putting the chart before the horse! :-) I disagree that
"nested patterns are perfectly good evidence for evolution".
Historically they came well before evolution and Darwinism is
an attempt to explain the nested hierarchy of form found in nature,
not the other way around:
"The misunderstanding is fundamental. Darwin did not invent
classification or reform its practice. His contribution was to
provide an explanation in materialistic terms of how the categories
came about and why the classifiers were right in their instinct that
the "types" are real natural entities and not arbitrary sorting
systems (such as a library uses for books). Pre-Darwinian classifiers
also were aware that humans are physically very much like the
anthropoid apes. That is why the creationist Linnaeus, the father of
taxonomy, unhesitatingly included humans among the primates. The
genetic similarity confirms Linnaeus, not Darwin. It tells us once
again that apes and humans are remarkably similar in some ways, just
as they are remarkably different in others, but it does not tell us
how either the similarities or the dissimilarities came to exist."
("Darwin on Trial", p94)
TG>(I will admit that common design by God can explain nested patterns
>too; although in my opinion design by God can explain whatever
>pattern is observed.)
Just as evolution can? :-)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------