Reflectorites
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:12:20 -0500 (CDT), SZYGMUNT@EXODUS.VALPO.EDU wrote:
>Im just guessing, but it seems to me that the
>"one-liner" style of responses we have been getting
>on this reflector from user FMAJ109@aol.com
>are very similar to the comments of Pim van Meurs,
>who posted regularly until sometime last year.
>
>Am I right, FMAJ109? If not, then perhaps you
>could introduce yourself.
That's funny. I was thinking the same thing! But
I originally thought that of Bill, so I was withholding
judgment.
In any event, since FMAJ109 specialises in numerous
unsubstantiated one-liner oracular pronouncements
(like Pim did), then it would help if he(?) stated what
his background is so that we could judge better
whether he knows what he is talking about.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mivart gathered, and illustrated "with admirable art and force" (Darwin's
words), all objections to the theory of natural selection-"a formidable
array" (Darwin's words again). Yet one particular theme, urged with
special attention by Mivart, stood out as the centerpiece of his criticism.
This argument continues to rank as the primary stumbling block among
thoughtful and friendly scrutinizers of Darwinism today. No other criticism
seems so troubling, so obviously and evidently "right" (against a Darwinian
claim that seems intuitively paradoxical and improbable). Mivart awarded
this argument a separate chapter in his book right after the introduction. He
also gave it a name, remembered ever since. He called his objection "The
Incompetency of Natural Selection to Account for the Incipient Stages of
Useful Structures." If this phrase sounds like a mouthful, consider the easy
translation: We can readily understand how complex and fully developed
structures work and how their maintenance and preservation may rely upon
natural selection-a wing, an eye, the resemblance of a bittern to a branch or
of an insect to a stick or dead leaf. But how do you get from nothing to
such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long
sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You
can't fly with 2 percent of a wing or gain much protection from an iota's
similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other
words, can natural selection explain the incipient stages of structures that
can only be used in much more elaborated form?" (Gould S.J., "Not
Necessarily a Wing," in "Bully for Brontosaurus: Further Reflections in
Natural History," [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, pp.140-141)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 20:07:55 EDT