<
(On Sat, 11 May 1996, Ed Conrad wrote to talk.origins, etc., in
response to Michael Clark's accusation that he had used only
a ****tion of Charles Darwin's quote in which he expressed
serious doubts about the evolution of the eye:
<
=======================================================
<
The Ed Conrad Hurry-Up-I-Have-to-Catch-a-Train Version:
<
> ``To suppose that the eye (with so many parts all working together) .
. .
> could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess,
> absurd in the highest degree."
<
=======================================================
<
The Charles Darwin Let-Me-Put-You-To-Sleep Version:
<
>"'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
>adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
>amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
>aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
>freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
>that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common
>sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of
>Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted
>in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple
>and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist,
>each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if
>further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
>likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to
>any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
>believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
>selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
>considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be
>sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself
>originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in
>which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it
>does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their
>sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves,
> endowed with this special sensibility."
> [Darwin, 1859, _The
Origin of Species
<
==========================================================
<
I thought I said what Darwin had said but Dave Iain Greig at
Ediacara U., a colleague of mine at Ediacara University,
said what I said wasn't what Darwin said because he said Darwin said
something more than what I said he said, then Steve Vickers of UK
sends an E-Mail and said he knows what Darwin said, which is not
entirely what I said he said, so I said to myself, ` I'll say what
he said Darwin said even though I don't know if he really said it,
since this is what he said he had said.
>
> Nice little song and dance, there, Zippy. Can you balance
> a ball on your nose? ---- Michael Clark
<
Actually, Michael, it doesn't really matter what Darwin said or what
these fellas said he said -- or what they said I didn't say -- since
what I said, whether Darwin said it or not, isn't something that was
vital to say, and I'm sort of saying he had painted himself into a
corner and said what he thought he'd better say, else critics would
say he really had nothing to say, even though he had said it.
<
==============================================
<
Wonder what Darwin Would'ver Said About This:
<
> PETRIFIED BONES IN GIANT SLAB OF SLATE (COAL VEINS)I
<
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-002S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-003S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-004S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-005S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-006S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-007S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-008S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-009S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-010S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-011S.JPG
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/NewFossils/MVC-012S.JPG
>
It means the bones have to be older than the material in which
they are encased..
>
Same as many thousands of other petrified bones, teeth
and soft organs I've discovered between anthracite veins,
they offer the undeniable physical evidence that large land
animals -- man included -- had existed on earth while
coal was being formed some280 million years ago..
<
> PSEUDOS' DENIAL OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
> (Petrified coal-age bones, teeth and soft organs)
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ManasOldasCoal/Discoveries.jpg
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/ManasOldasCoal.jpg
< http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/TestResults.jpg
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/OldestTool.jpg
<
==========================================
>
Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
> Man as Old as Coal
|
