---> The Chuck Maier Whopper Database <--- Release 1.01, 25 November 1991 Preface: Over t
---> The Chuck Maier Whopper Database <---
Release 1.01, 25 November 1991
Preface: Over the past several months, Chuck Maier has advanced a SciCre
outlook on the origin and evolution of life. When Chuck has alleged that
evolutionary biologists (a redundant phrase) are clueless, that items of
evidence either don't exist or are falsified, that SciCre mavens practice
good science, that Michael Denton and Soren Lovtrop are well-respected
evolutionists (and apparently the only "evolutionists" whose books have any
value), that speciation can't occur, etc. ad infinitum, many on the Echo
have taken a significant amount of time in generating responses that
document that much of Chuck's verbiage has no basis in fact. Chuck's
standard mechanism (as pointed out by one of his respondents) is to engage
in ad hominem attack, then to dispute the validity of the evidence, then to
ignore it and any subsequent requests for response on the particular
topic, and then at a later date reassert his original statement. This
final action sequence is an extremely frustrating tactic.
It has become obvious to many that Chuck doesn't deserve the good treatment
he has gotten so far. However, a proposal has been offered to Chuck to
redeem himself as a valued echo participant: simply respond to several
requests for information made by various persons on the echo. Until that
time, the people who have been posting rebuttals to Chuck's worthless
claims have vowed not to respond to Chuck's posts.
In order that folks tuning into the Science Echo and finding it full of
Chuck Maier's bombastic pronouncements about the glories of SciCre without
responses don't get the mistaken impression that Chuck is "onto something
here", I have established the "Chuck Maier Whopper Database". This is
simply a clipping of pretty direct and uncontroversial rebuttals to a few of
Chuck's more obvious prevarications.
In order to make this a generally useful tool, I would like to see
additions to the database include references for further reading.
Here it is, then:
-------------
SCIENCE Area 14:55 Saturday 23-Nov-91
From: CHUCK MAIER
To: JOHN THOMPSON
Re: Conspiracy? Get Real!
CM> Just a few comments here re: the fact that creationists are
CM> shut out from the journals these days ... from 2 feb.
CM> 1991, Gish made these remarks after a debate at U of New
CM> Orleans (Acts & Facts feb 1991):
CM> "One questioner asked Dr. Gish to repond to [evolutionist
CM> debater] Dr. Scott's claim concerning the paucity of
CM> articles in science journals supporting creation. Br. Gish
CM> pointed out the fact that editors, and referees of such
CM> journals, simply reject out-of-hand articles that in any way
CM> question the fact of evolution or the support of creation.
CM> He described his own conversation with an editor of one of
CM> these journals, who stated flatly that her journal would not
CM> publish an article supporting creation, and athe fact that
CM> four leading science journals rejected an article by
CM> Professor A.E. Wilder - Smith based on a creation science
CM> lecture at Oxford."
[Chuck neglects to mention that Gish had the opportunity to provide
evidence of a conspiracy in the early eighties, in the Arkansas
"balanced-treatment" trial. However, Judge Overton noted that when the
defense was requested to provide rejection letters showing that
SciCre'ers had been summarily shut out of publications, they failed to
provide evidence of even one such instance. It would appear that the
SciCre forces are imposing their own conspiracy -- don't submit, then
complain "we're locked out." It is difficult for an editor to reject
out of hand a paper that never reaches the editor's desk because the
author never sent it. That Wilder-Smith's article was rejected by "four
leading" journals is not surprising, since most papers will be rejected
by these journals. There is still no evidence presented here that the
rejection of Wilder-Smith's article was due to bias. This is a typical
ploy - present misleading and anecdotal evidence and let people assume
that this is indicative of a general condition. This "fact" of a
conspiracy evaporates rather quickly when examined, and becomes simply
another unsupported SciCre conjecture. -- WRE]
CM> Marty also expressed some interest in Dr. Austin's bio ,
CM> which says :
CM> "By the time [Austin] was eight he had one of the largest
CM> rock collections in his county. ... In the late 1950s, Dr.
CM> Austin was know as the "Sputnik kid"...[H]e appeared on
CM> public tv ... to motivate students to study science. ...
CM> The science "whiz kid" eventually went on to earn a
CM> doctorate in geology at Penn State. Even today, some
CM> *EVOLUTIONARY GEOLOGISTS* declare his doctoral dissertation
CM> on coal formation to be perhaps the *FINEST EVER PRESENTED*."
[Chuck has never, in the messages that have arrived here, presented the
names of these "some evolutionary geologists", even though this has been
requested several times. Skepticism of the claim seems reasonable under
these circumstances. Personal authority is an indicator of credibility,
but does not indicate infallibility. --WRE]
-------------
SCIENCE Area 16:50 Sunday 3-Nov-91
From: DAVE KNAPP
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: IT'S BE NICE TO DAVE DAY...
CM>are cosmic rays out there of unknown origin (right?). This type of
CM>radiation might turn out to be from some as yet unknown source. I
CM>don't see why it is any longer any especial evidence for bang
CM>theory.
Then you are ignorant. The origin of the cosmic rays is known to
be galactic; however, one cannot find the sources because the charged
cosmic rays are deflected by the galactic magnetic field. The
microwave background radiation is uncharged.
If I may be a bit bold, here. this is typical creationist
intellectual dishonesty. (I know you can't see it; this is for
others.) After loudly proclaiming that creationism fits the known
data "better" than standard theories, we point out evidence that
practically points right at a well-established theory, like the big
bang. So the creationist (with a straight face!) blithely starts
postulating "unknown sources" to explain away the evidence!
Explaining away evidence is not the same as explaining evidence,
Chuck, no matter how hard you try to act as if it is.
-----------
SCIENCE Area 09:44 Thursday 7-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Coconino sandstone: Round 1
...Chuck Maier, whose reality check just bounced, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> Well, either they were made underwater , or they were not. I suggest
CM> these creatures found a calm spot during a lull in the Flood. Or
CM> maybe they were skittering away from a huge dune which was coming
CM> their way.
Yeah, you really have to watch those floods of sand coming at
you...
Unfortunately, most of the ichnofauna of the Cocnoino is composed of
reptile trails and trackways, of a very diverse nature. There are not
only locomotory trackways, but feeding and hunting trackways and
other such trackways indicative of rather arid environment behavior.
I know this seems like a minor objection, but it is quite incisive as
amphibians and reptiles exploit quite different niches; amphibians are
tied to an aqueous environment while reptiles are not.
Further, claiming that certain trackways that were made while the sand
was wet resemble some of those found in the Coconino in no way
invalidates the bulk of the evidence that they were indeed dune sands.
As cited in Davis, 1983, (Depositional System), Stokes (1968) notes the
processes forming bounding surfaces in aeolian dunes. From the
development of the initial dune field, to encroachment of the water
table, removal of sand to the water table (soggy sand here, Chuck,
amply wet for footprints as you describe above), to the re-
establishment of a second dune field. One experimental occurrence of
footprints that look like they may have been made while the sand was
wet in no way invalidates the overwhelming data indicating that the
Coconino was an aeolian sand (more about soon).
CM> Exhibit 'B' in today's testimony is a paper by Freeman, William E.,
CM> and Visher, Glenn S., Stratigraphic Analysis of The Navajo Sandstone,
CM> Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 45, no. 3 pp 651-668 sept 1975.
CM> They list a number of factors as evidences against desert-aeolian
CM> deposition:
Totally irrelevant. We are discussing the Coconino, not the Navajo.
[more deleted for brevity]
CM> The Navajo is located in north-central Nevada, and is an
CM> upper-triassic bed. Is that about the same "age" as the coconino,
CM> Marty?
Not even close, Chuck. The Navajo is Upper Triassic, the Coconino is
Permian...more than just a few million years difference.
------------
SCIENCE Area 17:13 Tuesday 5-Nov-91
From: CHUCK MAIER
To: WESLEY R. ELSBERRY
Re: Ames test
CM> Well, it's been a while ... , but look at what is going on
CM> here. I might add, that all of this is really very trivial
CM> relative to forming a genome or whole new energy systems,
CM> nervous systems, etc. . Anyhow, you have an auxotroph [ a
CM> mutant that has a growth factor requirement ], a member of
CM> the population which is non-competitive due to a mutation.
CM> Well, the Ames test, brings him back to par. True, it's
CM> through mutation, but look at the overall context of what
CM> you are proposing here.
CM> Furthermore, think about what the Ames test is for. They
CM> are testing chemicals for their mutagenicity, mutagenicity
CM> being highly correlated with carcinogenicity, which is
CM> highly correlated with *****DEATH*****, NOT MACROEVOLUTION
CM> AND UPWARD COMPLEXITY!!!!
[But that wasn't why I posted the Ames test example, Chuck,
and you know it. The reason I posted it was because it
neatly refutes your statement of 91/10/25:
CM> The real agents of change are chance genetic mistakes,
CM> which, as far as I can tell, are always harmful, always
CM> deleterious.
End quote.]
------------
SCIENCE Area 18:38 Wednesday 6-Nov-91
From: GREG HANSEN
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Creation Science; Catastrophes
CM> That was probably a better testimony to the failure of evolutionary
CM> communisms' economic and architectural efforts...
Please do not fling unfounded (and unfair) conclusions around.
I'm interested in scientific creationism from a physical evidence
perspective, not questionable social and economic analysis. (For one
thing, "the failure of evolutionary communisms' economic and
architectural efforts" has nothing at all to do with biological
evolution; and another thing, "evolutionary communism" has nothing
at all to do with architectural efforts. Communism has something
to do with economic efforts, but evolution has nothing to do with
communism, beyond a certain communist country taking a particular
liking to it.)
-------------
SCIENCE Area 07:09 Thursday 7-Nov-91
From: WESLEY R. ELSBERRY
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Ames test? Where?
CM> And if I do make mistakes (Euglena, hip
CM> embryological development , etc.), I will admit them.
The last message I recall seeing from you on hip displacement made comments
about the ethics of the person performing the limb bud research.
[Here's the quote from Chuck, 91/10/25:
CM> I have been looking at Balinsky. He must be cruel to do all
CM> those things to frogs. I really don't see how creating
CM> these monsters ( competence for limb development all along
CM> the flank ) says anything about common ancestry. Are you/he
CM> suggesting that their are pseudogenes all along the flank
CM> that can be turned on by these implants? Is what is
CM> happening in these experiments well understood in terms of
CM> particular genes being activated and the molecules involved
CM> in the activation and control?
End quote.]
Didn't sound like an admission of error there. You more
often simply ignore your own errors, while holding that any
error by the other side is simply fatal.
--------------
SCIENCE Area 16:51 Sunday 3-Nov-91
From: DAVE KNAPP
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: IT'S BE NICE TO DAVE DAY...
DK> 4.) How do creationists explain the correlation of redshift to
DK> oberved magnitude for all types of stars?
CM>We like to focus on the noncorrelated ones, like Chip Arp's quasar
CM>studies. But that just gets your telescope privileges revoked and
CM>gets you run out of the country.
Now we get a conspiracy theory, a nice intellectually honest
touch. Arp cannot do statistics. His results have been pretty much
completely refuted by those who can.
------------
SCIENCE Area 12:23 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Yellowstone stumps, Lewis Overthrust
...Chuck Maier, trying valiantly again, says to Marty Leipzig
ML> Wrong again, Chuck. How about the deposition of the Solnhofen
ML> Lithographic Limestone? Or the 2000 m. of the Lewis Shale? Or
CM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unfamiliar w/ thisone ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not surprised. Just two of the most heavily worked formations in
the world. FYI, Chuck, Archeopteryx was found in the Jurassic
Solnhofen Limestone of Bavaria.
-------------
Public message 519 SCIENCE Area 11:15 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Polystrates, pine trees in coal
...Chuck Maier, stuck in a swamp, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> In a more strictly catastrophic model we're
CM> talking about single fossils that extend vertically through strata
CM> supposedly laid down over thousands or millions of years (i.e a
CM> nautiloid vertically deposited along a riverbank, or a tree vertically
CM> deposited in a coal bed).
A nautiloid in a riverbank would be of considerable interest,
Chuck...they're marine organisms, not fluvial.
-------------
SCIENCE Area 08:51 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon, Supai interp.
...Chuck Maier, back from a weekend debauch, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> sort of
CM> like a peneplane, eh? A surface along which no visible erosion has
CM> occurred ... where does that happen in the present world?!
Chuck...I'm really wearying of teaching you basic Geology.
A peneplain (please, again, note spelling), a term introduced by
Davis in 1889, refers to a low, nearly featureless, gently
undulating land surface of considerable area, produced by the
processes of long continued subaerial erosion, primarily
mass-wasting and sheetwash on interstream areas of a mature
landscape).
The term (although you probably won't acknowledge this) has
been extended to geomorphology to include surfaces produced by
marine, aeolian and glacial erosion; although many topographic
surface interpreted to be peneplains are actually pediplains
and panplains.
Your definition is lacking, Chuck. As are your arguments.
--------------
SCIENCE Area 08:22 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon
...Chuck Maier, back from a weekend debauch, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> But these dunes are dozens of feet high, and the grains are
CM> such size that we'd be talking about water hundreds of feet deep
CM> moving at several feet per second to deposit these grains. Now what
CM> kind of scenario is that? FLOOD! FLOOD! FLOOD!
FANTASY! FANTASY! FANTASY! is a more descriptive rejoinder.
Water moving at several feet/second does not deposit sand, it
transports it as the saltational or bed load. Water several
hundred feet deep moving at several (please quantify 'several')
feet/second will not deposit much of anything. That's upper
flow regime...and that phase is erosional. Simple hydraulics
and sedimentology.
-------------
SCIENCE Area 07:56 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon
...Chuck Maier, back from a weekend debauch, says to Marty Leipzig
ML> CM> followed by a less extensive catastrophe which
ML> CM> laid down the Snebley Hill formation,
ML>
ML> Chuck, you can't even follow your own stream of illogic. Above
ML> you say a huge catastrophe laid down the shale, then you say it
ML> was a less extensive catastrophe. Well, Chuck, which is it? It
CM>
CM> Let's see... all I know is the Snebley Hill formation exists ..
That's it? That's all you know about this particular formation?
Then how does this qualify you to make any sort of statements
about its deposition and (dare say I?) genesis?
CM> judging by your comments, it must be shale too, right? Well then,
CM> there was a bigger pile that washed into the Central Ariz. area
CM> (snebley hill). Is there anything that would preclude fine grained
CM> sand from Utah or Wyoming getting washed in there and looking like a
CM> stream deposit. Just what sort of depositional environment (stream,
CM> river, beach?) for this shale?
Chuck, read carefully...a fine grained sand is NOT A SHALE! Nor
will it ever be! Mud and silt, after diagenesis, becomes shale.
Sand (fine grained or not) becomes sandstone.
Sand is a term used by geologists as an exact size term. It is
coarser (by definition) that the muds and silts of shale.
Therefore, it is deposited in a more energetic (relatively
speaking) environment than the finer grained clasts of mud and
silt. Chuck, this is extremely elementary geology. I don't mind
destroying your arguments, but I don't think that I should
first have to educate you in what you're arguing.
-------------
SCIENCE Area 07:42 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of GC;redwall/muav unc.
...Chuck Maier, upset over unconformities, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> I've seen good closeup pictures in there, and
CM> it's almost impossible to distinguish between the beginning and ending
CM> of these beds.
Almost impossible? Geologists the world over do it day in and day out.
It's called the science of Geology..
CM> Nobody, based on the empirical physical evidence,
CM> would postulate 150 mys for between flatlying layers like this.
Does your empirical evidence include biostratigraphy, field
mapping and stratigraphy?
CM> 150 mys of weathering over the redwall limestone (98% CaCO3) should
CM> have been plenty of time for solution of the limestone - pitting, cave
CM> formation, extension erosion and reworking of the formation. There's
CM> no soil profile, no plant roots, no worm burrows - something should
CM> have happened here over the course of this unimaginable length of
CM> time.
Wrong! The contact of the Redwall and superincumbant strata is
an undulating line that is the profile of the of the former
erosion surface, perhaps somewhat modified by wave action of
the shoreline that advanced over it during submergence. That is
quite apparent from simple observation.
--------------
SCIENCE Area 18:31 Saturday 2-Nov-91
From: JOHN THOMPSON
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Evolution & Embryology
CM> EMBRYOLOGY UPDATE - I'm searching, with the help of others, for de beer's
CM> reader all over the globe. The supply house Gish recommended as a source
CM> says they don't have any. Any ideas?
Sorry, no. I have had the same problem. That is why I was rather surprised
that you could claim Denton's treatment of limb homology was a virtual
"plagiarism" (your term) of DeBeer's monograph apparently without you ever
having seen it.
------------
SCIENCE Area 18:53 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: GREG HANSEN
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Creation Science: Dinosaurs, evolutionist tactics
CM> You know, I just can't understand these evolutionists. I cite
I've seen you tell a professional geologist that
he doesn't know what he's talking about within his field, I've seen you
tell a professional genetics researcher that he doesn't know what he's
talking about (within his field). In fact, if I were to believe you,
I'd have to think at least half the scientific world is either a bunch
of idiots who don't care to research their work, or else a world-wide
conspiracy with the sole purpose to discredit creationism. I have to
wonder why you think you know so much more about such a wide variety
of different disciplines than people who've spent their lives studying
just one of them.
----------------
SCIENCE Area 08:01 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: JOHN THOMPSON
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Creation Science: Dinosau
CM> Anyhow the question is whether man and dinosaurs coexisted, and the
CM> answer is unequicovally "yes." As I pointed out earlier, some Japanese
CM> fisherman caught a plesiosaur off the coast of New Zealand in 1977. This
CM> was great news in Japan. They made a national stamp with the creature
CM> on it commemorating 100 years of advancement of science. However, this
CM> is very unwelcome news to evolutionists who want to perpetuate these
CM> myths that certain creatures lived and died at certain times ages ago.
I must admit I have never heard of this plesiosaur capture, but even if it is
true, it has no bearing on whether or not humans were extant during mesozoic
times. In any case, why would discovery of a "living fossil" be so
distressing to evolutionary scientists? Do you think that ancestral species
must become extinct before their evolutionary progeny can flourish? That is
analogous to insisting that your parents must die at childbirth for you to
grow up! Evolution is *NOT* a "scala natura" linear sequence of progenitors
and progeny; it is a branching system where ancestral species and new forms
can exist side by side for long periods of time. Why does it feel like I've
been over this with you before?
------------
SCIENCE Area 09:28 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: CHUCK MAIER
To: DAVE HORN
Re: Evolution: Religion , not science
CM> Another area we've been going over are definitions and
CM> terms. A typical example is that of the meaning of
CM> macroevolution. You should note the current thread
CM> "epiquotation" Wesley Elsberry has going. Here is an
CM> example where I very fairly went through the definitions of
CM> four evolutionists, cited from three evolutionary texts,
CM> entirely in context, and from a 10 - year old creationist
CM> text.
[Something Chuck neglects to mention here is how I then re-
interpreted his quotations from the biologists to
demonstrate how his insistence that macroevolution was
intended by biologists to mean changes at higher than
species level of taxonomy was all wet. A petty trick -
claim victory and hope no one checks the records. -- WRE]
---------
SCIENCE Area 08:46 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: CHUCK MAIER
To: DAVE HORN
Re: Evolution: Religion , not science
CM> Ultimately, evolution boils down to little more than faith
CM> in time and chance, which are not causes and are not the
CM> basis for what we typically use as a basis for science.
CM> Evolution (that is, continuity of matter form H2 gas to
CM> people) is nothing more than atheism.
[Here, once again, Chuck is trying to redefine terms to fit
his own biases. Evolution, as agreed upon by the majority
of biologists, is a change in allele frequency in a
population. How this can be equated to atheism is beyond
me, unless Chuck is proposing that an "atheist allele" is
afoot and changing its representation in the genome. --
WRE]
CM> Science today has arbitrarily incorporated eternity to
CM> eternity naturalism in its definition and any allowance for
CM> supernatural causes are simply not allowed.
[This statement is actually correct. There ought to be at
least one statement of Chuck's in here that he has managed
to be correct on. Science assumes that phenomena studied
have natural mechanisms of action. This is a limitation
upon the scope of science, but it has proved to be an
extremely useful limitation. What Chuck gets wrong in his
statement is the expectation that science should encompass
supernatural phenomena. -- WRE]
-------------
SCIENCE Area 17:05 Friday 25-Oct-91
From: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Evolution: Isolation, by PURE CHANCE!
CM> The real agents of change are chance genetic mistakes,
CM> which, as far as I can tell, are always harmful, always
CM> deleterious.
[Then why does the Ames test for clinical mutagenicity work?
This test requires a favorable mutation in order to
function. -- WRE]
-------------
SCIENCE Area 05:38 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Marty Leipzig <=-
CM> As I understand it, there is a 600 foot thick sequence (Snebley
CM> Hill formation of Colorado ) between the Hermit Shale and the Coconino
CM> Sandstone in Colorado, but not in the G.C., where the Hermit Shale and
CM> Coconino sandstone are conformable layers. I would interpret this as
CM> a huge catastrophe which laid down the shale, during or shortly after
CM> the year of the flood,
Error! Shale is a fine grained sedimentary deposit, deposited
in slow moving or static water, not a "catastrophe", as you put
it. Wrong.
-----------
SCIENCE Area 14:27 Thursday 31-Oct-91
From: MAURY MARKOWITZ
Another for the DB...
Background... Les mentions the current problems in the COBE background
measurements...
{Quote from Chuck:}
Exactly what I would say. I don't see why you're still touting 3
degree background as evidence for bang theory when it now appears to be a
problem. Let me suggest the radiation is from an as yet unknown source.
[Hardly, it's a problem for ONE THEORY of the big bang. Again shows Chuck's
confusion of theory vs. fact, and his general misunderstanding of science.
Furthermore, no other explaination of the background is out there, it can
still ONLY be attributed to a big bang, simply not the one we imagined]
{Quote from Chuck:}
After all, the energy density of the background radiation isn't much
different than that coming from other sources (starlight etc.). No one ever
[Here's the whopper! On Monday (the 27th) I went to the Canadian Space
Society meeting, and we had a talk with a astrophysicist from the States
(originally from Bulgaria) who works with orbiting platforms. We had a chance
to talk in depth about the background, and it is FUNDAMENTALLY different than
other astronomical objects. For one, it is MUCH brighter than the stars,
hundreds of times brighter than the output of the sun, as an example. For
another, it is distributed EVENLY about the sky in uniformity, whereas stars
are clumped in groups and clusters. Finally, it matches a blackbody radiation
pattern, and shows no emmision or absorption lines like stars do. Chuck
obviously knows little about the subject.]
--------------
SCIENCE Area 06:42 Friday 26-Jul-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
CM> If we really believe we came from apes, it
Chuck, repeat this 100 times: "Man did NOT come from apes..."
Then maybe you'll quit with this absurd notion. Genus Homo
shares A COMMAN ANCESTRY with the great apes.
-------------------------
SCIENCE Area 12:27 Thursday 5-Sep-91
From: MAURY MARKOWITZ
To: CHUCK MAIER
By the way, I have long complained that creationists take quotes out of
context, and you recently provided me with an excellent example. You quoted
Darwin as stating that the eye could not have evolved naturally. In order to
show just how devious the field seems to be lately, I'll requote a portion...
"To suppose the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
A great quote, works fine on people like yourself that want to believe it.
Too bad your source didn't quote the rest of the same statement...
"... the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that natural
selection may have converted the simple apperatus of an optic nerve, coated
with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument
as perfect as is possesed by any member of the Articulate Class."
Nice of you to ignore the rest of the quote like that Chuck. Keep up the
good work!
---------------------
SCIENCE Area 09:55 Saturday 21-Sep-91
From: PHIL NICHOLLS
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Amphibians
CM> Possibly John t. might tell relate the embryological
CM> development of the pentadactyl limb in vertebrates. Does
CM> the limb suddenly appear loosely embedded in muscle and grow
CM> toward the vertebral column and then glue itself on? No ,
CM> the pelvis and leg develop from the vertebral column and are
CM> inextricably associated with it.
Not up on embryology either I see. In amphibians and in reptiles
the limbs form unattached and attach to the axial skeleton during
development at a much later stage than in mammals.
CM> Thus, there are no ancestors and no descendants for the
CM> fishes. They just suddenly appear, fully formed. How could
CM> this be possible? I mean, we have literally 10's of
CM> millions of fossil fishes on our museum shelves. Certainly
CM> no one can claim the poverty of the fossil record anymore.
CM> And you evolutionists, if you claim to be scientists, and are
CM> going to go based on the haaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrdddd scientific
CM> evidence, you'd have to give up your theory of
CM> macroevolution.
If you had any knowledge of the fossil record you would never
have gone after the fish/amphibian transition because you would
have realized that this is a rather well documented transitional
sequence. Don't take my word for it, though. Here are some
references. I don't expect you will bother, but the "lurkers"
out there might be interested and it will convince them that you
haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Carroll, R. 1989 Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New
York: Freedman Press.
Colbert, 1969 Evolution of the Vertebrates, New York: Wiley
Press. p.71-78
Edwards, J. 1977 "The evolution of terrestrial locomotion," IN
M. hecht, et. al., eds Major Patterns in Vertebrate
Evolution, New York: Plenum Press.
Panchen, A. 1980 The Terrestrial Environment and the Origin of
Land Vertebrates, New York: Academic Press.
Radinsky, L. 1988 The Evolution of Vertebrate Design, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press., pp. 77-94.
Romer,A. 1966 Vertebrate Paleontology, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press., p. 72-74, 86-88, 90.
Romer, 1968 Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.,p.71-72
If that isn't enough for you, try one of the major museums in the
country. See if you can get a pass to the collections. If you
are close to New York City, the American Museum of Natural
History has a splendid collection of vertebrate fossils.
There is plenty of hard evidence, Chuck. You've just never
bothered to look at it.
----------------------
SCIENCE Area 07:09 Saturday 19-Oct-91
From: WESLEY R. ELSBERRY
To: ALL
Re: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre
In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us:
> He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps.
> phylogeny').
Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton.
[Chuck has objected to the inclusion of this item in the database, claiming
that what he really meant was that Von Baer originated the _concept_ of
ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, rather than the phrase itself. The use
of quotations in the original reference would seem to belie this stance.
If he meant to say "concept of", he should have stated it that way. -- WRE]
---------------------
---> End of the Chuck Maier Whopper Database <---
This database is available as CHUCK.DB on Central Neural System.
Additional info is available in the file, R2CHUCK.ARJ, which contains many
detailed responses to Chuck Maier on various topics and also includes
several of the requests for information which have been presented to Chuck
but ignored. This file is available from the Central Neural System BBS for
download (in the SCI area) or F'req. CNS is 1:347/303, 509-627-6CNS (509-
627-6267). CNS also has some very good files on the evolution vs. SciCre
debate, such as Marty Leipzig's exhaustive bibliography, J.W. Merritt's
Frequently Asked Questions file from the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup, and
my own extremely basic genetic algorithm demonstration program
(GENALG.ARJ).
If there is a Chuck Maier-ism that you would like to add to the database,
simply append it to some evolution related post in the Science Echo,
netmail it to me at 1:347/303 (509-627-6267), send it to
elsberry@cse.uta.edu, or snail-mail me a disk (to P.O. Box 1187, Richland,
WA 99352) and arrange it like the following example:
For the Chuck Maier Whopper Database:
In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us:
> He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps.
> phylogeny').
Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton.
End of example entry.
Specific items requested:
Rebuttal for Chuck's "evolution is pure chance" whopper
Rebuttal for Chuck's "here's a class-level relation" when the example
he gave was a kingdom-level relation
Quoted segment from Chuck asking for speciation evidence
Rebuttal for Chuck's "macroevolution isn't speciation" whopper
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank