Wesley R. Elsberry Corrects Laurie Appleton's Lies

From: Wesley R. Elsberry {welsberr@inia.cls.org}
Subject: Punc Eq

Laurie Appleton writes:

LA>     However, your question appears to indicate that you are
LA> unaware of the new theory of evolution that has gained a wide
LA> following, called Punctuated Equilibria. This postuates that
LA> major changes "must have" happened 'RAPIDLY'. They postulate
LA> that only catastrophic conditions could account for the such
LA> rapid mutation rates that again "must have" ocurred!

There is nothing "catastrophic" about the theory of speciation via peripheral isolates, which is what PE is founded upon. This indicates that Laurie is telling obvious falsehoods about PE. The reader is directed to Eldredge and Gould's original 1972 essay for the authoritative documentation that Laurie is, indeed, telling us falsehoods. Does Laurie intend to deceive us by doing this? The question may be resolved by the reader, who is encouraged to note the frequency with which Laurie repeats apparent falsehoods concerning PE, among other subjects. Ultimately, it matters little whether intent to deceive is present or absent; continued repetition of falsehoods leads one ineluctably to the conclusion that the source of those falsehoods is an unreliable source of information.

I have corrected Laurie concerning his claims about PE on a number of prior occasions. The following lines list dates upon which I corrected Laurie on basic points concerning PE and directed him to the primary literature. These are just what I currently have in an easily searchable database.

 Date: 07 Aug 95  16:08:52 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 583345b2
 Date: 09 Dec 95  09:56:21 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 5eaceafb
 Date: 12 Aug 95  10:13:34 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 5871abdf
 Date: 13 Aug 95  04:44:28 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 587bd5cd
 Date: 13 Oct 95  23:58:00
 Date: 17 Oct 95  22:35:00
 Date: 18 Aug 95  02:06:38 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 58bc58b4
 Date: 18 Aug 95  02:17:08 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 58bc6837
 Date: 21 Aug 95  13:26:24 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 58ea1060
 Date: 21 Nov 95  00:17:00 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 5dad1db6
 Date: 24 Aug 95  07:47:22 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 590ee173
 Date: 27 Oct 95  21:57:00
 Date: 07 Jan 96  15:56:26 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 602e551a
 Date: 07 Jan 96  17:09:32 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 602f01a5
 Date: 07 Jan 96  17:15:50 MSGID: 1:124/1301.47 602f10d5
My PE FAQ, which includes complete bibliographic entries for the original articles, is at the talk.origins archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html.
From: Wesley R. Elsberry {welsberr@inia.cls.org}
Subject: Transitional sequences & 2.5 years of denial

Laurie Appleton writes:

LA> Again your words seem to be an admission that you really
LA> did NOT have any transitions that would "hold water" until
LA> recently. Give you another year or two and your new birds
LA> can be expected to go the same way as all the rest!

Hmmm. It seems that I engaged Laurie concerning the existence of transitional sequences before.

From Date: 18 Aug 95 02:17:08

If SciCre-ists are "well-informed" enough to comment on evolution and evolutionary mechanism theories, why is it that so few seem to have even a passing familiarity with the biological evidence?

Look at this reference:

Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Now, it is up to you to show why the fossil sequence described therein fails to show transitional fossils. After you outline your objections to this sequence, I have another 100 or so sequences showing fine grained transitions ready to go, one at a time, until either you demonstrate that none are actually transitional, or you give up your ludicrous claim.

Consider yourself challenged.

The bibliography comes from the examples in Tables 1 & 2 in Roger Cuffey's excellent paper, Paleontologic evidence and organic evolution, which can be found in Montagu's "Science and Creationism" or the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 24(4), just in case you want to get a jump-start on the rest of the entries.

So far, Laurie has failed entirely to share with us his analysis of Barnard's evidence. It's coming up on the three year anniversary of the challenge, too. Perhaps a small celebration will be in order.