Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steve_F · 08-25-2004, 10:35 AM

In the compleet absence of anything better to do, I've been lurking over at darwintalk recently. A chap by the name of Bulla has been posting quotes that he believes argue against evolution. Naturally I'm a little sceptical about all this and was wondering if anyone could place these in context (I've had a quick look over at TO):

Quote:

The primary problem with the [modern evolutionary] synthesis is that its makers established natural selection as the director of adaptive evolution by eliminating competing explanations, not by providing evidence that natural selection among 'random' mutations could, or did, account for observed adaptation (Box 2). Mayr remarked, 'As these non-Darwinian explanations were refuted during the synthesis ... natural selection automatically became the universal explanation of evolutionary change (together with chance factors).' Depriving the synthesis of plausible alternatives, which seemed such a triumph, in fact sowed the seeds of its faults."

"The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation." (Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [Biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495)

Quote:

"A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!" —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.]

Quote:

"It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws."—*Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as Scientific Theory," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution (1967), p. 109.

The top one is particularly interesting and the other two (even though one appears to be old and the other by mathematicians) I'd still like info on.

anthrosciguy · 08-25-2004, 11:27 AM

I don't have further context of the quotes themselves, but a few thoughts.

One is that anytime you see a "Mathematical Challenge" to evolution coupled with the word "random" you are overwhelmingly likely to see nonsense follow. Darwin's theory and the extensions to it explain how and why evolution is an example of a non-random system.

The second quote is offering a principle (genetic depletion) which seems to me to be wrongly used. First, I have to note that I'm not familiar with the concept of genetic depletion, but a quick look at it seems to place it as the sort of thing that happens in extremely restricted or isolated populations, or those going through some sort of population bottleneck (like cheetahs have, for instance). It doesn't seem to be something that has anything to do with the change from one species to another, and certainly not with a species that increased its range and numbers so dramatically as hominids did throughout their evolution. I hope someone will correct this impression if its wrong.

Albion · 08-25-2004, 02:23 PM

Well, the Eden quote is discussed here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...aB.html#Wistar

I'd also be interested in hearing a summary of what Leigh really said if anybody can get hold of the relevant issue of Trends Ecol Evol; also, in the next volume (Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Apr;15(4):162.) he replies to what was probably a letter from someone as a result of his article; that exchange might also be interesting.

Throughout that thread, Bulla has been somewhat less than completely reliable in conveying meaning when claiming that scientists said this or that thing against evolution. In one exchange early in the thread, he C&P'd a commentry by Do-While Jones (whose website seems to be his primary source of just about everything) about things that Ian Tattersall had said in his book "The Fossil Trail." Having read that part of the book again (or, rather, those parts, since the quotes weren't all from the chapters that Do-While Jones said they were from) and realised that Bulla (or, rather Do-While) was misrepresenting Dr Tattersall, I e-mailed Dr Tattersall with a link to the Jones page where his book was being quoted and asked for comments. He said in his response to me that he'd been taken out of context and misrepresented; I copied his e-mail onto the thread, and Bulla continued to claim that he hadn't misrepresented the guy at all, despite the assertion right there in black and white. There's not much getting through to that mentality. :banghead:

And in another exchange, he said that 29,000 scientists had rejected evolution; this was a paraphrase of an extrapolation made by Do-While Jones, as Coragyps pointed out in some detail and as Bulla is refusing to acknowledge. :banghead:

Coragyps · 08-25-2004, 05:41 PM

Bulla's most interesting quirk is that he staunchly maintains that he has no theistic axe to grind at all - he has no preferences, apparently, who the Designer of All is. But he echoes all the AiG sort of BS (except maybe Noah's Flood) with a pretty high accuracy. I think he's a bright intern at the Discovery Institute with an assignment to try out this new approach to Young Earth Crea... er... Designism.

RBH · 08-25-2004, 06:19 PM

Steve Forden wrote

Quote:

In the compleet absence of anything better to do, I've been lurking over at darwintalk recently. A chap by the name of Bulla has been posting quotes that he believes argue against evolution.

Got a URL for those of us who don't frequent Darwintalk?

RBH

Coragyps · 08-25-2004, 06:27 PM

http://www.darwintalk.com/message-board-forum/index.php

But Bulla is a little lonely right now, not that I think he would notice.

KC · 08-25-2004, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

The second quote is offering a principle (genetic depletion) which seems to me to be wrongly used. First, I have to note that I'm not familiar with the concept of genetic depletion, but a quick look at it seems to place it as the sort of thing that happens in extremely restricted or isolated populations, or those going through some sort of population bottleneck (like cheetahs have, for instance). It doesn't seem to be something that has anything to do with the change from one species to another, and certainly not with a species that increased its range and numbers so dramatically as hominids did throughout their evolution. I hope someone will correct this impression if its wrong.

The term most commonly used is 'genetic erosion', and it is, indeed, typically the result of habitat fragmentation leading to small, isolated populations. Small founder populations (on islands, for example) are also good candidates for genetic erosion.

KC

Jet Black · 08-26-2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

The primary problem with the [modern evolutionary] synthesis is that its makers established natural selection as the director of adaptive evolution by eliminating competing explanations, not by providing evidence that natural selection among 'random' mutations could, or did, account for observed adaptation (Box 2).

personally I have gone off natural selection. the term I prefer is differential reproductive success, since it includes everything from humans through to sexual selection, and natural selection. To me it also explains it better, since it is self explanatory that those which reproduce more, for whatever reason, will see their genes more prevelant in he future generations.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-25-2004, 11:27 AM	#2
anthrosciguy Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the west Posts: 3,295	I don't have further context of the quotes themselves, but a few thoughts. One is that anytime you see a "Mathematical Challenge" to evolution coupled with the word "random" you are overwhelmingly likely to see nonsense follow. Darwin's theory and the extensions to it explain how and why evolution is an example of a non-random system. The second quote is offering a principle (genetic depletion) which seems to me to be wrongly used. First, I have to note that I'm not familiar with the concept of genetic depletion, but a quick look at it seems to place it as the sort of thing that happens in extremely restricted or isolated populations, or those going through some sort of population bottleneck (like cheetahs have, for instance). It doesn't seem to be something that has anything to do with the change from one species to another, and certainly not with a species that increased its range and numbers so dramatically as hominids did throughout their evolution. I hope someone will correct this impression if its wrong.

08-25-2004, 02:23 PM	#3
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Well, the Eden quote is discussed here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...aB.html#Wistar I'd also be interested in hearing a summary of what Leigh really said if anybody can get hold of the relevant issue of Trends Ecol Evol; also, in the next volume (Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Apr;15(4):162.) he replies to what was probably a letter from someone as a result of his article; that exchange might also be interesting. Throughout that thread, Bulla has been somewhat less than completely reliable in conveying meaning when claiming that scientists said this or that thing against evolution. In one exchange early in the thread, he C&P'd a commentry by Do-While Jones (whose website seems to be his primary source of just about everything) about things that Ian Tattersall had said in his book "The Fossil Trail." Having read that part of the book again (or, rather, those parts, since the quotes weren't all from the chapters that Do-While Jones said they were from) and realised that Bulla (or, rather Do-While) was misrepresenting Dr Tattersall, I e-mailed Dr Tattersall with a link to the Jones page where his book was being quoted and asked for comments. He said in his response to me that he'd been taken out of context and misrepresented; I copied his e-mail onto the thread, and Bulla continued to claim that he hadn't misrepresented the guy at all, despite the assertion right there in black and white. There's not much getting through to that mentality. :banghead: And in another exchange, he said that 29,000 scientists had rejected evolution; this was a paraphrase of an extrapolation made by Do-While Jones, as Coragyps pointed out in some detail and as Bulla is refusing to acknowledge. :banghead:

08-25-2004, 05:41 PM	#4
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Bulla's most interesting quirk is that he staunchly maintains that he has no theistic axe to grind at all - he has no preferences, apparently, who the Designer of All is. But he echoes all the AiG sort of BS (except maybe Noah's Flood) with a pretty high accuracy. I think he's a bright intern at the Discovery Institute with an assignment to try out this new approach to Young Earth Crea... er... Designism.

08-25-2004, 06:27 PM	#6
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	http://www.darwintalk.com/message-board-forum/index.php But Bulla is a little lonely right now, not that I think he would notice.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.