From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 21:18:26 BST
Jonathan,
> Sorry Platt, but it just won't do:
> >The questions about Darwinian theory or neo-Darwinism or whatever the
> >latest scientific thinking may be on the subject will never be resolved
> > to everyone's satisfaction.
>
> You are right, if people like you distort or ignore what is in front of
> their noses. I talk about molecular similarities between primitive
> bacteria and the mammalian eye, and you call that "microevolution".
Here's what you said:
"5. Old molecules will be put to the new uses. Several examples, e.g.,
the visual protein rhodopsin is related to bacteriorhodopsin, a
photosynethetic pigment in certain bacteria.
Last time I looked, proteins are molecular size and bacteria are about
the smallest forms of life that exist. That's 'micro' in anybody's
book. It would be more to the point if you'd tell us how the eye
evolved in a series of little steps from its bacterial beginnings.
> . . .talk about climate and biological change (in which I include the
> upheavals and mass extinctions of 250Myears and 70Myears ago), you call
> it microevolution.
You said:
"3. "Climactic change will be associated with change in flora and fauna
(several examples in geological/biological record).
You didn't say anything about "upheavals and mass extinctions" like
that of the dinosaurs which many suggest was not caused by climate
change but by meteor impact.
> Platt, you are either completely ignorant or a charlatan. The problem is
> not the scientific explanations but attitudes like yours.
I'm surprised a scientist like yourself stoops to name calling. I
thought mainly political types resorted to that sort of fallacy. If I'm
as you say, then the following individuals must also qualify:
Dr. Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist: "The
pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove
evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."
Dr. A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University: "The theory of
evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent
as time advances. It can not longer square with practical scientific
knowledge."
Prof. R. Goldschmidt, PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif.: "It
is good to keep in mind . . . that nobody has ever succeeded in
producing even one new species by accumulation of micromutations.
Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it
has been universally accepted."
Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge
University: "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate
matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it . . . it is big
enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution."
Michael Denton, molecular biologist. "Is it really credible that random
processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of
which -- a functional protein or gene -- is complex beyond . . .
anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
C Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General:"When I make an incision with
my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't
been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed
them."
There are many more distinguished "charlatans" who, if you insist, I'll
be glad quote. To suggest that I might be in their company is indeed a
badge of honor. :-)
I take it that you consider Pirsig's ideas about evolution also to be
in the completely ignorant or charlatan category?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 21:17:09 BST