Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 22:29:17 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD A metaphysics"

    Hi Platt

    Great post below, keep the Darwin fan club on the run!

    Regards
    David M
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:18 PM
    Subject: RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

    > 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
    >
    >

    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 - 22:30:52 BST