Reflectorites
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:04:27 -0600, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>>SJ>Kelly's book "Out of Control" is subtitled "The New Biology of Machines".
>>>>It is about *artificial* life and deals extensively with computer
>>>>simulations of evolution, which is after all what this thread started by Wesley
>>>>was about.
>>>>
>>>>The book was urged on me by a former Reflectorite who was atheist
>>>>evolutionist as evidence for evolution. I was surprised when I read it how
>>>>devastating it is *against* Darwinism!
>>>CC>The fact that he made such a mistake as he did in the passage you so
>>>>blindly quoted
>SJ>I actually *have* the book in front of me and Chris can't even find his
>>copy, yet Chris just *asserts* I have "blindly quoted" it, because he doesn't
>>agree with it!
>>
>>Maybe when Chris does locate his copy he can read it and get back with
>>*evidence* that I have "blindly quoted" it?
CC>I meant that you blindly quoted it without checking to see if the passage
>you quoted was in fact *true*.
As I pointed out to Chris, it seems that what Kelly said *was* true, about:
"Despite a close watch, we have WITNESSED no new species emerge in the wild
in recorded history." (Kelly K., "Out of Control," 1995, p.475. My emphasis)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:51:22 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>Maybe when Chris does locate his copy he can read it and get back with
>*evidence* that I have "blindly quoted" it?
>
>But if it was about Kelly's statement that"
>
>"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in
>recorded history." (Kelly K., "Out of Control," 1995, p475)
>
>and the emphasis is on "observed", then this was in fact the case:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/24/science/24SPEC.html The New York Times
>October 24, 2000 Scientists' Hopes Raised for a Front-Row Seat to Evolution By
>CAROL KAESUK YOON .... For more than a century, scientists have assumed
>that it was all but impossible to witness the evolution of a new species in nature, a
>process thought to be too long and drawn out to be captured in the lifetime of any
>human researcher." [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC>Since several instances of speciation have
>been recorded (and a few have been discussed on this list), it's simply
>empirically false.
Chris should read carefully what Kelly said: "Despite a close watch, we
have WITNESSED no new species emerge in the wild...." (my emphasis).
That new species have been "recorded" is not the same as having been
witnessed.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem was, as so often, that adaptive explanations were just too
powerful. They could explain anything. If they are, in Daniel Dennett's
phrase, 'a universal acid', capable of eating through everything, they will
eventually consume even the subjects we want them to illuminate. It's not
much use having a magic substance that will unblock your intellectual
drains if it eats out the bottom of the sink as well." (Brown A., "The
Darwin Wars: How Stupid Genes Became Selfish Gods," Simon & Schuster:
London, 1999, p.119)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 16 2000 - 23:30:51 EST