MDMJR
Unregistered
M
In JR's commenatary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In my huge weekly crop of e-mail, I was offered a quotation from evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr:
. . . it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations.
Why is it that I don't have a "strain on [my] credulity" with this concept? Given a huge amount of time, and an almost infinite number of experiments — in which the bad results don't survive — the evolution of such features is inexorable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just wanted to point out a few things about the quote. For one, Ernst Mayr, being the evolutionist that he is, of course accepts and promotes evolution. This quote was written in 1942 in his book Systematics and the Origin of Species. It's written in response to the arguements that geneticists were having at the time as they were trying to figure out how complex systems could come to be.
Ernst goes on to say:
"However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternate explanaton that was supported by substantial evidence."
So Ernst seems to be sitting on the fence in this matter. He doesn't feel the evidence shows on way or the other. But it should be noted that he knows that there must by some naturalistic explanation for it. Given the facts at the time in 1942, it might have been hard for anyone to say conclusively.
But Ernst does come around. In his This Is Biology book, written later, he describes research showing how the eye evolves in the way we know it to have evolved. (He probably has something to say about feathers somewhere too, but I haven't looked into it).
So, the point is, if creationists are going to quote 1942 Ernst to show that he's uncertain what's what when if comes to this specific example, then they should also quote 1997 Ernst to show that he's seen the light.
-Mike Mayer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In my huge weekly crop of e-mail, I was offered a quotation from evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr:
. . . it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations.
Why is it that I don't have a "strain on [my] credulity" with this concept? Given a huge amount of time, and an almost infinite number of experiments — in which the bad results don't survive — the evolution of such features is inexorable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just wanted to point out a few things about the quote. For one, Ernst Mayr, being the evolutionist that he is, of course accepts and promotes evolution. This quote was written in 1942 in his book Systematics and the Origin of Species. It's written in response to the arguements that geneticists were having at the time as they were trying to figure out how complex systems could come to be.
Ernst goes on to say:
"However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternate explanaton that was supported by substantial evidence."
So Ernst seems to be sitting on the fence in this matter. He doesn't feel the evidence shows on way or the other. But it should be noted that he knows that there must by some naturalistic explanation for it. Given the facts at the time in 1942, it might have been hard for anyone to say conclusively.
But Ernst does come around. In his This Is Biology book, written later, he describes research showing how the eye evolves in the way we know it to have evolved. (He probably has something to say about feathers somewhere too, but I haven't looked into it).
So, the point is, if creationists are going to quote 1942 Ernst to show that he's uncertain what's what when if comes to this specific example, then they should also quote 1997 Ernst to show that he's seen the light.
-Mike Mayer