Posted on 07/22/2006 5:35:21 AM PDT by DouglasKC
About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorize; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!— Charles Darwin, letter to Henry Fawcett, 1861
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
I think that Gould is of the belief that Darwin's theory (of many small minor changes over time) is not correct. But that evolution does occur in much larger jumps. I seem to recall something about his "hopefull monster" theory that somehow a very different type of critter ("monster") hatches and that is how/why we see such big changes in the fossil record.
No insult was intended; but my tone was not gracious--as the tone of your first post (#48 "if you want to play scientist, play right") was also just a tad aggressive. But I sincerely apologise to you for any offence unwittingly rendered.
Is it worth amicably rolling back the point here? My original post (#16) was a response to buffyt's post #6, wherein she asked "If there were any such thing as evolution why wouldn't monkeys have evolved, too." This, of course, is a very old chestnut on these threads; it arises from a misunderstanding (such as perpetrated by articles such as the head of this current thread) of what the theory of evolution actually states. ToE does not state "man descended from monkeys," no scientist so claims. But one of the claims, from abundant evidence, is that all organisms living today are descended from earlier forms, and as one traces back each modern species' lineages they converge--there are common ancestors. Moreover, ToE predicts that fossils of a given age, 'X', cannot exceed a certain complexity, 'Y'; the usual example of this is, one cannot find a rabbit in pre-Cambrian sediments. To date, no fossil has been found which contradicts this theory; this is simply confirmation of geology's Law of Faunal Succession.
So, I was doing nothing more in my post #16 than correcting a misrepresentation of the ToE (the "why didn't monkeys evolve" stuff). ToE has an abundance of evidence to this effect. Your challenge (post #48) was if I regarded this as a "a statement of fact or theory?" The short answer is, evidence (the data) are facts, the theory the interpretion of those facts. To date, only the theory of evolution intelligibly interprets those facts; most of what is offered up as challenges to ToE are quibbles/denials of the published data.
Where on this thread, or on any other, has ToryHeartland asked for proof of anything?
Thank you for your cogent, well-reasoned, and persuasive reply.
No. It suggests that "Darwin's theory of evolution" as a grand continuum of micro changes over vast time scales is false.
Here is a quiz for you. What major hominid fossils were known, say in 1859, when Darwin's work was published?
err...the giant dung eating monkey man of up state New York and his buddies?
Can you give me an even approximate estimate?
4224.75 is the exact number.
His rhetorical questions prior to any real hominid finds do not accurately reflect the abundance of the fossils we have now, nor do they negate his theory.
Projection
Fact.
Thanks for making me brush up on it. You're right - he doesn't call it the "hopeful monster" - he calls it punctuated equilibrium. But still saying Darwin's theory of slow gradual incremental change was not coorect. Here's from an article he wrote found www.stephenjgould.org:
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record.
The entire article is very good. I am being very selective to be brief, but found the following interesting:
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target.
It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood.
It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. ......
But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them.
...... Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.
But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.
Eventually. But some theories die hard.
But religion is based on faith and the supernatural. And as such is nearly impossible to disprove.
There are major religions founded on prophecies that are way overdue. There's always some excuse.
Why am I thinking of Hal Lindsey?
I think a person
could make the case (though I won't)
mathematics is
the only science
and things like chemistry and
physics are only
specializations
or applications of math.
(But I like numbers.)
You and your buddies were around in 1859?
Wow, you never know what will turn up on FR!?
"I think a person
could make the case (though I won't)
mathematics is
the only science..."
They couldn't make a logical case for it. Math isn't science.
No.....they thought Darwin did believe in his theory. And whose own prediction didn't pan out. ergo his theory was falsefied. QED.
Alas, unless we know what the petroglyphs are telling us, they are just stones with marks on them and do not, in any way, constitute a "history", however slight that might be.
Agree with your point.
>>>Anyone in such profound denial about the last 150 years of biological science, who believes such a vast body of consistent data can be hand-waved away, is not really a good candidate to listen to anything that I might have to say.<<<
No offense, Tory, but your idea of a "vast body of consistent data" is laughable, to be kind. Of course, every scientist who disagrees with the myth of Evolution is "out of the mainstream", much like those who challenge the so-called "global warming is caused by people" myth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.