Posted on 07/04/2004 5:19:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Professor Ernst Mayr, the scientist renowned as the father of modern biology, will celebrate his 100th birthday tomorrow by leading a scathing attack on creationism.
The evolutionary biologist, who is already acclaimed as one of the most prolific researchers of all time, has no intention of retiring and is shortly to publish new research that dismantles the fashionable creationist doctrine of “intelligent design”.
Although he has reluctantly cut his workload since a serious bout of pneumonia 18 months ago, Prof. Mayr has remained an active scientist at Harvard University throughout his 90s. He has written five books since his 90th birthday and is researching five academic papers. One of these, scheduled to appear later this year, will examine how “intelligent design” — the latest way in which creationists have sought to present a divine origin of the world — was thoroughly refuted by Charles Darwin a century and a half ago.
His work is motivated in part by a sense of exasperation at the re-emergence of creationism in the USA, which he compares unfavourably with the widespread acceptance of evolution that he encountered while growing up in early 20th-century Germany.
The states of Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky and Oklahoma currently omit the word “evolution” from their curriculums. The Alabama state board of education has voted to include disclaimers in textbooks describing evolution as a theory. In Georgia, the word “evolution” was banned from the science curriculum after the state’s schools superintendent described it as a “controversial buzzword”.
Fierce protest, including criticism from Jimmy Carter, the former President, reversed this.
Prof. Mayr, who will celebrate his 100th birthday at his holiday home in New Hampshire with his two daughters, five grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren, was born on 5 July 1905 in Kempten, Germany. He took a PhD in zoology at the University of Berlin, before travelling to New Guinea in 1928 to study its diverse bird life. On his return in 1930 he emigrated to the USA. His most famous work, Systematics and the Origin of Species, was published in 1942 and is regarded still as a canonical work of biology.
It effectively founded the modern discipline by combining Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel’s genetics, showing how the two were compatible. Prof. Mayr redefined what scientists mean by a species, using interbreeding as a guide. If two varieties of duck or vole do not interbreed, they cannot be the same species.
Prof. Mayr has won all three of the awards sometimes termed the “triple crown” of biology — the Balzan Prize, the Crafoord Prize and the International Prize for Biology. Although he formally retired in 1975, he has been active as an Emeritus Professor ever since and has recently written extensively on the philosophy of biology.
Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I.
The Myths of Human Evolution 1982, p. 45-46
Which theory of evolution is correct, punctuated equilibria or gradualism?
Both, as neither contradicts the other, but rather compliments it. Why is it so difficult for creationists to wrap their minds around such concepts? Do y'all exist in an either-or universe?
Both... or ... three (Random/neutral genetic drift)... or four ... or ...
He also virtually anticipated punctuated equilibrium.
Your understanding includes so many misunderstandings and outright lies that it is worthless for the purpose of argument.
When it has been shown that you manufactured a false and deceptive quote, you respond that the falsehood was part of your understanding. What God do you worship that requires falsehood?
There's a difference between the fossil record "not containing every transitional form that ever lived" and a fossil record that uniformly exhibits stasis within species.
Since fossils are by definition, how are they supposed to be anything but static? You demand transitionals between ancient ape fossils and modern humans, and transitionals are found. You demand transitionals between land animals and whales, and transitionals are found. You demand transitionals between reptilians and birds, and feathered dinosaurs are found. All of these are consistent with the predictions of Darwin.
Please note that the knife used in the OJ Simpson murders has never been found. It would be consistent with most people's understanding that this knife once existed. That knife may never be found, but the belief in the existence of that knife is not a religious belief. It is a rational extrapolation of evidence.
Evolution is a forensic science. It uses the same tools and same lines of reasoning that are used to send murders to their execution. It is not without problems, but is every bit as rational and sound as the science used to find and convict criminals.
In denying the validity of biological science, are you prepared to open the prison doors for every criminal convicted without a confession?
What methods of travel are correct: planes, trains, boats, or automobiles?
These threads are probably what it's like being an Army drill instructor, specializing in the first week of basic training. Every Monday morning (or, in this analogy, every new thread) you just stand there in amazement, watching as the long-haired lard-buckets tumble out of the Greyhound busses at the reception station, shaking your head, wondering if there's any hope for the nation.
But the truly amazing thing is that the same recruits keep showing up, cycle after cycle, showing no improvement at all. So, Sergeant Vade, we just have to keep kicking their butts and hoping for the best.
Darwin: "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." -- IOW Natural selection is indispensable to my theory.
Talk origins ---- Studies of evolution at the molecular level have provided strong support for drift as a major mechanism of evolution. Observed mutations at the level of gene are mostly neutral and not subject to selection.
Neutral variations are not subject to selection by definition. The statement that neutral mutations are not subject to selection is a tautology. The fact that neutral mutations exist simply expands the gene pool. There is no way of knowing in advance what environmental changes might, in a future time, give one of these "neutral" variations a selective anvantage. You don't know in advance which basket of eggs will be dropped.
What possible connection is there between the two quotes you presented? Are you trolling for responses, or is there some new form of the English language that I'm unfamiliar with?
666 implies "Anti" in Balrog666.
I'm a little suprised you missed that. I hope AAA has lug nuts. :-)
Well, Darwin claims that natural selection is indispensable for his theory. Genetic evidence demonstrates that it is not necessary. There is an incompatibility between the theories, something that is claimed does not exist.
To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.It's item #18, found HERE.
-- Albert Einstein
I assume that was addressed to me. You know, that joke gives me hope that the graduates of church schools that I see at the MacDonalds counter have some flexibility in their career choices. They can at least change tires at Goodyear.
In my book (Bible), there's nothing wrong with someone earning an honest living. A person's character bears all of the significance, and to gain character, alignment is critical.
You are generally much smarter than this. I suggest you have a cup of coffeee and reread the first Darwin quote. He is saying that if selection worked against the interests of the individual (for the benefit of others), it would be a problem for evolution. He says nothing about the possibility of neutral changes.
Of course, an observer who is not pig-headed might note that some species evolve as a group, and individuals cannot reproduce successfully in the absense of large numbers. In such species (say passenger pigeons) selection will change the individual as it relates to the group.
Something similar might be said of parasites. The strongest and most vigorous individual might kill its host and endanger its own chance to reproduce. But you know these things. You are merely pulling our chains.
You don't need to defend your personal career choice with me. Changing tires is an honorable profession, and fully utilizes your understanding of the world.
Yep, two men died recently. One, who had a long and happy life, acknowledged God and was honored by a state funeral, the other, who had a long life filled with tragedy, did not acknowledge God and was cremated secretly.
I blame it on that crowd with which you insist upon running.
Well, I suggest you read his quote properly. This is what he states ---> for such could not have been produced through natural selection. He rejects something because it could not be reproduced through natural selection. That makes natural selection absolutely necessary for his theory.
And your comments are nonsensical. Individuals do not evolve(in biological terms). Talk about smarts and changing tires.
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.