On Fri, 9 Feb 96 09:31:12 MST you wrote:
[...]
JF>In addition to the claims about evolution, there was also some
>ill-feeling about whether Sunderland had committed an ethical breach in
>distributing an account of a private talk.
[...]
This doesn't hold water. Read Sunderland's book. It was quite clear
that Patterson must have known that what he was writing was intended
for publication. Sunderland actually followed it up later with a
personal taped interview:
"In his interview several months later, Dr. Patterson was asked to
elaborate, "You stated in your letter that there are no transitions.
Do you know of any good ones?" He replied, "No, I don't, not that I
would try to support. No." Throughout the interview he denied having
transitional fossil candidates for each specific gap between the major
different groups. He said that there are kinds of change in forms
taken in isolation but there are none of these sequences that people
like to build up. Putting it as a question, he said, "If you ask,
'What is the evidence for continuity?' you would have to say, 'There
isn't any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between
them is in the mind."'
Did he "know of any documented evolution going on today in the macro
sense where we're looking for a new structure that previously did not
exist-like an arm forming?" He answered, "No, not of an arm forming,
not in the macro sense." Then he was asked, "Then you know of no
structure that you could classify as developing and not fully
functional?" Reply: "No." It was noted that some authors are
claiming that there is no real evolution going on today other than
minor variations like the shift in coloration in moths. He said that
he would have to agree; he did not know of any either. What did he
see as the biggest problem with the concept of evolution? He said
that it was a philosophical problem. People seem to find the evidence
they are looking for. He did not think it was possible to find the
answer to origins in science: "There are solutions to problems in
science but I don't think this is science we are talking about, I
think it's history." With this perceptive statement there can be no
rational argument."
(Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems",
Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, revised edition, 1988, p90)
Regards.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------