Reflectorites
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:53:09 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>>CC>Susan, remind me to try to locate my copy of Kelly's book. It's a good
>>>book, but Kelly's not an authority on biology. His book is about
>>>*computers* and such.
>SJ>Kelly's book "Out of Control" is subtitled "The New Biology of Machines".
>>It is about *artificial* life and deals extensively with computer simulations
>>of evolution, which is after all what this thread started by Wesley was
>>about.
>>
>>The book was urged on me by a former Reflectorite who was atheist evolutionist
>>as evidence for evolution. I was surprised when I read it how devastating it
>>is *against* Darwinism!
>CC>The fact that he made such a mistake as he did in the passage you so
>>blindly quoted
I actually *have* the book in front of me and Chris can't even find his copy, yet Chris just
*asserts* I have "blindly quoted" it, because he doesn't agree with it!
Maybe when Chris does locate his copy he can read it and get back with *evidence* that I
have "blindly quoted" it?
But if it was about Kelly's statement that"
"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in
recorded history." (Kelly K., "Out of Control," 1995, p475)
and the emphasis is on "observed", then this was in fact the case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/24/science/24SPEC.html The New York Times
October 24, 2000 Scientists' Hopes Raised for a Front-Row Seat to Evolution By
CAROL KAESUK YOON .... For more than a century, scientists have assumed
that it was all but impossible to witness the evolution of a new species in nature, a
process thought to be too long and drawn out to be captured in the lifetime of any
human researcher."
Note that in the article it does not even then say this *was* a new species:
"Scientists critical of the work said other factors, including interbreeding by one of
the groups with the small populations of native salmon known to live in the lake,
could cause the salmon to appear genetically distinct from each other without the
evolution of reproductive isolation. Others said the genetic differences between the
salmon were too minuscule to require explanation yet.
I hope to be posting this and other news items when I get over my backlog.
CC>demonstrates that he is not an expert on *biology*.
And what makes *Chris* "an expert on biology"? In the past I have asked
Chris to either: 1) state what his qualifications are to pontificate on
"biology" like he does; or 2) to quote from the mainstream literature on
"biology" to support his case.
Otherwise they are just unsubstantiated assertions that *anyone* could
make, and I see no point in debating them.
CC>In fact,
>the book, like many popularizations, was not a formal book even on its own
>actual topic.
Again, how would Chris know? What is *his* expertise on this, or any
"topic"?
CC>If you think that quoting his mistakes makes for a devastating case against
>Darwinism, you have another think coming.
Chris needs to state what those "mistakes" are, and back it up with either:
1) a statement of Chris' own expertise in this "topic"; or 2) a quote from
the literature on this "topic".
CC>Or, in your case, maybe not, I don't know.
Again, I regard these sort of ad hominems from Chris as just *bluff* and a
cover-up for his lack of evidence to support his case.
CC>Kelly's smart and intuitive, but not guaranteed accurate.
But Chris *is* "guaranteed accurate"??
CC>Though now I simply *must* locate my copy of it and see if I can find some
>more of these allegedly "devastating" passages. Perhaps you will supply us
>with a few more?
I will be happy to. See tagline for starters
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"NATURAL SELECTION is a very grim natural reaper. Darwin made the
bold claim that, at the very heart of evolution, many small deletions in bulk-
many small wanton deaths-feeding on the throwaway optimism of minor
variation, could, in a counter-intuitive way, add up to something truly new
and meaningful. In the drama of traditional selection theory, death plays the
star role. It works single-mindedly by attrition. It is an editor that knows
only one word: "No." Variation counterbalances the one-note song of
death by giving birth to the new in cheap abundance. It too knows only one
word: "Maybe." Variation cranks out disposable "maybes" in bulk, which
are immediately mowed down by death. Bulk mediocrity is dismissed by
wanton death. Occasionally, the theory goes, this duet produces a "Yes!"-a
starfish, kidney cells, or Mozart. On the face of it, evolution by natural
selection is still a startling hypothesis. Death gives room for the new, it
eliminates the ineffective. But to say that death causes wings to be formed,
or eyeballs to work, is essentially wrong. Natural selection merely selects
away the deformed wing, the unseeing eye. "Natural selection is the editor,
not the author," says Lynn Margulis. What, then, authors innovation in
flight and sight?" (Kelly K., "Out of Control: The New Biology of
Machines," [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, pp.479-480.
Emphasis Kelly's)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 29 2000 - 17:35:23 EST