Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Unposted quotes: 2002-2004 #1

Expand Messages
  • Stephen E. Jones
    Group Here are some more unposted quotes from my file Unposted quotes: 2002-2004 . Since the file
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 19, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Group

      Here are some more unposted quotes from my file "Unposted quotes:
      2002-2004" <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/ceqnp02-.html>.
      Since the file `weighs' 289K(!) I will post it in 9 or 10 ~30K
      chunks over the next few days. Many of these quotes are worth
      reading. To save time I won't indent them.

      I also have another Unposted Quotes file `weighing' 107K, which I
      will post in 3 ~30K chunks before the list becomes `Moderator only
      can post' on Friday 22 July at 6PM (Perth time). That will then be it.

      The last quote before the tagline is another SLoT one for Cliff! :-)

      Steve

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "One of your books, The Blind Watchmaker, argues the case for the
      cumulative power of natural selection in the adaptation of organisms. Tell
      us about the metaphorical title of that book. The "watchmaker" comes
      from William Paley, the eighteenth-and early nineteenth-century theologian
      who was one of the most famous exponents of the argument of design.
      Paley the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century theologian who was one
      of the most famous exponents of the argument of design. Paley famously
      said that if you are wandering along and stumble upon a watch and you
      pick it up and open it, you realize that the internal mechanism-the way in
      which it's all meshed together-is detailed perfection. Add this to the fact
      that the watch mechanism has a purpose-namely, telling the time-then this
      compels you to conclude that the watch had to have a designer. Paley then
      went on throughout his book giving example after example of detailed
      structure of living organisms-eyes, heart, bowels, joints, and everything
      about animals-showing how beautifully designed they apparently are, how
      well they work, how intricately the parts mesh together, just like the cog
      wheels of a watch. And if the watch had to have a watchmaker, then of
      course these biological structures also had to have a designer. My reason
      for beginning The Blind Watchmaker was Paley. He really saw the
      magnitude of the problem of adaptation when most people just didn't see
      how elegant, how beautiful, apparent design in life is. Paley saw that, and
      Darwin saw that. And Darwin was introduced to it at least partly by Paley.
      All undergraduates at Cambridge had to read William Paley. He at least put
      the question right. So the only thing Paley got wrong, which is quite a big
      thing, was the answer to the question. And nobody got the right answer
      until Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century." (Dawkins R., "Interview,"
      in Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," [1987],
      Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.412)

      "In another of your books, The Selfish Gene, you argue that genes are the
      units upon which natural selection acts and that organisms are `survival
      machines' for genes. To what extent are humans exceptions to this
      mechanistic view of life? Humans are fundamentally not exceptional
      because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other
      species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies
      and our brains. However, the brains that natural selection gave us are
      exceptionally big brains, so big that they have done a rather unusual thing.
      Using language and culture, humans have formed societies in which there
      is something like Darwinian evolution going on, though it is not really
      Darwinian. We live in a highly domestic environment, largely governed by
      technology, largely divorced from the environment in which our genes
      were originally naturally selected. So what is different about us is that it is
      no longer possible to look at a human the way one might look at a
      wildebeest or a kangaroo and ask, `Why is that? What's that kangaroo
      doing that increases its gene survival?' If you see a wild animal doing
      something in the wild, then it's sensible to ask the question, `What is it
      about that behavior, or what is it about that morphological structure, which
      improves its survival, or more particularly the survival of its genes?' And
      you can't do that for humans? No, you can't look at humans playing the
      violin, or trying to run a company, or writing a book or writing a
      symphony, and ask, `In what way does writing this symphony benefit
      survival and replication of that human's genes?' because it doesn't. You
      have to be more sophisticated and ask, `In what way does the behavior of a
      brain which was originally built by natural selection for surviving in
      Africa in the Pleistocene and Pliocene translate into the behavior of this
      brain, now that it finds itself in this very different, artificial environment?"
      (Dawkins R., "Interview," in Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G.,
      "Biology," [1987], Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition,
      1999, pp.412-413)

      "Earlier, you mentioned that in human culture, there may be something
      like Darwinian evolution. Tell us more about that. There's no doubt, of
      course, that cultural evolution happened, and it has some analogy to
      evolution, perhaps even Darwinian evolution. In The Selfish Gene I
      constantly emphasized the importance of genes as the central units of
      natural selection. Genes are the only things that pass down through
      generations. But what's special about genes is that they are replicated, they
      function as what I called `replicators' in The Selfish Gene. So, it's
      replicators that matter, not specifically genes. Anything that is self-
      replicating anywhere in the universe is fair game for natural selection.
      There probably is life on other planets, and if there is, then I absolutely bet
      my shirt that it's based upon natural selection. That would require a
      replicator. It doesn't have to be DNA, but it would have the fundamental
      property of self-replication. In making this point in The Selfish Gene that
      replicators are the units of selection, I also gave the example of what I
      called the `meme,' the unit of cultural evolution. You can look at human
      culture and ask yourself, `Is there something which is passing from brain
      to brain and perhaps from generation to generation by nongenetic means?'
      I think there is. For example, when we were at school, I think we all had
      the experience of some craze that spreads through a school like a measles
      epidemic-a new kind of toy or a new style of wearing a hat. It literally does
      spread from person to person and then it may die away, or it may perhaps
      leap to another school. Well, that's a trivial example, but it's enough to
      show that there is some replicator which is analogous to a virus but does
      not consist of DNA. The phenotypes of most memes are behavioral, such
      as religious traditions. So there we have memes that pass longitudinally
      down the generations. The school craze is a meme that passes horizontally
      across one generation. And we live in an environment that is saturated by
      both kinds of memes. You then have to ask, `Do some memes survive
      better than others because they have what it takes to survive?' If they do,
      that is all that you need to establish that there is a Darwinian-like
      component to cultural evolution." (Dawkins R., "Interview," in Campbell
      N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," [1987],
      Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.413)

      "From the reductive, mechanistic point of view, however, from the point of
      view of the faith of Darwinism, all these arguments, biological as well as
      historical and philosophical, are muddled and mystical, unscientific, and
      therefore incompetent objections, lying, even when they come from
      competent scientists rather; than historians or philosophers beyond the
      bounds of rational discourse." (Grene M., "The Faith of Darwinism,"
      Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, p.56)

      "The fact that fossilized life of the simplest bacterial grade appears in some
      of the most ancient rocks on Earth suggests that an origin of life in these
      conditions may be nearly inevitable, since incredibly improbable events
      should not occur so quickly. But my skeptical side retorts that good luck in
      one try proves nothing. I may win the lottery the first time I buy a ticket,
      and I might flip 10 heads in a row on my first sequence of tosses. I might
      also argue that since our immense universe contains gazillions of galaxies
      filled with appropriate stars and planets, and since life did emerge on the
      one and only planet we really know, how can we deny that a sizable
      proportion of these other planets must also contain life? Yet a logical
      fallacy dooms this common argument because either alternative can be
      reconciled with the positive result that I must obtain for the only place I
      can sample--our Earth. For if all appropriate planets generate some form of
      life, then I should not be surprised that I have found living things on my
      own world. But if life really exists on my planet alone, then I must still
      record a positive result from this only possible sample. After all, I knew the
      answer for the earth before I ever formulated my scheme for sampling."
      (Gould S.J., "Will We Figure Out How Life Began? ," Time Magazine,
      April 9, 2000. [June 26, 2000, pp.132-133].
      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,42365,00.html)

      "Whether RNA arose spontaneously or replaced some earlier genetic
      system, its development was probably the watershed event in the
      development of life. It very likely led to the synthesis of proteins, the
      formation of DNA and the emergence of a cell that became life's last
      common ancestor. The precise events giving rise to the RNA world
      remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many
      hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at
      best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may
      not be revealed in the near future." (Orgel L.E., "The Origin of Life on the
      Earth," Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 4, October 1994, p.61). p.83)

      "In any case, this initial period of both internal and external
      flexibility yielded a range of invertebrate anatomies that may have
      exceeded (in just a few million years of production) the full scope of
      animal form in all the earth's environments today (after more than 500
      million years of additional time for further expansion). Scientists
      are divided on this question. Some claim that the anatomical range of
      this initial explosion exceeded that of modern life, as many early
      experiments died out and no new phyla have ever arisen. But scientists
      most strongly opposed to this view allow that Cambrian diversity at
      least equaled the modern range-so even the most cautious opinion holds
      that 500 million subsequent years of opportunity have not expanded the
      Cambrian range, achieved in just five million years. The Cambrian
      explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of
      life." (Gould S.J., "The Evolution of Life on the Earth," Scientific
      American, Vol. 271, No. 4, October 1994, pp.63-69, p.67)

      "Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes
      is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound." (Long J.O., "The
      Rise of Fishes," John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1995, p.30).

      "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain
      basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations ...."
      (Eldredge N., "The Pattern of Evolution," W. H. Freeman & Co: New York.,
      1998, p.157).

      "Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple
      evolutionary trees-fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but
      rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups ...
      Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear
      or progressive manner-new features are often "cut and pasted" on different
      groups at different times." (Shubin N., "Evolutionary Cut and Paste,"
      Nature, Vol. 349, July 2, 1998, p.12)

      "Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes
      of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be
      achieved only by creative imagination." (Takahata N.A., "Genetic
      Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of
      Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 26, 1995, p.343).

      "`This is all very well,' I can almost hear a critic saying `but it's just
      tinkering. No one has ever seen the formation of a new species.' The
      answer to this depends on the critic's concept of species ... Hundreds of
      new plant species have been experimentally manufactured. I will use the
      most famous example, the (flowerpot) primrose Primula kewensis, to
      explain the method. Two species, P. verticillata and P. floribunda are
      hybridised. The hybrid offspring, as expected, are sterile. However, if the
      hybrids double their number of chromosomes (and this can be encouraged
      by the chemical colchicine) they are fertile among themselves though not
      with either of the parent species. P. kewensis, in other words,-is a new
      reproductive species. Many strains of common garden flowers, such as
      tulips, crocuses and irises, are artificial hybrids. Furthermore, this method
      of speciation is no mere bizarre horticultural or experimental curiosity but
      has been a major mode of speciation in natural plants. In many genera of
      flowers, the different species have different simple multiples (2n, 4n, etc)
      of a `basic' (n) number of chromosomes. If, as seems likely, these species
      were formed by interspecific hybridisation followed by chromosomal
      multiplication then about a third to a half of plant species must have
      originated in this way. ... We will leave our critic, walking among the
      many- coloured hybrids in a horticultural garden, his senses being pleased
      while his mind, we hope, is disabused of one of the commoner fallacies of
      the evolutionary controversy, that no one has ever made a new species."
      (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?," New Scientist, Vol. 90,
      pp.830832, 25 June 1981, pp.831-832)

      "I was particularly offended by his [Johnson's] false and unkind accusation
      that scientists are being dishonest when they claim equal respect for
      science and religion: `Scientific naturalists do not see a contradiction,
      because they never meant that the realms of science and religion are of
      equal dignity and importance. Science for them is the realm of objective
      knowledge; religion is a matter of subjective belief. The two should not
      conflict because a rational person always prefers objective knowledge to
      subjective belief.' Speak for yourself, Attorney Johnson. I regard the two
      as of equal dignity and limited contact. `The two should not conflict,'
      because science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human
      morality." (Gould S.J. "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge". Book
      Review of "Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson, Regnery Gateway:
      Washington, D.C., 1991, Scientific American, July 1992, pp.93-94)

      "Darwin's theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence,
      and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist. But,
      important as evidence is, in this article I want to explore the possibility of
      developing a different kind of argument. I suspect that it may be possible
      to show that, regardless of evidence, Darwinian natural selection is the
      only force we know that could, in principle, do the job of explaining the
      existence of organised and adaptive complexity." (Dawkins R., "The
      Necessity of Darwinism," New Scientist, Vol. 94, 15 April 1982, p.130)

      "The first and most obviously unique characteristic of man is his capacity
      for conceptual thought; if you prefer objective terms, you will say his
      employment of true speech, but that is only another way of saying the
      same thing. True speech involves the use of verbal signs for objects, not
      merely for feelings. Plenty of animals can express the fact that they are
      hungry; but none except man can ask for an egg or a banana." (Huxley
      J.S., "The Uniqueness of Man," Chatto & Windus: London, 1941, Third
      Impression, p.3)

      "What is life, anyway? Is it nothing more than a particularly complicated
      kind of carbon chemistry? Or is it something more subtle? And what are
      we to make of creations such as computer viruses? Are they just pesky
      imitations of life-or in some fundamental sense are they really alive?"
      (Waldrop M.M., "Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order
      and Chaos," Penguin: London, [1992], 1994, reprint, p.10)

      "Louis Agassiz was, without doubt, the greatest and most influential
      naturalist of nineteenth-century America. ... He ... virtually established
      natural history as a professional discipline in America ... He was Darwin's
      contemporary (two years older), but his mind was indentured to the
      creationist world view and the idealist philosophy that he had learned from
      Europe's great scientists. ... Agassiz died in 1873, sad and intellectually
      isolated but still arguing that the history of life reflects a preordained,
      divine plan and that species are the created incarnations of ideas in God's
      mind." (Gould S.J., "Agassiz in the Galapagos" in "Hen's Teeth and
      Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History," [1983], Penguin:
      London, 1986, reprint, p.108)

      "This notion of species as `natural kinds' fits splendidly with creationist
      tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are
      God's individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both
      His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are `instituted by
      the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking.' But how
      could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by
      an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the
      fundamental fact of nature? Both Darwin and Lamarck struggled with this
      question and did not resolve it to their satisfaction. Both denied to the
      species any status as a natural kind." (Gould S.J., "A Quahog is a
      Quahog," in "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History,"
      [1980], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, pp.170-171)

      "Woese totted up the genetic differences between the two kinds of
      prokaryotes and concluded that the trifurcation of life into eukaryotes,
      bacteria, and archaea-must have occurred more than 3 billion years ago.
      But which of the three groups appeared first? Are we eukaryotes more
      closely related to bacteria or to archaea? To find out, researchers in the
      mid-1980s turned to the enzyme RNA polymerase and other factors
      involved in the synthesis of proteins, some of the most ancient and
      universal pieces of machinery in the cell. After comparing these proteins in
      species from the three groups of organisms, the scientists concluded that
      plants, animals, and fungi are more closely related to archaea than to
      bacteria. Comparisons of other proteins, however, contradicted this
      conclusion: some suggested that eukaryotes and bacteria were closer kin,
      while still others suggested that archaea and bacteria were. By the mid-
      1990s, the situation had become a mess. The only explanation for these
      contradictory patterns, according to W. Ford Doolittle, of Dalhousie
      University in Nova Scotia, is to assume that at some point in the early
      history of life, there was promiscuous sharing of genes among species-or
      even mergers of whole organisms. Woese agrees. He now thinks that `the
      Last Universal Common Ancestor was not a discrete entity but rather a
      diverse community of cells that evolved as a biological unit.'" (Ridley M.,
      "The Search for LUCA," Natural History, Vol. 109 No. 9, November
      2000, pp.82-85, p.83)

      "Forterre had a heretical view. He challenged the generally accepted idea
      that bacteria (or archaea) predated all other creatures on Earth. He even
      doubted that they were primitive. The long-standing `prokaryote dogma,'
      he claimed, was based on the prejudice that the simple must precede the
      complex. His own work on a bacterial enzyme called DNA gyrase had
      convinced him that bacteria are actually quite advanced. Gyrase is a
      powerful and sophisticated tool-and it's a tool eukaryotes do not possess.
      The more Forterre considered the streamlined simplicity and effectiveness
      of a bacterial cell, the more he was convinced that the flunky machinery in
      eukaryotic cells represented an older, more primitive technology. Forterre
      and his colleague Herve Philippe have now gathered many examples that
      support their case. Take RNA polymerase. This enzyme creates working
      copies of DNA (called messengers) used in gene translation. The version
      we eukaryotes use has up to thirteen components, each made by a separate
      gene. In addition, it is assisted by twenty or so "transcription factors," by a
      ten-part "spliceosome" (a machine whose job it is to cut out the pieces of
      nonmessage text, called introns, that interrupt eukaryotic genes), and by a
      six-part "polyadenylation device." The RNA polymerase used by archaea
      also has a large number of components (eight to twelve) and is assisted by
      only two or three other genes. The truly striking contrast, however,
      appears in the version used by bacteria, which has just three components
      and a single assistant. The traditional view would be that the complications
      found in eukaryotic RNA polymerase were added over the eons. But it
      could just as easily have happened the other way round, with bacteria
      slimming down the RNA polymerase machinery to its most efficient form.
      In plants, animals, and fungi, the synthesizing, capping, splicing,
      polyadenylating, and transporting of a DNA messenger takes about thirty
      minutes. In bacteria, the process is completed in a matter of seconds.
      Forterre argues that his scenario of moving from a complex eukaryote-like
      common ancestor to a simpler but more efficient prokaryotic system is
      more appealing than the classical hypothesis that views prokaryotes as the
      more primitive organisms. ... There is no question that simplification does
      occur during evolution. Over time, parasitic lineages lose sense organs and
      brains they do not need. ... If viruses are reduced organisms, then why
      couldn't bacteria be as well? The eukaryotic cell is stuffed full of features
      that have no counterpart in bacteria or archaea and that, Forterre argues,
      no self-respecting life-form would invent unless it absolutely had to."
      (Ridley M., "The Search for LUCA," Natural History, Vol. 109 No. 9,
      November 2000, pp.82-85, p.83)

      "THE trunk of the tree of life-the so-called `universal ancestor' from which
      all later life forms branched-may be a tangled thicket instead of a single
      stem, says an American evolutionary biologist. If true, this would
      dramatically change the way biologists view the early history of life on
      Earth. Biologists have assumed that if they learnt enough about
      evolutionary history, they could trace the evolutionary tree from one
      ancestor to another all the way back to the first living cells. Most believe
      the earliest organisms were much like bacteria or archaeans-single-celled
      organisms similar to bacteria-or had characteristics of both. But this
      genealogy breaks down if you follow it back more than 3 billion years, says
      Carl Woese of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. `The
      phylogenetic tree does not have its root in anything we would call an
      organism by today's standards,' he says. .... This genetic fluidity, Woese
      says, may have been so extensive that the universal ancestor of modern life
      forms was not a single organism but a loose community of protocells that
      swapped genetic material so frequently that they evolved together. The
      three main branches of life probably emerged as subsets of this community,
      whose genetic makeup gradually became more rigid and less open to lateral
      transfer as evolution favoured sets of genes that had become adapted to
      one another. If Woese is right, researchers may need to rethink the history
      of life. Different parts of an organism's genome may have different
      evolutionary histories." (Holmes B., `Free for-all,' New Scientist, Vol. 158,
      No. 2140, 27 June 1998, p.17)

      "The universal phylogenetic tree, therefore, is not an organismal tree at its
      base but gradually becomes one as its peripheral branchings emerge. The
      universal ancestor is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community
      of cells that survives and evolves as a biological unit. This communal
      ancestor has a physical history but not a genealogical one. Over time, this
      ancestor refined into a smaller number of increasingly complex cell types
      with the ancestors of the three primary groupings of organisms arising as a
      result." (Woese C., "The universal ancestor," Proceedings of the National
      Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 95, Issue 12, June 9, 1998, pp.6854-
      6859, p.6854)

      "By now, it is obvious that what we have come to call the universal
      phylogenetic tree is no conventional organismal tree. Its primary
      branchings reflect the common history of central components of the
      ribosome, components of the transcription apparatus, and a few other
      genes. But that is all. In its deep branches, this tree is merely a gene tree.
      Genuine organisms (self-replicating entities that have true individuality and
      a history of their own) did not exist at the time the tree started to form.
      The tree arose in a communal universal ancestor, an "entity" that had a
      physical history but not a genealogical one. This tree became an organismal
      tree only as it grew, only as its more superficial branches emerged. By the
      time these formed, many more functions had crystallized and so, had come
      to have discernible histories; and these histories coincided with those of the
      ribosomal components and the like-but only after the point of their
      crystallization. An interesting question is whether the universal tree had
      become an organismal tree by the time the three primary lines of descent
      began to form and branch. I think not." (Woese C., "The universal
      ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol.
      95, Issue 12, June 9, 1998, pp.6854-6859, p.6857)

      "No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found
      not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the `first law'), the
      existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must
      have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is
      composed of interacting particles." (Lieb E.H. & Yngvason J., "A
      Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics
      Today, Vol. 53., April 2000, p.32).
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "Since the text indicates that Daniel himself lived to serve, for several years
      at least, under Persian rule, there is no particular reason why he should not
      have employed in his language those Persian terms (largely referring to
      government and administration) which had found currency in the Aramaic
      spoken in Babylon by 530 B.C. But it is alleged that the presence of at least
      three Greek words in Daniel 3 indicates that the work must have been
      composed after the conquest of the Near East by Alexander the Great.
      These three words (in 3:5) are qayteros (Gr. kitharis), psanterin (Gr.
      psaltirion), and sumponyah (Gr. symphonia). ... It should be carefully
      observed that these three words are names of musical instruments and that
      such names have always circulated beyond national boundaries as the
      instruments themselves have become available to the foreign market. These
      three were undoubtedly of Greek origin and circulated with their Greek
      names across national boundaries, just as foreign musical terms have made
      their way into our own language, like the Italian piano and viola. ... Greek
      mercenaries, Greek slaves and Greek musical instruments were current in
      the Semitic Near East long before the time of Daniel. ... Two or three other
      words have been mistakingly assigned by some authors to a Greek origin,
      but these have now been thoroughly discredited." (Archer G.L., "A Survey
      of Old Testament Introduction," [1964], Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1966,
      Third printing, p.375)
      Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
      Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book, "Problems of
      Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • Cliff Lundberg
      From: Stephen E. Jones ... I d check a Sanskrit dictionary before believing the Greeks coined these words. Cliff
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 19, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@...>

        > "These three words (in 3:5) are qayteros (Gr. kitharis),
        > psanterin (Gr.
        > psaltirion), and sumponyah (Gr. symphonia). ... It should be
        > carefully
        > observed that these three words are names of musical instruments
        > and that
        > such names have always circulated beyond national boundaries as
        > the
        > instruments themselves have become available to the foreign
        > market. These
        > three were undoubtedly of Greek origin...
        >(Archer G.L., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction," [1964]

        I'd check a Sanskrit dictionary before believing the Greeks
        coined these words.

        Cliff
      • Stephen E. Jones
        Group ... CL I d check a Sanskrit dictionary before believing the Greeks ... Cliff can check a Sanskrit dictionary if he wants to. Archer and Harrison (see
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 19, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Group

          On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:49:08 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:

          >SJ>"These three words (in 3:5) are qayteros (Gr. kitharis),
          >>psanterin (Gr.psaltirion), and sumponyah (Gr. symphonia). ... It should be
          >>carefully observed that these three words are names of musical instruments
          >>and that such names have always circulated beyond national boundaries as
          >>the instruments themselves have become available to the foreign
          >>market. These three were undoubtedly of Greek origin...
          >>(Archer G.L., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction," [1964]

          CL>I'd check a Sanskrit dictionary before believing the Greeks
          >coined these words.

          Cliff can "check a Sanskrit dictionary" if he wants to. Archer and Harrison
          (see previous) are Hebraists (Archer is actually a co-editor of the two-
          volume "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament"-a Hebrew lexicon)
          and Whitcomb (of Whitcomb & Morris, "The Genesis Flood")(see tagline)
          is (or was) an ancient Semitic languages expert. If they say that the "three
          ... musical instruments" in Daniel are Aramaic translations of Greek
          words, then I accept that they are.

          Anyway, this is irrelevant to the point being made by the liberal (anti-
          supernaturalist) critics that Daniel must date from the 2nd century BC
          (~170 BC) because his prophecies of that era were too accurate, and they
          used the presence of a few Greek words in Daniel as evidence. If they were
          "Sanskrit" then that would also refute the critics' claim that these words
          entered Aramaic after Alexander's conquest of 332 BC. My understanding
          is that the Greek language derived from "Sanskrit". And of course musical
          instruments could be *very* old and the Greek words for them could in
          turn have derived from "Sanskrit". The point being made is that Greek
          musical instruments could (and did) enter Babylon and Babylonian
          Aramaic in the 6th century BC, well ahead of Alexander. This is such an
          obvious point, it shows how *desperate* the anti-supernaturalist critics
          were to consign Daniel's prophecies to vaticini ex eventu (prophecies after
          the event).

          But in fact *only* three Greek words when by the 2nd century BC Israel
          had been under Greek occupation from the 4th century BC (332 BC), i.e.
          ~160 years, is nowhere near enough. After Alexander's conquest in 332
          BC, a number of Greek administrative words entered Aramaic, but where
          Daniel could have used them, he used the far older Persian equivalents.
          This is compelling evidence that Daniel was written in the 6th (or 5th)
          century BC, in which case Daniel's prophecies *were* too accurate (to
          explain naturalistically)!

          Steve

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          "Finally, it must be stated that the classic arguments for a 2nd-century BC
          date for the book are untenable. ... The presence of three Gk. names for
          musical instruments (translated 'harp', 'sackbut', and 'psaltery' in iii. 5, 10),
          another of the arguments for a late date, no longer constitutes a serious
          problem, for it has become increasingly clear that Gk. culture penetrated the
          Near East long before the time of Nebuchadrezzar (cf. W.F. Albright, From
          Stone Age to Christianity 2, 1957, p. 337). Persian loan words for technical
          terms are likewise consistent with an early date. The Aramaic of Daniel (ii.
          4b-vii, 28) closely resembles that of Ezra (iv. 7-vi. 18, vii. 12-26) and the
          5th-century BC Elephantine papyri, while the Hebrew of Daniel resembles
          that of Ezekiel, Haggai, Ezra and Chronicles more than that of
          Ecclesiasticus (180 BC)." (Whitcomb J.C., "Daniel," in Douglas J.D., et al.,
          eds., "The New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Fellowship:
          London, 1967, reprint, pp.292-293)
          Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
          Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book, "Problems of
          Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        • Cliff Lundberg
          From: Stephen E. Jones ... That was what I was suggesting. Don t uncritically accept the claim that these words were undoubtedly of
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 20, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@...>
            > CL>I'd check a Sanskrit dictionary before believing the Greeks
            >>coined these words.
            >
            > Cliff can "check a Sanskrit dictionary" if he wants to.

            > But in fact *only* three Greek words when by the 2nd century BC
            > Israel
            > had been under Greek occupation from the 4th century BC (332
            > BC), i.e.
            > ~160 years, is nowhere near enough. After Alexander's conquest
            > in 332
            > BC, a number of Greek administrative words entered Aramaic, but
            > where
            > Daniel could have used them, he used the far older Persian
            > equivalents.
            > This is compelling evidence that Daniel was written in the 6th
            > (or 5th)
            > century BC, in which case Daniel's prophecies *were* too
            > accurate (to
            > explain naturalistically)!

            That was what I was suggesting. Don't uncritically accept the
            claim
            that these words were "undoubtedly of Greek origin", as
            necessarily
            meaning the words were originated by the Greeks, which would then
            disallow the earlier date.

            Cliff
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.