Re: Rick's exposition on Colin Patterson!
- ------------Forwarded Message------------
Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: Patterson must be a dufus [sic!]
? --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@... wrote:
> DW hereDB Willis quotes from Luther Sunderland's "Darwin's
> You can take Rick's word or C
> Patterson's as to whether or not the
> recapitulation theory was still "alive
> and well."
>| At the time of the interview, Dr. Patterson mustYou are not asking me to take Patterson's word, you are
>| not have been aware that recapitulation theory
>| had fallen into disrepute for he said that he
>| felt comfortable with it and that it was still
>| alive: "It's one of the few things that I
>| think has survived. The expectation in Darwin's
>| time was that all we need do was look at fossils
>| and they would give us the answers. But it's
>| true to say they haven't. I do like the ideas of
>| embryology. That's one of the few things that has
>| stood the test of time." When asked if he was aware
>| that the human embryo at no time was anthropoid in
>| appearance but that the ape embryo appears humanoid
>| at one point and so was backwards, he replied, "It's
>| only backwards if you insist that man is the highest
>| point in the evolutionary tree, which I wouldn't try
>| to say." Since the interview, Dr. Patterson has
>| become an anti-evolutionist, so perhaps he has changed
>| his beliefs about the evidence from embryology. >>
asking me to take Sunderland's word.
Willis, you have got to quit getting your information from
such places. Sunderland says here that Patterson had become
an anti-evolutionist. A few paragraphs later he claims that
Haeckel was convicted of forgery in a German court.
These aren't just misrepresentations, they are out-and-out
lies. Why should I believe this guy when he says that
Patterson must not have realized there was anything wrong
with recapitulation theory? What, specifically, is the
"it" that has survived? We don't see Sunderland's actual
question here so there is no way, from this, of determining
exactly what he asked. But from what I've heard the
transcripts of the interviews are available from ERIC and
they don't quite match up with Sunderland's words in
"Darwin's Enigma" -- one anti-creationist urges readers to
obtain the transcripts and see for themselves how the actual
interviews differ from Sunderland's written accounts of
Sunderland also claims that chimp embryos go through a
humanoid stage, but that human embryos don't go through
an anthropoid stage. What kind of nonsense is that?
Humans are *the* archetypical anthropoid. But recapitulation
theory is wrong, remember? *REMEMBER???* Chimp embryos
don't go through any humanoid stage! Sunderland is lying
about it -- plain, bald-faced lies -- and you are using
these lies to try to sully the name of a dead scientist.
Not only that, Sunderland says in another place, referencing
"Parents Magazine" rather than primary literature, that the
human embryo is unmistakably human all the way through its
development. This is a direct contradiction of his own
assertion that human embryos don't go through any stage
where they appear to be "anthropoid".
(By the way, Willis, you haven't answered the question
about whether you deny that human embryos have tails...)
So Patterson published the first edition of his book,
"Evolution" in 1978. The interview he afforded Sunderland
was in 1979. He gave his so-called "anti-evolution" talk in
1981. In 1985 he presented a paper at the Third International
Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, held at the
University of Sussex, titled "Molecules and Morphology in
Evolution: Conflict or Compromise?"
Do you honestly believe "The Conspiracy" would have allowed
Patterson to present at such a prestigious conference if
he had indeed become an anti-evolutionist?
Sunderland first published "Darwin's Enigma" in 1984, claiming
that Patterson had become an anti-evolutionist. This must have
been quite some news to Patterson, because he evidently had
no idea he had become an anti-evolutionist. Sunderland published
a slightly revised version of "Darwin's Enigma" in 1988,
including material from Michael Denton's 1985 "Theory in Crisis",
but neglected to correct his misrepresentation of Patterson as
having become an anti-evolutionist.
Here is what Patterson wrote in 1988:
| "Chelvam asserts that 'we are drowning' in evidence
| against darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the
| remarks attributed to me. It seems possible that
| he confuses two theories under the name of darwinism,
| the general theory of common ancestry or descent with
| modification, and Darwin's special theory of mechanism,
| natural selection. If he knows of evidence inconsistent
| with the general theory of common descent, he should
| tell us what it is. I know of none."
(Colin Patterson in a letter to the editor, _Nature_ 332:580, 1988).
And we have already seen the remarks that Robert provided
from the preface of Patterson's 2nd edition of "Evolution",
These are hardly the words of an "anti-evolutionist", Willis.
> Of course since CP has committed the height of treachery...Why would I want to do that?
> to admit that the Emperor has no clothes...I suppose
> it now is necessary for ev's like Rick to assassinate him.
I'm not the one calling Patterson a "dufus" [sic!].
I'm not the one who claims he was either lying in 1981
I'm not the one who claims he was trying to engage in
"damage control" afterward.
Colin Patterson never once "admitted the Emperor has no
clothes", if you are trying to use that to say that he
was in doubt that evolution is a fact and that there is
overwhelming evidence for it. And if that isn't what
you mean, then how can you say he has committed the
height of treachery?
> What would a dufus like CP know anyway about what is orApparently a lot more than you do. You have tried to
> isn't "alive and well" in current ev theory?
conflate comparative embryology with Haeckel's discredited
ideas, you have tried to confuse scientific objections to
"neo-Darwinism" as being an abandonment of modern evolutionary
theory, you have *repeatedly* -- "whether through design or
stupidity I do not know" -- tried to pretend that any
dispute among scientists as to *how* evolution occurs is
evidence that evolution does not occur.
Sorry, but that isn't the way it works.
If *you* knew what is "alive and well" in current evolutionary
theory, you would not be ableto , in honesty, make these
> I think after reading the mumbo jumbo from Rick, itHaeckel's work wasn't exactly a fiasco, despite creationist
> is hard to say WHAT Rick means. Sounds to me that he
> thinks embryology DOES support ev...but he just wants
> to distance himself from the Haeckel fiasco. Typical ev...
> plausible deniability.
portrayals of him. The "Biogenetic Law" is not a law at all,
there are too many exceptions to it; but as Gould points out
in "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" it can never be wholly discredited
because there is too much evidence for it. While Haeckel's
work may have sent embryologists in the wrong direction for a
while and may have given the non-scientific public some
lingering erroneous conceptions, there is absolutely no
substance in trying to pretend that Haeckel's drawings,
"fraud" or not, are evidence against the fact of biological
Yes, embryology does support evolution, and studies of
embryological development coupled with genetics have given
us a lot of information about when (not so much in years
but step-wise) divergences took place, as well as how
genes interact during the embryo's development.
> BTW, Terry....Waytago in finding the evidence that textbooksYes, textbooks are still pushing the "embryo crap". If you
> are still pushing the embryo crap...by WHATEVER name they are
> calling it these days.
don't like it, that's tough. Equating the "embryo crap"
with Haeckel's ideas, and then pretending that the "embryo
crap" in the textbooks was discredited long ago but
evolutionists are knowingly pushing false information in
order to brainwash kids, is intellectually dishonest.
And here's something else that is dishonest -- not so much
intellectually but just plain dishonest -- that we have
seen again and again, and especially most recently in
regard to Colin Patterson:
1. The evolutionist says something.
2. The creationist misrepresents what was said.
3. The evolutionist points out the misrepresentation
and tries to clarify the point being made.
4. The creationist then accuses the evolutionist of
engaging in "damage control", of lying, of cover-up.
That is despicable behavior. Using that technique I
could make any sort of false claim about you and then
when you denied it I could just say, "Well, naturally
DB Willis would deny that. Certainly he wouldn't want
the truth about that to get out."
In another post I will try to demonstrate what Patterson
meant by his "anti-evolutionary" or "non-evolutionary"
comments and why he suggested that the way the systematists
of the time were approaching their work could be likened to
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --------------Forwarded Message-----------
Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:48 PM
Subject: Sunderland agrees with Patterson about the Flood!
> > [C]reationists lack scientific| Luther Sunderland, New York's leading creationist, wants
> > research or evidence to support...
> > a world-wide flood (Noah's)...
| his colleagues to be careful when discussing the subject
| of origins in educational and scientific circles. Among
| his warnings is this most interesting item ? "Do not talk
| about a flood because there is no way a single world flood
| can be derived from scientific evidence alone. Talk about
| global catastrophes."
(P. 185, Scopes II: the Great Debate
by Louisiana State Senator Bill Keith)
(For those who don't know, Bill Keith was the sponsor of
the bill to get creation science into Louisiana public
schools, which led to the Edwards vs. Aguillard case.)
This explains why you so often see creationists trying to
pawn off the false dichotomy of Uniformitarianism vs.
Catastrophism and pretending that modern geologists are
not very well aware that catastrophes can and do show
up in the geologic record.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]