Re: Further Evolution beyond the Human? (Sardonic Diatribe)

Paul Myers (myers@netaxs.com)
Wed, 09 Oct 1996 22:00:46 -0400

In article <53hjbl$5no@news3.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.com wrote:

> myers@netaxs.com (Paul Myers) wrote:
>
>
> >> One is that Newton discovered a real fact of the natural world and did a
> >fairly
> >> reasonable job of describing it for his day. Darwin did not. His
> >thesis (that
> >> the kinds of microevolutionary change which we observe in a schnauzer
> >> being bred into a terrier or a finch with one sort of beak changing into a
> >> finch with another kind of beak can explain the rise of all of our present
> >> lifeforms from the most simple to the most complex) was known by breeders
> >> to be fatally flawed when it was proposed and has been blown apart by
several
> >> excellent books which have been published in the last 10 years or so.
>
> >No, Darwin and Newton are very comparable: evolution and natural
selection ARE
> >real observable phenomena in the world today,
>
> Not macroevolution and you know it. In fact, nothing resembling
macroevolution
> has ever been observed in recorded history and all writers on the topic admit
> that.
>
> >> Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and Alexander Mebane's "Darwin's
> >> Creation Myth" would do for starters.
>
> >Scientists find holes in evolutionary theory all the time; they spend a
lot of
> >effort trying to understand those differences, and work to find rational
> >explanations for real phenomena. Any one can find problems and difficulties
> >in any complex scientific principle. One indicator that you are dealing with
> >an incompetent jerk who has found a problem is that their answer is to throw
> >out the complex scientific principle altogether, without providing any new
> >integrating idea to fill in the resulting vacuum. Another indicator is when
> >they can't even recognize the legitimate issues, and instead contrive
> >logical absurdities that completely miss the mark. Mebane and Behe meet
> >both criteria.
>
>
> That's a hell of a characterization of two thoroughly competent and serious
> scientists by somebody who obviously has not even thought about reading
> any of their works, and should tell anybody new to these forums all they
> need to know about Paul Myers.
>

Oh? So they do present a comprehensive theory that explains the diversity
of life as well as or better than the theory of evolution? That's the basis of
my complaint,
that it is easy to try to tear something down, but not so easy to present
a constructive alternative. I haven't heard anything from any of their
devout defenders, such as yourself, that suggests that they have anything
other than the usual whining to replace evolution as a practical and
powerful biological concept. And I'm sorry, but neither an indignant
whine nor quotes from a religious tract are of much use in the lab. Now if
you or Behe or Mebane can give me some explanation of why the same pattern
formation genes found in flies are also used in the embryonic fish I study
that was different from the explanation of common descent provided by
evolutionary theory, I would be eternally grateful. A sufficiently powerful
alternative theory would allow me to make novel predictions that would
dazzle my peers and make my career! Of course, I would also understand if
you chose to publish this demonstrably useful theory for yourself, and
keep all the glory.

I anxiously await your revelations.

-- 

Paul Myers                               Department of Biology

myers@netaxs.com                         Temple University

http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/           Philadelphia, PA 19122