Sunday, August 12, 2007

Problems of Evolution: Bibliography

This is my main Bibliography page of my book outline, "Problems of Evolution."

[Left: The late Gerald A. Kerkut (1927-2004), Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry at the University of Southampton. See also PS below.]

I will add Bibliography pages for the first letter of each author's surname, as required and hyperlink them to this main page via the "Author's surnames: A, B, C, ... Z" below.


PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION
© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology)

CONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Author's surnames: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q-R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z.

PS: Kerkut was one of those rare evolutionists who had the scientific objectivity, honesty and bravery to admit of "the `General Theory of Evolution'," i.e. "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form," that "the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis" (see `tagline' quote below; my emphasis)! Although Kerkut does not have "fully naturalistically" in this definition, it is implied in, "not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (my emphasis). Also, in his earlier discussion of "The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material," i.e. the origin of life, Kerkut calls it "spontaneous generation" and asks, "Is it possible for nonliving material simply to be turned into living material or is some extra `vital' force necessary?" (pp.6-7. My emphasis).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blog: TheShroudofTurin


"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the `Special Theory of Evolution' and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the `General Theory of Evolution' and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (Kerkut, G.A., 1960, "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut, G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY, p.157).

2 comments:

James said...

Thanks for your exhaustive documentation. As I present studies on creation, I won't use things I cannot document. Much time is in invested looking things up and triple-checking resources. I feel I need to be especially diligent to document my sources on this topic of ID.

Stephen E. Jones said...

James

>Thanks for your exhaustive documentation.

Thanks for your comment.

I hope to soon actually start posting my outline notes of my book, "Problems of Evolution."

>As I present studies on creation, I won't use things I cannot document. Much time is in invested looking things up and triple-checking resources. I feel I need to be especially diligent to document my sources on this topic of ID.

I agree wholeheartdly with this. Much creation (and to a lesser extent ID) evidence and arguments are inadequately backed up by referenced sources.

Perhaps the most eggregious example of this was when the Australian Creation Science Foundation in 1984 issued a "The Quote Book," the subtitle of which was "112 Quotable Quotes on Creation/Evolution by Leading Scientific Authorities" but which it later admitted "Some of these" quotes were "simply written down on a card after listening to a creation speaker at a lecture"!:

"In 1984, when the original Quote Book was released, the impact was tremendous. ... Stung, several of the evolutionary establishment in this country went through the book with a fine-tooth comb. To their delight and our surprised dismay, they found that a minority (a distinct minority) of the quotes were somewhat different from the original! How had this happened? With CSF, as usual, sorely under-funded, overworked at the time, the original Quote Book had been hastily put together from quotes sent in by a number of people. Some of these turned out to have been simply written down on a card after listening to a creation speaker at a lecture-which of course is often quite legitimately done as a paraphrase, not a direct quote. We are not offering excuses here-the work was withdrawn from sale when its handful of errors came to embarrassed attention." (Snelling, A.A., "The Revised Quote Book," [1984], Creation Science Foundation: Brisbane Qld, Australia, 1990, inside cover)

Stephen E. Jones