quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
This one below was written in a response to someone asking Paterson why he didn't include transitional fossils in the fossil record. As I understand it Paterson has the largest fossil collection in the world.
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil
Dr. Colin Paterson. Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma p89
I'm so glad someone mentioned Colin Patterson (sic). For two reasons:
1. He is very relevant to the discussion of transitional forms because of his "transformed cladist" approach - that paleontological evidence is not suitable for discerning evidence of ancestry, only relatedness. For example, the fine photo examples of transitional forms aleady given in this thread would be seen as all related, but not descended from one another.
His attitude to inferential evidence, as a classical Humean skeptic, is rigorous and elegant: "Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. There is no way to answer the question."
But the application of his inferential logic has no comfort whatsoever for Creationists, unless you use it in a disingenuous, even dishonest manner, such as "I'll use Patterson's attack on inferential evidence when it suits me to knock evidence for evolution, but I'll fall back on heavily inferential reasoning to support Intelligent Design or Special Creation."
2. Patterson is a fine example of how wrong Creationists are about another issue. Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is indeed the scientific orthodoxy of the day, but scientists who hold opposing views can still work in the field and rise to senior positions in the scientific community. Darwinism and the evidence on which Darwinism is based is not unchallenged. Palaeontology is a field full of personal and philosophical controversies: the rigorous and fierce scrutiny that follows every new hominid fossil is ongoing proof that such as issues as radiocarbon dating, transitionals etc are not just meekly accepted by a smug elite of Darwinists - every date, every fragment bone is subject to a level of intense review that few fields of science can equal.
Finally, lets have a little quote from Mr Patterson: "No doubt other revolutions are in store, and whether we choose to follow Popper's or Kuhn's understanding of science, the one lesson we can learn from both these thinkers is that today's theory of evolution is unlikely to be the whole truth. Yet today's neo-Darwinian theory, with all its faults, is still the best that we have. It is a fruitful theory, a stimulus to thought and research, and we should accept it until someone thinks of a better one."
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-22-2002]
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-22-2002]
™ Version 4.2