The local near-shore fishing has been very dependent on the prevailing winds. For example, 9 days ago I had easily caught over 10 legal (over 12 inch) calico bass, and 3, +28 inch barracuda on a 5 hour trip. However, that afternoon the northwest winds kicked up, and shifted to WNW by Friday. They blew at ~15 knots until Sunday. The water temperature dropped, and the fishing dropped with it. Yesterday the wind shifted to the South and the shallows ( <7 fathoms) warmed to ~65 F. I still had to work to scratch 3 legal bass. The Joker in the Pack is that there are some really good size (20-30 lb) yellowtail, and halibut that moved in, are still lurking in the kelp beds.
My article for the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings intended to rebut the creationist stupidity of Joe Kuhn was a "go" on Friday May 25th, and killed on the following Monday. Somebody got to somebody over the weekend. One of the BS criticisms was I had posted a few early comments to this blog. But, never start a large project without a backup plan. The National Center for Science Education will carry the article in their Reports from the NCSE. There are some rather time wasting changes to the overall format. More significantly, I don't need to "play nice" with the Baylor editors any more about why they published Kuhn's piece of crap in the first place.
I have distracted myself with some newspaper rants against creationists. I have particularly had fun with the comments on a Nation article, "What's the Matter With Creationism," and more recently comments following a creationist Letter to the Editor. Each had some points of interest.
Mrs. Chatman has posted more cretocrap, but I cannot be bothered until the Kuhn article is reformatted, and revised.
Showing posts with label Joseph A. Kuhn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph A. Kuhn. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2012
Saturday, April 07, 2012
TV Debates
I was invited to do an internet TV (what's that?) debate hosted by the Salvation Army. I was apparently invited because I am on the Center for Inquiry speakers list.
Regarding the 'other side,' I made the following remark, "Personally, if I were to just sit down for a chat it would be with Sean McDowell. Ray Comfort knows his arguments are lame, and his "facts" are false. He doesn't care. Consequently, all he does is repeat the same things he has repeated for over a decade. With Ray, it is just a job."
I'll keep you updated.
The paper debunking Joe "the surgeon" Kuhn is evolving. A ten page draft text mostly about origin of life research had 121 references. This was too much science. So, the new idea is to have a short article on all three of Kuhn's screw-ups (OOL, Irreducible Complexity, and No Transitional Species), with all the hard science parts in a separate text(s) to be hosted on-line.
Edited 12 noon, 7 April;
The debate is on with Sean McDowell. The video taping will be 23 April, and the discussion posted sometime in June. You can see Sean McDowell in action debating Jim Corbett on this link. My opinion of Jim Corbett was not improved watching his performance versus Sean McDowell.
Regarding the 'other side,' I made the following remark, "Personally, if I were to just sit down for a chat it would be with Sean McDowell. Ray Comfort knows his arguments are lame, and his "facts" are false. He doesn't care. Consequently, all he does is repeat the same things he has repeated for over a decade. With Ray, it is just a job."
I'll keep you updated.
The paper debunking Joe "the surgeon" Kuhn is evolving. A ten page draft text mostly about origin of life research had 121 references. This was too much science. So, the new idea is to have a short article on all three of Kuhn's screw-ups (OOL, Irreducible Complexity, and No Transitional Species), with all the hard science parts in a separate text(s) to be hosted on-line.
Edited 12 noon, 7 April;
The debate is on with Sean McDowell. The video taping will be 23 April, and the discussion posted sometime in June. You can see Sean McDowell in action debating Jim Corbett on this link. My opinion of Jim Corbett was not improved watching his performance versus Sean McDowell.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Other critiques of Joe the Surgeon
Joseph A Kuhn died July 20, 2014.
Joe Kuhn, MD wrote an extended bit of creatocrap that I have been debunking- bit by bit. They are; Part 1, and Part 2. I still hope to have Part 3 (of five) ready today.
This is more like Part 2.1
The Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings had invited Charles Stewart Roberts, MD, to provide a pro-science commentary published in the same edition.
Since then, Baylor UMC Proceedings has also presented a pre-print rebuttal by Gregory G. Dimijian, MD. I find it rather significant that the Baylor folks have already linked this from their current issue's Table of Contents.
Two other critiques are on-line, one by Jerry Coyne, and one by "Afarensis."
I think there is much more to say.
One question that I really have no idea of how to answer is "Why?" Why would any editor allow this crap to run in their journal?
One possibility is that they wanted to expose Joe Kuhn.
Joe Kuhn, MD wrote an extended bit of creatocrap that I have been debunking- bit by bit. They are; Part 1, and Part 2. I still hope to have Part 3 (of five) ready today.
This is more like Part 2.1
The Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings had invited Charles Stewart Roberts, MD, to provide a pro-science commentary published in the same edition.
Since then, Baylor UMC Proceedings has also presented a pre-print rebuttal by Gregory G. Dimijian, MD. I find it rather significant that the Baylor folks have already linked this from their current issue's Table of Contents.
Two other critiques are on-line, one by Jerry Coyne, and one by "Afarensis."
I think there is much more to say.
One question that I really have no idea of how to answer is "Why?" Why would any editor allow this crap to run in their journal?
One possibility is that they wanted to expose Joe Kuhn.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 2.
Joseph A Kuhn died July 20, 2014.
I am fraking “Dissecting Darwinism” by Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (BUMC Proceedings).
Kuhn makes various errors of fact and logic throughout his introductory pages. Mostly the result of sloppy thinking, and ignorance. For example, Kuhn said that ‘neo-Darwinism’ “reflected knowledge of reproduction and recombination, leading to potentially greater shifts in species.” What it reflected was a rejection of Lamarckian ideas of heritable acquired characteristics. Kuhn wrote that the “modern synthesis” was “proposed in 1950 to incorporate the knowledge of genetics, systematics, paleontology, and other fields.” Actually, the modern synthesis was proposed mathematically in the 1930s to merge genetic and evolutionary theory. Prior to this, genetics was promoted by antievolutionists as an alternative explanation to the diversity of species. The modern synthesis is built on the realization that the unit of evolution is an inter-reproductive population, taxonomically equivalent with “subspecies.” The term itself was introduced in a 1942 book by Julian Huxley titled, “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.” (I have highlighted below the earlier papers by the most influential contributors). Major contributors were; R.A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), J.B.S. Haldane; ten papers between 1924 and 1934 collectively known as “A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection,” see also, “Possible Worlds and Other Essays” (1928), Wright, Sewall (1932). "The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution" Proc. 6th Int. Cong. Genet 1: 356–366.
Reading these authorities, and other contemporaries, one learns that the field of paleontology is nearly ignored by evolutionary theorists at the time. The resulting revolution in systematics, or taxonomy really waited until the 1970s. This brings up Kuhn’s next error (at least big enough to irritate me). He wrote, “These mutations can occur gradually or rapidly via a term called saltation or punctuated evolution (sic).”
What is first irritating is that ‘terms’ don’t cause mutations. Second, there is nothing outside the fevered minds of creationists called “punctuated evolution.” The idea of ‘punctuated equilibria’ was introduced very dramatically by "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" (1972) pp 82-115 in "Models in paleobiology", edited by Schopf, TJM Freeman, Cooper & Co, San Francisco. Steve Gould, and Dick Lewontin in their 1979 paper, “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossion paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme.” (Proc R Soc Lond B 205 (1161): 581–598) extended the idea to argue that their punctuated equilibria idea could accommodate apparently non-adaptive mutation. Then “saltation” is not at all related to “punctuated” anything, it is derived from the Latin for “leap” is the notion of single-step speciation. This actually is known to happen, particularly common in speciation by plant hybrids. For example, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. (I have dozens of other examples of observed emergence of new species on this link).
I am tired, and the weather sux. So there is sadly much more time to spend tomorrow on “Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 3.”
I am fraking “Dissecting Darwinism” by Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (BUMC Proceedings).
Kuhn makes various errors of fact and logic throughout his introductory pages. Mostly the result of sloppy thinking, and ignorance. For example, Kuhn said that ‘neo-Darwinism’ “reflected knowledge of reproduction and recombination, leading to potentially greater shifts in species.” What it reflected was a rejection of Lamarckian ideas of heritable acquired characteristics. Kuhn wrote that the “modern synthesis” was “proposed in 1950 to incorporate the knowledge of genetics, systematics, paleontology, and other fields.” Actually, the modern synthesis was proposed mathematically in the 1930s to merge genetic and evolutionary theory. Prior to this, genetics was promoted by antievolutionists as an alternative explanation to the diversity of species. The modern synthesis is built on the realization that the unit of evolution is an inter-reproductive population, taxonomically equivalent with “subspecies.” The term itself was introduced in a 1942 book by Julian Huxley titled, “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.” (I have highlighted below the earlier papers by the most influential contributors). Major contributors were; R.A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), J.B.S. Haldane; ten papers between 1924 and 1934 collectively known as “A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection,” see also, “Possible Worlds and Other Essays” (1928), Wright, Sewall (1932). "The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution" Proc. 6th Int. Cong. Genet 1: 356–366.
Reading these authorities, and other contemporaries, one learns that the field of paleontology is nearly ignored by evolutionary theorists at the time. The resulting revolution in systematics, or taxonomy really waited until the 1970s. This brings up Kuhn’s next error (at least big enough to irritate me). He wrote, “These mutations can occur gradually or rapidly via a term called saltation or punctuated evolution (sic).”
What is first irritating is that ‘terms’ don’t cause mutations. Second, there is nothing outside the fevered minds of creationists called “punctuated evolution.” The idea of ‘punctuated equilibria’ was introduced very dramatically by "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" (1972) pp 82-115 in "Models in paleobiology", edited by Schopf, TJM Freeman, Cooper & Co, San Francisco. Steve Gould, and Dick Lewontin in their 1979 paper, “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossion paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme.” (Proc R Soc Lond B 205 (1161): 581–598) extended the idea to argue that their punctuated equilibria idea could accommodate apparently non-adaptive mutation. Then “saltation” is not at all related to “punctuated” anything, it is derived from the Latin for “leap” is the notion of single-step speciation. This actually is known to happen, particularly common in speciation by plant hybrids. For example, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. (I have dozens of other examples of observed emergence of new species on this link).
I am tired, and the weather sux. So there is sadly much more time to spend tomorrow on “Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 3.”
Monday, February 06, 2012
Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 1.
Joseph A Kuhn died July 20, 2014.
Some creatocrap was smeared on the Internet today. (Yes, what a surprise). The bit I examined was from the Discotute touting “peer reviewed” papers supporting ID creationism. Most of the papers the Discotutes promote as “supporting intelligent design” creationism don’t really do such a thing. So, I started reading the paper at the top of their list, “Dissecting Darwinism” by Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (BUMC Proceedings).
I didn’t get very far before I read, “John Hunter proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation 70 years before Charles Darwin published his observations in On the Origin of the Species. Therefore, history reveals that surgeons are uniquely capable of gathering information, making observations, and reaching conclusions about scientific discoveries.” (The secondary reference is eventually found to a popular press book).
Needless to say really, but Dr. Kuhn is a surgeon, and so by his logic also “uniquely capable” because over 200 years ago, John Hunter was an accomplished scientist and surgeon. What should we then conclude about the career of Josef Rudolf Mengele? When I was a professor of medicine in psychiatry, we often marveled how surgeons imagined they were “uniquely capable” in all aspects of life. Kuhn goes on to brag that physicians are the “the brightest minds, based on competitive test scores and undergraduate performance.” Since his audience are most likely physicians, I am sure this claim is accepted as sage wisdom. Kuhn does provide one early chuckle when he writes, "In fact, the physician represents the penultimate expert on applied molecular pathways as they relate to human conditions." The "penultimate" anything is the "next to last." Of course this egotist thinks it meant the 'most superior,' but that will always be the actual scientist who did the actual research that physicains learn to apply clinically.
Kuhn does do the full bore creationist dance, which I'll return to in Part 2.
I was more curious that Darwin never mentioned John Hunter. In all the later editions of “Origin of Species,” Darwin began with a “Historical Sketch” of evolutionary thinking. His remarks on the speculations of Buffon regarding the species question explain why he was less impressed with Hunter as well. Darwin wrote it was unnecessary to go into details with Buffon because he did not, “enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species.” It was this which Darwin's theory addressed.
The collected papers from John Hunter (1728-1793) mentioned by Kuhn were published in 1861, edited, and augmented by Richard Owen. “Essays and observations on natural history, anatomy, physiology, psychology, and geology, Volumes 1, 2” John Hunter, and Richard Owen. London: J. van Voorst, 1861. In his “Introduction to Natural History,” Hunter makes the observation at the beginning of a section titled, “On the Origin of Species,” that “Are we not led on to the wolf by the gradual affinity of the different varieties in the dog? Could we not trace out the gradation of the cat, horse, cow, sheep, fowl, etc. in a like manner?”
This section is very brief, merely two paragraphs. In the second, Hunter approached a point similar to Darwin when he speculated that the East Indian cattle were probably the more primitive, as they had fewer varieties, and were “… more likely to go through varieties in new countries [i.e. under new external influences] than in its original country.” Owen is often portrayed as an opponent of Darwin’s, so I was surprised that in a footnote to this section, he remarked “The best attempt to answer this supreme question in zoology is has been made by Charles Darwin in his work entitled “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection” 1859. (Footnote 2, Page 37).
I read nothing in the rest of the 399 pages of Volume 1 that Kuhn could have confused with mutation, or heritable variation, natural selection (or any other selection than agricultural). Since Kuhn's assertion apparently relied on a secondary reference, and even that rather vague, I decided to plow on through the entire ~1000 pages.
The second volume of “Essays and observations on natural history” is a 491 page text on comparative anatomy, and a number of Appendixes. Hunter in his opening essay urged that only those well versed in human anatomy should under take comparative studies. I personally went in the opposite direction, dissecting fish by the hundreds before I studied much human material, and I should add that my interest was nearly entirely on bones. Hunter and I would agree on this latter focus, as he wrote on page 2 of his comparative anatomy regarding the skeleton. On the same page, Hunter wrote, "... I dare say that the different manner of living gives rise to the different formation of the viscera." He later added that an animal's 'external matter,' "... relate to the way of life that each animal is adapted to..." To this, Owen added a footnote saying, "A question still under controversy. The advocates of the 'Transmutation' or 'Natural Selection' hypothesis may take Hunter's words in their literal sense, and claim him as of their party." (Footnote 1, Page 2).
Hunter did not finish 3 pages before his examination of humans took a powerfully racist turn. He wrote that “white” men were “the most perfect of that genus” as we have the largest hands, and heads. These were the features he felt indicated “perfection” in humans, and he asserted that “The negro from Africa has both a small head, and very small hands and feet.” Even so, these obviously false statements compare well against the notorious modern “scientific” racist J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton claims to have “proven” that a large penis results in low intelligence and criminality, and thus Africans are stupid criminals due to big penises. Compare these beliefs with Charles Darwin, who wrote in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" (John Murray, London, 1871), "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant." Also, "By the way, a Negro lived in Edinburgh, who had traveled with Waterton and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently; he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man." -- Charles Darwin, Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (restored edition)(1958), Nora Barlow editor, p.51., Or, "I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one." (LETTER 412. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, January 4th, 1873).
However, there was nothing that I read which justified Kuhn's claim that Hunter, "proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation." Maybe if Kuhn knew how to provide a proper citation, we could learn what he referred to in his paper. In psychiatry, we called it "making shit up."
There was one feature of particular interest to any student of the relationship between scientific advancement, and religious bias. In 1855, Richard Owen gave a lecture to the Royal College of Surgeons as part of his appointment as the Hunterian Professor of Anatomy. The talk was examining a yet unpublished manuscript by Hunter, “On Extraneous Fossils,” written from Hunter’s address on fossils given in 1793 to the Royal Society of London. In the latter paper, Hunter described his results from treating various recent bones, and shells and similar fossil specimens with different acids. Hunter was particularly interested in what he called “the animal substance.” From his descriptions, I suspected this “animal substance” is mostly collagen, and osteocalcin, and this seems to be confirmed in Hunter’s essay “Of the Preparation of Bones,” when compared with "Chemical Technology and Analysis of Oils, Fats, and Waxes" (Kowitsch, 1895).
The address in 1793 was never published. Owen explained that the the Society editors objected to Hunter's conclusion that the the Earth was very ancient. Variation in the degree of fossilization among the thousands of specimens Hunter examined had clearly led him to conclude that this was the result of processes across “many thousand centuries.” A Major Rennell wrote to Hunter on behalf of the Royal Society requesting that the time frame be altered to “many thousand years” so as to not alienate young earth creationists. Instead, Hunter withdrew the paper from publication only months before his death on October 16, 1793. This early example of how creationism impedes scientific understanding of Nature was new to me.
I will say that refuting creatocrap can occupy the days I am not fishing.
Here is a link to Part 2.
Some creatocrap was smeared on the Internet today. (Yes, what a surprise). The bit I examined was from the Discotute touting “peer reviewed” papers supporting ID creationism. Most of the papers the Discotutes promote as “supporting intelligent design” creationism don’t really do such a thing. So, I started reading the paper at the top of their list, “Dissecting Darwinism” by Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (BUMC Proceedings).
I didn’t get very far before I read, “John Hunter proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation 70 years before Charles Darwin published his observations in On the Origin of the Species. Therefore, history reveals that surgeons are uniquely capable of gathering information, making observations, and reaching conclusions about scientific discoveries.” (The secondary reference is eventually found to a popular press book).
Needless to say really, but Dr. Kuhn is a surgeon, and so by his logic also “uniquely capable” because over 200 years ago, John Hunter was an accomplished scientist and surgeon. What should we then conclude about the career of Josef Rudolf Mengele? When I was a professor of medicine in psychiatry, we often marveled how surgeons imagined they were “uniquely capable” in all aspects of life. Kuhn goes on to brag that physicians are the “the brightest minds, based on competitive test scores and undergraduate performance.” Since his audience are most likely physicians, I am sure this claim is accepted as sage wisdom. Kuhn does provide one early chuckle when he writes, "In fact, the physician represents the penultimate expert on applied molecular pathways as they relate to human conditions." The "penultimate" anything is the "next to last." Of course this egotist thinks it meant the 'most superior,' but that will always be the actual scientist who did the actual research that physicains learn to apply clinically.
Kuhn does do the full bore creationist dance, which I'll return to in Part 2.
I was more curious that Darwin never mentioned John Hunter. In all the later editions of “Origin of Species,” Darwin began with a “Historical Sketch” of evolutionary thinking. His remarks on the speculations of Buffon regarding the species question explain why he was less impressed with Hunter as well. Darwin wrote it was unnecessary to go into details with Buffon because he did not, “enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species.” It was this which Darwin's theory addressed.
The collected papers from John Hunter (1728-1793) mentioned by Kuhn were published in 1861, edited, and augmented by Richard Owen. “Essays and observations on natural history, anatomy, physiology, psychology, and geology, Volumes 1, 2” John Hunter, and Richard Owen. London: J. van Voorst, 1861. In his “Introduction to Natural History,” Hunter makes the observation at the beginning of a section titled, “On the Origin of Species,” that “Are we not led on to the wolf by the gradual affinity of the different varieties in the dog? Could we not trace out the gradation of the cat, horse, cow, sheep, fowl, etc. in a like manner?”
This section is very brief, merely two paragraphs. In the second, Hunter approached a point similar to Darwin when he speculated that the East Indian cattle were probably the more primitive, as they had fewer varieties, and were “… more likely to go through varieties in new countries [i.e. under new external influences] than in its original country.” Owen is often portrayed as an opponent of Darwin’s, so I was surprised that in a footnote to this section, he remarked “The best attempt to answer this supreme question in zoology is has been made by Charles Darwin in his work entitled “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection” 1859. (Footnote 2, Page 37).
I read nothing in the rest of the 399 pages of Volume 1 that Kuhn could have confused with mutation, or heritable variation, natural selection (or any other selection than agricultural). Since Kuhn's assertion apparently relied on a secondary reference, and even that rather vague, I decided to plow on through the entire ~1000 pages.
The second volume of “Essays and observations on natural history” is a 491 page text on comparative anatomy, and a number of Appendixes. Hunter in his opening essay urged that only those well versed in human anatomy should under take comparative studies. I personally went in the opposite direction, dissecting fish by the hundreds before I studied much human material, and I should add that my interest was nearly entirely on bones. Hunter and I would agree on this latter focus, as he wrote on page 2 of his comparative anatomy regarding the skeleton. On the same page, Hunter wrote, "... I dare say that the different manner of living gives rise to the different formation of the viscera." He later added that an animal's 'external matter,' "... relate to the way of life that each animal is adapted to..." To this, Owen added a footnote saying, "A question still under controversy. The advocates of the 'Transmutation' or 'Natural Selection' hypothesis may take Hunter's words in their literal sense, and claim him as of their party." (Footnote 1, Page 2).
Hunter did not finish 3 pages before his examination of humans took a powerfully racist turn. He wrote that “white” men were “the most perfect of that genus” as we have the largest hands, and heads. These were the features he felt indicated “perfection” in humans, and he asserted that “The negro from Africa has both a small head, and very small hands and feet.” Even so, these obviously false statements compare well against the notorious modern “scientific” racist J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton claims to have “proven” that a large penis results in low intelligence and criminality, and thus Africans are stupid criminals due to big penises. Compare these beliefs with Charles Darwin, who wrote in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" (John Murray, London, 1871), "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant." Also, "By the way, a Negro lived in Edinburgh, who had traveled with Waterton and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently; he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man." -- Charles Darwin, Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (restored edition)(1958), Nora Barlow editor, p.51., Or, "I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one." (LETTER 412. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, January 4th, 1873).
However, there was nothing that I read which justified Kuhn's claim that Hunter, "proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation." Maybe if Kuhn knew how to provide a proper citation, we could learn what he referred to in his paper. In psychiatry, we called it "making shit up."
There was one feature of particular interest to any student of the relationship between scientific advancement, and religious bias. In 1855, Richard Owen gave a lecture to the Royal College of Surgeons as part of his appointment as the Hunterian Professor of Anatomy. The talk was examining a yet unpublished manuscript by Hunter, “On Extraneous Fossils,” written from Hunter’s address on fossils given in 1793 to the Royal Society of London. In the latter paper, Hunter described his results from treating various recent bones, and shells and similar fossil specimens with different acids. Hunter was particularly interested in what he called “the animal substance.” From his descriptions, I suspected this “animal substance” is mostly collagen, and osteocalcin, and this seems to be confirmed in Hunter’s essay “Of the Preparation of Bones,” when compared with "Chemical Technology and Analysis of Oils, Fats, and Waxes" (Kowitsch, 1895).
The address in 1793 was never published. Owen explained that the the Society editors objected to Hunter's conclusion that the the Earth was very ancient. Variation in the degree of fossilization among the thousands of specimens Hunter examined had clearly led him to conclude that this was the result of processes across “many thousand centuries.” A Major Rennell wrote to Hunter on behalf of the Royal Society requesting that the time frame be altered to “many thousand years” so as to not alienate young earth creationists. Instead, Hunter withdrew the paper from publication only months before his death on October 16, 1793. This early example of how creationism impedes scientific understanding of Nature was new to me.
I will say that refuting creatocrap can occupy the days I am not fishing.
Here is a link to Part 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)