---

[ I received the following text from Chuck Maier on 92-01-17. I added a few comments here or there, but have removed none of Chuck's text. All my additions are in square brackets and initialed. Got your blood pressure medicine handy? -- WRE] From CHUCK@speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu Thu Jan 16 17:55:02 1992 Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu by uxc.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA22950 (5.65d/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 16 Jan 1992 17:54:12 -0600 Received: from speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu (charon.ehs.uiuc.edu) by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0) id AA01571; Thu, 16 Jan 92 13:33:39 GMT-0600 Received: From SPEEDY/WORKQUEUE by speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 100.920116133245.352; 16 Jan 92 13:34:21 -0500 Message-Id: To: elsberry@cse.uta.edu From: CHUCK@speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu Date: 16 Jan 92 13:32:44 CDT Subject: not too busy are we? X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R3). Status: R Wes: I know you're a busy man, but as you seem tirelessly dedicated to a certain task, I'm sure you won't mind adding my contribution(s) to the CMWDB. One summary of the spiritlake/yellowstone discussion follows. chuck. [Well, Chuck, if any of your rebuttals carried any weight, I would have removed the appropriate portion of the CMWDB. The CM-ML conversation below is simply a partial support for your statements in the Science Echo recently, and do not effect the validity of the ML sections of the CMWDB. You have failed to rebut Henry Shaw's charges, either, so that stays. You might wish to look at the end comments, too. Basically, I don't see any need to change the CMWDB based upon your text here. However, I will make this text available to everyone who can access the CMWDB. -- WRE] From CHUCK@speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu Thu Jan 16 17:55:11 1992 Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu by uxc.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA22956 (5.65d/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 16 Jan 1992 17:54:18 -0600 Received: from speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu (charon.ehs.uiuc.edu) by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0) id AA01575; Thu, 16 Jan 92 13:38:20 GMT-0600 Received: From SPEEDY/WORKQUEUE by speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 100.920116133724.320; 16 Jan 92 13:39:01 -0500 Message-Id: To: elsberry@cse.uta.edu From: CHUCK@speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu Date: 16 Jan 92 13:37:22 CDT Subject: yellowstone/spiritlake rebuttal by CM X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R3). Status: R To: All CMWDB readers From: Chuck Maier Date: Jan. 16, 1992 Once again I have been falsely charged, so I have responded with a lengthy summary of the three-way discussion on spiritlake/yellowstone. The two statements in question are mentioned in the first message by ML. I have underlined in the following (lengthy) text precisely where the errors were made (and admitted) by ML , and in one instance confirmed by H. Shaw. [Note that there is no indication here of what the "false charges" are. Makes it a wee bit difficult to figure out precisely what is being rebutted along the way. -- WRE] Area: Science, Msg #179, 08:02am Jan-14-92 From: Marty Leipzig To: Chuck Maier Subject: The end of an era ...Chuck Maier said to Nick Stevens: ns> ...a clear example was the hilarious sequence starting with ns> the orientation of tree stumps. CM> CM> Yes, Marty is a funny guy. I laugh at all his messages. Well, is this not a revelation? One makes a valid and valiant attempt to seriously answer questions posed by someone, who by his own admission, hasn't a shred of scientific education, and this is the result. Ah, as they say, pearls before swine. CM> Other than CM> that, I thought it was funny that he originally disputed 1) that there CM> were stumps being deposited in an upright fashion (later positively CM> confirmed by Henry Shaw as well) Oh, yes. That's right...that's where Mr. Shaw pointed out how you go on "...spreading half-truths, providing incomplete references and citing out of contex." Ah, yes. **see my response to Henry below*** 1/16/92 CM> 2) that there were uprooted trees at CM> yellowstone (which he later stated was wrong - there were some of CM> both). Not only do you not have a clue as to what science is or how it operates, your memory is either quite faulty or very selective. I never disputed that these stumps and trees existed (remember Chuck, I was there...can you say the same?). What I disputed was your (actually, not really yours; you're just parroting what Austin wrote) mechanism for this deposition, their significance to your constant (although inevitably futile) attempts to discredit science, and interpretations of how this event could be applied to the rock record. While we're at it Chuck, care to tell us poor, misguided scientists all about fluvial nautiloids? Or how sand is ***cm 1/16/92... yes, this is apparently an error; I believe a conodont was the creature I should have cited (as a polystrate fossil sticking vertically through 'millions of years' of strata) ****cm magically transmuted into a shale? Or all about the Snebley Hill formation, which "...all I know is that it exists..."? Now do you hear the laughter? ***cm **** yea, I'm laughing right with y'all ... I've always admitted my true mistakes or ignorant statements. *** [And then, after a couple of months, made the same bone-headed arguments all over again. We've seen that particular scenario play out many times. -- WRE] --- Blue Wave/Max v2.01 * Origin: HST/DS/v32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0) *** 1/26/92 in a message, probably early october, ML challenged the notion that logs were being deposited upright at spiritlake***... ML> ML> CM> here is also a clear model of how the ML> ML> CM> Yellowstone " petrified log jams " (formerly known as ML> petrified ML> ML> CM> forests) developed. Trees are now sinking there in an ML> upright ML> ML> fashion ML> ML> ML> ML> Sure they are. References, please? That is, other than the ML> ICR ML> ML> 'scientists' who spend their time floating horsetails in ML> aquaria. ML> CM> Marty, go jump in a lake - Spirit Lake, in particular. ML> ML> I already have. I was on the team of geoscientists that was the ML> first allowed into the Mt. St. Helens area after the eruption. ML> I've been there and seen the evidence first hand...can you ML> claim likewise? Now just when and how long were you at Spirit Lake? Did you actually jump in and get down with those stumps? Were any pictures taken? Or were you just being a bump on a log and quaffing Bronson cocktails? I can say that I've seen slides of some of the underwater and surface pictures. And I've read Coffin's note in Geology, which the last I checked, is not an ICR funded organ. ML> CM> Harold Coffin, Geoscience Research Institute. Here is the ML> conclusion ML> CM> from this paper : "In recent years, question concerning the ML> origin of ML> CM> the Yellowstone Petrified Forests have arisen (other papers ML> cited). ML> CM> Fritz ... has shown that the Toutle Rive flood produced by the ML> CM> eruption of Mt. St. Helens deposited ERECT STUMPS on the ML> devastated ML> CM> valley floor. ML> ****cm 1/16/92 **** note this statement which is partially wrong, by ML ML> These stumps were not deposited, Chuck. They were already there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^**cm1/16/92 ML> as parts of trees. It's just that the top part of the tree was ML> sheared off by the eruptive nuee. My , my this is a pretty pretty serious statement you're making here. Are you closing the lid on Dr. Coffin's thesis of stump deposition? Is this a dead issue with you? Let me quote from p. 299, same article: "Scuba divers examined some of the upright stumps and determined that the root systems either were floating above the bottom that was unseen in the murky blackness below or were grounded on the bottom in shallow water (picture of diver amongst floating stumps given). Both free-floating and grounded stumps could be pushed over in the water and would bounc back into erect orientation." Some of these trunks are already solidly buried in sediment; some are just touching the bottom. They are randomly scattered around the lake. I don't see how you can refute this sort of evidence ML> These stumps were not deposited, Chuck. They were already there ML> as parts of trees. It's just that the top part of the tree was ML> sheared off by the eruptive nuee. The ones at the bottom of Spirit Lake? Oh, I don't know about this. Trees keep settling, mudflows and sheet erosion keep filling the lake. No need for 27 floods for Yellowstone. Just this sort of cycle on a more massive scale. No particular need for volcanic evidence, either. ***cm 1/16/92 *** see H. Shaw below where he clearly indicates that there are stumps being deposited upright in sediments*** **** cm 1/16/92 Marty later admits his 'selective memory' regarding the transported trees at Yellowstone in a reply below... Area: Science, Msg #172, 12:23pm Nov-04-91 From: Marty Leipzig To: Chuck Maier Subject: Re: Yellowstone stumps, Lewis Overthrust ML> CM> Vertical figures are trees which settle vertically at ML> CM> different times and lodge in the sediments and debris ML> CM> , giving the false appearance of a " forest " . ML> CM> ML> ML> Yep. Sure does. As do the 27 other layers. So tell me, Chuck, ML> about the 27 other great floods...BTW, those stumps are ML> ROOTED, they grew in situ; they were not transported. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CM> clear evidence to the contrary.) So I assume you've read Fritz, w. CM> j., 1980, Reinterpretation of the dpositional environment of the CM> Yellowstone fossil forests, Geology, vol. 8, pp. 309-313? Yep. Sure have. Just re-read it. Let me quote: "...some trees remained in place, becoming surrounded and buried in moving sediment." Fritz, 1980. I will admit my memory was a bit selective, for he does cite horizontal trunks, diagonal stumps and vertical stumps, as well as those buried in situ. I admit my error of admission. But, if you read the article in full, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ***cm 1/16/92***** Fritz notes that the formation which incorporates the trees "...represents a complex alluvial system in which contributions of layers were made both as mudflows and as beds of gravel and boulders of braided streams." Sorry, Chuck...he makes no mention of a global flood responsible for this. ***cm 1/16/92 ... no he doesn't argue the flood...very few do...but this is a piece of evidence consistent with large-scale catastophism. see reply to Henry Shaw from me as well. *** Henry Shaw comments later ***** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Area: Science, Msg #152, 02:33pm Oct-29-91 From: Henry Shaw To: Chuck Maier Subject: Re: COAL, YELLOWSTONE, AND UPRIGHT CM> ...Take some sonar and video equipment with you as well as did CM> the team of Dr. Harold Coffin, Geoscience Research Institute. Here is CM> the conclusion from this paper : "In recent years, question CM> concerning the origin of the Yellowstone Petrified Forests have arisen CM> (other papers cited). Fritz ... has shown that the Toutle CM> River flood produced by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens deposited CM> ERECT STUMPS on the devastated valley floor. These stumps and CM> the surrounding sediments resembled certain areas in the Yellowstone CM> Petrified Forests [logjam]. Observations of numerous erect CM> floating stumps with roots in Spirit Lake reveal another mechanism that CM> could account for buried upright trees in volcanic areas such as CM> Yellowstone(1)." CM> 1. H. G. Coffin, 1983, "Erect Floating Stumps in Spirit Lake, CM> Washington", Geology, Vol. 11, pp.298-9. other relevant papers CM> cited in this one. CM> 2. W. J. Fritz, 1980, "Reinterpretation of the Depositional CM> Environment of the Yellowstone Fossil Forests" , Geology, Vol. 8 ) , CM> pp. 309-313. Now there you go again, spreading half-truths, providing incomplete references and citing out of context. You should also cite Fritz's reply to Coffin's paper, in which he says: "...I must disagree with Coffin that this mechanism [the floating stumps] applies significantly to the Yellowstone 'fossil Forests'" [Fritz, 1983; Coffin, 1983, Comment and reply on 'Erect Floating Stumps in Spirit Lake, WA, Geology, v11,pp733-4]. Indeed, in Coffin's reply to Fritz's comment, he states that: "My short paper on erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake does not imply that flotation in the lake is the only mode for the emplacement of the Yellowstone trees." Although Fritz has shown that IN SOME PLACES, stumps have been transported in the Yellowstone deposits, he also agrees that in the classic localities at Specimen Ridge (which I visited in 1975) and Amethyst Mountain are clearly examples of trees that have been buried in place. An honest presentation of references to this minor controversy would also include the following papers in addition to the ones you provided and my reference above. These short exchanges provide additional references in their citation lists. Retallack, 1981; Fritz, 1981, Comment and reply on 'Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone fossil forests'. Geology, v9, pp52-4. Yuretich, 1981; Fritz, 1981, Comment and Reply on 'Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests"' and 'Stumps transported and deposited upright by Mt. St. Helens mud flows', Geology, v9, pp146-147. continued next message... --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 510/943-6238 (1:161/55) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Area: Science, Msg #153, 02:35pm Oct-29-91 From: Henry Shaw To: Chuck Maier Subject: Re: COAL, YELLOWSTONE, AND UPRIGHT ....continued from previous Yuretich, 1984, Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place. Geology, v12, pp159-62. Fritz, 1984; Yuretich, 1984, Comment and Reply on 'Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place, Geology, v12, pp638-39. And here's one just for you, Chuck: Austin, 1991, Floating logs and log deposits of Spirit Lake, Mt. St. Helens Volcano National Monument, WA (abstract). Abstracts with Programs, 1991 Annual Meeting of the Geol. Soc. Am. v23, #5 pA85. I was at the GSA meeting last week and attended Steve Austin's talk (hey, I got an open mind, right?). There is no question that there are floating ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logs that embed themselves vertically in the lake sediments as they become ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ waterlogged and sink. However, the fossil forests at Yellowstone are *not* found (with very few exceptions) in lake sediments (which are fine grained muds). Also unfortunate was the fact that Austin spoke for 20 minutes; his allotted time was 15 minutes, and one is supposed to leave 3-5 minutes at the end of one's talk for questions. Taking more than the allotted time is a not uncommon tactic at scientific meetings when one does not want to answer questions. Even though someone in the audience jumped up after the talk with a question, the session chair was forced to move on to the next talk without providing time for questions. CM> Here's what is going on at Spirit Lake, and what happened at Yellowstone CM> about 5 k years ago. This model is what Austin presented at the GSA meeting. Just to set the record straight, the Yellowstone fossil forests were formed some 48 million years ago, not 5,000 years ago. [Smedes and Prostka, 1972, Stratigraphic framework of the Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup in Yellowstone National Park. USGS Prof. Paper 729-C, 33pp.] This is all very interesting, but I have to ask what significance this debate has to your point. The question of whether the fossil forests at Yellowstone were entombed "in place" or were transported has some significance to the problem of interpreting the Eocene ecology (i.e. the plant communities) of the region, but IMNSHO, this is really a pimple on the buttocks of geology. Even if one could show that the the processes at Spirit Lake completely explained the Yellowstone case, it would hardly shake the foundations of modern geology. --- TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 510/943-6238 (1:161/55) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** cm 1/16/92 To which I responded in part as follows, at which point the thread ended... *** Area: Science, Msg #103, 06:16pm Nov-10-91 From: Chuck Maier To: Henry Shaw Subject: Coal, Yellowstone, and UPRIGHTSTUMP Henry Shaw, never one to be stumped, logs in with these facts and verbal kidney punches: HS> CM> Washington", Geology, Vol. 11, pp.298-9. other relevant papers HS> CM> cited in this one. HS> HS> CM> 2. W. J. Fritz, 1980, "Reinterpretation of the Depositional HS> CM> Environment of the Yellowstone Fossil Forests" , Geology, Vol. 8 HS> ) , HS> CM> pp. 309-313. HS> Now there you go again, spreading half-truths, providing incomplete HS> references and citing out of context. Well Henry, that's what you're here for. I'm sure if you had the time, you'd make sure everyone in the world understood the context of the Ames test, penicillin resistance, apemen mosaics and frauds, etc. Maybe one of these days you'll figure out I don't have 10 shelves of references on any subject like each of you do. [That doesn't excuse "spreading half-truths, providing incomplete references, and citing out of context". If you're citing, you do have the reference right there in front of you, so the amount of context is directly under your control, as well as the complete reference information. Where's the rebuttal of Henry's claim? I don't see it here. -- WRE] HS> Indeed, in Coffin's reply to Fritz's comment, he states that: "My HS> short paper HS> on erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake does not imply that flotation HS> in the HS> lake is the only mode for the emplacement of the Yellowstone trees." And if you'd look at "Genesis Flood" or could've asked Austin (the sleaze who's behind all of this) a few tuff questions you'd see that they are not touting the stump deposits as the sole mechanism either. A few good tsunamis along with massive volcanic activity probably helped move things along out there. Those "logjams" go up to more or less the surface, don't they? I suppose this is best interpreted as a post-flood " residual " catastrophe, where in-situ burial would not necessarily refute young-earth theory. At any rate, the whole area literally shouts catastrophism on a scale with no " actualistic " parallel. Mt. St. Helens is just a dinky little thing in comparison. ***1/16/92 end rebuttal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From CHUCK@speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu Thu Jan 16 22:55:31 1992 Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu by uxc.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA26567 (5.65d/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 16 Jan 1992 22:54:44 -0600 Received: from speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu (charon.ehs.uiuc.edu) by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0) id AA02432; Thu, 16 Jan 92 22:51:26 GMT-0600 Received: From SPEEDY/WORKQUEUE by speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 100.920116225026.288; 16 Jan 92 22:52:12 -0500 Message-Id: To: elsberry@cse.uta.edu From: CHUCK@speedy.ehs.uiuc.edu Date: 16 Jan 92 22:50:23 CDT Subject: chance,speciation,macroevolution, etc. X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R3). Status: R To: all From: Chuck Maier Date: 1/16/92 Below are my responses to a number of Wesley Elsberry's calls for examples of this or that supposed Whopper... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- wre >In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us: > He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps. > phylogeny'). wre > Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". wre > Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton. ***You've accomplished nothing but to show your own ignorance by this. Why don't you include the four laws of Von Baer to give a full perspective on this? ****** [I'm not the only one displaying ignorance, then. Please reference Boardman, Koontz, and Morris (1973. Science and Creation. CSRC.) pp. 76- 77. -- WRE] WRE> Specific items requested: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WRE> Rebuttal for Chuck's "here's a class-level relation" when the example he gave was a kingdom-level relation **cm ** I think you're confusing this w/ L. Rhorer who made exactly this mistake the other day when declaring archae an intermediate between the reptile and bird 'kingdoms', later corrected by Dave Horn. Admittedly, I don't always use the most precise language in describing phylogenetic differences, and it's of no particular significance to the basic issues anyway. By the way - where are the Whopper databases for everyone else *** [Nope. Your own example of this sort of taxonomic faux pas preceded Rhorer's by several months. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have archived it here. Perhaps when my other computer system gets unpacked from the move, I'll find it. The significance is that you very often have no clue concerning what you are attempting to pass judgment upon, yet wish the reader to see you as knowledgeable on the subject. Credibility is a pretty basic issue, no? Where are the other Whopper databases? I don't know, Chuck, I've only got time for one, and that one is yours. You are, after all, a very special case. ;-) -- WRE] --------------------------------------------------------------------- WRE> Rebuttal for Chuck's "evolution is pure chance" whopper Area: Science, Msg #2, 12:23pm Oct-19-91 From: Chuck Maier To: John Thompson Subject: Re: Evolution: Genetic mistakes, by PURE CHANCE! ***comments from this note and elsewhere added in *** cm. 1/16/92 saying. Starting with Schwabe: "Proteins are thought to evolve mainly through gene duplications and RANDOM PROCESSES of mutation ... . The Neo-Darwininan argument is that by [PURE] CHANCE such mutations ( that by definition give rise to GREATER COMPLEXITY of an organism) [quotes in original] will be adaptively advantageous." And some other comments, more pertinent to the cyt c thread: on the reality of neutral mutations: "However, we need a very much better measure of the rate of neutral mutations (if such truly occur) [quotes in original] in structural proteins before we can ... make a reasonable test. ...[T]his neutralist theory makes many ASSUMPTIONS that are in principle hard to justify." and on all the ad hoc storytelling: he lists general stories evolutionists use: " 3. Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by MECHANISMS WHOSE OPERATION IS NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD, evolve cooordinately, splice, stay silent and exist as pseudogenes . 4. Ad hoc arguments CAN BE INVENTED ( such as insect vectors or viruses) that transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence. This liberal spread of rules,..., does not just sound facetious, but ... robs monophyletic molecular evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby of its ... status of a scientific theory." and Lovtrup on protein evolution: "The origin of such new polypeptides may often be referred to gene duplications. However if more than one step is required for the transformation of the gene, the clearly the agent involved is CHANCE, NOT NATURAL SELECTION, for the latter cannot do anything before the new protein has entered into action." ***it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if genes arise by chance, and genes give rise to phenotype, and the environment (which as Lovtrup states, also isolates by random geographic processes, if you hold micromutation theory) selects phenotype, then the foundation of the whole thing is chance***cm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WRE> Quoted segment from Chuck asking for speciation evidence ***I doubt you're going to find any of this. I can give you examples of speciation myself. We want a mechanism, not naturalistic faith and claims that billions of years can do anything. All the examples I'm familiar with are karyotypic in nature or 'quantum' events. They don't take millions of years, nor, as near as I can tell, do they truly provide examples of increasing complexity. Creationists are interested in examples of increasing complexity (the important issue in any field of evolution theory). *** cm Schwabe on speciation: "...speciation is still regarded as a mjaor problem for all theories of evolution." My calls have been for a real mechanism for complexity in organisms, a real mechanism for speciation as in the formation of higher taxa. Colin Patterson on speciation (1982 BBS interview): "No one has ever produced a species by the mechanism of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near to it. Most of the current argument in Neo- Darwinism is about this questin ' How does a species originate?' It is there that natural selection seems to be fading out and **CHANCE MECHANISMS** of one form or another are being invoked." Supposedly polyploidy and gene duplication/mutation have given rise to all functional diversity of life. Do we have even one documented case of gene duplication? I'd like to start there. Evolutionist Schwabe says: "...the major conclusion to which we wish to draw attention is that these findings strongly suggest that many of the genes purportedly produced by gene duplication have been present very early in the development of life. In fact, we can ask if they were not present so early that we must question whether any gene has come about by duplication or whether all have been there **FROM THE BEGINNING***, as a potential for species development." Schwabe, Christian, and Warr G., Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 27, 3 spring 1984 pp465... Near as I can tell, the whole thing is based on faith. I would recommend this paper for a number of examples of molecules which do not fit phylogenetic trees. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WRE > Rebuttal for Chuck's "macroevolution isn't speciation" whopper ***these are just a few I have on hand with me. Macroevolution, the general theory, continuity of matter - all are used synonymously by many knowledgable people, evolutionist and creationist, who recognize that speciation (infertility) has occurred, but don't believe evolution or that Neo-Mendelism explains formation of higher taxa. The continued implications that observed speciation events make amoeba to man macroevolution a fact is a complete waste of time. **** cm 1) Wolfgang Smith p.6 "Teilhardism" 1988 "The fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred." 2) David Raup, 1982 "Scientists Confront Creationism" (a book on your list no less). "...we are not sure that [darwinism] answers the larger questions of macroevolution." (this is a paraphrase, but I've cited it before). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Michael Denton RS> >CM called macroevolution." and staunch evolutionist, Michael RS> >CM Denton: RS> >CM RS> >CM "The very success of the Darwinian model at a RS> >CM microevolutionary level ... showing precisely how the RS> >CM process of speciation and microevolution occurs - only RS> >CM serves to highlight its failure at the macroevolutionary RS> >CM level." 4) other commments speciation? Because no one else can, either. Nobody knows, precisely the genetics involved, as Richard Lewontin wrote in 1974: "We know nothing of the genetic changes that occur in species formation." And Steven Stanley on the concept of " quantum speciation " : "At present, quantum speciation can only be defined in a way that describes its nature superficially (Macroevolution, 1979)." 5) the creationist position and creationist Kenneth Cumming, just a few months ago : "Chromosomal alterations, either in structure or number are common. Indeed, the only direct evidence for speciation is found in the formation of polyploid organisms. ... Most speciation is said to be associated with gradual population changes under the influence of geographical differences. The mechanisms for such speciation is hotly disputed... . Hard evidence (start to finish) for speciation as a major process in evolution is obviously lacking. ... Thus, speciation supporting microevolution (horizontal change) [on the same taxonomic level, which include genera in some instances] is an acknowledged phenomenon. However, the critical category of speciation that would establish macroevolution (vertical change) is said to be difficult to document as a totally observed event." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***1/16/92 *** I submit this whole message because of the continual attacks on Denton and Lovtrup. Lovtrup cites Denton, and Stanley and Godfrey cite Lovtrup, and you cite Godfrey on your bibliography. cm***** Area: Science, Msg #198, 07:11pm Sep-27-91 From: Chuck Maier To: John Thompson Subject: Re: Darwinism: The greatest deceit in the history of science John, I have been reading , with great interest, a book entitled "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth." The author is S0ren L0vtrup, a swedish EMBRYOLOGIST, and he's an evolutionist. A highly qualified, and experienced scientist, too, I might add. I've seen his name in Stanley's book, and his work is cited in Godfrey's anticreationist anthology/diatribe. (Scientists Confront Creationism - Godfrey) (Macroevolution - stanley). There's just one little quote I'd like to look at here , to start. It's on page 422. Lovtrup writes: "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked THE GREATEST DECEIT IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE." Now how is that for a statement coming from a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist? Well, we would go a bit farther than that, of course. Creationists believe that evolution itself is the greatest deceit in the history of science. As you might expect, Lovtrup has very little good to say about Darwinism and micromutation theory: "Micromutations do occur, but hte theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of cience becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary - 'adaption', ' selection pressure', ' natural selection', etc. - thereby believing that they contribut to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the soon we shall be able to make real progess in our understanding of evolution." This is what creationists have been saying all along, and it is gratifying to see that some evolutionists have had enough as well and want to get on with explaining things rather than religiously holding these cherished ideas. Lovtrup lists a few arguments against micromutation theory: ***cm note - Lovtrup is obviously aware of speciation events - his whole book is a diatribe on Neo-Mendelism (and the falsification of history).*** Yet he says this: "Intraspecific variation does not allow for evolution beyond the species limit. For instance, no amount of variation within one, or even all species of the taxon Crocodilia would allow for the origin of th taxon Aves, the birds. ... 2) ...micromutation theory fails to explain the origination of innovations, for it cannot account for the preservation and amplification of the initial stages, before the novel structure of organ has begun to exert its function. 3) ... intermediate stages cannot be useful ... examples are the transformation of the front limbs of an insectivore into the wings of a bat or of the teeth into whalebone in whales. [ and scale to feather ] ." and guess what else he says? "Some of the examples, and many others..., have been assembled by MICHAEL DENTON, in a work which thus significantly contributes to the falsification of micromutation theory. However, [denton], feels compelled to refute the macromutation theory as well. ..." Some objections to macromutation theory: " macromutations, and particularly beneficial ones, must be so rare as to be withou any practical importance ... [and] it is unlikely for two similar individulas of opposit sex to arise at the same time and place.. " . and other objections. [end rebuttal cm 1/26/92] [ I noticed that the cited macroevolution snippets do not rebut the fact that biologists use "macroevolution" to indicate change at the species and higher taxa. I also note that in your "rebuttal" of Henry Shaw's incisive comments concerning citing out of context, you never stated that you did not do these things; rather, you simply implied that Henry was unfair in picking out only your errors. Gee, I guess that's tough, Chuck. If you had ever given any indication that you would revise your argumentation based upon the responses we have given over time, there would be no super- sensitivity to your continued use of debunked arguments, and the CMWDB would likely not exist. It's not _our_ fault that you use debunked arguments as if they were solid, that you quote out of context, and that you use non sequitur, ad hominem, and illogic by preference to rational discourse. Don't expect us to remain silent concerning your mistakes just because we can't correct all other errors, too. -- WRE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank