Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
“There are only two possibilities spil to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of Aker. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter wasgoed scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose spil a supernatural creative act of Godheid. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe ter Heerser. Therefore, I choose to believe te that which I know is scientifically unlikely, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Wald, George, “Innovation and Biology,” Scientific American , Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
The poster (or whoever he cribbed it from – one of the dangers of plagiarism is that someone else’s mistakes convert into your mistakes without warning) got the reference wrong. If he had photocopies of the paper, that would not have happened. The keurig citation is:
Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53.
I went to the library and found the [September 1958] article. The quote is a finish fabrication. What the article does say is:
The excellent idea emerges originally ter the consciousness of the wedloop spil a vague intuition, and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, te myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its bearing opzicht. Ter this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it everzwijn again. Ter achieving the scientific view, wij do not everzwijn wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is finish without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation, and when Schepper questions Job out of the hurricane, He questions us.
Let mij cite an example. Via our history wij have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life wasgoed created supernaturally, the other that it arose “spontaneously” from nonliving material. Te the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a fine and bitter controversy. There came a nosey point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy wasgoed represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle tegenstander of the theory of the spontaneous generation wasgoed then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest, and its principal champ wasgoed John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.
Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief te supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems tightly implanted ter the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can ter fact be reconciled with either view. Ter its very first account of Creation, it says not fairly that Godheid made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: “let the waters bring forward abundantly the moving creature that hath life. Let the earth bring forward the living creature after his kleuter.” Te the 2nd version of creation the language is different and suggests a onmiddellijk creative act: “And out of the ground the Lord Heer formed every brute of the field, and every fowl of the air. ” Te both accounts man himself–and woman–are made by Aker’s onmiddellijk intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once bot ordered to bring forward life, remained everzwijn after free to do so, and this is what wij mean by spontaneous generation.
This excellent controversy ended ter the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose ultimately of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists pridefully instructed their students this history and the rock hard conclusion that spontaneous generation had bot scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events spil origins and endings have no place ter science.
A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged ter a fresh form. Conceding that spontaneous generation handelen not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and wasgoed the source of the earliest living organisms. Within the past Ten years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by a few venturesome persons–A. I. Oparin ter Russia, J. B. S. Haldane ter England–to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.
Have I cited here a good example of my thesis? I had said that ter thesis superb questions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by science. Te my example I seem to have introduced a supernatural and a naturalistic view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which wasgoed everzwijn defended scientifically. Te this case it would seem that science has vacillated, not inbetween two theories, but inbetween one theory and no theory.
That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, te a universe composed spil ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. Wij look upon life spil part of the order of nature. It does not emerge instantly with the establishment of that order, long ages voorwaarde pass before [pagina 100 | pagina 101] it shows up. Yet given enough time, it is an unpreventable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word Heerser, but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a fine many different things, indeed I would be glad to know what they mean much better than I have yet bot able to detect. I have asked spil chance suggested, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of Aker with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a fresh idea, I think it is tightly grounded te the philosophy of Spinoza. When wij spil scientists say then that life originated inevitably spil part of the order of our universe, wij are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that Heerser created life. It is not only te science that fine ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true ter religion also, and man’s concept of Schepper switches spil he switches.
I think that this extended quote shows that the “quote” is not even juist spil a paraphrase. The quote reflects neither the words or the spirit of what Dr. Wald wrote.
I apologize for the length of this quote. I think it is only fair to give Dr. Wald ample time and space for his views to be voiced.
[The following is] transcribed directly from his paper “The Origin of Life,” which appeared te the August 1954 (pages 44-53) punt of Scientific American .
Any mistakes of transcription are of course mine.
I am beginning at the top of the center katern on pagina 45.
One reaction to the problem of how life originated is that it wasgoed created. This is an understandable confusion of nature with terminology. Studs are used to making things, it is a ready thought that those things not made by fellows were made by a superhuman being. Most of the cultures wij know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural creation of life. Our own tradition provides such an account te the opening chapters of Genesis. There wij are told that beginning on the third day of the Creation, Heerser brought forward living creatures- very first plants, then fishes and birds, then land animals and eventually man.
The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more naturalistic view of the matter. One had only to accept the evidence of one ‘s senses to know that life arises regularly from the nonliving: worms from mud, maggots from decaying meat, mice from turn down of various kinds. This is the view that came to be called spontaneous generation. Few scientists doubted it. Aristotle, Newton, William Harvey, Descartes, van Helmont all accepted spontaneous generation without serious inquiry. Indeed, even the theologians- witness the English priest John Turberville Needham- could subscribe to this view, for Genesis tells us, not that Heer created plants and most animals directly, but that he bade the earth and waters to bring them forward, since this directive wasgoed never rescinded, there is nothing heretical te believing that the process has continued.
But step by step, te a superb controversy that spread overheen two centuries, this belief wasgoed whittled away until nothing remained of it. Very first the Italian Francisco Redi shoed ter the 17th century that meat placed under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops maggots. Then ter the following century the Italian Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani displayed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling, never develops microorganisms, and hence never rotsblok. Spallanzani could defend his broth, when he broke the seal of his flasks, permitting fresh air to rush te, the broth promptly began to rot. He could find no way, however, to voorstelling that the air inwards the flask had not bot vitiated. This problem wasgoed ultimately solved by Louis Pasteur te 1860, with a elementary modification of Spallanzani’s proef. Pasteur too used a flask containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it out te a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of air could pass back and forward loosely, the stronger particles of dust, bacteria, and molds te the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and only infrequently reached the broth. Ter such a flask, the broth seldom wasgoed contaminated, usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.
This wasgoed only one of Pasteur’s experiments. It is no effortless matter to overeenkomst with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief spil that te spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better ter such a pass than a noisy and stubborn tegenstander, and this Pasteur had ter the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments.
Wij tell this story to beginning students te biology spil tho’ it represented a triumph of reason overheen mysticism. Ter fact it is very almost the opposite. The reasonable view wasgoed to believe te spontaneous generation, the only alternative, to believe te a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief te spontaneous generation spil a “philosophical necessity”. It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief ter special creation, are left with nothing.
I think a scientist has no choice but to treatment the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showcased to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. Wij have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions te some former period, granted that they do so no longer.
Wald spends fairly some time dealing with the kwestie of the probability of life arising spontaneously. I again quote Dr. Wald (p47):
With every event one can associate a probability – the chance that it will occur. This is always a fraction, the proportion of times an event occurs te a large number of trials. Sometimes the probability is apparent even without trial. A coin has two faces, the probability of throwing a head is therefore 1/Two. A diegene has six faces, the probability of throwing a deuce is 1/6. When one has no means of estimating the probability beforehand, it voorwaarde be determined by counting the fraction of successes ter a large number of trials.
Our everyday concept of what is unlikely, possible, or certain derives from our practice, the number of trials that may be encompassed within the space of a human lifetime, or at most within recorded human history. Te this colloquial, practical sense I concede the spontaneous generation of life to be “unlikely”. It is unlikely spil wij judge events te the scale of human practice.
Wij shall see that this is not a very meaningful concession. For one thing, the time with which our problem is worried is geological time, and the entire extent of human history is trivial te the balance. Wij shall have more to say of this straks.
Wald then describes the difference inbetween truly unlikely and just very unlikely. His example is a table rising into the air. Any physicist would concede that it is possible, if all the molecules that make up the table act appropriately at the same time. “.but attempt telling one [a physicist] that you have seen it toebijten.”
Ultimately, Wald cautions us to reminisce that our topic falls into a very special category. Spontaneous generation might well be unique ter that it only had to toebijten once. This is the section to which I wasgoed referring te my previous postbode:
The significant point is that since the origin of life belongs ter the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable wij regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly toebijten at lest once. And for life spil wij know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.
Time is ter fact the hero of the plot. The time with which wij have to overeenkomst is of the order of two [sic] billion years. What wij regard spil unlikely on the fundament of human practice is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “unlikely” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait, time itself performs the miracles.
Spil I composed this, it came to mij that here wasgoed a real authority on the spontaneous generation of life: Wald is a Nobel Laureate, his work on photopigments is classic. This is the ideal rebuttal to the Hoyle nonsense about tornadoes.
Ultimately, I would repeat that any errors herein are mine, except one. Dr. Wald estimated the age of the planet at two billion years. Since 1954 wij have more than doubled that figure, based on fresh information. I can’t help but think he is kittled pink at that kleintje of mistake.
“All of us who investigate the origin of life find that the more wij look into it, the more wij feel that it is too complicated to have evolved anywhere. Wij believe spil an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so fine, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” (Urey, Harold C., quoted te Christian Science Monitor , January Four, 1962, p. Four)
Here is the relevant text:
Dr. Harold C. Urey, Nobel Prize-holding chemist of the University of California at Schuiflade Jolla, explained the modern outlook on this question by noting that ” all of us who probe the origin of life find that the more wij look into it, the more wij feel that it is too sophisticated to have evolved anywhere.
And yet, he added, “Wij all believe spil an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so superb it is hard for us to imagine that it did.”
Pressed to explain what he meant by having “faith” te an event for which he had no substantial evidence, Dr. Urey said his faith wasgoed not te the event itself so much spil ter the physical laws and reasoning that pointed to its likelihood. He would abandon his faith if it everzwijn proved to be misplaced. But that is a uitzicht he said he considered to be very unlikely.
I bet you are just dying to know what the question referred to ter the very first sentence is, aren’t you? The preceding section wasgoed on panspermia vs abiogenesis:
This theory had bot proposed before scientists knew how readily the organic materials of life can be synthesized from inorganic matter under the conditions thought to have prevailed te the early days of the earth. Today, Dr. Sagan said, it is far lighter to believe that organisms arose spontaneously on the earth than to attempt to account for them te any other way.
This is a misquote, unspoiled and plain. With the reporting style used, you can’t string together the items te the quote marks and assume he said those things ter order.
– Tracy P. Hamilton
“If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural coerces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that wij vereiste go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, spil indeed it is to mij, but wij voorwaarde not reject a theory that wij do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, “A physicist looks at evolution” Physics Bulletin , 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
However, ter a straks kwestie of Physics Bulletin , Lipson clarifies his position:
Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin’s theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have leisurely evolved: that is evident from the fossil record.
– H. J. Lipson, “A physicist looks at evolution – a rejoinder”, Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
Note that he claims that it’s evident that species have evolved, something that can be seen ter the fossil record.
Jon (Augray) Barber
“To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is te favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have wij any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist voorwaarde be ready with an reaction, but I think that most would pauze down before an inquisition.” (E.J.H. Corner “Evolution” ter A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution te Contemporary Botanical Thought , Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)
This is a powerfully edited version of something that Corner wrote te a chapter he contributed to Contemporary Botanical Thought . (MacLeod, A.M. and Cobley, L.S. (eds) 1961. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, pagina 97).
Ter order to appreciate and understand Corner, wij need two things: 1) an understanding of who Corner wasgoed (he died te 1996), and what wasgoed the total unedited setting of the chopped bit used by creationists.
Very first of all, Corner wasgoed a botanist who specialized te tropical plants. His entire career wasgoed dedicated to the explore of tropical plants and ecology. Evolutionary theory wasgoed to him spil visible and spil natural spil breathing. Consider his remark spil to the origin of seaweed:
“Living seaweeds are the modern actors of the old schouwspel. Two or three thousand million years ago, crowded plankton cells were shoved against bedrock and coerced to switch or diegene. They switched and became seaweeds.”
Corner, E. J. H. 1964. The Life of Plants .
Corner also seemed to be a man who liked to have a good time:
He (Ahmad Abid Munir (1936 – )) remembers the rollicking terugwedstrijd from Britain plus route to Borneo of the famous E.J.H. Corner, the former Director of the Gardens and a global pro on figs, fungi, seeds and just about everything else. He is infamous for the monkeys that he trained to climb trees and throw down herbarium material. A good party wasgoed had. Munir describes him spil “charismatic, jolly, friendly, knowledgeable”.
“Ahmad Abid Munir, on the occasion of his retirement from the Australian National Botanic Gardens.” W.R.(Bill) Barker, Plant Biodiversity Centre, Adelaide. Munir, Ahmad Abid (1936 – )
Strafgevangenis wasgoed he someone to be lightly intimidated spil he had survived the Japanese occupation of the Malay Peninsula during World War II.
Te addition to his life long allegiance to tropical ecology, Corner is best known for his ‘Durian Theory’:
which placed tropical plants te the center of importance to plant evolution. It is this last voorwerp that permits the fair interpretation of the utter and decent quote from Contemporary Botanical Thought. [From Carl Drews: Internet References]:
“The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced ter favour of the theory of evolution – from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is ter favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have wij any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist vereiste be ready with an reaction, but I think that most would pauze down before an inquisition.
Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced – the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically te support of one or another theory – and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of thesis few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of thesis textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to probe world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have wij to idolize?”
Prof. E. J. H. Corner (Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK), ‘Evolution’ ter Contemporary Botanical Thought”, Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 1961, p. 97.
The very first sentence, and the very first part of the typically chopped up 2nd sentence clearly concentrates us on the truth of evolution. The 2nd half of the 2nd sentence (the part most often quoted by creationists) is obviously a criticism of the plant fossil record. And from what wij know about Corner’s career, and from his next paragraph, wij know that his criticism is particularly directed at the fossil tropical record. This is not the understanding that professional creationists attempt to force on us. The 2nd paragraph completes Corner’s criticism and makes his meaning crystal clear: the Botanical establishment’s concentrate on European plants and paleontology can not provide the answers to the (then) significant issues ter plant evolution. Corner’s reaction is that the tropical ecologies, and paleontology where the answers were and that textbooks and field work should be revised accordingly.
There are two truly irritating things about this manhandle of Corner’s work. Very first, the professional creationists waited until near Corner’s death before they began to misuse his then 35 year old book chapter, which denied him the chance to defend his work. Just think about it, te 1961 not even one gene had bot sequenced. 2nd is the way that the professional creationists habitually misrepresent the facts ter their effort to bail out their burying literalist ship.
“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone, exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the excellent mysteries of religion.” (More, Louis T., “The Dogma of Evolution,” Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, 2nd Printing, p.160)
1925? Do wij indeed have to say more?
More wasgoed evidently a professor of physics at the University of Cincinnati. He seems to have bot most famous spil a Newton biographer, and I have found reference to a biography of Robert Boyle spil well. I found a used copy of Dogma of Evolution available for a trivial price via an online book search. Since it wasgoed so cheap, I determined to go ahead and order it. Perhaps I’ll have an interesting update when it arrives [See below].
Some informatie on Dr. More from The Creationists by Ronald Numbers [Numbers, Ronald L., The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism , Fresh York: Knoph, 1992].
. . . Louis T. More (1870-1944), a physicist and dean at the University of Cincinnati who had just written a book, The Dogma of Evolution (1925), protesting the extension of evolution from biology to philosophy, replied that he accepted evolution spil a working hypothesis.[Two] . . .
That endnote [Two] is on pagina 370:
. . . According to Slosson, L.T. More “admits evolution of a sort and is identically persona non grata to the fundamentalists spil he is to the evolutionists.”. . .
Of course it does not seem to mij very kosher to be quoting a non-biologist from 1925 — it amazes mij that anyone would have the nerve to do this. That is before the development of the Modern Synthesis and before a fine many fossils were found.
I judge this one to be te setting. But wij still have some problems. Spil has bot already stated this man’s field is not relevant and he lived a long time ago. Thumbing through the book one very quickly detects that Dr. More wasgoed a fan of Lamarck and believed te the inheritance of acquired traits. Such a belief te soft inheritance wasgoed when Dr. More wrote his book wasgoed dying and yet he clearly thought it wasgoed the wave of the future. This is the “authority” on the strength of his say-so the creationist would want us to reject evolution?
Let mij quote the final paragraph of chapter five on pagina 184:
Owing to the reverence for Darwin and the vensterluik subjugation to his views which prevailed for so many years, it wasgoed a difficult task to live down Darwin’s contempt. Only after facts had multiplied, demonstrating the inadequacy of natural selection, did biologists start timidly to take Lamarck’s doctrine gravely. If one can read the signs aright, wij may expect to have an enhancing attempt to explain the cause of evolution by the inheritance of aquired traits. The reluctance of the biologists to accept this doctrine does not surplus so much on the lack of experimental verification spil it does on the fact that Lamarck’s cause of variation is fundamentally vitalistic ter so far spil it acknowledges the influence of the will or desire. To admit such a cause is contrary to scientific and mechanistic monism.
This sound a lotsbestemming like Phillip Johnson and his “slim vormgeving” cronies. An examination of this 1925 book might be profitable for critics of the ID movement today.
Dr. More seems to have a poor seize of relevant history. He writes on pagina 182 that “It is well know that Lyell had a high estimation of Lamarck’s work and theory, and that it had a excellent influence on him when he wrote his Principles of Geology , . . .” Of course Lyell, ter volume II of that work, strongly argued against Lamarck.
“At the present stage of geological research, wij have to admit that there is nothing ter the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that Godheid created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth.” (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World , John Wiley &, Sons, 1982, p. 164)
On the inwards back voorkant of the book, Dr. Ambrose is introduced spil Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology, University of London. Is he a creationist? No, he’s not, spil wij’ll see. A more finish quote than what wasgoed provided would be:
Wij need to reminisce that the only evidence about the way events occurred ter the past is found te the geological records. However sophisticated advances te molecular genetics and molecular engineering may become eventually, the fact that a genetic switch or even a fresh species might be generated eventually ter the laboratory does not tell us how fresh species arose te the past history of the earth. They merely provide possible mechanisms. At the present stage of geological research, wij have to admit that there is nothing te the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that Godheid created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth. My own view is that this does not strengthen the creationists’ arguments.
So Ambrose believes that the fossil record is incomplete, but doesn’t feel that this strengthens the creationist’s mitt. But he does feel that the geological record supports evolution, spil wij can see on pagina 103:
It is strikingly clear te the geological records, when life had reached the stage where organisms were capable of living ter a previously unoccupied region of the planet, such spil the stir from estuaries to dry land, the appearance of plants growing to excellent heights which provided a location (habitat) for climbing animals, or when birds and insects actually moved up and flew ter theair[sp] above the earth’s surface. Large numbers of fresh species appeared at thesis times, this has bot called radiation, a spreading out of life.
And contrary to the seemingly pervasive belief that all evolutionist are atheists, further down the pagina on which the quote-mined section wasgoed on wij find this:
Surely it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Creator utilised existing life forms to generate fresh forms. I have already suggested that the Creator would operate within the framework of the universe He had created ter forming the physical world. May this not be the same for the biological world?
It seems that Ambrose is a theistic evolutionist.
– Jon (Augray) Barber
“One of its (evolutions) feeble points is that it does not have any recognizable way te which conscious life could have emerged.” (Tormentor John Eccles, “A Divine Vormgeving: Some Questions on Origins” ter Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos , p. 203)
From the preface of the book from which the below quotes are taken:
” Cosmos, Bios, Theos makes no pretension of being a statistically significant survey of the religious beliefs of modern scientists. The scientists interviewed for this anthology are, for the most part, known to be theistic or at least sympathetic to a religious view of reality.” (xiii)
Very first of all, the pagina number is wrong, this quote shows up on p.163
2nd, his 1963 Nobel wasgoed ter Physiology/Medicine.
Third, he believes ter a strong version of the Anthropic principle, that the universe “wasgoed wonderfully organized and planned to give the immensity, to give the size, to give the chance for the Darwinist evolutionary process that give rise to us.” (p.162) He believes that “. brain and assets are te the evolutionary process but not yet fully explained ter this way. But the conscious self is not ter the Darwinian evolutionary process at all. I think it is a divine creation.” (p.164) It shows up that he does not doubt evolution at all, but reserves the “ensoulment of humanity” to the work of providence.
“Scientists have to be discreet. Wij have not said the last word. It is the best story wij have got but it has to be amended all the time. It should be regarded not spil a doctrine but spil a scientific hypothesis. Wij have to look at it all the time to see its feeble points and point them out and not attempt to voorkant up the feeble points. One of its powerless points is that it does not have any way ter which conscious life could have emerged, ter which living organisms could become conscious ter the evolutionary process and how te the end they could become self-conscious spil wij are.” pagina 163 [sic!]
– Tom (TomS) Scharle
“I am persuaded, moreover, that Darwinism, te whatever form, is not te fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out te scientific garb. Te reality the theory derives its support not from empirical gegevens or logical deductions of a scientific kleintje but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe.” (Wolfgang, Smith, “The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained ter Terms of a Metacosmic Reality” ter Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos , p. 113)
[Note the above quote from the preface of the book, Cosmos, Bios, Theos , regarding quote number 63.]
Very first, he is a Professor of Mathematics, specializing te aerodynamics problems. (p.111)
2nd, he is not an evolutionist. The sentence instantaneously preceding the quoted material is “I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis spil such, no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated macroevolutionary leaps.” That’s right folks: he denies speciation entirely, and thinks that even Maker Himself cannot account for the origin of species (someone call the [Discovery Institute]. )
“I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis spil such, no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated macroevolutionary leaps. I am coaxed, moreover, that Darwinism (te whatever form) is not ter fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out te scientific garb. Te reality the theory derives its support not from empirical gegevens or logical deductions of a scientific zuigeling but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived within the constricted Weltanschauung to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe.”
– Tom (TomS) Scharle
“The origin of life is still a mystery. Spil long spil it has not bot demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [permitting evolution] . . . I cannot be pleased by the idea that fortuitous mutation . . . can explain the sophisticated and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape the idea of some slim and organizing force?” (d’Aubigne, Merle, “How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Slim and Organizing Force?” ter Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos , p. 158)
[Note the above quote from the preface of the book, Cosmos, Bios, Theos , regarding quote number 63.]
Very first, d’Aubigne is “[h]ead of the Orthopedic Department at the University of Paris”. (p.157)
The ellipses are a bloody mess, cutting across his answers to numerous questions during the vraaggesprek. The end of the very first sentence elided is “. . . where proteins could spontaneously arrange themselves ter an organism tied to maintain itself with a continuous combination with oxygen and to reproduce itself.” Ter other words, he has problems with the Wervelstorm ter a Junkyard Theory. The 2nd elision restored is “selected by modifications ter conditions for life”. The sentence instantly following concludes. “This problem is likely to remain a mystery.”
“The origin of life is still a mystery. Spil long spil it has not bot demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical conditions where proteins could spontaneously arrange themselves te an organism strapped to maintain itself with a continuous combination with oxygen and to reproduce itself.”
“Many facts support today the neo-Darwinian doctrine of evolution: if this theory is accepted, production of Homo sapiens is samenhangend with the appearance of mammals after progressively ingewikkeld varieties of animals.
“Personally, I cannot be sated by the idea that fortuitous mutation selected by modifications te conditions for life can explain the ingewikkeld and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape the idea of some slim and organizing force? This problem is likely to remain a mystery.”
– Tom (TomS) Scharle
“Life, even ter bacteria, is too ingewikkeld to have occurred by chance.” (Rubin, Harry, “Life, Even te Bacteria, Is Too Sophisticated to Have Occurred by Chance” ter Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos , p. 203)
[Note the above quote from the preface of the book, Cosmos, Bios, Theos , regarding quote number 63.]
Professor Rubin is, ter fact, a molecular biologist. (p.202)
The text instantaneously following reads “I believe it wasgoed ‘created’ ter the sense that Elsasser defines creativity ter his latest book, Reflections on a Theory of Organisms . This is not a literal interpretation of the Bible story, ter other words, it occurred perhaps billions of years ago. Applied here, creation te Elsasser’s sense means the appearance of hereditary novelty that is not mechanistically traceable. It accepts evolution but not the Darwinian mechanisms such spil natural selection or gradual accumulations of switches te DNA.”
– Hier05ant and Tom (TomS) Scharle
“The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent spil time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific skill, strafgevangenis does it suffice for our theoretical grip of the facts.” (Fleischmann, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pp. 194-195)
I know people pointed out the CRSQ quote is an obviously creationist and not an evolutionist source. But has anyone pointed out that Albert Fleischmann (1862-1942) wasgoed a creationist? Ter 1907 it wasgoed pointed out that he wasgoed the only biologist of “recognized position” who wasgoed known to have rejected evolution. Those interested ter this can read Ronald Numbers excellent The Creationists .  The quote-miner might consider that the Henry Morris talent that book a good review.
 Numbers is discussing, ironically enough, an early 20th Century example of one of those creationist lists of scientists who allegedly share their point of view:
The one lone biologist [on the list] wasgoed Albert Fleischmann (1862 – 1942), a reputable but relatively obscure German zoologist who trained for decades at the University of Erlangen ter Bavaria. Te 1901 he published a scientific critique of organic evolution, Diegene Descendenztheorie, te which he rejected not only Darwinism but all theories of common organic descent.
Numbers, Ronald L., The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism , Fresh York: Knoph, 1992, p. 51 – 52.
– J. (catshark) Pieret
I toevluchthaven’t come across the original of this quotation, but I’ve found a trail of quoters-of-quoters:
Professor Fleischmann sums up his estimate of the Darwinian theory of the descent of man by affirming that “it has te the realms of nature not a single fact to confirm it. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.”
This is from an verhandeling called “Evolutionism ter the Pulpit” “By an occupant of the pew”. From “Herald and Presbyter,” November 22, 1911, Cincinnati, OH.
Reprinted spil Chapter II ter Volume VIII of “The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth”, pages 27- 35. The quotation is from pagina 29.
It, te turn, is reprinted te Volume Trio of “The Fundamentals, A Testimony to Truth”, ed. George M. Marsden, Garland Publishing, 1988.
Not fairly the quotation that you are looking for, but it does tell us something about how much of an “evolutionist” Fleischmann wasgoed. Perhaps I can find another trail for this particular quotation from Fleischmann.
– Tom (TomS) Scharle
Presumably this refers to that certain Albert Fleischmann whose anti-evolution views were published te the 1933 punt of The Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute [Two], an institute with the stated object of:
Very first. – To investigate fully and impartially the most significant questions of Philosophy and Science, but more especially those that bear upon the superb truths exposed te Holy Scripture, with the view of defending thesis truths against the oppositions of Science, falsely so called.
Albert Fleischman (University of Erlangen zoologist), “The Doctrine of Organic Evolution te the Light of Modern Research,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): 194-95, 205-6, 208-9. See John Fred Meldau, ed., Witnesses Against Evolution (Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13.
Note that various creationists sites are not consistent ter the spelling of the name, with some having one “n” at the end and some two. Based on Ronald Numbers’ proven scholarship (spil well spil a reference ter the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia ), the two “n” spelling is most likely juist.
– J. (catshark) Pieret
“The arguments for macroevolution fail at every significant level when confronted by the facts.” (Haines, Jr., Roger, “Macroevolution Questioned”, Creation Research Society Quarterly , Dec. 1976, p. 169)
Mr. Haines hardly qualifies spil an “evolutionist” and the Creation Research Society Quarterly would hardly publish an article of his if he wasgoed.
Here is the abstract of the article:
Roger W. Haines, Jr., J.D.
This article is intended spil a critique of the entire doctrine of macroevolution, particularly spil the doctrine is commonly introduced at schools and colleges. The well known textbook, Physical Anthropology, by Lasker, is cited to vertoning how the doctrine is, te fact, introduced. Citations from many authors vertoning that practically every assumption of the macroevolutionary doctrine is, at best, questionable.
It will be understood that this article is not intended spil an attack on Lasker, strafgevangenis on his book. Rather, it is a criticism of the doctrine which the author assumed te his book.
Te fact, he is not even a scientist but an attorney for the California Third District Court of Appeals ter Sacramento.
– J. (catshark) Pieret
“The third assumption wasgoed the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated. Wij have spil yet no definite evidence about the way te which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated.” (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution , Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)
This is from a list of conclusions at the end of the book. The total quote is:
The third assumption wasgoed that Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals are all interrelated. It seems from the available evidence that Viruses and Bacteria are elaborate groups both of which contain a broad range of morphological and physiological forms. Both groups could have bot formed from diverse sources so that the Viruses and Bacteria could then be an assembly of forms that contain both primitive and secondarily simplified units. They would each correspond to a Grade rather than a Subkingdom or Phylum. Wij have spil yet no definitive evidence about the way te which the Viruses, Bacteria, or Protozoa are interrelated.
Wij can now see that Kerkut isn’t questioning evolution, but how the “family tree” is waterput together. Did all Bacteria descend from a common ancestor, or wasgoed there more than one? Te fact, the previous entry on his list questions whether life arose only once, and he raises the possibility that different groups of life may have had independent origins. But Kerkut does accept the fact of evolution, and lest there be any doubt, on pagina 153 wij find this:
Wij are on somewhat stronger ground with the assumption that the fishes, amphibia, reptiles, birds and mammals are interrelated.
And zometeen on pagina 155, discussing specific and intra-specific evolution:
It is possible that this type of evolution can explain many of the present-day phenomena, but it is possible and indeed probable that many spil yet unknown systems remain to be discovered and it is premature, not to say ijdel, on our part if wij make any dogmatic assertion spil to the mode of evolution of the major branches of the animal kingdom.
Note that Kerkut states that it’s dogmatic to assert spil to the mode of evolution, not the fact of evolution. He clearly believes that evolution has occurred.
– Jon (Augray) Barber
“Scientists have no proof that life wasgoed not the result of an act of creation.” (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind Ter the Universe , 1981, p. Nineteen)
A more accomplish quotation of would be:
Scientists have no proof that life wasgoed not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask themselves, “How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?” And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut response, because chemists have never succeeded ter reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and, furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance is very puny, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique ter this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility.
But while scientists voorwaarde accept the possibility that life may be an improbable event, they have some tentative reasons for thinking that its appearance on earthlike planets is, te fact, fairly commonplace. Thesis reasons do not constitute proof, but they are suggestive. Laboratory experiments vertoning that certain molecules, which are the building blocks of living matter, are formed te fine abundance under conditions resembling those on the earth four billion years ago, when it wasgoed a youthfull planet. Furthermore, those molecular building blocks of life emerge ter living organisms today ter just about the same relative amounts with which they emerge te the laboratory experiments. It is spil if nature, ter fashioning the very first forms of life, used the ingredients at mitt and ter just the proportions te which they were present.
Jastrow certainly isn’t arguing ter favor of creation.
– Jon (Augray) Barber
“. wij have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive switch, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched spil the synthesis took hold. Wij paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while indeed knowing that it does not.” (Eldredge, Niles “Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria,” Simon &, Schuster: Fresh York NY, 1985, p44 )
It’s actually on pagina 144, and here is the total quote and setting, embarking on the previous pagina:
“And one might ask why such a distortion of the grosser patterns of the history of life has come about. For it truly seems to mij that F. J. Taggart wasgoed right all along. The treatment to the larger themes ter the history of life taken by the modern synthesis resumes the theme already badly apparent to Taggart ter 1925: a theory of gradual, progressive, adaptive switch so accurately rules our minds and imaginations that wij have somehow, collectively, turned away from some of the most basic patterns permeating the history of life.<,p144>, Wij have a theory that — spil punctuated equilibria tells us — is out of phase with the actual patterns of events that typically occur spil species’ histories unfold. And that discrepancy seems enlarged by a considerable order of magnitude when wij compare what wij think the larger-scale events ought to look like with what wij actually find. And it has bot paleontologists — my own breedgeschouderd — who have bot most responsible for letting ideas predominate reality: geneticists and population biologists, to whom wij owe the modern version of natural selection, can only rely on what paleontologists and systematic biologists tell them about the comings and goings of entire species, and what the large-scale evolutionary patterns truly look like.
“Yet on the other mitt, the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection works te nature, but that wij know precisely how it works, has led paleontologists to keep their own counsel. Everzwijn since Darwin, spil philosopher Michael Ruse (1982) has recently said, paleontology has sometimes played the role of the difficult child. But our usual mien has bot bland, and wij have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive switch, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched spil the synthesis took hold. Wij paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while indeed knowing that it does not. And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation vereiste come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about. Wij’ll look at some of the larger patterns ter the history of life te the next chapter — along with the hypotheses presently suggested spil explanations. Via it all, adaptation shines through spil an significant theme, there is every reason to drape on to that kind spil wij throw out the bathwater. But before turning te depth to thesis themes, wij need to take just one more, somewhat closer, look at the actual phenomenon of adaptation itself: what it is and how it occurs.”
So: Eldredge is agreeing that evolution occurs, and that adaptation via natural selection is real and significant. He is telling that (spil at 1985) paleontology needed to be more explicitly about the fact that evolution is not slow and sustained, but rapid and static te turns. The snippet that is quoted is deliberately chosen to suggest that Eldredge is admitting some deep error te evolutionary biology, but what he is telling is that some biologists have overlooked some gegevens they should factor ter, and that wij should not expect that evolution will be gradual.
“With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution spil a universal pattern on the fundament of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.” (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, “Patterns of Evolution and Extinction te Invertebrates”, Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record , Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)
Once again wij find that the passage quoted isn’t a criticism of evolution, but of gradualism.
The most significant contributions of Eldredge and Gould’s theory are the acceptance of patterns spil preserved te the fossil record, and the recognition of stasis (Lewin 1986). Hitherto, no morphological switch had bot equated with no gegevens, and just overlooked. With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that palaeontologists could have accepted gradual evolution spil a universal pattern on the poot of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny. (For example Micraster shows unexpected appearances of fresh taxa (Stokes 1977, Figure Two) and relatively unexpected switches te morphological features (Drummond 1983, figure 1).) The evidence that the vast majority of species appeared identically abruptly, had well-defined periods of existence, and then disappeared identically abruptly, wasgoed just overlooked. Furthermore, because evolution wasgoed known to be gradual, very few palaeontologists documented actual patterns preserved te the fossil record. Eldredge and Gould (1972) did a excellent service ter prompting a re-examination of the evidence.
What are the “well-documented lineages” that Paul mentions? Gryphaea is an extinct mollusk related to the oyster. On UF Scientist’s Oyster Discovery Gives Glues About Evolution wij find this passage:
Determining why the fossil oyster Gryphaea evolved the way it did is a classic riddle that has befuddled scientists since the publication of a provocative paper by paleontologist Edward Trueman ter 1922. One of the best documented cases of evolution ter the fossil record, the paper demonstrated how the oyster switched from being spil puny spil a penny and vapid to larger and coiled, Jones said.
Micraster is a type of sea urchin. See the following pages for more informatie:
Zaphrentis is a multitude of coral. See thesis pages for more informatie:
The ironic thing is that Gryphaea, Micraster, and Zaphrentis would very likely be recognized spil three different “kinds” by a creationist, who would then voorkeur that the unexpected switches te morphological features observed by Paul are just variations with their respective “kinds”.
But does Paul feel that evolution has bot discredited? At the end of the paper on pagina 119 wij find this:
Indeed, the real merit of all three major ideas discussed te this chapter (see p. 99) has bot their stimulus to detailed collecting and documentation of the patterns preserved te the fossil record. Even if all three should eventually be rejected, they will have advanced the state of skill of the fossil record and rendered invaluable service to palaeontology and evolutionary science ter general.
Evolutionary science hasn’t bot harmed, but rendered an “invaluable service”. Thesis are not the words of an tegenstander of evolution.
– Jon (Augray) Barber
“The rapid development spil far spil wij can judge of all the higher plants within latest geological times is an abominable mystery.” (Darwin, Charles R., letterteken to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, ter Darwin F. &, Seward A.C., eds., “More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work te a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers,” John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, pp. 20-21)
The letterteken is reproduced entirely below, from Project Gutenberg’s online copy of More Letters :
Letterteken 395. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, July 22nd .
I have just read Ball’s Verhandeling.* It is pretty bold. The rapid development spil far spil wij can judge of all the higher plants within latest geological times is an abominable mystery. Certainly it would be a superb step if wij could believe that the higher plants at very first could live only at a high level, but until it is experimentally [proved] that Cycadeae, ferns, etc., can withstand much more carbonic acid than the higher plants, the hypothesis seems to mij far too rash. Saporta believes that there wasgoed an astonishingly rapid development of the high plants, spil soon [spil] flower-frequenting insects were developed and favoured intercrossing. I should like to see this entire problem solved. I have fancied that perhaps there wasgoed during long ages a petite isolated continent te the S. Hemisphere which served spil the birthplace of the higher plants–but this is a wretchedly poor conjecture. It is odd that Ball does not allude to the visible fact that there voorwaarde have bot alpine plants before the Glacial period, many of which would have returned to the mountains after the Glacial period, when the climate again became warm. I always accounted to myself te this manner for the gentians, etc.
Ball ought also to have considered the alpine insects common to the Arctic regions. I do not know how it may be with you, but my faith ter the glacial migration is not at all shaken.
[Footnote from More Letters ]
* The late John Ball’s lecture “On the Origin of the Flora of the Alps” te the “Proceedings of the R. Geogr. Soc.” 1879. Ball argues (pagina Legal) that “during ancient Palaeozoic times, before the deposition of the Coal-measures, the atmosphere contained twenty times spil much carbonic acid gas and considerably less oxygen than it does at present.” He further assumes that te such an atmosphere the percentage of CO2 te the higher mountains would be excessively different from that at the sea-level, and appends the result of calculations which gives the amount of CO2 at the sea-level spil 100 vanaf Ten,000 by weight, at a height of Ten,000 feet spil 12.Five vanaf Ten,000. Darwin understands him to mean that the Vascular Cryptogams and Gymnosperms could stand the sea-level atmosphere, whereas the Angiosperms would only be able to exist ter the higher regions where the percentage of CO2 wasgoed puny. It is not clear to us that Ball relies so largely on the condition of the atmosphere spil regards CO2. If he does he is clearly te error, for everything wij know of assimilation points to the conclusion that 100 vanaf Ten,000 (1 vanaf cent.) is by no means a hurtful amount of CO2, and that it would lead to an especially vigorous assimilation. Mountain plants would be more likely to descend to the plains to share te the rich feast than ascend to higher regions to avoid it. Ball draws attention to the imperfection of our plant records spil regards the floras of mountain regions. It is, he thinks, conceivable that there existed a vegetation on the Carboniferous mountains of which no traces have bot preserved te the rocks. See “Fossil Plants spil Tests of Climate,” pagina 40, A.C. Seward, 1892.
Since the very first part of this note wasgoed written, a paper has bot read (May 29th, 1902) by Dr. H.T. Brown and Mr. F. Escombe, before the Royal Society on “The Influence of varying amounts of Doorslag Dioxide ter the Air on the Photosynthetic Process of Leaves, and on the Mode of Growth of Plants.” The author’s experiments included the cultivation of several dicotyledonous plants ter an atmosphere containing ter one case 180 to 200 times the normal amount of CO2, and te another inbetween three and four times the normal amount. The general results were practically identical ter the two sets of experiments. “All the species of flowering plants, which have bot the subject of proefneming, show up to be accurately ‘tuned’ to an atmospheric environment of three parts of CO2 vanaf Ten,000, and the response which they make to slight increases ter this amount are te a direction altogether unfavourable to their growth and reproduction.” The assimilation of doorslag increases with the increase te the partial pressure of the CO2. But there seems to be a disturbance te metabolism, and the plants fail to take advantage of the enlargened supply of CO2. The authors say: — “All wij are justified ter concluding is, that if such atmospheric variations have occurred since the advent of flowering plants, they voorwaarde have taken place so leisurely spil never to outrun the possible adaptation of the plants to their switching conditions.”
Prof. Farmer and Mr. S.E. Chandler talent an account, at the same meeting of the Royal Society, of their work “On the Influence of an Excess of Doorslag Dioxide te the Air on the Form and Internal Structure of Plants.” The results obtained were described spil differing te a remarkable way from those previously recorded by Teodoresco (“Rev. Gen. Botanique,” II., 1899)
It is hoped that Dr. Horace Brown and Mr. Escombe will extend their experiments to Vascular Cryptogams, and thus obtain evidence bearing more directly upon the question of an enhanced amount of CO2 ter the atmosphere of the Coal-period forests.)
The quote seems accurate spil far spil it goes, but it is hardly damning to the theory of evolution that Darwin did not (indeed, could not, given the evidence known ter his time) have a theory that described the evolution of plants. It wasgoed written ter 1879 after all.
[Commenting on above]
Of course, the quote miners want people to make a conclusion from this that is nothing more than an appeal to (Darwin’s) ignorance. It is also enormously out-of-date. Of course the creationist quote omits potential solutions. But spil quotes go, I will not call this creationist quote dishonest. Google shows mainstream science sites using the quote spil well, like Origin of the Angiosperms.
. . . The basic premise is no longer valid: “higher” plants no longer are so isolated te latest geological times. There is a long fossil history of plants ter which they become less and less modern te facet the further back one looks.
. . . [I]n 1879 Darwin’s basic ideas were still controversial and being debated te the scientific community (spil is right and zindelijk for any fresh theory). This letterteken is simply part of that debate – one ter which Darwin admits to not knowing one particular reaction.
“An fair man, armed with all the skill available to us now, could only state that, te some sense, the origin of life shows up at the uur to be almost a miracle.” (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature , 1981, p. 88)
Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after “miracle,”:
” . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have bot sated to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have embarked on the earth by a flawlessly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available wasgoed too long, the many microenvironments on the earth’s surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own skill and imagination too feeble to permit us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially spil wij have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.”
Crick’s book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have bot the result of “directed panspermia.” It should be noted that, ter the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be “seeding” the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. Ter this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, te the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth spil a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what instantly goes after, is deeply dishonest.
– J. (catshark) Pieret
“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed vereiste be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum total of such intermediate linksom? Geology assuredly does not expose any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps is the most evident and serious protestation which can be urged against the theory.” (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species , 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
Spil this specifies the 6th edition, I’ve made use of the edition that’s on line at Online Literature Library since the Talk.Origins archive has the 1st edition.
The above quote is from Chapter Ten – “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record”. Darwin’s writing style wasgoed to ask a rhetorical question and then give an reaction, spil wij see below:
But just ter proportion spil this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so vereiste the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum total of such intermediate linksom? Geology assuredly does not expose any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most evident and serious protestation which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, spil I believe, ter the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
Te the very first place, it should always be borne ter mind what sort of intermediate forms vereiste, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate inbetween them. But this is a wholly false view, wij should always look for forms intermediate inbetween each species and a common but unknown progenitor, and the progenitor will generally have differed te some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a elementary illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon, if wij possessed all the intermediate varieties which have everzwijn existed, wij should have an utterly close series inbetween both and the rock-pigeon, but wij should have no varieties directly intermediate inbetween the fantail and pouter, none, for example, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of thesis two breeds. Thesis two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if wij had no historical or officieus evidence regarding their origin, it would not have bot possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, C. livia, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such spil C. oenas.
So with natural species, if wij look to forms very distinct, for example to the pony and tapir, wij have no reason to suppose that linksaf directly intermediate inbetween them everzwijn existed, but inbetween each and an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had ter its entire organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the pony, but ter some points of structure may have differed considerably from both, even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence, ter all such cases, wij should be incapable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if wij closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time wij had a almost volmaakt chain of the intermediate linksaf.
The Quote Miner only quotes the question, not the response that goes after, te which Darwin states his belief that the geological record is incomplete, and then outlines which transitional forms he would expect to find if they’re found at all.
– Jon (Augray) Barber
“Often a cold shudder has run through mij, and I have asked myself whether I may have not dedicated myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters , 1887, Vol. Two, p. 229)
I looked at volume Two of Life and Letters , but cannot find anything remotely similar to that quote te the pages ter that surroundings.
Ah, the joys of books on the web: searchable books!
Here the letterteken is, te its entirety, from pages 24-26 (another example of much-copied errors te hand-me-down quote-mining), at: The Writings of Charles Darwin on the Web: Life and Letters of Charles Darwin: Chapter I
Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire,
November 23 .
You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question, there could not have bot a better project than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification ter your fresh edition,* nothing, I am wooed, could be more significant for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained ter the position of a master, one [Pagina 25] side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science suggest a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly, for, thinking of so many cases of fellows pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through mij, and I have asked myself whether I may not have loyal my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it spil morally unlikely that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I surplus ter peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a 2nd edition, I will attend to. I have bot thinking that if I am much execrated spil an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works, but I hope and think not, for spil far spil I can reminisce, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the very first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied spil deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.
I cannot help thinking that you overrate the importance of the numerous origin of dogs. The only difference is, that ter the case of single origins, all difference of the races has originated since man domesticated the species. Ter the case of numerous origins part of the difference wasgoed produced under natural conditions. I should infinitely choose the theory of single origin ter all cases, if facts would permit its reception. But there seems to mij some à, priori improbability (observing how fond savages are of taming animals), that via all times, and via all the world, that man should have domesticated one single species alone, of the widely distributed genus Canis. Besides this, the close resemblance of at least three kinds of American domestic dogs to wild species still inhabiting the countries where they are now domesticated, seem to almost compel admission that more than one wild Canis has bot domesticated by man. [Pagina 26] I thank you cordially for all the generous zeal and rente you have shown about my book, and I remain, my dear Lyell,
Your affectionate friend and disciple,
Tormentor J. Herschel, to whom I sent a copy, is going to read my book. He says he leans to the side opposed to mij. If you should meet him after he has read mij, beg find out what he thinks, for, of course, he will not write, and I should excessively like to hear whether I produce any effect on such a mind.
*It emerges from Master Charles Lyell’s published letters that he intended to admit the doctrine of evolution ter a fresh edition of the ‘Manual,’ but this wasgoed not published till 1865. He wasgoed, however, at work on the ‘Antiquity of Man’ ter 1860, and had already determined to discuss the ‘Origin’ at the end of the book.
So, once again wij see Darwin’s modesty (and Victorian style) being used by a crasser age to make it look spil if Darwin harbored real doubts about his theory when, te fact, he held it would be “morally unlikely” for it to be wrong, especially since it had passed the test of coaxing such fellows spil Lyell and Hooker.
His prescience concerning his fate at the arms of bigots is also notable.
– Mike Dunford and J. (catshark) Pieret
This is the worst of the misquotes uncovered by this project te my discreet opinion. I hereby award this misquote the Keith Davies Award for Extreme Misquoting. (Keith Davies being the dude who quoted some astronomers having telling there wasgoed a mystery and clipped the end of the sentence that said “is also solved.” See either the Supernova or the Quotes FAQs.)
I notice the creationist quote it spil a word spil “fantasy” and the letterteken quoted has “phantasy.” I guess one of the quote miners voorwaarde have assumed the quote mine he wasgoed copying from had a typo without checking the original. Lets see what Google gives when wij use “phantasy” spelling is used:
Charles Darwin characterized his idea spil a “web of an hypothesis with spil many flaws and slots spil sound parts.” The guru of evolutionism worried “I. have loyal my life to a phantasy.”
He had reasons to worry!
Ten days before the proofs were trussed he wrote to his friend J.D. Hooker, ‘I have bot very bad lately, having had an awful “laagconjunctuur” one gam swelled like elephantiasis — eyes almost closed up — covered with a rash &, flamy Boils: but they tell mij it will surely do mij much good. — it wasgoed like living ter Hell.’ 16, 17 His modern biographers talk of his ‘self-doubt, his nagging, gnawing fear that “I. have loyal my life to a phantasy.”‘ Legitimate
Same Google search but with the standard American spelling.
Darwin passed the surplus of his life te a semi – invalid condition, the precies cause of which, whether organic or psychological is not well known. He had reservations and doubts about his theory and ter his writings there are lines of defence, ter case it wasgoed proved spil erroneous. “Many times I have asked myself whether I may not have loyal my life to a fantasy. I am ready to sob ter despair at my blindness and my presumption” ( From ape to man pagina 23 Wendt, Herbert NY 1972).
Notice a variant misquote.
Darwin: “I have asked myself whether I may not have faithful my life to a fantasy.” “I . . . am ready to sob with vexation at my blindness and presumption.” (, p.59)
The phrase “with vexation” substitutes “te despair” and there are other differences with the previous version of the misquote.
“I have asked myself whether I may not have loyal my life to a fantasy . . . I am ready to sob with vexation at my blindness and presumption” Charles Darwin .
[Te a blockquote]
‘A ghastly fifteen months wasgoed capped on 1 October, when Charles finished the proofs amid fits of vomiting. During that entire time he had uncommonly bot able to write free of belly anguishes for more than twenty minutes at a open up. The next day, ter torrential rain, he took himself off to Ilkley . . . bracing himself against the elements, Darwin felt a cold shudder surge through him once more. The howling wind wasgoed spil nothing to the storm of self-doubt, his nagging, gnawing fear that ‘I have dedicated my life to a fantasy’ and a dangerous one. ‘ Heerser knows what the public will think.’ [Desmond &, Moore, p.476-7]
Someone might check to see if that cited biography of Darwin is partially at fault.
[No it’s not. But it is at fault te providing the impression – particularly te that passage – that Darwin’s doubts about evolution wasgoed the cause for his ailments and troubles. They present Darwin spil betraying his class allegiances te taking a radical stance overheen evolution, which had bot previously a view of social radicals and revolutionaries. I think, and so do many others, that this is bunk. So far spil I can tell, he never doubted the truth or value of the evolutionary hypothesis once he had come up with it te October 1838.
Te the fifth place, even the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, had serious doubts about his own theory. Shortly after Darwin published his infamous book on the origin of species, he wrote te a letterteken to Charles Lyell: “I have asked myself whether I may not have loyal my life to a fantasy.” 13 Ter another statement ter the same letterteken Darwin wrote: “I am the most pathetic, bemuddled, stupid dog ter all England, and am ready to sob with vexation at my blindness and presumption.” 14 If the father of evolutionary thought stated that his own theory wasgoed formulated by “blindness and presumption,” how could anyone argue that he employed good scientific means ter arriving at his conclusions. He did not even believe it himself!
This is the worst of all. Darwin did not believe his theory himself. Te any event, notice the voorkoop that the vexation quote comes from the same letterteken which is false.
C. DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
. . . I write now to supplicate most earnestly a favour, viz., the loan of Boreau, Flore du centre den schuiflade France, either 1st or 2nd edition, last best, also “Flora Ratisbonensis,” by Dr. Fü,rnrohr, ter ‘Naturhist. Topographie von Regensburg, 1839.’ If you can possibly spare them, will you send them at once to the enclosed address. If you have not them, will you send one line by terugwedstrijd of postbode: spil I vereiste attempt whether Kippist* can anyhow find them, which I fear will be almost unlikely te the Linnean Library, te which I know they are.
I have bot making some calculations about varieties, etc., and talking yesterday with Lubbock, he has pointed out to mij the grossest blunder which I have made ter principle, and which entails two or three weeks’ lost work, and I am at a dead-lock till I have thesis books to go overheen again, and see what the result of calculation on the right principle is. I am the most pathetic, bemuddled, stupid dog te all England, and am ready to sob with vexation at my blindness and presumption.
Everzwijn yours, most dreadfully,
[Ellipsis waterput there by Francis Darwin.]
*The late Mr. Kippist wasgoed at this time ter charge of the Linnean Society’s Library.]
Another flagrant out-of-context quote. Maybe it is not ter this list but since it so commonly associated with the quote-miner’s list, it might be a good idea add it to the compilation.
“The geological record has provided no evidence spil to the origin of the fishes.” (Norman, J., A History of Fishes , 1963, p. 298)
This book is out of print, the latest versions printed te 1976. The original wasgoed printed ter 1949! Unnecessary to say there have bot fairly a few discoveries regarding the origin of fish since 1949.
The 1949 version vereiste have bot a reprint also, spil Norman died of endocarditis ter 1944. Any statements about the geological record before 1944 would now be very much out of date.
“None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates.” (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems te Evolution , Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)
This is a Dover paperback reprint of a 1974 text book. According to Amazon.com it’s out of print. It’s not longer available through Dover Publications . . .
Dr Barbra J. Stahl is a profession of biology at St. Anselem University te Manchester NH, a petite Catholic University. She is quoted ter fairly a few creationist quote mines. Hier book is evidently a dearest of Phil Johnson, and the quote above is most very likely cribbed from Johnson’s “Darwin on Trial”. Interestingly enough, almost all quote mines cite the 1985 Dover reprint, rather than the 1974 original printing by McGraw Hill.
There have bot fairly a few discoveries since 1974 relating to fish/amphibian transitionals, which leaves Dr Stahl’s book more than a little out of date.
“Albeit the relationship of the rhipidistians to the amphibians will be discussed ter greater detail ter the next chapter, it should be said here that none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the very first amphibians appeared, and those that came before demonstrated no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterize the primitive tetrapods. While paleontologists hope to find remains of the rhipidistian line ter which thesis structures evolved, they have no intention of neglecting the history of the other members of the group.”
The next chapter, pg. 194:
“Despite the importance that terrestrial vertebrates were to have, however, their initial evolution wasgoed not te any way unusual or spectacular. The amphibians were not the last survivors of a lesser class but one of a number of fresh forms produced spil the early bony fishes diversified rapidly te the Devonian period. At their very first appearance, they talent the impression less of a revolutionary fresh group than of fishes peculiarly adapted for special habits of life. Outwardly, except for their gams, they resembled the rhipidistian fishes from which they sprang. Very likely, they continued to swim ter the shallows, spil their sharp-toothed forebears had, preying on the abundant placoderms and early paleoniscooids to be found there. Paleontologists are fairly certain of the relationship inbetween the rhipidistians and the amphibians even tho’ they have not discovered the animals intermediate inbetween the finned and limbed forms. The remains of the oldest tetrapods te their collections leave no doubt about the derivation of the axial skeleton from fishes of the rhipidistian group.”
For an example of newer information, see Pederpes finneyae.
– J. (catshark) Pieret
“The pathetic thing is that wij have scientists who are attempting to prove evolution, which no scientist can everzwijn prove.” (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner , August 7, 1925, quoted te Brewer’s lecture)
Well, this is from 1925, for one thing.
Also, here is a biography of Millikan:
He wasgoed a physicist (tho’ a Nobel Prize winner), but not a biologist or otherwise an pro te evolution.
– J. (catshark) Pieret
“Evolution is accepted by zoologists not because it has bot proved or observed, but because creation is incredible.” (Watson, D.M.S., Nature , August Ten, 1929)
Ter brief the reason why creation is incredible is that it is contrary to the observable facts.
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. Wij believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” (Keith, Arthur, forward to 100th anniversary edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species , 1959)
The quote that is attributed to Master Arthur Keith is a figment of the creationists imagination. I researched that quote a month or two ago and could not find a trace of it. No library te the Atlanta ondergrondse area has this particular edition and neither Amazon strafgevangenis Barnes and Noble has this edition. I am te nine newsgroups and no one ter thesis NGs had a copy or had everzwijn seen one. A search of the internet showcased many references for this quote but every one of them wasgoed from a creationist webpagina. It is also amazing because that Master Arthur died te 1955 and the 100th anniversary edition would not have bot issued until 1959. Tell mij, did “Godheid” write this for Tormentor Arthur from heaven?
Spil Tom points out this quote is indeed a figment of the creationists’ imagination.
However, Tormentor Arthur Keith did indeed write an introduction to the Origin of Species (Keith, 1928), albeit he did so overheen 30 years before any centennial edition would have bot printed. And considering that Keith died ter 1955, he wouldn’t have bot te a position to write one had he wished to. Did Keith write another introduction zometeen te his life? This is doubtful spil well, since the author of a straks introduction to the Origin , W. R. Thompson, states right at the beginning of his own effort:
When I wasgoed asked by the publishers of this fresh edition of The Origin of Species to write an introduction substituting the one ready a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Tormentor Arthur Keith, I felt utterly hesitant to accept the invitation. (Thompson 1958)
Does the supposedly quoted material reflect Keith’s views? Describing Darwin’s arrival at the Galapagos Islands, Keith writes:
And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things.
Wij see that Keith doesn’t believe that that special creation is an alternative at all, since he doesn’t feel that it can explain the fauna of the Galapagos. And straks on he writes:
The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most finish demonstration that the law of evolution is true.
It’s visible that Keith believes ter evolution not because he doesn’t like the alternatives, but because he believes evolution to be true.
Keith, Arthur. Introduction to “The origin of species by means of natural selection”, by Charles Darwin. London: J.M. Dent, 1928.
Thompson, William Robin. Introduction to “The origin of species”, by Charles Darwin. London: J.M. Dent, 1958.
– Jon (Augray) Barber
“Not one switch of species into another is on record. wij cannot prove that a single species has bot switched.” Charles Darwin, My Life &, Letters
Charles Darwin never wrote any book by that title.
It’s commonly misquoted on many a creationist webpagina.
His son edited, after his father’s death, a book called The life and letters of Charles Darwin .
Te which you can track down the 2nd half of the “quote” above, but without any trace of the very first half.
Many of Darwin’s books (including The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin ) are available via Project Gutenberg. I tracked this down and reported what I found te Re: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.
– Mike Hopkins and Mark VandeWettering
“The geological record is utterly imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why wij do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects thesis views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my entire theory. For he may ask ter vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) linksom which vereiste formerly have connected the closely allied or representative.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
This is from the near the end of chapter Ten of the 1st edition (funny how no edition number is given with the quote).
I have attempted to showcase that the geological record is enormously imperfect, that only a petite portion of the globe has bot geologically explored with care, that only certain classes of organic beings have bot largely preserved te a fossil state, that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved te our museums, is absolutely spil nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which vereiste have passed away even during a single formation, that, owing to subsidence being necessary for the accumulation of fossiliferous deposits thick enough to fight back future degradation, enormous intervals of time have elapsed inbetween the successive formations, that there has very likely bot more extinction during the periods of subsidence, and more variation during the periods of elevation, and during the latter the record will have bot least ideally kept, that each single formation has not bot continuously deposited, that the duration of each formation is, perhaps, brief compared with the average duration of specific forms, that migration has played an significant part ter the very first appearance of fresh forms te any one area and formation, that widely ranging species are those which have varied most, and have oftenest given rise to fresh species, and that varieties have at very first often bot local. All thesis causes taken conjointly, vereiste have tended to make the geological record enormously imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why wij do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.
He who rejects thesis views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my entire theory. For he may ask te vain where are the numberless transitional linksaf which voorwaarde formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found ter the several stages of the same superb formation. He may disbelieve ter the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed inbetween our consecutive formations, he may overlook how significant a part migration voorwaarde have played, when the formations of any one superb region alone, spil that of Europe, are considered, he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, unexpected coming te of entire groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which vereiste have existed long before the very first bloembed of the Silurian system wasgoed deposited: I can reaction this latter question only hypothetically, by telling that spil far spil wij can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood everzwijn since the Silurian epoch, but that long before that period, the world may have introduced a wholly different opzicht, and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be te a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.
Passing from thesis difficulties, all the other excellent leading facts ter palaeontology seem to mij simply to go after on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection.
Note that while Darwin does admit that “He who rejects thesis views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my entire theory”, he reiterates several reason why thesis views should be accepted, reasons he feels are fairly legitimate, but that are left out by the Quote Miner. Darwin feels that the geological record is consistent with evolution, and that his theory can only be rejected on geological grounds if his views of geology, which at that time were fairly rechtzinnig, are rejected spil well.
– Jon (Augray) Barber
“If it could be demonstrated that any complicated organ existed, which could not possibly have bot formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely pauze down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species
This is from harshly halfway through chapter 6 of the 1st edition:
If it could be demonstrated that any sophisticated organ existed, which could not possibly have bot formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely pauze down. But I can find out no such case.
Darwin didn’t feel there wasgoed an organ that could not have evolved, and there is no reason to think otherwise today.
– Jon (Augray) Barber
“If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have truly commenced into life all at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
This is from approximately five sevenths of the way through chapter 9 of the very first edition:
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have indeed began into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, vereiste have bot an utterly slow process, and the progenitors vereiste have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But wij continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not bot found underneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. Wij continually leave behind how large the world is, compared with the area overheen which our geological formations have bot cautiously examined, wij leave behind that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have leisurely multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. Wij do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have very likely elapsed inbetween our consecutive formations, longer perhaps te some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. Thesis intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms, and te the succeeding formation such species will emerge spil if all of a sudden created.
And once again, Darwin gives explanations he feels are fairly legitimate, and te fact the entire chapter, spil well spil the following one, is faithful to explaining his reasoning on the subject. Is there reason to think that several species of the same family have commenced all at once?
What all of the above quotes have done is taken advantage of Darwin’s style of writing to personages doubt on his belief ter his own theory. But rather than attempt to understand the concept, and argue against it, Quote Miners mindlessly repeat particular words.
– Jon (Augray) Barber
[And the quote from the Anointed One webpagina left out by the poster]
“Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins rigidly based te nothing.” (Quoted ter W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited [Nashville: Regency, 1991, originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
Anointed One mangled that reference. A fuller one is ter Correspondence with Dave.
Errol White, “A Little on Lung-fishes,” “Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London,” Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.
– J. (catshark) Pieret
Kicking off at the bottom of pagina 7:
It is overduidelijk that the separation inbetween the lung-fishes and the other two groups, the rhipidistians and the coelacanths is such spil to warrant placing them te a Sub-class separate from the Crossopterygii (e. g. Berg, 1940). How far they are separated wij do not yet know, for like all the other groups of fishes their origins are masked te obscurity. There are those who see ter their dentition, so unlike that of all other living fishes except the chimaeroids, relationships with that group and, through the chimaeroids, connection with the extinct arthrodires, to the similarity of whose dentition wij have just drawn attention, and it wasgoed next to the arthrodires that Smith Woodward placed them many years ago (1891:234) and so perhaps back to the elasmobranchs, to which Agassiz (1838:129) at very first referred the teeth of Ceratodus. But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins stiffly based te nothing, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is rigidly coaxed that everyone else is wrong.
Obviously White believes that evolution occurred, and even outlines several possible lines of descent. Straks on the same pagina he writes:
What wij do know for certain is from the evidence of geology, which tells us that the remains of organic beings from the oldest rocks to the latest form a succession, greatly imperfect, ter which the overall picture is that of creatures, both animals and plant, of increasingly modern opzicht.