Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking

richardalanforrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:15 pm, "paratope.epit...@xxxxxxxxx"
<paratope.epit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What do these scientists all have in common?

Lynn Margulis,

of whom Richard Dawkins wrote:

"I greatly admire Lynn Margulis's sheer courage and stamina in
sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from
being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I'm referring to the theory that
the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic
cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century
evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it."

Sir Fred Hoyle,

the astronomer.

John McDonald,

You mean the John McDonald who teaches Evolution at the University of
Delaware?
Here's the syllabus he teaches:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/495syllabus.html

Jerry Coyne,

You mean the Jerry Coyne who describes his research interest thus?

"Although we work on diverse areas of evolutionary genetics, the
laboratory's main focus is on the original problem raised by Darwin:
the origin of species. Our aim is to understand this process through
the genetic patterns it produces. By estimating the numbers,
locations, and effects of genes causing reproductive isolation in
Drosophila (hybrid sterility, mating discrimination, etc.), we hope to
understand whether speciation involves many or only a few genes,
whether genetic drift plays a significant role in the process, and
whether the movement of transposable elements causes hybrid sterility
and inviability. Most of our studies require classical genetic
analysis involving crosses among distinct species, but we also
collaborate with other groups to construct DNA-based phylogenies of
these species, and to use molecular markers for quantitative-trait-
locus (QTL) mapping of genes causing reproductive isolation and
morphological differences between species. We are also engaged in a
variety of other projects, including the dynamics of chromosome
evolution and various aspects of the ecological genetics of
Drosophila."

Jon Cairns, Roger Penrose, Steven Jay Gould,


Michael Behe,

Slipping in a creationist, I note.

George Miklos, John
Endler, Hubert Yockey, Stuart Kauffman, Francis Hitching, Michael
Denton, Paul Davies, Barry Hall and Jan Bergstrom:

They have all voiced the same kind of concerns as I have about
darwinian evolution.

Starting your post with a blatant falsehood is not a good start.

Any theory in science should be open to
discussion, debate and criticism.

As many of those you list have done just that...

It should not become an ideology
whose proponents refuse to acknowledge any problems.

...it rather suggests that this has not happened.

<snipped>

RF


One can learn far more by studying the real arguments between scientists over the factors that lead to macro-evolution than by defaulting to Intelligent Design.

I look at Intelligent Design as a cop-out to avoiding difficult questions; imagine being asked to write a paper on the development of blood-clotting and turning in a one sentence answer: "It is too complex and so God Did it." I would venture that the paper would not be well-received academically.

Yes, there are disagreements over the role that is played by various natural factors but the question of the necessity of a Designer to account for evolution has been settled nigh on 150 years.

Richard Morris explained the differences in layman's terms in his book *The Evolutionists* back in 2001. It is not a detailed book, but it is highly illuminating regarding the differences that scientists have regarding current understandings of the TOE, however it clarifies them in ways that do not resort to a "God Hypothesis."


--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."

Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading