[...deleted about 10 pages!]
>
>On Thu, 05 Dec 1996 16:41:30 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>RL>"The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved
>>the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has
>>been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of
>>the Origin of the Species; and throughout the past century there has
>>always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who
>>have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of
>>Darwinian claims..." (Dentonn, 1985, p327)
>
>[...]
>
>RL>Actually, Darwin himself expressed a similar sentiment to
>Denton's: "Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the
>eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to
>stagger anyone...I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be
>surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle of natural
>selection to so startling a length." [From Origin of Species,
>quoted in Denton @ 61]
>
>BH>First of all, Darwin says nothing about pure chance in this
>>passage.
>
SJ:==
>Agreed. But "natural selection" is obviously shorthand for his
>standard mechanism of "variation" (= chance changes) plus
>"natural selection".
>
>BH>Secondly, this is probably the most outrageous out of context
>>quotation I've ever seen. First, let's look at what immediately
>>follows the first section of Denton's quote, just before the
>>ellipses:
>
>>Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have
>>been formed by natural selection, is more than enough to stagger any
>>one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of
>>gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under
>>changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in
>>the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through
>>natural selection. -- Darwin OoS. Penguin Classics p. 231
>
SJ:==
>I don't see what is "outrageous" about this. The fact that Darwin
>could envisage a "long series of gradations in complexity" did not
>stop him being "staggered" by it:
>
>"While Darwin was attempting to convince the world of the validity of
>evolution by natural selection he was admitting privately to friends
>to moments of doubt over its capacity to generate very complicated
>adaptations or "organs of extreme perfection", as he described them.
>In a letter to Asa Gray, the American biologist, written in 1861,
>just two years after the publication of The Origin of Species, he
>acknowledges these doubts and admits that "The eye to this day gives
>me a cold shudder." (Darwin C., 1860, in letter to Asa Gray in
>Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1888) 3 vols, ed F. Darwin, John
>Murray, London, vol. 2, p273).
>
>(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
>1985, p326)
>
>BH>This occurs on page 231 of my copy of OoS (Penguin Classics). I
>>encountered some difficulties finding what follows the ellipses in
>>Denton's quote since, naturally enough, I was reading *forward* from
>>p. 231 whereas what follows the ellipses actually occurs *before*
>>page 231, on page 219!
>
SJ:====
>If you had Denton's book you would see that he actually gives
>page references to both quotes, namely Darwin's Origin, 1872,
>p192 and p181. Both quotes are about the same thing, from the same
>chapter "VI Difficulties of the Theory". The first is a summary of
>the second. It is fully in context.
>
Its not even close to being in context.
>BH>He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise
>>that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained
>>by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and
>>to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an an eagle
>>might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does
>>not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to
>>conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too
>>keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the
>>principle of natural selection to such startling lengths. -- Darwin
>>OoS. Penguin Classics pp. 218-219.
>>
>>Reads a little differently in context, don't you think?
>
>I fail to see any difference in adding the rest of the quote. Darwin
>says that he himself has "felt the difficulty" of the formation of
>the eye "far too keenly..." That's all that Denton was claiming.
>
>BTW, the "Penguin Classics" edition is the *first edition*. In his
>6th and final edition, Darwin chnaged the words slightly and added a
>lot more in between the above quote.
>
Yes, I know that. So what?
>BH>What really staggers the imagination is how anyone would, after
>>seeing the above, consider Denton as a credible source of
>>information.
>
>There is no problem here with "Denton as a credible source of
>information". If Brian's had actually read Denton's book, he would
>have seen that Denton's quotes of Darwin were correctly referenced
>and in context.
>
>[...]
Steve, you're really amazing. Even more staggering than Denton's
out of context quotations are your defense of them.
First of all, if someone quotes a source it is not up to me to read
the book and it is not up to me to check the accuracy of the quote.
If I assume in good faith that the quote is accurate and reply under
that assumption, its not my fault when it becomes clear that the
quote was not presented clearly.
Now, you might complain that I did go to the trouble of looking
up the original quote in OoS. There is a simple reason for this,
I trust Jim Bell, I don't trust Denton. BTW, since you can't seem
to keep current on discussions, you are probably unaware that
Jim admitted he botched the quote and further that Denton
was misleading. Now, I don't hold this against Jim. I think the
way he quoted Denton quoting Darwin was a natural mistake
attributable to Denton's botch-up.
Here's the quote again repeated from above:
>RL>Actually, Darwin himself expressed a similar sentiment to
>Denton's: "Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the
>eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to
>stagger anyone...I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be
>surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle of natural
>selection to so startling a length." [From Origin of Species,
>quoted in Denton @ 61]
Actually it was Jim Bell who gave this quote not Randy. Note
that the two sections we now understand to come from
different pages in OoS are run together under a single
quotation mark and separated by an elipses in mid-line.
Why would I suspect that what is before and after the elipses
are from different pages and in the wrong order?
Now, Steve, suppose that someone on the reflector made a claim
about Darwin's self-doubt and that I responded by saying "oh,
hogwash" and presented following quote from OoS:
========================================================
"He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise
that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained
by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and
to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an an eagle
might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does
not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to
conquer his imagination ..."
==========================================================
You would probably complain (rightfully) that I was quoting out of
context by eliminating the ending "...though I have felt the difficulty
far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending
the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths." But
it's equally bad just to give the ending of this quote. There is a
horendous distortion of Darwin's sentiments.
The "though" in the above quote reminded me again just how
horribly confusing Denton's quotes were. Here is my best
rendering (in ascii):
from page 61 of Denton
=====================================================
... To common sense it seems incredible to attribute such
ends to random search mechanisms, known by experience to
be incapable, at least in finite time, of achieving even
the simplest ends. Darwin himself was often prone to self
doubt over the sheer enormity of his claims:(36)
>>Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been >>formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger anyone...
>>>>I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others
>>hesitating to extend the principle of natural selection to so startling a
>>length.(37)
=========================================================
I have noted in the past that formatting sometimes gets messed
up in e-mail messages, particularly indents. To make sure the
indents are retained I've indicated an indentation with a ">". The
third line, i.e. the start of the second quotation, is indented
relative to the rest of the quotation. Also, the references (36)
and (37) I've placed in parentheses. In Denton, they are superscripts
with no parentheses.
Now, there are several oddities about this manner of quotation.
First, Denton is not consistent in the placement of the reference
numbers. The first reference is before the first quote, the second
reference is at the end of the second quote. Also, there is only
one reference appearing with the indented quotation and there
is no line separating the two quoatations. There is an elipses,
but following this there is an indentation indicating the start
of a new paragraph. This makes it appear that Denton is quoting
two adjacent paragraphs, the first paragraph not being quoted in
full. In fact, following the indentation, which would normally indicate
the beginning of a new paragraph, Denton begins quoting from
several pages earlier, not just mid-paragraph but in the middle
of a sentence.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University