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.
It has become depressingly evident that your definition of "a scholarly book" makes Worlds In Collision and Earth In The Balance look like Principia Mathematica and The Wealth Of Nations.
Correct! I've said this before! Evolution does not assign moral value. Evolution does not care whether species thrive or face extinction. It's just a descriptor for a process!
8-) Right. That the "stronger," the superior, survive.
Does an explanation of how rain occurs state whether it is good or bad for you to get wet? Does it state whether flooding is a good or a bad thing? Then why do we attempt to scientifically study flooding? Does it state whether it's good or bad for crops to dry out and die during a drought?
Then why do we attempt to scientifically study weather and flooding? That the information derived from the study of these things is good and useful to people is assumed in the practice of scientific study.
OK, "creatures that survive" are "better adapted" than other creatures. In other words, they are superior to other creatures in their adaptation.
Yes, but only for their given environment. Change the environmental factors and you can drastically change which species are "superior" and which ones are history.
So evolutionary superiority is dependent on environment. So what? The species that survives in fact is indeed superior. In the deterministic evolutionary universe, there only exists what is, not what might be. The future is as determined and fixed as the past.
There is no futurabilia in the deterministic universe of evolutionary theory. Everything must occur the way that it does. The species that survives must be better adapted than the species that don't survive. Period.
1) Evolution does not postulate a deterministic universe.
Really? So God could have engaged in some form of Special Creation? Miracles are possible?
2) The species that survives does so because it is able to survive in its given environment. This is typically because it has physical traits that give it an advantage in finding food and reproducing. But this only works so long as the environment remains favourable to their physical makeup. Environments can change, and when they change, the species that were well-adapted for the previous environment might not be so fortunate in the new one.
How does this square with the actual fossil record which exhibits as a rule the fact that species appear in the fossil record fully formed and disappear from the fossil record thousands or millions of years later the same way?
Stop introducing the absolute concept of a "perfect" species.
Where did I say that?
Evolution speaks of no such thing. Sharks do quite well in the ocean, and chimpanzees do quite well in trees. They are thus well adapted for their environments, but neither would survive at all in the other's environment. Given that fact, you cannot say that one is "better" than the other from the standpoint of evolution.
8-) But you just said that "chimpanzees do quite well in trees." The term "well" denotes a value judgment. Is this value judgment a part of evolutionary theory?
"The chimpanzee is better adapted to tree living than the shark." Is this statement a legitimate statement in evolutionary theory?
The species that survives is superior. This isn't a relativistic statement, it is a definition at the core of evolutionary theory.
It is relativistic.
How is survival relative. As far as I can see, a species either survives or it doesn't.
The species that survives is "superior" for a given environment. Change the environment, and they might not be as able to survive. Sharks are the 'king' of the oceans. In an oceanic environment, chimpanzees would die out. Are sharks therefore superior to chimpanzees?
My point is that those species that survive are superior to those species that do not survive. Would you agree with this?
Is this statement a valid statement of evolutionary theory?
The implications of this doctrine regarding genocide are obvious.
No, this is a very particular definition. "Superior" in this case (evolutionary theory) refers to creatures who survive.
It refers to creatures who survive in a given environment. There are multiple, wildly varying, types of environments out there. Superiority in one might well be inferiority in another.
OK, so can we agree that in evolutionary theory some species are superior to other species with respect to their ability to survive in a given environment?
Did the Nazis ("Aryans") relative ability to survive in the "given environment" of 1944 Europe make them superior to the Jews under evolutionary theory?
Before their execution, they are superior. After their execution, they aren't superior. Which means that, in the long run, they lose out. That's really all that counts.
Define "the long run." In 1944, "the long run" was Nazi superiority. In 2004, "the long run" is Jewish superiority. In 2050, "the long run" may be Nazi superiority. So what meaning is contained in the evolutionary term "survival" when it is completely dependent upon time?
So survival superiority is dependent upon chronology.
It's dependent on environmental factors.
See argument above.
Environments can change over time. A species that creates a situation that causes the environment to change to their detriment is ultimately not going to survive. Genocidal maniacs tend to work to create an environment where ultimately they are overthrown and executed, therefore genocidal maniacs tend to behave in a fashion that is ultimately detrimental for their survival.
LOL! Tell that to the Jews in 1944, or the Russian people living under Josef Stalin.
In fact, survival superiority is so dependent upon time that it is meaningless, except in cases of complete extinction of a species. And then, who's to say that, under evolutionary theory, that the extinct species will not arise again?
Evolution theory doesn't say that extinct species will not rise again. Genetics suggests that such things are unlikely, however.
So then we can never know with any kind of certainty that any species has more or less of a survival advantage in a given environment than any other species. "Survival" under this evolutionary rubric has no practical meaning. Of what scientific value is the theory then?
Lions wipe out a species of deer and this is called evolution.
That's not evolution. That's the removal of a species.
Well, wasn't the lion better adapted to survive in its given environment?
For evolution to occur, alelle frequencies must change over time. If the species is wiped out, that won't be happening.
Again, as I said above, ow does this square with the actual fossil record which exhibits as a rule the fact that species appear in the fossil record fully formed and disappear from the fossil record thousands or millions of years later the same way?
One race of people wipes out another race of people and this is called "mass-murder."
Do you not like this definition?
Yet people are also supposed to have evolved, just like deer and lions. This is a contradiction.
You've not explained how one group of people deliberately wiping out another group of people is evolution.
"Yes, but only for their given environment. Change the environmental factors and you can drastically change which species are 'superior' and which ones are history." A species that survives in a given environment is superior to the species that does not, correct?
You've also not explained what your ultimate point is.
The Nazis survived in the given environment of 1944 Germany whereas the Jews did not. Therefore, in 1944, the Nazis could judge themselves to be superior to the Jews under the evolutionary rubric.
Theology is not a "science" at all, unless it has started to make testable predictions about God. (In fact, converting Christian or Jewish theology as a science is, strictly speaking, impossible -- the attempt would violate the prohibition against "tempting [testing] the Lord thy God".)
i never once said temperature IS energy. i said it MEASURES energy. ask almost any chemistry teacher, they will tell you, "energy" is a more prefered way than saying "heat" because it is more correct.
what we percieve as "heat" is relative to the amount of energy released. the more energy, the more heat. heat is, however, energy, and with that energy, we can use it not only for heat properties, but for light, arcing, and of course, nuclear reactions as well.
the faster the molcules move (energy) the more enegry is produces. plasma is a super-excited gas. all plasma releases light, but this is not shown if you simply call it "heat"
moreso, the mercury in barometers isn't showing "heat" it is showing how much it expands in a vacuum when energy transfers to it.
a closer and more correct (yet wrong in conclusion) way to say it would have been "grams doesn't measure moles"
if you know what it is you are measuring, yes it does.
Ah ... genuinely funny. Well done!
Yes. What does it mean? What is its defining principle?
Does free will exist in the evolutionary universe?
Really? So God could have engaged in some form of Special Creation? Miracles are possible?
The Theory of Evolution does not rule out such events.
Your theory of evolution doesn't, which is good. But most evolutionists are materialists.
How does this square with the actual fossil record which exhibits as a rule the fact that species appear in the fossil record fully formed and disappear from the fossil record thousands or millions of years later the same way?
Because it is possible for an environment to remain relatively unchanged for millions of years, to the point where the creature is already doing quite well with its existing physical makeup.
But the fossil record shows this to be the case with every discovered species.
It's an implication when speaking of an absolutely "superior" species above all others. If a species is "superior" to all others, and such a definition of superiority is absolute rather than relative, then there is an implication that there is a "perfect" species, one that is ultimately superior to all others.
Except I never said that one species is superior to all others under evolutionary theory. I've said that evolutionary theory claims that any species that survives is superior to any species does not.
I now know that, according to you, evolutionary theory claims that a species that survives in a given environment is superior to a species that does not survive in the same environment, depending on the time at which you assess that one species has done survived better than another.
By "well" I mean that individuals within the species continue to survive, reproduce and continue the species through successive generations. From a purely scientific standpoint, this is neither good nor bad, it simply 'is'.
...is better at survival. Is better adapted to living in a given environment.
"The chimpanzee is better adapted to tree living than the shark." Is this statement a legitimate statement in evolutionary theory?
Are you suggesting that sharks could survive and reproduce in the same environment as chimpanzees?
No, I'm asking whether the statement is a legitimate statement in evolutionary theory. Is it?
I didn't say that survival was relative, I said that superiority is relative.
In a given environment, the species that survives is superior to the species that doesn't. Correct?
Yes, but I would be forced to add the qualifier that they are only superior "for their given environment". A relative superiority only.
Yes. And in the "given environment" of 1944 Germany, the Nazis were superior to the Jews, since they "out-survived" them.
The implications of this doctrine regarding genocide are obvious.
1) It's not a doctrine, it's just a definition.
Yes, a supposed "fact of science."
2) Yes, the implications regarding genocide are obvious: it does not in any way support genocide.
Again, in the given environment of 1944 Germany, the Nazis out-survived the Jews. In the evolutionary universe, the predations of the Nazis are equivalent to the predations of any other species. In fact, like everything else, their acts are ultimately reducible to matter in motion.
Did the Nazis ("Aryans") relative ability to survive in the "given environment" of 1944 Europe make them superior to the Jews under evolutionary theory?
It made them superior for a Nazi-created environment.
They didn't "create an environment" any more than the lion devouring his prey "creates an environment." Under evolutionary theory, the actions are equivalent.
So yes, there is a conditional temporary superiority.
How would you know that the superiority would be temporary in 1944?
This doesn't mean that, from a universal standpoint, they are superior to the Jews, however.
What's "a universal standpoint." Where is it located in the evolutionary universe?
They specifically crafted an environment that was hostile to Jews, and thus Jews started having a lower survival rate, so from a survival rate, Jews were "inferior" in that they could not survive in an environment that was specifically designed to be hostile to them.
Just like the spider and the fly. The lion and his prey.
A number of dishonest creationists will use this to claim that evolution "vindicates" the Nazis by "proving" that the Nazis were the superior race. The argument is total crap.
Really? Didn't they do a better job of surviving in a given generation?
The Nazis created the environment specifically to remove the Jews...
Don't all predatory species do this?
...thus the "superiorty" was self-defined and -- as I have been saying all along -- purely relative.
What is "self-defined superiority"?
If you create an environment that is hostile to a specific group, it's not surprising to watch that group start to fail to survive.
Certainly not under evolutionary theory. That's how we got here, right? "Survival of the fittest" and all that.
That's not proof of absolute inferiority, it's just proof that the group is in a hostile environmet.
So the Jews were relatively inferior in a given environment. This is your understanding of evolutionary theory, yes?
Define "the long run."
The ultimate outcome of their actions.
8-) You're beggging the question. What's the definition of the "ultimate outcome"?
In 1944, "the long run" was Nazi superiority.
So in 1944, the "ultimate outcome" was Nazi superiority. Could Hitler have argued that given your definition above?
In 2004, "the long run" is Jewish superiority.
Which came about, in part at least, as a reaction to the efforts of the Nazis, which would seem to indicate that their efforts were self-defeating.
In 2050, "the long run" may be Nazi superiority.
Okay. What events would lead to such an outcome?
A few nuclear bombs dropped on Israel.
So what meaning is contained in the evolutionary term "survival" when it is completely dependent upon time? The ability to carry on genes to successive generations instead of not being able to reproduce effectively enough to keep the genes passed on to future descendents...
So in 1944, which group, the Jews or the Nazis, were better able to pass on their genes?
Of course, Nazism is more than just genetics. A lot more. Same with Judiasm.
In reality, yes. In the universe of materialistic evolution, no.
So evolution doesn't really apply very well at all.
Your theory of evolution is different from the dominant materialist evolutionary view.
LOL! Tell that to the Jews in 1944, or the Russian people living under Josef Stalin.
I can't. It's not 1944 anymore, and Josef Stalin has been dead for years. Behold the fruits of the efforts of the Nazis and the communists of the USSR.
Do you have a point here?
Any current repressive regime, or any regime that engages in genocide can claim, under the dominant evolutinary rubric, that their actions represent evolution in progress, a simple fact of nature.
The Nazis survived in the given environment of 1944 Germany whereas the Jews did not. Therefore, in 1944, the Nazis could judge themselves to be superior to the Jews under the evolutionary rubric.
They could only judge themselves "superior" with respect to the very environment that they created with the intention of establishing superiority. A relativistic and very narrow definition of "superior".
Nevertheless, a real superiority under the evolutionary rubric.
"Once again, evolution does not lead to genocide. Evolution does not justify genocide. The only way to make evolution justify genocide is to twist the theory into something that is no longer science."
you are mostly correct here.
we have inductive and deductive reasoning going on at this point. deductive reasoning of evolution does NOT excuse genocide. however, inductive reasoning from genocide claims evolution.
The existence of molecules (or any tiny particles) produces Brownian motion and thus precludes prediction. This is in addition to any instance of chaos. Determinism is not equivalent to predictability.
Torpid placemarker.
Turgid-but-quiescent placemarker.
An I must be a nut for wanting to read this thread bump
Enervated but watchful placemarer.
Somebody need to tell the eminent scientist that he's gonna be 99 tomorrow. I always thought that 2nd grade math was a pre-requisite for a PHD. Maybe I'm wrong.
The text says "100th birthday", not 100 years old. His first birthday was when he was 0 years old and freshly popped out O' the womb. On his 2nd birthday he was one year old.
PH, it is obvious that something more than chemistry is going on. If I might try to explain this elusive point, chemical effects seem to be quite local phenomena that occur at the molecular level. But an astronomically complex thing like a human body has a virtually uncountable plethora of parts, all of which must work together in synergy in order for the organism to exist as a living system. There is nothing in the laws of chemistry of which I am aware that can account for this ordered complexity that must exist for life to emerge and maintain itself.
This is not "dice-loading," this is a simple observation. From the purely scientific standpoint, it is really a matter of little consequence that I happen to believe that God created the universe which, thus, had a beginning in time. Or that I believe that God did not set up a random, accidental system, but had a purpose in view which has been evolving from the beginning, towards a goal for mankind and the universe.
Whether or not my belief is true, the "facts on the ground" would still be the same: The laws of chemistry, together with all known fundamental physical laws, do not possess the "information content" necessary to explain the vastly greater information content needed to coordinate all the activity that goes on at the atomic, molecular, cellular, and organic levels necessary to the emergence, coordination, and sustenance of even the simplest living organism.
Perhaps these lines from Dean Overman (Op. cit.), referencing the thought of Michael Polyani, might shed the necessary light for you to grasp this point:
"The structure of machines and their workings are made by human beings and are not the random results of physical or chemical laws, even though their material and forces obey those laws. The design, shape, and operation of the machines are not due to physical and chemical forces and cannot be explained only by chemical and physical laws. Polyani noted that the workings of a living organism have been compared to the workings of machines with physiology interpreting the organism as a complex network of mechanisms. For example, the various organs of the body such as the stomach and liver function in a manner similar to a machine. As a machine can never be reduced to the laws of physics and chemistry, so a living organism can never be reduced to these laws. In his words, 'when I say that life transcends physics and chemisitry, I mean that biology cannot explain life in our age by the current workings of physical and chemical laws.' It is interesting to note that once Polyani discovered his irreducible principles, he concluded that consciousness could never be reduced to physics and chemistry. But, again, once it is recognized...that life transcends physics and chemistry, there is no reason for suspending recognition of the obvious fact that consciousness is a principle that fundamentally transcends not only physics but also the mechanistic principles of living beings." [itals added]
IOW, to build a machine you have to "add intelligence" to the physical components in order for its structure to come together in such a way as to serve the purpose for which the machine was designed. Therefore, life is more than physical components; and "intelligence" is a property of consciousness (or sentience), which itself is a feature of all living beings to some degree.
The truly great mystery, for me, is consciousness itself. For consciousness is not only not subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, it appears in a certain sense to transcend them altogether. We know it is strongly associated with physical life; Christians believe, however, that it is not dependent on physical life, in the sense that it survives physical death.
But I probably shouldn't have mentioned this last here, as it is not directly germane to the issues you have raised quoted at the top of this reply, and probably unnecessarily complicates the picture I am trying to convey.
Thanks for writing, Patrick.
p.s.: BTW, I am still not a creationist....
The text says "100th birthday", not 100 years old. His first birthday was when he was 0 years old and freshly popped out O' the womb. On his 2nd birthday he was one year old.
Be that as it may, he was actually born in 1904, not 1905, and really will be 100 years old -- the reporter made a typo.
If it was all that obvious, there would be no disagreement on it. Or it could be pointed out with certainty. Or it could be measured.
I am afraid this obvious point appears to exist only in your mind.
Ah, BB ... we do have our little disagreements. But this is a big one, and we've both nibbled at it from time to time, without ever reaching any common agreement. You are assuming, incorrectly I think, that the whole is nothing more than a collection of its parts, and cannot naturally have properties which are different from them separately. In logic, this is known as a "category error", discussed (among many other places) HERE (you gotta scroll down about half way to find it).
Permit me to give you some quotes from Stephen J. Gould [gasp!] which come from this website: HERE
The primary fallacy of this argument has been recognized from the inception of this hoary debate. "Arising from" does not mean "reducible to," for all the reasons embodied in the old cliche that a whole can be more than the sum of its parts. To employ the technical parlance of two fields, philosophy describes this principle by the concept of "emergence," while science speaks of "nonlinear" or "nonadditive" interaction. In terms of building materials, a new entity may contain nothing beyond its constituent parts, each one of fully known composition and operation. But if, in forming the new entity, these constituent parts interact in a "nonlinear" fashion—that is, if the combined action of any two parts in the new entity yields something other than the sum of the effect of part one acting alone plus the effect of part two acting alone — then the new entity exhibits "emergent" properties that cannot be explained by the simple summation of the parts in question. Any new entity that has emergent properties — and I can't imagine anything very complex without such features—cannot, in principle, be explained by (reduced to) the structure and function of its building blocks.Please note that this definition of "emergence" includes no statement about the mystical, the ineffable, the unknowable, the spiritual, or the like—although the confusion of such a humdrum concept as nonlinearity with this familiar hit parade has long acted as the chief impediment to scientific understanding and acceptance of such a straightforward and commonsensical phenomenon. [snip]
I can't think of an earthly phenomenon more deeply intricate (for complex reasons of evolutionary mechanism and historical contingency)—and therefore more replete with nonlinear interactions and emergent features—than the human brain. [snip]
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.