>Glenn quotes Scott Gilbert
>>
>>"Despite the enormous amount of research that has been performed on amphibian
>>embryos, we still do not know the basic mechanisms of primary embryonic
>>induction. One reason for this confusion may be that different groups of
>>amphibians could use different means for arriving at the same outcome."
>>Developmental Biology, (Sunderland: Sinauer Assoc. 1991, p. 305
>>
>>By the logic above, if we don't know the mechanism, then I guess that
>>amphibians really don't go through embryogenesis. My point is that lack of
>>knowledge of a mechanism is not ipso facto disproof of the event.
>
>Glenn. All embryos go through a cycle of development. This is observable.
>We have not *observed* evolution, we have only *inferred* it, and I can
>back that up with literally HUNDREDS of quotes from some of the most
>distinguished scientists (and a good number of them evolutionists) who
>have graced this planet. We don't know, can't describe or define the
>mechansim of evolution, nor can we compellingly establish it as something
>which really took place. This you cannot do. All you can do is establish
>what *must have*, *might have*, *almost certainly did*, *experts agree*,
>*most likely*,
>
>
>>Kevin wrote:
>>>>>There is an emotional commitment among scientists which, in
>>>my view, disqualifies them to render the final word in what they
>>>bring to the table. Too many of them see (as all humans do)
>>>what they want to see. As Phil said in his book Darwin on Trial,
>>>*Descriptions of fossils from people who yearn to cradle their
>>>ancestors in their hands ought to be scrutinized as carefully as
>>>a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother* (p. 81)
>>>and *only an audit performed by persons not committed in
>>>advance to the hypothesis under investigation can tell us whether
>>>the evidence has any value as confirmation* (p. 83)<<
>>
>>This sounds like what Jimmy Carter did in the late 70's with the energy
>>department. If you knew anything about energy, i.e., had ever worked in the
>>oil industry, he considered you unfit to work in the energy department. The
>>only ones he would hire were those who knew nothing about energy. As a
>>result, we got a mess. How can those who are unknowledgeable in a given
>>scientific field know enough to judge the data? I don't know what your
>>company produces as a product, but would you think it a fine idea to let me
>>judge what and how you do your work? Or should I know too much, how about my
>>16-year-old. I am sure he has not the foggiest idea what you do for a
>>living.
>
>Come on Glenn. Asking Leakey to tell us about our ancestors is about
>as fair as asking O.J. Simpson's family to be on his jury (or would you
>beg to differ?). It's no different. We have three branches of government
>for same doggone reasons. So please, spare me and the rest of us any
>rationalization on this point. I'm asking for some assurance of objectivity
>and THIS is what you come up with? This is why we expect political
>figures to sometimes divest themselves of their financial investments
>in industries where there could be a perceived conflict of interest. Both
>Norman Macbeth and Phil Johnson (both attorneys!!!) have made a
>very valuable contribution to this issue. I never
>said the evidence should be assessed by someone who has no
>knowledge of the subject. What I AM getting at is a point I must assume
>that you missed altogether, and that is, IMPARTIALITY. You don't HAVE
>to be a paleontologist to make some good observations. You CAN have
>impartiality ONLY when there is no vested interest at stake which would
>benefit those who are in a position of influence to lobby for a position.
>That's my point.
>
>I think I'm on PRETTY solid ground here...
>
>As for what I do for a living Glenn, I put it up for all the world to see every
>single day. So yeah, go ahead, send your 16-year old to my website at:
>
>http://www.accessone.com/~kwirth
>
>Tell me what he says about it, or better yet, have him send me an email
>telling me what he thinks and I'll post it with all the other comments that
>I have already posted from people who have visited that site.
>
>And for your information, I put my ideas out there for critiquing by over 100
>crime analysts all over the country in another ongoing daily forum just like
>this one. I get butt kicked regularly -- but you know what? I SOUGHT
>THEM OUT, because I know that if I want to be critiqued by anyone, I want
>to be critiqued by THAT group, among others.
>
>>That is fine. A person has every right to whatever opinion they want. My
>>suggestion as a friend is try to steer them away from geology.
>
>No -- I don't think steering them AWAY from geology is the answer,
>Glenn. I think the answer lies in seeking how to investigate the
>evidence of geology and find out what else *might have* happened.
>
>PS - Does anyone on this list know of a Dr. Henry (Hank) Voss?
>Anyone know where he is? I'll put his *scientific* acumen up for
>evaluation for the group. I'm trying to locate him. I know he was
>associated at one time with a University in Illinois, and spent at
>least 10 years living in Santa Clara county, where I know he was
>up until 2 years ago.
>
>Kevin wrote:
>>>>3) The activities of fossil man. Well -- looks like I need to do some
>>more homework here, but I'll throw this one out to the group. Russel
>>Wallace, one of the founding fathers of evolution, stated that *Natural
>>selection could only have endowed savage man with a brain a few degrees
>>superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one very little
>>inferior to that of a philosopher" (Natural Selection and Tropical Nature,
>>London: MacMillan, 1895, pg. 202).
>
>>Considering that the data Wallace had at his disposal compared to what has
>>been found today, I would think that a 100 year old opinion by Wallace might
>>be considered a little out of date to support an apologetical position.
>
>Nah. I'll argue that one too Glenn. How about this (from an evolutionist no
>less!):
>
>*Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the
>fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a
>million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record
>of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, WE HAVE EVEN
>FEWER EXAMPLES OF EVOLUTIONARY TRANSITION THAN WE
>HAD IN DARWIN'S TIME.* [caps are mine (kw)]
>
>(Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of
>Natural History Bulletin, Jan. 1979 p. 22)
>
>Actually Glenn, what we find in the fossil record is NOT evidence of
>evolution at all, but rather we find overwhelming evidence of STASIS
>for every single life form, and for long periods of time. Fossils of this
>or that lifeform appear and disappear as the same type of critter, and
>we have no idea who their ancestors were. I find this so ironic, since
>evolution postulates CHANGE. As Eldredge and Tattersall have
>said,
>
>*...the most obvious single fact about biological evolution -- nonchange --
>has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone's scientific notions
>of how life actually evolves. If ever there was a myth, it is that evolu-
>tion is a process of constant change*
>
>(Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution 3 (1982)
>
>This is right on the money.
>
>Without change, and evidence of HOW those changes took place
>then all we are left with is endless speculation. That won't cut the
>mustard for me. It certainly is NOT compelling.
>
>I almost hate to bring this up, but, you know -- there is a parallel
>here with the OJ Simpson trial. 9 out of 10 people told me that
>they thought O.J. was absolutely positively guilty. How could the
>jury think otherwise? Didn't they see the evidence? Wasn't it
>clear to almost EVERYone? There is a definite parallel here.
>
>So Glenn, what else have you got for me?
>
>
>
>
>
========================
Kevin Wirth
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027
(206) 391-3698 Voice
(206) 392-0192 FAX