Talk:Frank Lewis Marsh

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Frank Lewis Marsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050903095739/http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/abouthistory.html to http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/abouthistory.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050505181812/http://www.bryan.edu/771.html to http://www.bryan.edu/771.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am puzzled why sourced material from a highly respected source – Numbers, “The Creationists” - has been removed from the article.  Here are two paragraph from Numbers’ book from which the material was derived.  Then follows the removed material.
Page 151-152
“Although Dobzhansky found Marsh's ideas scientifically invalid and religiously subversive, he respected the church-college biologist for being "the only living scientific anti-evolutionist." The obscure creationist, for his part, could scarcely conceal his delight at having the unexpected chance to argue his case before one of the leading evolutionists in the world. In response to Dobzhansky's comment about outbidding the evolutionist, Marsh amended and clarified his position. He explained that God in originally stocking the world with plants and animals had created not only "kinds" but "varieties" within those kinds, capable of crossbreeding. Thus he professed not to claim, for example, that all dogs and foxes had descended from a single ancestor-ignoring for the moment the problem of overcrowding on Noah's ark. And though he had said virtually nothing about the mechanism of change in his book, he now admitted that the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest were "really extremely important" in explaining the present distribution of species.”
“The central issue separating the two biologists hinged on the nature of scientific proof. Marsh, who assimilated all the evidence of micro-evolution into his creationist paradigm of changes within "kinds," demanded nothing less than laboratory-based demonstrations of macroevolution. But, as Dobzhansky pointed out, the evidence for such largescale evolution rested on inference, not direct observation. Because macroevolution took place in geological time, he patiently explained, it could "be proven or disproven only by inference from the available evidence." Marsh, predictably, found this argument unconvincing. "Alas! Inferential evidence again!" he exclaimed. "Is there no real proof for this theory of evolution which we may grasp in our hands?" Eventually, explanation gave way to frustration, with Dobzhansky finally brushing Marsh's concerns aside with the quip "If you demand that biologists would demonstrate the origin of a horse from a mouse in the laboratory then you just can not be convinced.”
The removed material:
Marsh proposed that God originally stocked the world with plants and animals creating not only "kinds" but "varieties" within those kinds all sharing the same built in genetic variability thus capable of crossbreeding. He accepted the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest as "really extremely important" in explaining the present distribution of species. The central issue separating the two biologists hinged on the nature of scientific proof. Marsh, accepted the evidence of laboratory-based, scientific demonstrations of microevolution of changes within "kinds" within his paradigm of creationism. He required the same for macroevoution. But Dobzhansky said that such large scale evolution could "be proven or disproven only by inference, not laboratory-based science, from the available evidence." Marsh found this argument unconvincing. "Inferential evidence again!"[9] he exclaimed, "Is there no real scientific proof for this theory of evolution which we may grasp in our hands?" Dobzhansky brushed Marsh's concerns aside with the quip "If you demand that biologists would demonstrate the origin of a horse from a mouse in the laboratory then you just cannot be convinced."
I don’t see why this material cannot be reinserted right away.  MontyTyson (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: either no one cares or they agree. So I reinserted the material.--MontyTyson (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  massive undue weight those quotes are not suitable for the article. 82.132.229.51 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of reliably sourced material