The Theory of Evolution: Just a Theory?
Historian Prof. William D. Rubinstein shares his doubts about the theory of evolution. He raises questions about evolution to which he seeks answers.
Like most people with enquiring minds, I have at least a desultory interest in many fields beyond my own narrow specialty, including the mysteries of science. I am not a scientist, needless to say, although I think I have as much common sense as the next man and probably more in the way of an independent viewpoint than most.
I have thus long been fascinated by the great dogma of the Theory of Evolution, which of course was formulated by Charles Darwin in his seminal work On the Origin of Species in 1859, probably the most important book published during the nineteenth century. The Theory of Evolution in its commonly-voiced form has long struck me as having so many dubious features that it is genuinely surprising that it has not attracted many more challenges than it actually has - although (I gather) a growing number of scientifically-trained commentators are also having their doubts.
One reason for the failure of scientists to challenge Evolution is that the whole subject is tainted and pervaded by the religion vs. science question, such that anyone who questions Evolution is automatically dismissed as a "Creationist" who believes in the literal truth of the Bible and who is seen as having an agenda of religious fundamentalism behind his doubts. Let me make clear, then, that I am not a religious fundamentalist. I do not believe that the Bible is literally true. I do not believe that the world was created in six days in 4004 BC, or that all of life perished apart from the handful of humans and pairs of animals rescued by Noah on his Ark. On the contrary, I have no reason to suppose that the accepted scientific chronology of the earth's history and the emergence of life is not entirely correct - the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, life began perhaps a billion years ago and crawled out of the seas around 500 million years ago, and so on. Nor do I have any reason to doubt that humans are descended from primates, our line having branched off perhaps ten million years ago, although just how and when the defining qualities of homo sapiens - our intelligence, ability to communicate through language, curiosity, etc. - emerged are anything but clear.
Nevertheless, there are so many deep implausibilities in the Theory of Evolution as it is commonly understood that it seems to me, as a non-scientist, that something must surely be radically wrong. Let me set out the doubts which I (and many others) have had about Evolution.
• Evolution appears to be plainly impossible. Animals cannot "evolve" into new and different species. If one breeds cats for a thousand generations, they will still be cats, won't they? They simply will not "evolve" into cats which look like kangaroos and are genetically different from felis domesticus. It simply won't happen.
• Moreover, no one expects "evolution" to occur. If your pet cat gave birth to a litter of kittens, one of which had two tails, you wouldn't exclaim, "Aha! Here is the next stage of feline evolution!" One would assume that the two-tailed kitten was a freak of nature. No one would claim that a deviant animal was an example of evolution at work. If you read in a newspaper that a cat gave birth to kittens which looked like racoons, and had a different DNA structure from ordinary cats, you would assume that a hoax or fraud was being perpetrated. No one, anywhere, would conclude that we have just beheld an example of Darwinian evolution in actual fact.
• Even more importantly, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever seen an example of genuine evolution, that is, of one species producing an offspring which was clearly of another, different species. Of course, there are hundreds of billions of living beings in the world, and it would be remarkable if anyone spotted a clear-cut evolutionary change. On the other hand, people have been looking for evidence of evolution for nearly 150 years, and scientists would certainly be sensitive to the emergence of any new species, with the evidential value this would have for proving Darwin right.
• Most claimed examples of evolution at work are highly dubious. Perhaps the most familiar such example, often cited in textbooks, is of the moths in Lancashire whose colouration progressively darkened during the nineteenth century as dark-coloured moths became progressively more likely to blend in with their soot-darkened surroundings, and hence escape the notice of predators, while light-coloured moths were more likely to be seen and eaten. Even if this actually occurred (and there is apparently some doubt), this is, however, not an example of the evolution of a new species, but of certain members of the same species with favourable characteristics having a better survival rate than less favoured members of that species. The species itself has remained unchanged.
• The alleged general evidence for evolution throughout chronological history is often arguable, even logically fallacious. All biology textbooks by definition point to the fact that certain geological strata contain the bones of primitive horses, while the strata above it - assumed to have been deposited more recently - contain the bones of more advanced horses, and conclude that the primitive horses gave rise to the more advanced species. But no evidence is offered that the primitive horses were actually the ancestors of the advanced ones. The linkage is simply assumed. The reasoning here is obviously circular and fallacious - the very issue under discussion is assumed to have occurred, without further direct evidence.
• There are actually no "missing links" in the fossil record, a fact which, I understand, is continuously swept under the rug. According to Darwinian theory, such transitional species should have constantly appeared (and keep appearing), yet remarkably few have ever been observed. There are apparently no known transitional fossils in the whole fossil record of the plant kingdom, although millions of fossil plants have been found [Cited in William R. Corliss, ed., Science Frontiers II: More Anomalies and Curiosities of Nature (2004), p. 154]. What the actual fossil record allows us to infer is apparently that entirely new species appear, as it were, fully-formed.
• New organs in living bodies must appear fully-formed at once or they can serve no biological purpose and confer no advantage upon that creature. On the other hand, the complexity of most organs would seem to make this impossible. Charles Darwin himself was well-aware of this, and apparently regarded it as the most important criticism of his theory. The example which is always given is the eye: the retina cannot simply appear at one time, the lens a million years later, and the optic nerve a million years thereafter. The entire eye, including it neural connections with the brain and, through it, with an animal's locomotive system, must all have appeared at precisely the same time. The odds against this happening by sheer random chance are incalculably vast, and yet many creatures on different branches of the animal kingdom have "evolved" eyes which function in similar ways - squids, spiders, and humans, for example.
• The "fittest" do not survive. Most species extinctions appear to be the result of unpredictable natural catastrophes, like the meteor which allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Moreover, the survival of any creature, regardless of its "fitness", depends wholly on there being a viable food chain. If the lions in the jungle killed and ate all of the gazelles, the lions would themselves quickly starve to death. For their survival, there must be enough slow gazelles to feed the lions, but also enough fast ones to ensure the continuation of the food chain.
• The incredible complexity of life, and its apparent ever-increasing sophistication over time, strongly implies a guiding force of some kind, and one which can produce a continuous array of new creatures of ever-increasing complexity. Whatever that force may be, it must therefore be capable of producing new species more complex than the previous ones - something which at first glance seems impossible, implying some kind of advanced problem solving force. Where is it situated? How does it go about "solving" the problems confronting it.
I simply do not know what all of this means, although the best inference which might be drawn is that new species apparently "evolve" suddenly and fully-formed, a concept, known as "saltation", which has been advocated in the past, and which was recently revived, at least in part, in the late Stephen J. Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium". The mechanism which brings about these sudden, fundamental changes, however, remains (so far as I know) completely unknown, but must be marked by a high order of creative ability. The drawn-out transitional process suggested by Darwin, however, does not appear to accord with the facts, coolly considered.
William D. Rubinstein is professor of modern history at the University of Wales - Aberystwyth.
We reserve the right to edit, amend or remove comments for legal reasons, policy reasons or any other reasons we judge fit.
By posting comments here you accept and acknowledge the Social Affairs Unit's absolute and unfettered right to edit your comments as set out above.
"The "fittest" do not survive"
Ah but they do! For in Darwinian terms, "fitness"="ability to survive" Therefore, "survival of the fittest" = "survival of the survivors"
"The incredible complexity of life, and its apparent ever-increasing sophistication over time, strongly implies a guiding force of some kind, and one which can produce a continuous array of new creatures of ever-increasing complexity"
Why does it necessarily strongly imply this? Complexity can easily result from the repepitive application of simple rules.
This is a very interesting and thought provoking article, by the way. Prof Rubinstein is right to decry the tendency to immediately demonise anyone who expresses the slightest doubt about evolution being anything other than hard, law-of-gravity like fact, as a "creationist."
Posted by: James McQueen at May 12, 2005 08:50 PMThis is quite the stupidest article I have ever read.
Posted by: Nick Mallory at May 12, 2005 10:25 PMThis is quite the stupidest article I have ever read.
I thought it poor, but not quite as bad as some creationist things I have seen. It seems to summarise most of their common groundless (but I "would say that") objections, and the "just a theory" title is a big give-away.
Prof Rubinstein is right to decry the tendency to immediately demonise anyone...as a "creationist."
Why?
Unfortunately, evolution is something that on the surface is comprehensible by the layman, yet is extremely complex and difficult to understand. Therefore, it's very easy to misunderstand what's going on and think that it can't possibly be true. The complexity of it makes it easy for creationists to raise "problems" such as the ones listed in this article that it's not so easy to dismiss with a sound-bite explanation. For more information on this sort of thing, I usually recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/
I have long thought that the reason physicists don't get quite so much hassle about their subject is it is harder to get a superficial grasp of it. After all, fundamental particles &c. don't really impact upon the conciousness of most people, but animals are everywhere.
Posted by: Milo Thurston at May 13, 2005 11:58 AMThe time frame involved in the transmogrification of species, and other evolutionary phenomena, renders it impossible for any given generation to grasp the complexities of gradual change, even with the benefit of the very recent acquisition(in evolutionary terms) of the ability of homo sapiens to record and pass on existential observations to its successors.
Posted by: Frank Pulley at May 14, 2005 01:32 AMIs not 'evolution' merely a one word description of the sum total of what has occurred up to the moment of consideration of the phenomenon itself? As time itself is unstoppable, except for the individual - by means the death of that individual - none of us will ever 'get to know' evolution ; we are necessarily universally handicapped (otherwise we would be God) and therefore always behind it in the race against time. Evolution and chaos may well be as one. But we will never know for sure. We can only construct infantile and fantastic theories about what our narrow and short-lived perceptions actually mean. The sum total of human knowledge about everything is almost certainly complete bollocks: mere amusement in the Grim Reaper's waiting room aka 'life'. But then, complete bollocks is just part of the sorry scheme of things entire. Don't fret Professor, just write your own script and appoint yourself as lead actor in your own play, just as the rest of us do. You may even get some applause if you manage to make it convincing; but then there's always those hissing ruffians up in the Gods!
not quite as bad as some creationist things I have seen
You must be joking. This is a creationist thing. It is a collection of recycled cliches straight from the creationist playbook, backed by total ignorance on the subject of biology.
I do agree that evolutionary biology is a complex subject, easy to misunderstand and requiring some serious study to understand. That makes this article particularly bad, given that the author is a professor of history and therefore presumably has some understanding of what scholarship means. This article exhibits none.
Posted by: PZ Myers at May 14, 2005 06:44 PMHilarious! UK satire at its best!
Posted by: pough at May 14, 2005 06:58 PMThis may not actually be the stupidest, most ill-thought out, least imaginitive article I have ever read, but it is certainly a contender.
Please sit down with an educated biologist and have them explain to you, point by point, why your opinions on this topic are entirely incorrect. Even your definitions of what it means for new species to emerge are wildly off-base.
Also, one other request. Please do not write things like "although (I gather) a growing number of scientifically-trained commentators are also having their doubts." This is clearly untrue. A number of ideologically driven, ignorant charlatans are expressing doubts. Scientists are of a remarkable uniformity regarding this topic.
Posted by: Mark Trodden at May 14, 2005 07:40 PM"Evolution appears to be plainly impossible," you write, citing the theoretical evolution of "cats" into ... what? Ah, they must still be cats!
But - if you can accept that genetic mutations are possible, and if you can accept that some genetic mutations can engender others - both things which should be self-evident for anyone who has ever, say, bred tulips - then it's not such a great leap to imagine that over generations such mutations can pile up, particularly in isolated populations, and create something not the same as the original species.
Of course, if you believe that genes are immutable, well - we have nothing to say to each other.
"No one has ever seen an example of genuine evolution..." Not so. There are quite a few examples of "intermediate" species, including along the human line... You're betraying your ignorance here. Read the available literature on the recent discoveries in ancient humanoids and you'll see that you've missed a great deal. When you cite of the oft-debunked "moths in Lancashire" case, you're using a straw man: that example has long since been debunked. There are many better examples of evolutionary devolpment.
Sigh. In all, this is a remarkably fatuous article. Best of luck in doing whatever it is you do; as a biologist, you're an utter failure.
Posted by: R.H. Gassan at May 14, 2005 08:00 PMAnyone wanting a full documentation of the idiocies of this article should look here for a point-by-point demolition:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/a_historian_disgraces_himself/
Posted by: Stephen Frug at May 14, 2005 08:06 PMI presume that historians are careful to use the best and most reliable sources. If this be the case, the Rubinstein artlice is clearly parody.
Posted by: Les Lane at May 14, 2005 08:21 PM"...unlikely to be truly reliable or to be based on anything more than a perusal of obvious secondary sources.''
Quote (referring to nonspecialists) from an earlier Rubinstein artlcle at this site. Rubinstein has proved his point, only in his case "obvious secondary sources" would have been academically superior.
Posted by: Les Lane at May 14, 2005 08:41 PMProf. Rubenstein,
Is there a library in your town?
Among other species whose rise was observed are broccoli, grapefruit, and Spartina townsendii, a salt grass that arose in the Thames River in the 1860s, and which is one of the most carefully recorded, early instances of a complete confirmation of Darwin's hypothesis. I'm sure you could find this stuff on the web with a little work.
In the meantime, you may want to reacquaint yourself with what science is, and how it works, and why creationism is not science. I recommend this made-for-social-scientists-and-teachers publication from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences -- I link to the introduction, where you can get the definitions from the start: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html
I hope you can go back and edit this article. It suffers badly from a lack of library work, which I hope you will amend.
Posted by: Ed Darrell at May 14, 2005 08:55 PMThis is a joke, right? Someone tell me this is a joke. No one who is a professor of anything should be allowed to be this stupid.
Posted by: CC at May 14, 2005 09:26 PMThis article is a joke right? If not, then I think Professor Rubinstein should stick to history.
By the way, speciation has been observed many times, and sometimes even in the lab.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
" The alleged general evidence for evolution throughout chronological history is often arguable, even logically fallacious. All biology textbooks by definition point to the fact that certain geological strata contain the bones of primitive horses, while the strata above it - assumed to have been deposited more recently - contain the bones of more advanced horses, and conclude that the primitive horses gave rise to the more advanced species. But no evidence is offered that the primitive horses were actually the ancestors of the advanced ones. The linkage is simply assumed. The reasoning here is obviously circular and fallacious - the very issue under discussion is assumed to have occurred, without further direct evidence."
This is just silly. Does Professor Rubinstein think the top strata got deposited first? Then how did the bottom strata get inserted afterwards with fossils intact?
Posted by: Jeff Wunder at May 14, 2005 09:28 PMThis article: Just an opinion?
I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but your readers need to recognize that this article is in fact not only an opinion but an uninformed one. You may in fact "have as much common sense as the next man" but your knowledge of the theory of evolution is extremely lacking. I am not a biologist and have only one college level anthropology class behind me but it is extremely easy to see the flaws in your arguments. Rather then spending my time pointing out all of them out I'll refer you to one facet of modern evolutionary theory that you have missunderstand: Punctuated Equilibrium.
According to the theory (yes, theory, everything is s theory unless you happen to be God) of Punctuated Equilibrium says "instead of a slow, continuous movement, evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill ("equilibrium"), "punctuated" by episodes of very fast development of new forms." Please read this website: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html and you may realize some of the flaws in your arguments. Simply put evolution doesn't just happen in one cat giving birth to a raccoon as you put it. There are ecological changes that call for the species to adapt or parish. The moths in Lancashire are a great example of this. No, the moths did not become a new species overnight but after many, many years with enough incremental changes the Lancashire moths of the future will be different enough to be categorized as a new species.
Posted by: Harshblogger at May 14, 2005 09:35 PMI have long thought that the reason physicists don't get quite so much hassle about their subject is it is harder to get a superficial grasp of it. After all, fundamental particles &c. don't really impact upon the conciousness of most people, but animals are everywhere.
Or it's because particle physics doesn't really impact creationist exegesis much; unlike evolutionary biology, paleontology, archeology, and chunks of geology and astronomy. Although even atomic physics is targetted if need be. See for instance the work of Russell Humphreys, Andrew Snelling, or Larry Vardiman in the RATE group where they try to find new and creative means of speeding up isotope decay rates in the past.
Posted by: Dave S. at May 14, 2005 09:37 PMWhile denying that he is a creationist, Professor Rubinstein has done a good job of repeating the anti-intellectual talking points made by creationists who are as ill-informed as he is.
Maybe someone can tell me why it is that otherwise intelligent, educated people think that they can waltz into the middle of a complex discipline with which they have at best a passing familiarity and instantly discern its fatal flaws? Must arrogance always be so highly correlated with ignorance? Will Professor Rubinstein next try his hand at debunking relativity by pointing out how non-intuitive Einstein's concepts are?
Professor Rubinstein ought to be made aware that personal incredulity is a lousy foundation for a logical argument in the sciences. I would have assumed that the same was true among historians, and that he already knew this.
Finally, the "...reason[s] for the failure of scientists to challenge Evolution..." have nothing to do with religion. Rather, they have everything to do with poor arguments, non-existent evidence and a complete lack of intellectual honesty on the part of the anti-evolutionists. Maybe Professor Rubinstein could talk to some real biologists before he makes these kinds of blanket statements.
Posted by: Tom Ames at May 14, 2005 09:37 PMIf one breeds cats for a thousand generations, they will still be cats, won't they?
This depends on which genes have been modified and selected for / against within this population, or if this population is in some way isolated from all of the other cats.
This article shows that the author has a very fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Very small changes, over very long periods of time, result in very large changes. This is a concept that, when applied to virtually any other subject, makes perfect sense. Erosion works in this way. Say you have a mountain. It then rains. Water flows down this mountain and picks up small debris along the way. This debris, running down the mountain at a fairly quick speed, kicks up dirt and pebbles and rocks and carries them down the mountain. Repeat every time it rains over the next 1 - 100 million years. Guess what. You have a valley where the mountain was and an alluvial fan where the stream empties out. For a great example, look at the Mississippi River/Great Plains(formerly mountains) and Louisianna (alluvial fan dumped into the Gulf of Mexico).
Evolution works in the exact same way. I don't really understand why people don't get that reproduction of all organisms is imperfect. Look at the diversity among the children of the same set of parents. Even if the parents were to have hundreds of children, none of them would exactly the same. Even twins, etc. have differences.
One thousand generations of what we currently call 'cats' may very well result in something we would not consider to be a 'cat'.
Posted by: Aaron Stafford at May 14, 2005 10:25 PMAs the aforementioned Stephen J.Gould wrote about a similarlly wrong headed attempt to question the "dogma?"
Posted by: P.C.Chapman at May 14, 2005 10:38 PMof evolution, "...if I spent all of my time responding to this tripe I'd never get any work done."
If I were to write a blog posting, say questioning the exsistence of the Holocaust because I didn't see any of it and I don't know anyone who did, I would be laughed off the stage! Yet the author of this piece uses the same well worn arguments that been answered thousands of times over to prove this theory. If the good professor were to rely on third and fourth hand hearsay of this kind in his own scholarship then I don't need to examine his work as it is sure to be nothing but warmed over sheeps guts.
My God, this has to be one of the more silly pieces of creationist/ID apologia I've seen. The example about the cats has to be one of the worst examples I've ever heard as a "questioning" of evolution. No doubt the "staff" will not approve my criticism, but let's try anyway.
Stick to history. Really. It's clear you don't have enough understanding of biology to realize what a fool you've just made of yourself by writing this article. And if you think I'm being tough on you, I'm not really, at least not in comparison to PZ Meyers' rebuttal at Pharyngula. Please, learn some science. Then get to Talkorigins.org! Every single one of your "doubts" about evolution are addressed there in incredible detail. PZ also rebuts you point-by-point in a manner that's far more detailed than I have the patience for.
Posted by: Orac at May 14, 2005 10:53 PMHe doesn't have enough of a grasp of evolution to criticize it. All of those questions have been addressed. It boggles the mind how people think they can criticize evolution without understanding it. Please read up on the topic before you make a fool of yourself.
Posted by: Dan at May 14, 2005 11:08 PMWhat a hoot. I had to show my girl friend when she got here. She giggled and laughed louder with each outlandish comment that she really got in the mood. Thanks. HD
Posted by: Hill Dare at May 14, 2005 11:19 PMYou might be interested in a reply to this article by an actual biologist:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/a_historian_disgraces_himself/#continue
It contains answers to all of Rubinsteins questions, and links to online sources to further answers and actual evidence for those answers. If you are at all interested in evolution, I urge you to read it.
Posted by: guthrie at May 14, 2005 11:26 PMProfessor Rubenstein uses some interesting qualifiers that tell us he's largely ignorant of actual evolutionary biology. Let me look at a few of his allged points.
1. He says he has "a desultory interest". "Desultory" suggests no professional knowledge of biology, thus eminently qualifying Professor Rubenstein to pontificate about it.
2. He uses the phrase "The Theory of Evolution in its commonly-voiced form". Voiced by whom? Ernst Mayr, perchance? Or by any professional biologists? Nope. How about considering it in the form voiced by professional biologists.
3. He claims that there are "so many deep implausibilities". Implausible to a layman ignorant of the actual theory? Yup. Implausible to one who has spent a professional career studying it? Nope. Ever wonder why people who actually study the field don't find it implausible? Is it possible they know something that Professor Rubenstein doesn't?
4. "Animals cannot "evolve" into new and different species". Sorry. Speciation has been observed. As in seen, field notes taken, etc.
5. "Moreover, no one expects "evolution" to occur." Only those who actually understand what "heritable variation" and "natural selection" mean at more than a kindergarten level.
6. "to the best of my knowledge no one has ever seen an example of genuine evolution, ...". The best of Professor Rubenstein's knowledge is woefully incomplete. "Genuine" evolution is relatively easily observable in field, laboratory, and nowadays in computer models embodying the esssential variables identified by evolutionary theory. Only those who haven't looked have not seen it.
7. "...scientists would certainly be sensitive to the emergence of any new species, with the evidential value this would have for proving Darwin right." Yup. And it's been published in the professional literature. Does Professor Rubenstein read the professional literature of evolutionary biology? I will also note that no evolutionary biologist that I know is concerned with proving Darwin right. In actual fact we know that Darwin was wrong in many respects, shown to be so by evolutionary biologists, and the current theory of evolution is a relatively distant descendant of Darwin's original theory. In general one isn't much interested in proving _anyone_ "right -- one is interested in systematically studying and understanding how the world works.
8. Of the infamous peppered moths, Professor Rubenstein says "this is, however, not an example of the evolution of a new species, but of certain members of the same species with favourable characteristics having a better survival rate than less favoured members of that species. The species itself has remained unchanged." Quite right. And to my knowledge (somewhat broader than Professor Rubenstein's) no one offers that as an example of speciation -- that's called a "straw man", Professor Rubenstein. Industrial melanism (of which there are many example, including Bistula) is an example of natural selection over a short period under relatively intense selection -- a change in the distribution of traits in a population as a function of differential survival and reproduction. No one expects to see a plethora of instances of phenomena that ordinarily take millenia to play out occurring in a single 150-year period. There are some, as I noted above, but not many. But just one is enough to establish the principle, and there are many more than one in the literature.
9. "There are actually no "missing links" in the fossil record, a fact which, I understand, is continuously swept under the rug." LOL!!! That one is purely ludicrous! There are transitional fossils -- "missing links" -- at the level of species, genera, and on up the phylogenetic levels.
10. "New organs in living bodies must appear fully-formed at once or they can serve no biological purpose and confer no advantage upon that creature." That's simple bullshit.
I'm sorry. I can't go on. Both my irony meter and my bullshit detector have burned out. One seldom sees such ignorance sprayed about in public by a man with the title "Professor" in front of his name. It's an indication of the depths to which education in the West has sunk. I am (almost) ashamed to have been a professor for 20 years once upon a time.
Richard B. Hoppe, Ph.D.
Posted by: RBH at May 15, 2005 12:28 AMAffiliated Scholar in Biology, Kenyon College (Ohio)
The main point of the article seems to be that the author is extremely ignorant of evolutionary theory. Wouldn't it have been more sensible for him to read a textbook or two, and address that ignorance rather than put it on public display? I do not see that willingness to comment on a topic about which one is ignorant is a trait to be admired.
A few details:
Life on Earth dates back a couple billion years earlier than stated (at least 3 thousand million years, not 1).
Speciation has been observed.
Transitional fossils exist by the museum-load.
Cats do not give birth to racoons. Who claims that they do? An early feline ancestor, may, over time (millions of years!), give rise to multiple species of cats - lions, tigers, tabbies, leopards, lynx... An early species of mammal may, over time(tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years) - give rise to species as diverse as bats, felines, primates, whales, ungulates, etc.
The author seems entirely ignorant of geological dating methods (isotope methods, etc)
Too many other mistakes to address individually. As I say, a good textbook or other book on evolution is called for. Carl Zimmer wrote a nice one, give it a read. For individual questions, there's the Talk.Origins archive on the web: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Posted by: arcticpenguin at May 15, 2005 12:50 AMThe fact that a supposedly "educated" person can still be swayed by these kind of stock, long debunked creationist "Criticisms" of evolution is evidence of nothing more than how badly WE DO NEED evolution taught in the schools. Not less, but MORE.
This kind of talk is no more enlightened than the ramblings of the Flat Earth Society. It's just sad.
Posted by: dr. dave at May 15, 2005 01:07 AMThis article is a prime example of intellectuals trained in one field making really complete fools of themselves in another. Prof.
Rubinstein should hang his head in shame.
Many examples of one species evolving into a different one are known; this is called speciation. Even the most cursory examination of the subject, such as reading an elementary university text on biology, would have provided examples. Read, for example, about the Faeroe Island mouse.
Transitional fossils (no educated person calls them "missing links") are known in abundance. Again, even the most cursory examination of the subject would have provided many examples.
Kathleen Hunt's Transitional Fossil FAQ is readily available online.
I won't even bother to address the remaining arguments, which have been endless debunked by biologists. This author of this really moronic piece has obviously read a single book by some creationist and thinks he understands biology, when he hasn't even the grasp of a freshman biology student.
Posted by: Fu Ling Yu at May 15, 2005 01:44 AMThere is not a single argument made by Dr. Rubinstein here that wouldn't be shown to be false by even the tiniest amount of research!!!
For example, he says this:
"Even more importantly, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever seen an example of genuine evolution, that is, of one species producing an offspring which was clearly of another, different species."
"The best of your knowledge..."? That "best" isn't very good.
This is NOT how evolution works. Populations evolve, not humans. No evolutionary theorist believes that an individual offspring will be of a different species than their parents!
As an analogy languages also evolve. Before the fall of the Roman Empire, basically everyone in Europe spoke Latin. Afterwards, the languages diverged - "evolved" - away from each other. By the 7th century French could be read by Italians - but with difficulty. By the 17th century French could NOT be read by Italians (without additional education). Speciation had taken place!
But, at any point in this priocess, was there a child born who was completely unable to communicate with its parents?
Biological speciation has b een observed many, many times. But it does not occur in the mode suggested by Dr. Rubinstein.
Everything in this article is just as much utter and complete rubbish as is this statement about speciation.
Posted by: Randy Crum at May 15, 2005 02:12 AMFirst off, how did we get dogs from wolves? Did we just sit around until one day a timber wolf gave birth to a french poodle? According to your little article here, this is how evolution works. You don't think that if a wolf can become a french poodle in 10,000 years, that a monkey can become a man in a million?
Oh, and here's your evidnece that speciation does work via evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
If there's a medical fact that doesn't seem to make sense to you (i.e. germ theroy), and 99% of the doctors accept the fact, and you have no medical training, I think it's safe to say you shoudl just take their word for it. No?
Posted by: John at May 15, 2005 02:54 AMthen why don't you do the same for the biological sciences. 99% of the 500,000 biologists accept evolution for a reason, sir.
Although this article was hard to follow at times, I found it hillarious! What a perfect example of British deadpan hunour!
Unfortunately, there will be some idiots out there that will take this article and attach it to their Bible, as another "proof" that "evolution is just a theory!"
I'm glad to see that Professor of History Rubinstein is seeking answers about evolution. Everyone should be inquisitive and open to the scientific method of learning & understanding. Lucky man! He can find most of his answers down the hall, at the Biology, Anthropology, and other science departments.
Posted by: Andros at May 15, 2005 03:01 AMDr. Rubinstein has made some really crude errors here. These errors could have been avoided be first trying to learn about the subject before pontificating on the subject. Rubinstein knowledge on the subject of evolution seems to obtained from poor "pop" science combined with the claims of the antievolutionists.
Dr. Rubinstein please consider the situation of someone with only a crude knowledge of history reads some claims of a Holocaust denier or someone who claims claims that no man has walked on the Moon. They don't know the subject and are impressed and without learning what credible historians have to say about all this simply posts on his blog the nonsense. This is what you have done for evolution.
Consider that the evolution of new species has been observed many, many times. There are in reality numerous transitional forms in the fossil record. Darwin was aware of complexity. He was able to show that organs did NOT need form completely formed. He pointed out that in the living world that there existed numerous grades of eyes. Today we can show even more. Pretty much every step between eyes as we have and no vision exists in the here in now. Punctuated equilibrium is NOT a theory of saltation. The use of the word "theory" used by this blog entry is not how it is formally used in science. The peppered moth has not been rejected as an example of natural selection in the field. So on and so forth. A freshman who submitted this post entry for a biology course would be quite rightly receive an F.
As previously suggested, Rubinstein should go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ . I would start with the main FAQ. And of course Rubinstein should also seek out books written by mainstream evolutionary biologists.
--
Posted by: Mike Hopkins at May 15, 2005 03:08 AMAnti-spam: Replace "user" with "harlequin2"
It seems that professor William D. Rubinstein would be best off sticking to his narrow field of expertise rather than pontificating on fields he has clearly spent next to no time in studying. It's doubtful he's even read Darwin's original work The Origins of Species let alone any modern book on biology and Evolution, which is particularly sad when said book is available for free online (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/).
The good professor would do well to remember that there is a significant difference between an opinion and an informed opinion.
Posted by: Les at May 15, 2005 07:53 AMPlease, Professor Rubinstein- head on over to Talkorigins.org, and read their FAQ.
All your objections will be answered in easy-to-understand terms, and you may come to comprehend what the Theory of Evolution actually says- and, not so incindentally, learn what "theory' means in a scientific sense.
Posted by: MikeN at May 15, 2005 03:59 PMDr. Rubinstein is incredulous when science says that life's complexity was generated by cumulative adaptation. He wants to posit a force that is capable of guiding, producing creatures, and advanced problem solving. But isn't that exactly what evolution is about: explaining the mechanisms that have guided life to what we see today?
If he means a supernatural force, then he is proposing the PITS (Parent-In-The-Sky) figure that explains everything and nothing. How good is PITS at advanced development when 99% of its species have died out? And if he means a natural force, then he is merely adding yet another mechanism to be explained by science.
Nature's productions appear (to our brains) to be intelligently designed. Simple seeds burst into exquisite flowers. Snowflakes appear to be made with precision tools. Planets are precisely placed in the only orbits that will keep them revolving around the sun indefinitely. Nature makes human babies out of slime in nine months! But these complexities are hardly explained by invoking an even more complex PITS.
Steve
Posted by: Steve Roski at May 15, 2005 04:24 PM> I simply do not know what all of this means...
Is the only comment in the entire article that isn't pure gibberish. Maybe he should try studying the history of Evolution from sources other than books written by people 'as' clueless as he is, before trying to comment on it. Then again, I suppose it would make perfect sense to study 'history' of Nazism written by noe-Nazis, steel building structures from out of work Adobe brick makers, fly fishing written by PETA or, as is probably the case with this 'historians' sources, evolution as written by people out of some place like the Discover Institute. Who cares of any of the groups mentioned know only just enough about the subject to make up excuses and not enough to notice when they have their feet shoved unto their mouths so far they are leaving teeth marks on their own knees. Apparently, history is just another in a long line of subjects where five minutes of research is now acceptable, instead of weeks or months of careful examination and collection of actual facts...
Posted by: Kagehi at May 15, 2005 09:19 PMIt seems as though the good professor never learned about the miraculous modern invention of "Google. He could have looked up many of his "complaints" there. He could even have found Talk Origins, one of the best clearing house sites for Evolution related material on the web.
How does that old adage go vis a vis remaining silent and being thought a fool than opening one's mouth and proving it? Rubinstein would have done well to stop his misguided rumblings with "I am not a scientist."
Posted by: Jody at May 15, 2005 10:30 PMI realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but your readers need to recognize that this article is in fact not only an opinion but an uninformed one. You may in fact "have as much common sense as the next man" but your knowledge of the theory of evolution is extremely lacking. I am not a biologist and have only one college level anthropology class behind me but it is extremely easy to see the flaws in your arguments. Rather then spending my time pointing out all of them out I'll refer you to one facet of modern evolutionary theory that you have misunderstood: Punctuated Equilibrium.
According to the theory (yes, theory, everything is s theory unless you happen to be God) of Punctuated Equilibrium says "instead of a slow, continuous movement, evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill ("equilibrium"), "punctuated" by episodes of very fast development of new forms." Please read this website: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html and you may realize some of the flaws in your arguments. Simply put evolution doesn't just happen in one cat giving birth to a raccoon. There are ecological changes that call for the species to adapt or parish. The moths in Lancashire are a great example of this. No, the moths did not become a new species but after many, many years with enough incremental changes the Lancashire moths of the future will be different enough to be categorized as a new species. You even included another example at one point mentioning that "Most species extinctions appear to be the result of unpredictable natural catastrophes, like the meteor which allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago". You are correct. A natural catastrophe disrupted the natural equilibrium in the ecosystem causing a period of fast development of new forms.
Posted by: Harshblogger at May 16, 2005 04:20 AMThis article is utterly disgraceful. I've spent many years reading the biological literature & examining the specious arguments offered by various creationists. But I don't reject the arguments for ad hominem reasons. They are bad arguments, whoever is making them. The arguments in this article are, each and every one of them, familiar and very bad indeed. Talkorigins is a good place to find responses to them all. But I can't resist taking one shot of my own here. We test scientific theories by comparing what they predict about certain kinds of observations against the observations themselves. So what does evolution say we should expect from the fossil record? Not fossils labelled as ancestors to present forms, obviouslyl! But we should find fossils with traits that blur distinctions that are now clear. And we do-- that is what transitional forms are! Archaeopteryx, for instance, combines features of birds (notably well-developed feathers) with a skeleton that fits the pattern for a small carnivourous dinosaur. We can't say that it is ancestral to present day birds-- but we can say that it blurs the line between dinosaurs and birds in a dramatic way, just as we would expect if birds and dinosaurs shared a common ancestor. The same goes for the evolution of horses from animals that lack the present defining traits of horses, the evolution of tetrapods from certain bony fish, of mammals from therapsid reptiles, and so on.
Posted by: Bryson Brown at May 16, 2005 05:49 AMThis is a very interesting and thought provoking article, by the way.
It's interesting and thought provoking at least in so far as one enjoys contemplating grievous errors in logic and utterly incompetent research on the part of, of all things, a professional historian.
Posted by: John at May 16, 2005 07:18 AMPerhaps you meant "..quite possibly the stupidest thing..."
Please, don't be overly eager to post your opinion, lest you forget how to use the English language, Nick.
My take is that Prof. Rubinstein hasn't taken much time to go in-depth to look at mechanisms of evolution. The whole "how can an animal give birth to an animal of another species" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles that govern genetic change in populations.
By the way, I came upon this blog complements of pharyngula.org, where an associate professor, Dr. Meyers, is writing the following regarding this post to his fans:
"I'm hoping it is merely the most incredibly deadpan English humor, because I've just read an appallingly stupid article on evolution there. It's written by a professor of modern history at the University of Wales-Aberystwyth, one William D. Rubinstein. Despite the credentials, though, the idiocy starts with the title, and it just gets worse and worse."
Kudos to Meyers for being professional.
Posted by: Chris Holterhoff at May 16, 2005 07:20 AMAs a fellow enquiring mind, this might be a useful link, regarding the evolution of a complex feature (the eye, in this case):
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/
Essentially, although the end is result is complex, it can be produced by a large number of very small changes, easily accomodated within the known age of Life on Earth, starting from an extremely simple 'ancestor' eye, which would in itself be useful to the creature that bore it. Once the research and the calculations are done, it seems that the evolution of eyes is nothing like so unlikely as it seems from an everyday perspective.
Fascinating stuff!
Posted by: 4u1e at May 16, 2005 07:59 AMDear Sir,
Please do direct you "enquiring mind" towards a good dictionary and look up the definition of 'scientific theory' and 'evolution'.
Common sense and the knowledge of the 'commonly-voiced forms of the Theory of Evolution' are a fine thing to possess, but if you wish to truely judge the worth of a scientific theory in public you should have invested a bit more than desultory interest; a basic text book or a short visit to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html might have already cleared a lot of your misconceptions.
Sincerely,
Posted by: Gerhard A. Blab at May 16, 2005 10:10 AMGA Blab, Talence, France
Professor Rubinstein, according to his biography, is an expert on the Holocaust. But consider, if we used the logic he uses here to examine his area of expertise, would we believe the Holocaust ever happened? It seems, on the face of it, absolutely ridiculous: this extremely civilised nation, the one that produced the geniuses Beethoven and Goethe, suddenly turned into murderous maniacs bent on wiping out a group who hadn't harmed them. Are we supposed to believe this? And that this people, known for their efficiency, continued to pour resources into this policy of extermination right until the end even though it was detracting from the war effort? And so on.
The point is, of course, that we do have evidence that the Holocaust happened. It is undeniable, and you don't have to be an expert to understand it. In exactly the same way, we do have evidence that evolution happens, it's just as undeniable, and the basics are understandable even to those with a "desultory" interest.
For what it's worth, I'd second the recommendation of many other commenters to visit the Talk Origins Archive, where many of Professor Rubinstein's misunderstandings would be corrected.
Posted by: Daniel Roseman at May 16, 2005 11:25 AMI feel intensely awkward even advancing a humble corrective to a PhD, though the domain of what I believe to be his error is, by his ownadmission, not his expertise. The more so because, though I am much closer to the biological sciences than Professor William Rubinstein, it is not my area of expertise either, but an adjunct to my professional studies, which are in medicine.
Still, though one acquainted with modern evolutionary biology might find more reason to quibble with Prof. Rubinstein, I find the most troubling aspect of his short essay to be a certain disingenuous strain: though he confesses he has "no reason to suppose that the accepted scientific chronology of the earth's history and the emergence of life is not entirely correct," and also asseverates that he has "as much common sense as the next man and probably more in the way of an independent viewpoint than most," his points against the plausibility of evolution seem to belie a decidedly negative and persuasive opinion.
Scientists do not (nor should) have control over the popular press, so if in fact Prof. Rubinstein's myriad misconceptions about modern
biological evolution stem from popular mischaracterizations, I hope this will not be laid at the feet of the thousands of evo-devo researchers who every day carry out meticulous work based on not the plausibility of evolution but the near-certainty of its occurrence.
The idea that evolution occurs in the manner Prof. Rubinstein implies, i.e., that a cat should have a litter of non-cat kittens, should be dispelled by any decent high school or college-level biology textbook.
His claim that no "missing link" exists in the fossil record is archaic as well as incorrect; transitional forms pollinate the whole of the geological column.
Most egregious, however, is his claim regarding the uselessness of
non-fully-formed organs. I agree that to one without a good introduction to biology, this may seem an intractible problem; and it is true that Darwin viewed the eye in particular as a difficulty--though it must be said both that a great deal of research and understanding, including the elucidation of genetics and embryology has occurred since Darwin's time, and that Darwin himself was confident that the eye could be explained. What I find especially troubling, however, is that this claim is taken nearly verbatim from the fringe academics who maintain the impossibility of common descent. Again, this is likely simply the result of a well-intentioned but non-expert man being exposed to popular mischaracterizations, as the efforts of the aforementioned fringe academics (particularly Dr. Behe, Dr. Dembski, and Mr. Johnson, Esq.) are more disproportionately spent in the popular media than in scholarly circles.
But it makes me curious--exactly what was the point of Prof.
Rubinstein's essay? If he truly possesses "at least a desultory
interest in many fields beyond [his] own narrow specialty, including the mysteries of science," I might expect him to have consulted a textbook or even a mainstream publication on evolution, or in place of that, airing the intellectual difficulties such as to solicit good, informed opinion to allay whatever problems may be allayed, in such deference as he should expect of those without a deep and formal understanding of history. The tone of essay, however, strikes the reader as less petitioning and more controversial. I can only, in the absence of a response from Prof. Rubinstein, defer these impressions to my lack of expertise in rhetoric, and my lack of understanding written argument, although I am very curious to learn of Prof. Rubinstein's purpose for the essay, and in any case if he should deign to converse with me, or seek more informed opinion on biological science through my intermediation, I should be happy to accept.
In conclusion, while I still possess enough nerve, I would like to enumerate a few of the findings that, to those familiar with them,
confer a very high degree of plausibility to the idea of common descent. These include the cellular nature of all life; the universality of the genetic code; the commonality of biochemical pathways; the genetic similarity of different organism, proportional to the distance from their presumed common ancestor; the universal use of DNA as an information store; the exclusive use of the same twenty amino acids in all organisms; the embryological similarity of similar species; the arrangement of the geological column; the occurrence of atavisms; the occurrence of homologous structures; the differential prevalence of genes for sickle-cell and glucose-6-phosphatase traits among African and Mediterranean peoples (they confer resistance to Plasmodium falciparum malaria); and the reuse of similar proteins for similar tasks, such as bacterial and human rhodopsin, which are both involved in light sensing.
I have taken up far too much of your time already, and I shall end
Respectfully,
Posted by: Tyson Burghart at May 16, 2005 12:34 PM--
Tyson Burghardt
wow. Have you ever actualy read anything about evolution apart from what you found on the 'ignorant christians' webring?
Posted by: danieru at May 16, 2005 12:44 PMDr. Rubinstein, have you ever encountered Holocaust denial? What is your response when somebody with no training in history writes an article on the Holocaust claiming to be neutral, but which shows clearly that the author has simply repeated a list of claims from an amateur Holocaust denial website written by a neo-nazi, without consulting any history books? I'd guess your response would be something along the lines of: "when using amateur websites etc as a source, check their factual accuracy" and "don't use a source with such an obvious agenda as the far-right has."
I hear the biology department at Aber isn't bad, I'm sure you could sit in on a few lectures.
Posted by: Joe D at May 16, 2005 02:45 PMI judge antiscience claptrap by how often I must stand up and walk outside for a short reality break while reading. I abandonded Rubinstein on my third visit to the front yard having barely read past a few pages. What is most odd is how did he gather such a list of conventional creationist “challenges” without bothering to have read any science?
I can only recommend that Prof. Rubinstein doesn’t sit too still for too long. He runs the risk of being buried as he is already brain dead.
After a quick beer, I finished reading. I had been nearly done. But still, 4 short breaks and a beer just to read that? Maybe I have become too sensitive to the absence of fact and reason. I thought that frequent exposure would have desensitized me by now.
Prof. Rubinstein should learn to use the search function at the TalkOrigins web site.
Posted by: Gary Hurd at May 16, 2005 06:09 PMGary S. Hurd, Ph.D.
Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths
Well - you have to say two things for the Social Affairs Unit, although they moderate comments, they clearly are not afraid for critical comments to be posted on their site. Good on them
Two, whatever some people may have said, the SAU is clearly not a creationist site - very little to none of the other material on this site - material I have found - has anything to do with creationism. The only other piece which vaguely touches upon this is an article by Prof. Christie Davies - "Creationism in schools: a small price for a big reward" www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000158.php
- which supports the teaching of creationism, but says that it is complete nonsense.
Anyway my point is this, Rubinstein's article is tosh - but thanks for the article, it has found me an otherwise excellent site.
Posted by: Jonathan West at May 16, 2005 06:23 PMI had been tempted to bring up the Holocaust denial analogy, as Joe D did so aptly, but I didn't want to leave the Professor with an opportunity to ignore my criticism and become indignant at being compared to such odious people. However, now that it's been mentioned, I have to concur. Joe D is right on. Professor Rubinstein's piece reminds me of the level of scholarship that most Holocaust deniers misrepresent as "revisionist history" (minus the anti-Semitism and fascist apologia). He should really learn some biology before writing something else that makes him look as big a fool as this piece did.
Posted by: Orac at May 16, 2005 06:25 PMI do find the comments on this article rather peculiar - I am not a creationist, I do not believe in Rubinstein's arguments. But why the hysteria of the reaction - reading the responses to Rubinstein's piece would make one believe that he had supported child sacrifice, not challenged - in a rather daft way - Darwinism.
Posted by: Danny at May 16, 2005 06:27 PMMaybe because Rubinstein's arguments are mindbogglingly stupid coming from someone who clearly isn't stupid. What other reaction should you have to someone who admits to having only a "desultory interest" in a field, and then proclaims that 99.9999% of people who devote their lives to working in that field (and have done for the last 150 years) are studying something that is "plainly impossible"? And does so using arguments that even most creationist would be embarrassed by. I mean, most of his post is utter gibberish, and the rest could be refuted with five minutes of research on Talk.Origins.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow at May 16, 2005 06:48 PMDanny- Firstly, Prof Rubinstein has stepped straight into a vitriolic debate, since there are currentlys everal creationism versus evolution in schools arguments going on in the USA.
Posted by: guthrie at May 16, 2005 07:27 PMThe "hysteria" as you call it is simply disbelief that someone supposedly so intelligent can make such basic errors as suggest that he did not do any homework and just wrote the first thing that came into his mind. You should note that most posters have tried to point out how he is wrong, and many give urls to further information. It is important to note the scientists are just as human as everyone else, in fact involvement in your scientific vocation is a good sign, so I am afraid that when they see something like this, it is easy to start shouting a bit loudly.
Here's my guess. Rubinstein "knows" that evolution is theologically offensive to him. He has little knowledge of what evolution actually is, but such knowledge isn't theologically interesting anyway.
He mentioned this to someone where he worships, and was guided to what seems to be an altogether typical creationist website, where (perhaps for the first time) he encountered "actual facts" ratifying his preferences. Most probably, he followed numerous links from that site to other sites, not realizing that creationist sites never link outside the creationist circle, and are notorious for copying one another. Sure enough, this wide circle of research only served to underscore the same points, repeated endlessly.
So he cherry picked the "creationist facts" (as opposed to biological facts) he thought he understood best, saw no compelling reason for the due diligence of checking with an actual scientist (after all, how may sites must one read to recognize unanimous agreement?) and generated an essay he almost surely thought would be straightforward and uncontroversial.
So it may be helpful to point out that many of those producing what Danny considers a "hysterical reaction" are actually practicing biologists, who see their life's work mocked while the ignorance they've spent their careers reducing is being spread wholesale.
I suspect that Rubinstein's world has plenty of hostorians populating it, but no biologists, and he has generalized from this experience. Scientists are rare, they don't do history (which is where all the important stuff is), they probably haven't had the opportunity to correct all the manifest shortcomings the web documented with such universal agreement.
Posted by: Flint at May 16, 2005 07:28 PMI am APPALLED by the manners and tone of the replies to this article. If this is what the Theory of Evolution does to people, then perhaps Christie Davies is right in his
article where he suggests that "Creationism" be taught in schools.
The Theory of Evolution is far from being as intuitive as these correspondents seem to think. I suggest that THEY learn a bit of HISTORY. For a starter, to realise that the term "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer (railway engineer turned philosopher), and urged on a reluctant Darwin by Alfred Russel Wallace. And for the next course, a bite of the famous "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tennessee. The action was brought as a test case by the American Civil Liberties Union, but was effectively hijacked by their lawyer Clarence Darrow, already notorious for his defence of the teenage murderers Leopold and Loeb on the grounds that they had been brought up in a environment of intellectual starvation but emotional deprivation, and moreover that Leopold had been made to read Nietzsche.
Posted by: Robert H. Olley at May 16, 2005 07:52 PMI would say, Danny, that it is because the nature of the article demands such outrage. To see such ignorance happily presented by an allegedly academic mind is stunning. It isn't just that it's incredibly ignorant. It's that a professor of history, in general, should know better than to offer such arguments when he himself admits he knows little of the subject.
It also bothers us because we run into this tripe every day, and we've gotten quite sick of it.
Posted by: rrt at May 16, 2005 08:10 PM"why the hysteria of the reaction"
Posted by: Alan Fox at May 16, 2005 08:27 PMYou must be in Europe. An unholy alliance has formed in th US between the political right and the Southern Baptist fundamentalists with creationism to be inserted in school curricula as a trade off for political support. Their latest ploy is to claim there is an alternative "scientific" theory to evolutioary biology, "Intelligent Design" (Google search this if you have time to waste). Mainstream biologists have been caught leaden-footed in the propaganda war and sometimes now can over-react. What infuriates them most is the allegation made by creationists that there is a scientific basis to ID that deserves being taught in state schools. Professor Rubinstein seems to have entered this controversy unwittingly, or so a brief email exchange would suggest.
Oh, by the way, the article mixes up saltation (a single generation Dr Who-style mutation in which one creature gives birth to a distinctly different creature) with punctuated equilibrium (a completely separate theory, which suggests that much of evolution occurs in relatively short bursts (think tens of thousands of years, rather than millions).
Saltation is accepted by very few people as a likely route for evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is a much more widely accepted variant on 'traditional' evolution - but does not resemble the model proposed by Prof Rubinstein in the final paragraph.
Posted by: 4u1e at May 16, 2005 08:29 PMThis has to be one of the most egregiously ignorant commentaries I've ever seen from a Creationist. First, he sets out to admit he knows nothing about biology , evolution or science in general, then he proceeds to correct said biologists and evolutionists on all the "mistakes" they've made.
Did it not occur to the good professor to ask a biologist? Or even take a course in evolutionary biology, so he wouldn't be regurgitating Creationist pabulum without even understanding why it's wrong?
Posted by: lesz at May 16, 2005 08:32 PM"why the hysteria of the reaction"
You must be in Europe. There is an unholy alliance between the funamentalist southern baptists and right-wing republicans in the US, the trade-off being political support in exchange for creationism to displace mainstream biology in state schools. Their latest ploy is to promote a "theory" called Intelligent Design, which is presented as a "scientific" alternative to evolutionary biology.(If you have time to waste, a Google search will give the background.) Mainstream biologists have been caught leaden-footed in the propanda war, and now (INMHO understandably) can over-react to articles of the quality of Professor Rubinstein.
Posted by: Alan Fox at May 16, 2005 08:39 PM"why the hysteria of the reaction"
You must be in Europe. There is an unholy alliance between the funamentalist southern baptists and right-wing republicans in the US, the trade-off being political support in exchange for creationism to displace mainstream biology in state schools. Their latest ploy is to promote a "theory" called Intelligent Design, which is presented as a "scientific" alternative to evolutionary biology.(If you have time to waste, a Google search will give the background.) Mainstream biologists have been caught leaden-footed in the propanda war, and now (INMHO understandably) can over-react to articles of the quality of Professor Rubinstein.
Posted by: Alan Fox at May 16, 2005 08:42 PM“I do find the comments on this article rather peculiar - I am not a creationist, I do not believe in Rubinstein's arguments. But why the hysteria of the reaction - reading the responses to Rubinstein's piece would make one believe that he had supported child sacrifice, not challenged - in a rather daft way - Darwinism.”
Yes Danny, several of the replies to this article – many from professional biologists - border on the intemperate, but you need to understand why. Rubinstein’s article is spectacularly, jaw-droppingly sloppy. It is shot through with the most appalling howlers that would be bad enough from an A-level biology student. But this article was written by a tenured professor at a serious UK institution of higher education. This in itself raises an important and troubling question. There are some very good biologists at the University of Wales – Aberystwyth. If Professor Rubenstein genuinely wanted to understand modern developments in evolutionary biology, did it not occur to him that he should pick up the phone and talk to some of his academic colleagues who actually understand the issues? I’m sure that the biologists would love to describe their work and would be more than happy to explain to a genuinely curious outsider from a different academic discipline what they do and why they believe what they believe. But no, instead we get a creationist stream of consciousness that isn't even original. For anyone who genuinely cares about the quality of UK higher education, this article is just plain embarrassing.
Posted by: Tony Jackson at May 16, 2005 08:45 PMDanny:
He is casually dismissing a century of work and scholarship done by tens of thousands of dedicated researchers. And he is doing it from a position of profound ignorance (and what one must assume is utter disdain for the people who have dedicated their lives to illuminating this incredibly complex topic).
This sort of lazy concession to ignorant assumptions is incredibly destructive to our society.
And the fact that he is "challenging Darwinism" is exactly the problem. He's going on about his hazy understanding of a simple idea posited 150 years ago. He's apparently unaware of the immense field of research known as evolutionary theory -- the basis for all of our understanding of modern biology.
There's a little more to the theory of evolution than "you know, Darwin, mutation, selection, that stuff". It is very disconcerting when this is the state of public discourse. We are justifiably terrified by the potential consequences of this new reign of ignorance.
Posted by: justin at May 16, 2005 09:53 PMDanny wrote
It's not that he "challenged - in a rather daft way - Darwinism ...". It's that a man who should know better, a well-credentialed academic, casually dismissed the professional work of thousands of scientists in biology and its allied disciplines because he did not have the intellectual curiousity or professional integrity to at least minimally inform himself about the issues before he slobbered about it in public. Recall this is a man who has "Professor" in front of his name and "FRHS" behind it. One expects a bit better from a purported scholar. Had I (credentialed in a different discipline) blathered about British history with the same ignorance that Professor Rubinstein displayed about evolutionary biology, I don't doubt that his disdain for my sloppy scholarship would match mine for his.RBH
Posted by: RBH at May 16, 2005 11:33 PMI am still wondering if Prof. Rubinstein published his article without being aware of the difficult conflict being fought between creationism (Biblical literalism) and conventional science, mostly in the educational arena but not only there. Apparently, he did not understand that there is no controversy at all among biologists on the subject of evolution. As a professional historian, he could have analysed the controversy as a contemporary social, political, cultural phenomenon, he could have described the arguments, he could have presented his personal insights as a historian on the subject. Maybe that was his intention. I am sure that by now he understands that he made a bad mistake, and is thinking how to rescue his reputation. May I suggest that he publish an explanation, a correction, a mea culpa, in the same internet site? The sooner, the better.
Posted by: jaimito at May 17, 2005 01:23 AMDanny,
You may not live in North America (specifically the States), so you may not be aware that in the U.S. science and reason, biology in particular, have been under serious and prolonged attack by a small group of religious fanatics who have a considerable amount of political power these days, thanks to their close ties with the party that is in control of both the representative and administrative branches of the federal government, not a few state governments, and not a few local school boards, which have power over the public (that is, tax-supported) schools in this country. We also have a First Amendment to our Constitution that prohibits, supposedly, government establishment of religion.
Therefore, we Yanks tend to get a bit nervous about this sort of bilge. Sorry for troubling the placidity of you fine people across the Big Pond.
Posted by: sort of buddhist at May 17, 2005 01:29 AMIf you're wondering about the voluminous response, here's my short answer: Quote-mining. The creationists have another Ph.D. with no background in the field to cite out of context. It's a wonderfully circular arrangement.
This is regardless of whether the above is satire (as I maintain it must be -- no history professor would ever exhibit such childish "scholarship"). Creationists don't shy from citing The Onion, and this won't worry them, either.
D'A
Posted by: D'Archangel at May 17, 2005 03:45 AMCommon Sense is not science - http://www.waywarduniverse.com/archives/2005/05/the_science_of.html
Posted by: Foster at May 17, 2005 05:30 PMThis comment column is now beginning to sound like the screechings of an agitated ape colony.
"Creation Science is an invention of the devil" - Discuss.
Posted by: Robert H. Olley at May 17, 2005 06:16 PMRead a basic textbook on evolution.
Read basic theories of systematics
Study the theory behind taxonomy and how nomenclature works. This is a complicated field of study. One can expect to understand just by spouting ramdon thoughts. It takes years and a lot of hard work to really understand how evolution and taxonomy work. It's not simple.
This is not a thinking article. But just some mindless rambling by a person who, despite having a PhD, failed to do their homework.
Even though I have been just a lowly master's student and a TA, if this were handed to me as a report or a paper, I would give it an F. with the words "Please consult the current literature, before you half *ss a paper again."
Posted by: Andy at May 18, 2005 03:08 AM"If the lions in the jungle killed and ate all of the gazelles, the lions would themselves quickly starve to death." - unless they start eating german tourist. (There's apppearently an infinite supply of them.)
Secondly, lions don't live in the jungle, neither do gazelles. This is what happens when History professors rely on an old Tokens' song.
If this is a parady, Prof. Rubinstein, congrations. It's really convincing. I would feel like an idiot for calling you an idiot.
If you are serious, then you are an idiot.
Posted by: Bob at May 18, 2005 03:52 AMI note that this is , along with most (all?) of the other articles on this site, is a pure opinion piece. For most of the other topics this isn't a problem - you agree or you don't agree and you argue your case.
That's not an approach you can take with Science though. Sure, you can argue about who is right and wrong, but you need evidence to back you up. Prof Rubinstein's problem here is that he appears not to be aware of any of the vast amount amount of scientific work in this area and has constructed an argument based purely on his own thoughts. Unfortunately the evidence is not with him.
(On second thoughts, I'll partially withdraw my starting comment about opinion pieces being OK. There are unending radio, TV and newspaper discussions in the UK about how best to deal with various social problems. In almost none of them is the evidence raised to support the debaters' views:
Right-wing elderly conservative: Young offenders should be flogged and then imprisoned for 20 years - it's the only way they'll learn.
Right-on bearded lefty: No, we must understand their problems and talk it through with them in a non-accusatory environment.
Frankly, in many ways I don't much care about arguments based on opinion. Decide what you want to achieve, Get the facts about what works, then do it!)
Posted by: 4u1e at May 18, 2005 08:37 AMYou must be joking. This is a creationist thing.
I am not joking about having heard sillier things. Nothing has yet beaten the following dismissal of evolution made to me by a creationist: "But a fish can't turn into a frog — they're made of totally different material!".
Posted by: Milo Thurston at May 18, 2005 12:57 PMThis discussion is absurd. I refer you to the second poster and agree that this is literally the most stupid article I've ever read in an intelligent publication of any kind. (I actually went back once or twice to see if it was a parady and I'd missed something). A rebuttal is not worthy of anyone's time.
Posted by: John M at May 19, 2005 03:37 PMNone of my previous articles for the Social Affairs Unit have attracted more than ten responses, most have only attracted a few responses. When I, for example, advocted abolishing the income tax - www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000214.php - it only received two responses. When I posted my article on evolution I did not expect it to attract a single response, not on a site unrelated to science or biology, let alone more than seventy.
I wish to make only two points in reply. First, to reiterate what I said in the article, I am not a “creationist,” and would not allow any of what I wrote to be cited by fundamentalists, although there are a wide range of non-“creationist” critics of evolutionary theory.
Secondly, I would be happy to donate say one hundred dollars or fifty pounds to charity if, by the end of ten years from now
(May 2015) anyone can produce an example of evolution in the animal world which has occurred during that time span - that is, the appearance of a new species of animal, which does not exist today, but which is descended from an existing species. (Of course this must occur in the natural world - laboratory experiments are excluded). I readily admit that ten years is a ridiculously short period, but there are more than one million species of animal life and new species should be appearing all the time, surely. I would stipulate a much longer time frame - fifty or five hundred years - but
won’t be around to monitor the results.
(Professor) William D. Rubinstein
Posted by: William D. Rubinstein at May 20, 2005 12:23 PMI agree with most of the criticisms made of Prof. Rubinstein's article. One thing does however bother me - namely the number of commentators who have dismissed Prof. Rubinstein's point about punctuated equilibrium and saltation as just another example of ignorance. For a start Rubinstein does not say that punctuated equilibrium is the same as saltation, merely that it "was recently revived, at least in part, in the late Stephen J. Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium"". The key words here are "at least in part", ie it is not the same. Secondly, equating "punctuated equilibrium" as at least in part drawing upon saltation is not a sign of ignorance about science. As I recall the main person making the link between saltation and punctuated equilibrium was Richard Dawkins - hardly a scientific dunce,
Posted by: Jacob at May 20, 2005 05:35 PMThere are some good biologists at Rubinstein's home institution. I strongly suggest that he consult with him before continuing to make a public fool of himself. His latest offer (10 years to observe a speciation event) demonstrates a ludicrously misinformed notion of how the processes of evolution operate. He seems still to be operating on the 'cat giving birth to a raccoon' notion of evolution.
RBH
Posted by: RBH at May 21, 2005 01:51 AMProf. Rubinstein,
You may claim that you are not a creationist, but you have chosen to waddle, flap, and quack like a creationist duck. Not one of your arguments is original to you. They are standard fare from creationists, some cases even being 50 or more years old, and were wrong even then. One is ~200 years old. Expect to be tarred with the creationist brush and buried under a pile of down. But I suspect, as stated below, you already knew that.
Whether you "would not allow any of what I wrote to be cited by fundamentalists" they will do so anyway, and probably already have, considering how late to the party I am. Because of the currents events nature of the SAU blog and your own specialization in modern history, I choose to ascribe darker motives to your essay than most commentators. You stated your awareness of the creationist controversy and your essay just added more fuel to it. That was not accidental. The strawman of a very nearly impossible challenge after having so many people direct you to plain facts, is simply more creationist moving of the goal posts. Did you even bother to actually investigate the pharyngula or talkorigins websites?
I will counter challenge you with something that is much more meaningful. To make up for your lack of academic rigor in the above post, offer to endow (both with personal funding and with personal time and legwork soliciting contributions over and above your own) a permanent four year scholarship(of, let's say, 25% tuition coverage, don't want to be too greedy), awarded annually, to an enrolling freshman at your university committing to a major in evolutionary biology(if such is available, if not than an equivalent in biology). Your knowledge of the biological sciences may improve through your interaction with such students and the effort you make on their behalf.
Posted by: Paul Flocken at May 21, 2005 01:53 AMSincerely,
Paul Flocken
I had thought that perhaps I had been too hard on Professor Rubinstein--that is, until I saw his nonresponse to his critics. At that point, I had to respond myself.
Posted by: Orac at May 21, 2005 04:46 PMIs it worth pointing out that while Prof. Rubinstein states that he is not a creationist many times, he specifically argues for a non natural power as the source of the diversity of life on Earth? That is, when he argues that "the incredible complexity of life, and its apparent ever-increasing sophistication over time, strongly implies a guiding force of some kind, and one which can produce a continuous array of new creatures of ever-increasing complexity. Whatever that force may be, it must therefore be capable of producing new species more complex than the previous ones - something which at first glance seems impossible, implying some kind of advanced problem solving force. Where is it situated? How does it go about "solving" the problems confronting it.", he is either arguing for either space aliens or a supernatural force. Since he never implies that he finds the space aliens idea plausible, he's left arguing that, while he is not a creationist, he believes in creationism. What is the sad state of higher education that such self delusion is acceptable?
Posted by: kb5zhh at May 21, 2005 10:36 PMThis reply might be a duplicate, as my first post seems to have disappeared.
Is it worth pointing out that Prof. Rubinstein, while denying that he is a creationist, is not just regurgitating creationist arguments, but also specifically arguing for creationism? Specifically, when he argues that "The incredible complexity of life, and its apparent ever-increasing sophistication over time, strongly implies a guiding force of some kind, and one which can produce a continuous array of new creatures of ever-increasing complexity. Whatever that force may be, it must therefore be capable of producing new species more complex than the previous ones - something which at first glance seems impossible, implying some kind of advanced problem solving force. Where is it situated? How does it go about "solving" the problems confronting it." he is saying that the natural world cannot produce the diversity of life on Earth. This is reinforced when he claims that "The mechanism which brings about these sudden, fundamental changes, however, remains (so far as I know) completely unknown, but must be marked by a high order of creative ability." So while he claims to not be a creationist, he does believe in the actions of a creator. This is truly foolishness beyond the pale.
Posted by: kb5zhh at May 21, 2005 11:05 PMI should point out to the previous commentator that believing in a higher force guiding creation - or setting the building blocks for creation - does not make one a creationist. Prof. Rubinstein may be a creationist - but this is no eveidence for such a claim. By that standard you could end up claiming Darwin was a creationist - after all he was a believer in God - and thus in all probability a believer in the idea that the basic building blocks of the world were created by God. Darwin the creationist - not a very strong argument.
Posted by: Harry at May 21, 2005 11:54 PMA belief in weak creationism, that is that a higher power is ultimately responsible for the entire universe, is compatible with evolution. Additionally, weak creationism is believed by most biologists. But a believer in weak creationism is not typically defined as being creationism.
However, Prof. Rubinstein is arguing for strong creationism, that a higher power is constantly involving in the workings of the universe. Strong creationism is the belief set identified as creationists.
Posted by: kb5zhh at May 22, 2005 12:28 AMSecondly, I would be happy to donate say one hundred dollars or fifty pounds to charity if, by the end of ten years from now
(May 2015) anyone can produce an example of evolution in the animal world which has occurred during that time span - that is, the appearance of a new species of animal, which does not exist today, but which is descended from an existing species....
Professor, there is no need to wait to make your donation. Current speciation has been documented extensively. Here's a small list of source material. More can be found here.:
Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.
Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes). Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992.
Abstract:
Analysis of contact between two chromosomal races of house mice in northern Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation.
Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.
Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.
Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992.
Abstract:
The climatic and geographic history of the Pleistocene and Holocene periods modified the distribution of the bird population in the South American forests. Forest birds are found dispersed in the Yungas and Paranese areas with only minimal infiltration of the Chaco woodland, indicating an atmospheric change during the interglacial periods. In the Chaco lowlands, the interactions between non-forest birds reveal the existence of presence of a forest belt along the Bermejo and Pilcomayo rivers.
Kondrashov, Alexey S.. Jablonka, Eva. Lamb, Marion J.. Species and speciation. (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V356. P752(1) April 30, 1992.
Abstract:
J.A. Coyne wrongly asserted that neodarwinism includes allopatric evolution but not sympatric evolution. Allopatric evolution occurs among geographically isolated populations, whereas sympatric evolution occurs within one species' entire population. Both are neodarwinian since each results from natural selection of genetic variation. Also, Coyne failed to recognize that the molecular models used to illustrate how genetic changes bring on speciation are most useful when researchers acknowledge that both inherited epigenetic and genetic changes affect speciation.
Spooner, David M.. Sytsma, Kenneth J.. Smith, James F.. A molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium. Evolution. V45. P757(8) May, 1991.
Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible?. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991.
Miller, Julie Ann. Pathogens and speciation. (Research Update). BioScience. V40. P714(1) Nov, 1990.
Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones; many species are divided into a mosaic of genetically distinct populations, separated by narrow zones of hybridization. Studies of hybrid zones allow us to quantify the genetic differences responsible for speciation, to measure the diffusion of genes between diverging taxa, and to understand the spread of alternative adaptations. (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.
Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.
Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
Feder, Jeffrey L. Bush, Guy L. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution. V43. P1813(7) Dec, 1989.
Soltis, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. The American Journal of Botany. V76. P1119(6) August, 1989.
Coyne, J.A. Barton, N.H. What do we know about speciation?. Nature. V331. P485(2) Feb 11, 1988.
Barton, N.H. Jones, J.S. Mallet, J. No barriers to speciation. (morphological evolution). Nature. V336. P13(2) Nov 3, 1988.
Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 1988.
Posted by: Jody at May 22, 2005 01:44 AMJacob,
Punctuated equilibria is simply not a theory of saltation. And by that I just don't mean merely that is not entirely a theory of saltation, but that it has nothing to do whatsoever with saltation. As for Richard Dawkins, he went to pains to point out that puctuated equlibria is NOT in any way saltation. See chapter 9 of _The Blind Watchmaker_. Puctuated equilibria is a gradualist idea: it does not in any way propose any offspring is in any way radically different than the parents.
Dr. Rubinstein,
Your response is rather sad. Quite bluntly a hundred bucks is not enough money to keep track of you for ten years with the hope that you would shell out.
The reality is that the formation of new species is something that has been OBSERVED in NATURE many times. Denying that fact will not make it go away. Indeed most of the big name creationists will readily admit that the formation of new species has been observed. Only the worst of the worst will deny that the formation of new species has been observed.
Speaking of creationism, lets address you denial of being a creationist. I am not accusing you of being a creationist. Neither are the vast majority of people posting comments. What we are saying is that you have gotten your arguments either directly or indirectly from creationist sources. That the arguments that you are using are creationist is something that no one familiar with creationist literature will deny.
--
Posted by: Mike Hopkins at May 22, 2005 01:49 AMAnti-spam: Replace "user" with "harlequin2"
"I...would not allow any of what I wrote to be cited by fundamentalists,"
How?
Posted by: Bartholomew at May 22, 2005 02:21 AMDr. Rubenstein said:
"Evolution appears to be plainly impossible. Animals cannot 'evolve' into new and different species. If one breeds cats for a thousand generations, they will still be cats, won't they?"
Animals DO evolve. There are numerous examples of speciation - both in the laboratory and in nature.
Scientifically define "cats". Evolution is a gradual process. It's like driving a car across the country. At some point you arbitrarily enter Nebraska - but only because someone put up a sign saying "Welcome to Nebraska". In fact, if you are traveling at 60 mph you are only a mile away from where you were a minute ago. But that is true of every single moment of your trip. You are no longer in Iowa and are instead in Nebraska simply because of those arbitrary definitions.
"Moreover, no one expects "evolution" to occur."
Actually people who understand evolution really do expect it to continuously occur - and it does! Most obviously are bacteria who evolve an immunity to a particular antibiotic. Doctors and scientists EXPECT that to occur. They would be literally SHOCKED if it didn't.
I could go on. Nothing that you say has any validity whatsoever.
I suggest in the future that you express opinons on things that you do know at least SOMETHING about. Evolution is not one of those things.
Posted by: Randy Crum at May 22, 2005 03:00 AMIntresting read.. I assume the Proffesor was joking, right?
Posted by: Geral Corasjo at May 22, 2005 05:06 AMPlease Proffesor, if you ever decide to write an article like this... Please consult with a fellow Biologist in your institutition before you bring your ridiculous arguments on the web. Surely a man with your education should have more respect than this?
Interestingly, many of the comments posted on the article have disappeared. Prof. Rubinstein decided to leave a few and not to answer even them. His reaction of offering 100 dollars or 50 pounds (91 dollars at current rate) is ludicrous. I offer 91 dollars plus one framed picture of Ch. Darwin if he can demonstrate the appearance of a completely new natural language in the course of the next decade. Not someone inventing a language, but a real spontaneous field phenomenon. Paraphrasing him, it must be easy, as hundreds of natural languages are appearing and disappearing all the time.
To collect the prize pls. contact jaimito klein, Dept. Civil Engineering, Ariel, Samaria.
Posted by: jaimito at May 22, 2005 06:25 AMI do not believe I have ever - EVER - witnessed a more educated fool than Mr. Rubenstein. When I first heard about this I refused to believe it was anything other than a prank: how could someone - ANYONE - educated to the doctoral level at a place like Johns Hopkins be not only so pitiously ill-informed, but also so utterly and completely lacking in ELEMENTARY reasoning?
It seemed impossible. A high school drop out, yes, perhaps. But a university professor, even if merely a non-scientist?
What is worse, Mr. Rubenstein persists in this astonishing display of uneducation and stupidity.
The thing that he proposes be demonstrated - that a cat say, gives birth to a kangaroo - is a phenomenon that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution. If such a thing were to happen, it would actually shake the theory to its very core - in fact I would say it may be the first directly observed piece of evidence in favor of creationism.
Nowehere does TOE ever predict such a phenomenon. The TOE predicts precisely what we observe in nature, and for which we have mountains and mountains of evidence gathered over decades - that there will be changes in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool over generations, owing mainly to natural selection.
Posted by: AC at May 22, 2005 07:17 AMTo respond to Jaimito, I have been looking at this discusssion repeatedly since the comments started coming up - and it certainly does not look like any have been deleted to me. That's something you have to say for the people running this site - they seem to be more than happy to publish attacks on their articles
Posted by: John at May 22, 2005 10:07 AM