Gradualism in Evolution (was Categories ...) (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Saturday, July 24, 2010, 12:29 @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: The PDF cited by dhw is a totally worthless paper from a creationist.

Thank you for your diligent research on Jerry Bergman. It was evident from the reference that he was a creationist, but I am prepared to consider his arguments rather than his background. If the Archbishop of Canterbury were to ignore Dawkins’ scientific arguments on the grounds that he is an atheist, we would all laugh our socks off.

Perhaps, however, I can persuade you to concentrate on messages rather than on messengers. I had pointed out that new organs such as heart, liver, penis etc., even in their most rudimentary form, were immensely complex and had to function if they were to survive. (I also wrote a detailed challenge to your use of “simple” in relation to nerves.) Such innovations seem to indicate that, contrary to Darwin’s thesis, Nature does sometimes “jump”. I therefore asked why Darwin thought his theory of evolution – that all life is descended from one or a few forms, and that these have developed into the present vast range through a process of natural selection – depended absolutely on gradualism, i.e. on the principle that Nature does not “jump”. Your response was to ignore the problem of innovation and restrict yourself to variation (which indeed is a gradual process). David Turell, who is certainly more qualified than either of us in the field of biology, thought Bergman’s article was “absolutely brilliant”. Perhaps, then, you could help me to solve my gradualism problem by explaining the biological fallacies in the argument. I’m afraid that criticism along the lines of “worthless” and “discredited” and “creationist” are no help to me at all.