Re: Don't forget about me! (distal vs. proximate)

From: M.B.Roberts (
Date: Wed Apr 18 2001 - 11:29:38 EDT

  • Next message: David F Siemens: "Re: Don't forget about me! (distal vs. proximate)"

    Dear Bob,

    Thanks for the comments.

    Gould is interesting on all this . in Bully for Brontosaurus he reckons
    Mivart was answered and in Dinosaur in a Haystack he has an essay on
    protowhales. However none of this challenges evolution.

    Further evolution is more than Darwin's theory and many evolutionists do not
    consider natural selection to be the only mechanism for evolution.

    What we clearly have is a succession of species which differ slightly over
    time ( e,g, horse and elephants to name two)

    Assuming that this is a fairly complete sequence the Intelligent Designer
    seemed to have adopted the same sequence of modifications as would be
    expected by evolution. This is exactly the point Darwin made in his 1844

    "I must premise that, according to the view ordinarily received, the myriads
    of organisms, which have during past and present times peopled this world,
    have been created by so many distinct acts of creation. . That all the
    organisms of this world have been produced on a scheme is certain from their
    general affinities; and if this scheme can be shown to be the same with that
    which would result from allied organic beings descending from common stocks,
    it becomes highly improbable that they have been separately created by
    individual acts of the will of a Creator. For as well might it be said that,
    although the planets move in courses conformably to the law of gravity, yet
    we ought to attribute the course of each planet to the individual act of the
    will of the Creator."

    If evolution did not occur then why do fossil sequences occur as one might
    expect them to if evolution had occured.

    (Please note there is difference of evolution as a historical inference
    from the fossil record and evolution as giving a mechanism on how it

    Is there any more serious criticism?



    > In a message dated 4/17/01 7:10:35 AM,
    > << Please list the serious criticism of the theory of evolution.
    > Until I know what this serious criticism is I cannot see what the problem
    > Michael >>
    > Michael,
    > The longest running criticism of Darwin's theory is by St. Georges Mivart,
    > and is called Mivart's dilemma. Shortly after the publication of
    > Mivart stated that natural selection is incompetent to account for
    > stages of useful structures. Take for example, the case of the whale
    > transition from a small terrestrial mammal to a large aquatic one. The
    > lineage had to pass through many incipient stages in which there were
    > legs nor flippers. The criticism is how natural selection would ever get
    > started and continue changing presumably well adapted legs, through
    > stages that were neither legs nor flippers and less well adapted than the
    > legs, and into future useful flippers.
    > Gould, by the way, stated that Mivartt's criticism has never been
    > been answered. Gould did not try to challenge it either. It has just
    > ignored.
    > Using the same example, no paleontologist that I know of, has seriously
    > addressed the problem of how random mutations (with respect to the future)
    > selected by the environment could produce the many, many coordinated
    > that had to take place in this transition. While the fossil record
    > reveals that the transition took place, the mechanism of natural selection
    > woefully inadequate to account for it, in my opinion and that of others.
    > I have mentioned the problem of the aging of species, and species death.
    > Research on species aging was effectively terminated by Simpson, as I
    > mentioned in my previous post. To admit the problem of phyletic aging into
    > the arena challenges the Darwinian paradigm because it introduces a family
    > causal change agents that is independent of the paradigm and operates on
    > different biological processes, namely developmental processes. There are
    > studies conducted by evolutionary biologists and paleontologists that can
    > better interpreted with concepts of aging than with evolutionary ones of
    > adaptation. I have written briefly on this topic in PSCF. Unfortunately
    > cannot be more specific on references since my library is packed away
    while I
    > am making a permanent relocation in Grand Rapids.
    > I hope this helps in a small way.
    > Bob

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 18 2001 - 12:21:19 EDT