[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is discredited by Typology

[Asyncritus]

As many readers will not knw anything about the above subject, I have collected the following information from Dr Michael Denton which sheds a great deal of light on this subject:

EVOLUTION AND ‘TYPOLOGY’​

Denton:

It was primarily because most groups of organisms seemed so isolated and unlinked by transitional forms that for the better part of a century, before 1859, most biologists saw the facts of biology as pointing to a model of nature which was diametrically opposed to, and indeed irreconcilable with the notion of organic evolution.


Agassiz said:


It is my belief that naturalists are chasing a phantom in their search after some material gradation among created beings, by which the whole Animal Kingdom may have been derived fron a single germ…

Agassiz, in common with the great majority of leading biologists in the 19th century, adhered to a philosophy of nature referred to as typological which was completely antithetical to the concept of organic evolution and which denied absolutely the existence of any sort of sequential order to the pattern of nature.


The typological model said that all the variation exhibited by the individual members of a class was merely variation on an underlying theme or design [called the ‘archetype’] which was fundamentally immutable and unvarying.


It followed that all members of a class were equally representative and characteristic of their class, and no member could be considered in any fundamental sense any less characteristic of its class, or closer to any member of another class than any other member of its own class.

For example, as Romer said,


All known mammals share a number of specific or defining or diagnostic characteristics such as hair, mammary glands, and a diaphragm which are only found among mammals and not possessed, even in rudimentary form, by non-mammalian organisms.

 

[Asyncritus]

Where the representative of one class happens to resemble the representative of another class, the resemblance is only superficial and not indicative of any profound relationship.


All mammals are representative of the mammalian archetype, and all birds representative of the avian archetype.


It is worthy of note that nearly all of the greatest 19th Century naturalists and geologists, opposed evolution.


Here are the main ones:


Linnaeus, who founded taxonomy in 1735, was a typologist.


Georges Cuvier, who virtually founded vertebrate palaeontology and comparative anatomy, was a typologist.
Louis Agassiz who advanced the theory of the ice ages.


Richard Owen, Director of the Natural History Museum in South Kensington, who originated the term dinosaur, was a typologist.


The fact that all these great naturalists, who discovered the basic facts of comparative morphology on which modern evolutionary theory rests, all held nature to be a discontinuum of isolated and unique types, unbridged by transitional forms , which is a position absolutely at odds with evolutionary ideas, is exceedingly difficult to square with the idea that all the facts of biology irrefutably support an evolutionary interpretation.

 

[Asyncritus]

Coleman, Rudwick and Hull indicate in the clearest possible terms that their opposition was empirical, not theological.



Hull cautions:


Too often, all the opponents of evolutionary theory are lumped together and their persistence explained as religious bigotry.


Cuvier said:


Whatever secret reasonings there may be in these constant relations, it is observation which has elicited them, independently of general philosophy.


Cuvier, who was reputed to be able to reconstruct the entire morphology of an organism from a single limb or other structure, thought it was self-evident that any major functional transformation would necessitate simultaneous, coherent, adaptive changes in ALL OF ITS COMPONENT STRUCTURES.



Such a purposeful reorganisation of all the component structures of an organism was so vastly improbable that it seemed to preclude any sort of evolutionary transformation.


Rudwick puts it for Cuvier and the others:


To believe that such intricately co-ordinated organic mechanisms had come into being by ‘chance ‘ or ‘accident’, as theories such as Geoffroy’s seemed to imply, was literally inconceivable.

 

[Asyncritus]

Richard Owen said:

Is there any one instance proved by the observed facts of such transmutation? When we see the intervals….we either doubt the fact of progressive conversion, or as Mr Darwin remarks in his letter to Dr Asa Gray, one’s ‘imagination must fill up very wide blanks’.


Denton goes on at very great lengths, which are to long to be reproduced here, but it is surely obvious that the modern idea of evolution was discredited right from the start, and by the very greatest naturalists of the age.


Why then do we imagine that it is such a powerful theory, when its failings were, and remain so obvious?

 

[cupid dave]

The typological model said that all the variation exhibited by the individual members of a class was merely variation on an underlying theme or design [called the ‘archetype’] which was fundamentally immutable and unvarying.

Are you using the term "Class" in reference to the division of a Kingdom into Phylum which are then differentiated into Class, i.e.; seven Classes for Chordata:

The Subphylum Vertebrata splits up into

1) Mammalia (Mammals),
2) Actinopterygii (Bony Fish),
3) Chondrichthyes (Cartilaginous Fish) ,
4) Aves (Birds),
5) Amphibia (Amphibians)
6) Reptilia (Reptiles)
7) Chondrichthyes (sharks and rays)

What I see as the alternative to Evolution is an individual Spontaneous Generation of each life form in the numerous Classes of Animals and Plants if we stick to our guns.
Is this what makes sense to you as God's way of doing this?

 

[cupid dave]

Is there any one instance proved by the observed facts of such transmutation? When we see the intervals….we either doubt the fact of progressive conversion,

I think I told you before that Russian experiments demonstrate the transition from the Fox to Dogs.
This supports the Hypothesis that all dogs today are related to the wolf which made a similar transition into the first dogs about 20,000 years ago:

 

[Asyncritus]

Is there any one instance proved by the observed facts of such transmutation? When we see the intervals….we either doubt the fact of progressive conversion,

I think I told you before that Russian experiments demonstrate the transition from the Fox to Dogs.
This supports the Hypothesis that all dogs today are related to the wolf which made a similar transition into the first dogs about 20,000 years ago:

I've tried to find this, but with no joy. Can you type the URL as a whole plz?

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is discredited by Typology

As many readers will not knw anything about the above subject, I have collected the following information from Dr Michael Denton which sheds a great deal of light on this subject:

EVOLUTION AND ‘TYPOLOGY’
Denton:

It was primarily because most groups of organisms seemed so isolated and unlinked by transitional forms that for the better part of a century, before 1859, most biologists saw the facts of biology as pointing to a model of nature which was diametrically opposed to, and indeed irreconcilable with the notion of organic evolution.

As many people might not know, the same theory says that blacks and whites are two different species, not related to each other.

Biblical polygenists such as Colenso, Louis Agassiz, Josiah Clark Nott, George Gliddon, maintained that many of the races on earth, such as Negros and Asians, were not featured in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. They argued that its authors' knowledge was limited to their own region. Nott in his books claimed this, and that the Bible does not concern the whole of the earth's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism

Typology assumes that races are not all descended from a common ancestor, just as it assumes that not all species have a common ancestor. Hence, the ideology of an "Aryan Type" a "Jewish Type", an "African type" and so on.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102170760487

Swiss naturalist Louis Agassiz was one of the most influential polygenist of the early 19th century. But his conversion from monogenism—the theory embraced by most European naturalists at the time—occurred after his encounters with blacks when he came to America in 1846 to pursue research at Harvard. One of the most highly regarded scholars of his day, he lectured extensively in the North and South about the differences between blacks and whites, which he believed constituted separate species.
http://www.understandingrace.org/history/science/one_race.html

His theory of typology led him inexorably to the worst sort of racism, in which he denied the very humanity of blacks, calling them a "degenerate and degraded species."

Agassiz, in common with the great majority of leading biologists in the 19th century, adhered to a philosophy of nature referred to as typological which was completely antithetical to the concept of organic evolution and which denied absolutely the existence of any sort of sequential order to the pattern of nature.

Hence the racism of the 19th century. It fit the typology. The notion that relatedness is governed by superficial "looks like" typology is so much hooey.

For example, as Romer said,

All known mammals share a number of specific or defining or diagnostic characteristics such as hair, mammary glands, and a diaphragm which are only found among mammals and not possessed, even in rudimentary form, by non-mammalian organisms.

And yet, we see in cynodont reptiles, sockets identical to those for vibrissae (sensory hairs) in mammals. We see rudimentary structures not quite evolved into mammary glands in monotremes like the platypus (which is transitional to reptiles in mouthparts, skeleton, having a cloaca, and so on). And we find rudimentary diaphragms in alligators and some lizards. Sounds like Romer didn't do his homework.

 

[cupid dave]

I've tried to find this, but with no joy. Can you type the URL as a whole plz?

That link may be t old nw.

Try this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4FF20DD-
P&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F08%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C
000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=139aabb18e9d2da08c2c7d15be92ac6c

NOTE:
"These results suggest that sociocognitive evolution has occurred in the experimental foxes, and possibly domestic dogs, as a correlated by-product of selection on systems mediating fear and aggression, and it is likely the observed social cognitive evolution did not require direct selection for improved social cognitive ability."

"
Discussion

Before the current study, it has only been possible to speculate on what selection pressure(s) led to the observed change in social cognitive ability in dogs since the split from their last common wolf ancestor. "
The “social intelligence” hypothesis suggests that primate [and human] cognitive evolution was largely driven by an ever-increasing need to predict and manipulate the behavior of other group members by reading subtle cues in their behavior [19].) The experimental fox kits were as skillful in using human communicative gestures as age-matched dog puppies and were more skilled at using such cues than age-matched control fox kits.
These findings are relevant to both those studying domestication's effect on dog social cognition and those studying social cognitive evolution more generally.

Such an “emotional reactivity” hypothesis is further supported by the gene-expression differences observed between adult wolves and dogs in brain areas, such as the hypothalamus, that are involved in emotional control [20].

Finally, these results suggest more precisely than any other previous experiment exactly what type of selection pressure might lead to a heritable change in social cognitive ability. Given the level of certainty for which the selection pressure that led to sociocognitive evolution is known in the experimental foxes, future evolutionary models will also have to account for the probability that other cases of cognitive evolution (including those observed in humans) may have occurred as a correlated by-product of selection on other seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits 21 and 22. As an example, it has been suggested that selection on systems mediating fear and aggression in humans (and perhaps other primates) may have led to prosocial behavior changes that in turn altered the expression of social cognitive abilities that were inherited from our last common ape ancestor 4 and 23.

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge:

Hence, once again, I point out that scripture support Science in this theory of Evolution.

 

[Asyncritus]

Let's use your classification as being correct descriptions of classes.

It is extremely obvious that the typologists are right.

1) Mammalia (Mammals),
2) Actinopterygii (Bony Fish),
3) Chondrichthyes (Cartilaginous Fish) ,
4) Aves (Birds),
5) Amphibia (Amphibians)
6) Reptilia (Reptiles)

There is no similarity between any of these groups. Except perhaps the bony and cartilaginous fishes. They are both fishes, and if you had lumped them together into one group called Pisces, that would have further underlined the gulf that separates them all.

That is why Linnaeus produced his classification system which identifies SEPARATION with such clarity. THERE ARE NO CONNECTING LINKS apart from overheated evolutionary imaginations.

As Gould said, if evolution is a reality, then why are there such things as species? Why isn't there a state of flux between them all?

No, the typologists are right, and anyone without evolutionary blinkers on can see exactly what they are on about.

 

[Asyncritus]

I've tried to find this, but with no joy. Can you type the URL as a whole plz?

...Hence, once again, I point out that scripture support Science in this theory of Evolution.

Sorry CD. I can't see how all this guff explains anything. Dogs are alleged to have evolved from WOLVES, not foxes - but I have serious doubts about that particular piece of nonsense.

The authors who write about such things clearly have little acquaintance with timber wolves. I doubt even if circus trainers could do much with them - and somehow get the trained genes into the genome. After all, we need to remind ourselves of Lamarckism : acquired characteristics CANNOT be inherited or passed down to future generations.

So if we managed to train or domesticate a timber wolf, its descendants will be just as wild and vicious as their parents were.

And right there is evolution's fatal problem. If a reptile learned to fly somehow, then it could not pass that knowledge down to its offspring - and everything is back to square one. And can never move forward from there.

So scripture does not support evolution. It would be foolish to do so.

 

[Asyncritus]

Evolution is discredited by Typology

As many readers will not knw anything about the above subject, I have collected the following information from Dr Michael Denton which sheds a great deal of light on this subject:

EVOLUTION AND ‘TYPOLOGY’
Denton:

It was primarily because most groups of organisms seemed so isolated and unlinked by transitional forms that for the better part of a century, before 1859, most biologists saw the facts of biology as pointing to a model of nature which was diametrically opposed to, and indeed irreconcilable with the notion of organic evolution.


As many people might not know, the same theory says that blacks and whites are two different species, not related to each other.

Darwinism produced social Darwinism, which resulted in the attempted extermination of the Jews and other 'inferior races'.

Darwin himself would be regarded, justly, as a racist today:

Mervyn Storey argues that Darwin's language in The Descent of Man would earn disapproval today. This is undoubtedly the case. Darwin certainly referred to Aboriginal people as "savages". There is also the language of "favoured race" in Origin of Species.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/02/was_charles_darwin_a_racist.html

So don't raise that nonsense here.

Biblical polygenists such as Colenso, Louis Agassiz, Josiah Clark Nott, George Gliddon, maintained that many of the races on earth, such as Negros and Asians, were not featured in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. They argued that its authors' knowledge was limited to their own region. Nott in his books claimed this, and that the Bible does not concern the whole of the earth's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism

That is their opinion, and it is quite wrong.

Typology assumes that races are not all descended from a common ancestor, just as it assumes that not all species have a common ancestor. Hence, the ideology of an "Aryan Type" a "Jewish Type", an "African type" and so on.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102170760487

That is not the typology we are referring to in the OP. That refers to the differences between groups of animals.

Swiss naturalist Louis Agassiz was one of the most influential polygenist of the early 19th century. But his conversion from monogenism—the theory embraced by most European naturalists at the time—occurred after his encounters with blacks when he came to America in 1846 to pursue research at Harvard. One of the most highly regarded scholars of his day, he lectured extensively in the North and South about the differences between blacks and whites, which he believed constituted separate species.
http://www.understandingrace.org/history/science/one_race.html

Again, we are not discussing the human race, but the differences between animal 'types' and 'archetypes'.

His theory of typology led him inexorably to the worst sort of racism, in which he denied the very humanity of blacks, calling them a "degenerate and degraded species."

A lot of scientifically educated white supremacists would still say the same today. But that is not what we are discussing.

Agassiz, in common with the great majority of leading biologists in the 19th century, adhered to a philosophy of nature referred to as typological which was completely antithetical to the concept of organic evolution and which denied absolutely the existence of any sort of sequential order to the pattern of nature.

Hence the racism of the 19th century. It fit the typology. The notion that relatedness is governed by superficial "looks like" typology is so much hooey.

So is your brand of evolution, as has been shown innumerable times on this site.

For example, as Romer said

All known mammals share a number of specific or defining or diagnostic characteristics such as hair, mammary glands, and a diaphragm which are only found among mammals and not possessed, even in rudimentary form, by non-mammalian organisms.

And yet, we see in cynodont reptiles, sockets identical to those for vibrissae (sensory hairs) in mammals. We see rudimentary structures not quite evolved into mammary glands in monotremes like the platypus (which is transitional to reptiles in mouthparts, skeleton, having a cloaca, and so on). And we find rudimentary diaphragms in alligators and some lizards. Sounds like Romer didn't do his homework.

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about - again.

In 1934 he [Romer] was appointed professor of biology at Harvard University. In 1946, he also became director of the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology. In 1954 Romer was awarded the Mary Clark Thompson Medal from the National Academy of Sciences.[1] He was awarded the Academy's Daniel Giraud Elliot Medal in 1956.[2]

And just in case you didn't know this either, he was an evolutionist:

Romer was very keen in investigating vertebrate evolution. Comparing facts from paleontology, comparative anatomy, and embryology, he taught the basic structural and functional changes that happened during the evolution of fishes to primitive terrestrial vertebrates and from these to all other tetrapods. He always emphasized the evolutionary significance of the relationship between the form and function of animals and the environment.

So his factual testimony is of considerably more value than your opinions.

Now how about trying to gainsay the main points in the OPs?

 

[Sparkey]

It fit the typology.

It fit the alleged type and anti-type of that day in those minds as they sought to understand.

It (the alleged types and anti-types mentioned about racism) has never fitted itself to the Word of God. Not in type. Not in truth.

Here's a source that I have not read but I have read another book by the same author, Fred Wright.
Devotional Studies of Old Testament Types - Wight - 1956

Here is the source to the book that I have read: Manners and Customs In Bible Lands by Fred Wight

Last checked, the host site, "BaptistBibleBelievers.com" was closed and noted, "Under Construction" but when they are up and running (hopefully soon) it's worth a look. The book that I have in my personal library, "Manners and Customs" was published by Moody Bible Institute and the copyright has not been renewed so the book itself is now in public domain. Lucky us, right?

 

[Barbarian]

Darwinism produced social Darwinism

Nope. In fact (in "The Descent of Man"), he called it an "overwhelming evil." It was social philosophy that had nothing in common with Darwinism.

, which resulted in the attempted extermination of the Jews and other 'inferior races'.

Based on the "typology" that had been rejected by Darwin and his followers. As you know, Darwin asserted that all men were entitled to freedom and justice, and thought that it was despicable to not help those in need.

Darwin himself would be regarded, justly, as a racist today:

So would Lincoln. And almost all Europeans and Americans of the time. Darwin was considered a liberal for his opposition to slavery, and the notion that all men are equal in rights and dignity.

So don't raise that nonsense here.

Biblical polygenists such as Colenso, Louis Agassiz, Josiah Clark Nott, George Gliddon, maintained that many of the races on earth, such as Negros and Asians, were not featured in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. They argued that its authors' knowledge was limited to their own region. Nott in his books claimed this, and that the Bible does not concern the whole of the earth's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism

That is their opinion, and it is quite wrong.

They were anti-Darwinists, who favored "typology." It permitted them to see other races as inferior, and not descendants of Adam.

Barbarian observes:
Typology assumes that races are not all descended from a common ancestor, just as it assumes that not all species have a common ancestor. Hence, the ideology of an "Aryan Type" a "Jewish Type", an "African type" and so on.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21102170760487

That is not the typology we are referring to in the OP. That refers to the differences between groups of animals.

But of course, as you see, the apostle of typology concluded just that.

Swiss naturalist Louis Agassiz was one of the most influential polygenist of the early 19th century. But his conversion from monogenism—the theory embraced by most European naturalists at the time—occurred after his encounters with blacks when he came to America in 1846 to pursue research at Harvard. One of the most highly regarded scholars of his day, he lectured extensively in the North and South about the differences between blacks and whites, which he believed constituted separate species.
http://www.understandingrace.org/his.../one_race.html

Again, we are not discussing the human race, but the differences between animal 'types' and 'archetypes'.

But Agassiz freely extended his odd theory to humans, and thereby set blacks apart as a "degenerate" race.

His theory of typology led him inexorably to the worst sort of racism, in which he denied the very humanity of blacks, calling them a "degenerate and degraded species."

A lot of scientifically educated white supremacists would still say the same today.

Few white supremacists are well-educated. Read this:

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Creationist leader Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research. 1991

Agassiz, in common with the great majority of leading biologists in the 19th century, adhered to a philosophy of nature referred to as typological which was completely antithetical to the concept of organic evolution and which denied absolutely the existence of any sort of sequential order to the pattern of nature.

Barbarian observes:
Hence the racism of the 19th century. It fit the typology. The notion that relatedness is governed by superficial "looks like" typology is so much hooey.

So is your brand of evolution, as has been shown innumerable times on this site.

Given that the evidence for evolution has caused you to bail out of innumerable threads, I'd say that was laughably wrong.

For example, as Romer said
All known mammals share a number of specific or defining or diagnostic characteristics such as hair, mammary glands, and a diaphragm which are only found among mammals and not possessed, even in rudimentary form, by non-mammalian organisms.

Barbarian chuckles:
And yet, we see in cynodont reptiles, sockets identical to those for vibrissae (sensory hairs) in mammals. We see rudimentary structures not quite evolved into mammary glands in monotremes like the platypus (which is transitional to reptiles in mouthparts, skeleton, having a cloaca, and so on). And we find rudimentary diaphragms in alligators and some lizards. Sounds like Romer didn't do his homework.

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about - again.

Anyone who wants to check for themselves can verify that I'm right.

In 1934 he [Romer] was appointed professor of biology at Harvard University. In 1946, he also became director of the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology. In 1954 Romer was awarded the Mary Clark Thompson Medal from the National Academy of Sciences.[1] He was awarded the Academy's Daniel Giraud Elliot Medal in 1956.[2]

Ah, so 60 years ago, we didn't know some of that. But still, the anatomical data from reptiles and monotremes was available to him. Facts are what they are, regardless of what anyone says. Check if you like. You know what you'll find.

Now how about trying to gainsay the main points in the OPs?

Agassiz was one of the last holdouts against evolution. He was the last world-class biologist to deny it. As you just learned, his notion of "typology" led him astray and provided ammunition for eugenics and the Nazi racial theories, some of which echoed those of Agassiz.

It wasn't just wrong, it was a pernicious doctrine that led to considerable harm.

 

[Barbarian]

It fit the alleged type and anti-type of that day in those minds as they sought to understand.

It (the alleged types and anti-types mentioned about racism) has never fitted itself to the Word of God. Not in type. Not in truth.

Of course. Typology was scientifically unsupportable, as well as morally indefensible, when typologists like Agassiz (and people who were much, much worse) applied it to humans.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's use your classification as being correct descriptions of classes.

It is extremely obvious that the typologists are right.

Agassiz used typology to declare that blacks were not part of the human race. I don't think so.

1) Mammalia (Mammals),
2) Actinopterygii (Bony Fish),
3) Chondrichthyes (Cartilaginous Fish) ,
4) Aves (Birds),
5) Amphibia (Amphibians)
6) Reptilia (Reptiles)

As Linnaeus pointed out, these fall nicely into a nested hierarchy, which only occurs in cases of common descent. He tried to do the same with minerals, and failed, for that reason.

There is no similarity between any of these groups.

You've been misled about that. Reptiles, birds, and mammals, for example, are amniotes. Amniotes and amphibians are tetrapods. Tetrapods and sarcoptyrgean fish have appendages with bones. Vertebrates with appendages with bones, and actinoptyrgean fish are osteicthians. Osteicthians and Chondricthians are vertebrates. And so it goes. And for almost all major groups, we have transitionals between them. Want to see some of them?

Except perhaps the bony and cartilaginous fishes. They are both fishes, and if you had lumped them together into one group called Pisces, that would have further underlined the gulf that separates them all.

Surprise. And for example, if you do a genetic analysis of lungfish (sarcoptyrgeans) you would find that they are more closely related to you than they are to a bass. For reasons you now understand.

That is why Linnaeus produced his classification system which identifies SEPARATION with such clarity.

Ironically, Linnaeus provided the first demonstration of common descent. A nested hierarchy forms in no other way.

THERE ARE NO CONNECTING LINKS apart from overheated evolutionary imaginations.

Let's test your belief. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.

As Gould said, if evolution is a reality, then why are there such things as species? Why isn't there a state of flux between them all?

Gould went on to cite Mayr's explanation for the existence of species:
The biological meaning of species is thus quite apparent: "The segregation of the total genetic variability of nature into discrete packages, so called species, which are separated from each other by reproductive barriers, prevents the production of too great a number of disharmonious incompatible gene combinations. This is the basic biological meaning of species and this is the reason why there are discontinuities between sympatric species. We do know that genotypes are extremely complex epigenetic systems. There are severe limits to the amount of genetic variability that can be accommodated in a single gene pool without producing too many incompatible gene combinations" (Mayr 1969, 316). The validity of this argument is substantiated by the fact that hybrids between species, particularly in animals, are almost always of inferior viability and more extreme hybrids are usually even sterile.
As usual, quote-mining creationists cut that part out to make it look as though Gould had doubts.

Typologists were convinced that blacks were not human, as their theory indicated. They were dead wrong.

No, the typologists are right, and anyone without evolutionary blinkers on can see exactly what they are on about.

Sorry. The Human Genome Project has shown that there are no biological human races, and we are certainly all one species.

 

[Sparkey]

Typologists were convinced that blacks were not human, as their theory indicated. They were dead wrong. [about that]

There are 'types' in the Bible, no denying. There are also men on both sides of the issue of "race" who conflate and confuse and arrive at improper, incorrect and downright false conclusions. Similar to the one that I hear from you, Sir. I know that you are not really trying to say that because a man makes one mistake, his or her entire thinking must be forever disdained. Please say it isn't so.

I am trying to listen to your view (eagerly) and sometimes I get messed up because of what I may properly or improperly term the "noise levels of rhetoric". That's a problem with my hearing, I do understand that you are opposed to what is being said, but doubt that there is any disagreement about the mistakes that have been made when bible scholars consider "race" and try to force their ideas into the Shem, Ham and Japeth dialog.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[Sparkey]

Let's test your belief. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.

Greetings, Barbarian.

I'm certain that you are familiar with my 'stance' on this. That I believe that the Lord made limited distinctions that were loosely described as "kinds" or myin in the Bible. Such things would include the various "kinds" (not to be confused with species - a Latin based word) and that the good Lord pronounced the word-phrase, "after its kind" to describe the reproductive limits that have been set. So, what I would be interested in (and would enjoy reading within your treatises here) would include your analysis regarding the observations seen to show that the understanding that I have is false. I'm willing to support this effort and undertaking by listing several biblical "kinds" in a very broad sense but would not like to detail it down to the degree where we argue about essential meanings. There would need to be certain suspension of beliefs that may be difficult or impossible for you, in that we see that the Lord called one kind (not 'species') those that fly or are given to flight. That would include, of course, both mammals like bats along with our friends the sparrow and the kestrel and the hawk (raptors). It does not include dinosaurs who are bi-pedal and whose locomotion is ground based.

So that's a tall order, right? I certainly do understand if you're not willing to take it up, but again, I would find it very interesting.

Cordially,
Sparrow

PS, in the meantime I'll also see if I might find some "types" and "anti-types" that would justify our side-track down this path. Your mission, should you choose to accept it Mr. Phelps, would be to disprove Sparrow's thought. This message may or may not destroy itself in the designated time.

 

[Barbarian]

Error duplicate

 

[Barbarian]

There are 'types' in the Bible, no denying. There are also men on both sides of the issue of "race" who conflate and confuse and arrive at improper, incorrect and downright false conclusions. Similar to the one that I hear from you, Sir. I know that you are not really trying to say that because a man makes one mistake, his or her entire thinking must be forever disdained. Please say it isn't so.

Agassiz made numerous important contributions to biology. But his adherence to the "typology" hypothesis led him to believe that "types" were innate and God-created things rather than variations over time. This led him and other "typologists" to assume blacks and other races were different species and not descended from Adam.

I am trying to listen to your view (eagerly) and sometimes I get messed up because of what I may properly or improperly term the "noise levels of rhetoric". That's a problem with my hearing, I do understand that you are opposed to what is being said, but doubt that there is any disagreement about the mistakes that have been made when bible scholars consider "race" and try to force their ideas into the Shem, Ham and Japeth dialog.

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research
The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148

Regrettably this error continued and is still being supported here and there by creationists. This is not to say all creationists are racists; most aren't. I'm pointing out that the erroneous idea of "typologists" leads to racism for many people, including Agassiz.