David, you wrote:
> I do not contend that this quote of
> his (Colin Patterson) proves he
> believes evolution is false.
> It does however, show that he saw
> a serious problem with the theory.
I think if you would put his comments into the context of the
controversy over systematics and Patterson's "transformed cladism", you
would see that, in fact, he saw no serious problem with evolution.
If you also look around, I think you will see that nobody else, informed
on the particulars, sees any hazard to evolution as a result of the
controversy over the place of chickens, crocodiles and vipers in that
David, you continued:
> That does not lessen the impact
> of the argument.
I am not sure what "the argument" is that you have reference to.
You also wrote:
> How could these creatures that are
> just barely different on the "tree" have
> so MUCH difference at the cellular level?
As I understand it, Patterson's transformed cladism didn't believe in
"trees" as part of their discipline. That why I figure Patterson was,
in part, merely tweaking some noses of his non-cladistic systematists.
I figure, as they all say, he was a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist, but
he didn't go in for "trees" when it came to his systematics.
I have't read his "Evolution" book, but I have read that his ideas about
evolution stem from simple empirical observations which necessarily lead
to the evolutionary scheme of things. There rest is merely in the
figuring out of the detaisl (i.e. the relationship between chickens and
The scientific community doesn't have all the answers. Neither do the
preachers. And I have even fewer answers than either of those groups.
If you asked me where Bert Thompson, Ph.D. got his Maury statue claim, I
couldn't tell you with any great deal of confidence. Maybe one day when
that simple question might be resolved, I will be able to move on to the
more complicated matters.