Regards,
Kevin
=================================================================
> Denis Lamoreux asked if I was the one who wrote the
>article about the transformed cladists. Yes, and my goodness,
>how time flies, for it came out ten years ago now. It was
>unpopular with the powers-that-be, I'm afraid. Anyway, I
>guess it's time for me to write another article.
> I was impressed with the transformed-cladist position that
>the pattern (of nature) is logically prior to process; the
>pattern is what we observe, as scientists. If we let go of our
>*assumptions* as to how this pattern was produced, then it
>turns out that we know very little about evolution; Colin
>Patterson said that we knew nothing at all, and Gary Nelson
>was pretty much of the same opinion.
> One of the intriguing points they made was that a lot of
>what we *thought* we knew about evolution depends on our
>continued use of bogus taxonomic categories--in particular
>groups that are defined by the *absence* of characters (a
>taxonomic fallacy that was identified by Aristotle). A good
>example is invertebrates. This is not a proper group in
>biology. Once groups like this are established in usage,
>however ("reptiles" are another, by the way), then it
>becomes easy to assert that we *know* certain things about
>evolution: that "vertebrates evolved from invertebrates,"
>for example. But as Patterson and Nelson tirelessly pointed
>out, this is a logically true statement masquerading as an
>empirical claim.
> The point can be understood by memorizing the sentence:
>"Cats evolved from non-cats, dogs evolved from non-dogs, and
>mice evolved from non-mice." Any number of additional animals
>could be added to the list. The sentence merely "unpacks" the
>meaning of "evolved from," while misleading us into thinking
>that paleontologists have gone out pickaxes, and have actually
>dug up the animals that were ancestral to cats, dogs and mice.
>They have done no such thing.
> I was impressed that top people at the American Museum of
>Natural History, and the British Museum, would say such things.
>Most people to this day know nothing about it. Walter ReMine has
>some good material on cladistics in his book, The Biotic
>Message. One of the problems with the cladists is that their
>writings are laden with technical jargon, and they have made no
>attempt to popularize their work; if anything they may have
>preferred not to antagonize the powers that be by doing so.
>A peaceful life is one of the rewards of near-unintelligibility.
> We should consider the priority of pattern over process in
>considering homology. A good example is the pentadactyl
>forelimb. Compare: Bat, whale, forelimb. We have all seen it.
>Something is obviously different, and yet obviously the same.
>The phrase "theme with variations" conveys the idea, and this
>in turn conveys Composer or . . . um . . . Designer.
> Homology is a fact of nature. It is also a fact of design.
>Is it evidence of evolution? If I could be sure that evolution
>really is a reality, maybe, but I am not sure that it is. All I
>can say for sure is that homology doesn't help us decide
>between evolution and design.
> Lamoureux says that I "ignore a number of us who believe that
>design can result through an evolutionary process." My question
>is: Since you believe in design, what need do you have of a
>random, unguided, accidental process? May I suggest that if you
>do have some good evidence for evolution, don't hide it under a
>bushel but bring it forth for our inspection. Then we can discuss
>that. I can understand why people who don't believe in God, or
>anything other than the material universe, believe in evolution:
>they don't have any choice, in a sense. But the evidence for
>evolution is itself so meager and unconvincing that it seems to me
>that someone who believes in a Designer should very easily be
>able to dispense with the hypothesis. Unless he thought that
>evidence very strong. But what is that evidence? I think we
>should be told.
> --Tom Bethell
>
Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE