Subject: Re: abiogenesis
Date: 18 Aug 1999 02:39:52 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Organization: Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Newsgroups: aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion
In aus.religion.christian beyond.help <> wrote:
> Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Niles Eldredge (note correct spelling) is famous for his analysis
> > > > of the fossil record and his development (in collaboration
> > > > with S.J. Gould) of a refinement to evolutionary theory which
> > > > explains the patterns of descent seen therein. That refinement
> > > > is punctuated equilibrium -- a hypothesis which is handled with
> > > > stunning incompetance by many creationist writers.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, scientific mythology. There has never been
> > > any observation of a cow having a rabit or anything
> > > else other than a calf.
> > 
> > Which, of course, is exactly what evolution requires. A calf is very
> > like (but not exactly like) its parents.
>
> Which is exactly what Niles says does not exist.

This is gibberish.

I think a calf is like (but not exactly like) its parents. So
does Niles Eldredge.

What Niles is proposing has nothing to do with needing cows to give
birth to anything other than calves. Here is another extract from the
interview at http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/archives/sum98/niles.htm
California Wild: It's been about 25 years since you and Stephen Jay
Gould first published on punctuated equilibrium. Many gradualists
describe the debate as over and so do many punctuationists, and
both say it was decided in their favor. From your perspective,
has the dust settled at all?

Niles Eldredge: I think that, empirically, stasis is a clear
phenomenon. It was really a rediscovery of something that was
known in the nineteenth century, and most paleontologists
agree that the fossil record shows great stability of most
species. People like [evolutionary biologists] Richard Dawkins,
George Williams, and John Maynard Smith all agree that stasis is
a real phenomenon. There might be some diehard gradualists who
don't see it that way, but I think the dust has settled.
CW: How then do they make theories of constant genetic mutation
and natural selection fit the empirical evidence for long periods
of stasis?

NE: Well, they say we've known all along that evolution proceeds
at variable rates. There's nothing really new, and we don't need
new evolutionary mechanisms or paradigms to embrace that. At one
sort of simple level, that's certainly correct.
Not that I expect beyond.help to do anything other than continue
to ignore the words of the man himself in favour of creationist
misrepresentations.

My apologies for pursuing the creationist debate. When it comes up,
I will correct the various misrepresentations. This is not because
I want to show that creationists are wrong or that evolutionists are
right. It is because the actual arguments advanced by creationists are
totally without merit, and we need to clear the air of such nonsense
for people to know just what it is they believe or disbelieve.

Disbelieve evolution by all means. Many readers do. For my part,
you are welcome. However, when specific arguments are advanced as
criticism of evolution, it is IMHO valuable to show just how mind
boggling awful those arguments are.

If you disbelieve evolution because you prefer to trust a literal
reading of the bible, that is fine by me.

If you disbelieve evolution because Niles thinks a cow has to give
birth to something other than a cow; or because of any of the other
absurdities advanced so far in this thread, then you are basing
your beliefs on a plain and unambiguous untruth.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart