On Wed, 20 Mar 96 13:51:18 MST you wrote:
[...]
JF>Dodson, after receiving a full copy of Patterson's speech, admitted
that
>Sunderland's quotes were representative of the whole speech, and
>inconsistent with Patterson's recent book. He did have some
>reservations about the transcript, and wrote to Patterson asking whether
>the transcript was reasonably accurate, and "does it represent your
>current thinking on the subject?".
>
>Patterson replied that the transcript was "garbled and nonsensical in
>places...but I think it is roughly accurate.". "He replies to the
>second question with a categorical "No."
I am still trying to get a copy of this 1981 transcript of Patterson's
address to the American Natural History Museum. Do you (or anyone on
the Reflector) know where I can get it?
JF>He had thought that he was
>talking only to a group of professional systematists and he was
>deliberately presenting a viewpoint calculated to provoke discussion.
>He refers to "infiltration by creationists" and to "surreptitious use of
>tape recorders." His conclusion is that "treating evolutionary theory
>as axiomatic has not been beneficial in systematics, but I am in no way
>a creationist, and have no respect for the views or arguments of the
>creationist lobby." Dodson later adds "One further comment: Patterson
>refers to "surreptitious use of tape recorders." Evidently, Sunderland
>did not ask for permission to record the seminar."
>
>Howe got into quite a snit over that letter, seeming, for no apparent
>reason, to take it as a personal affront. He did add that, according to
>Sunderland, Sunderland had not attended or taped the Patterson talk, but
>got the tape from one of two people who had taped it. He suggested that
>instead of finding out what Patterson really meant, Dobson and
>evolutionists in general should address the "weighty problems" that
>Patterson had raised.
I think there is confusion here. Sunderland, as is normal practice,
tape
recorded his personal interviews with Patterson and other curators of
natural history museums. I think Dodson is getting that confused with
that. In fact I cannot see in Sunderland's book "Darwin's Enigma"
where
he even mentions Patterson's 1981 address to the AMNH!
JF>Dodson replied and retracted his suggestion that Sunderland might
have
>been at fault, but maintained (correctly, I think) that it had been a
>reasonable question. He agreed, in a later letter, with Patterson's
How can it be " a reasonable question" if Sunderland did not even
mention Patterson's 1981 address? I suspect that Dodson did not
even bother to read Sunderland's slim book.
JF>statement that treating evolution as axiomatic in taxonomy was not
>helpful. He expressed the reservation that where Patterson had shown
>"deep unrest" was in biochemistry, outside of his own fields of
>expertise of paleontology and taxonomy. Where he did address his own
>fields of expertise, Patterson was, in Dobson's opinion, participating
>in a squabble among taxonomists, rather than raising problems about
>evolutionary theory.
Well, after getting such a simple matter as Sunderland's tape
recording
of his interview with Patterson's in 1979, with a tape recording by an
unnamed person at the AMNH in 1981 (which matter is not AFAIK even in
Sunderland's book), Dodson does not have much credit with me for
objectivity in this matter. But let's wait and see what the transcript
says,
shall we? :-)
Regards.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------