Re: Darwin and Deutch were both wrong
- Ian Hill wrote:
>And Dawkins is right. Nothing you have mentioned undermines Darwinism.I suppose it depends on what you mean when you use the term "Darwinism". Do
you mean the theory of Charles Darwin? Do you mean neo-Darwinian theories?
Do you mean the Dawkin's version of Darwin? Do you mean evolutionary
The notion of "evolution" is not scientific. It is a philosophical concept.
If you want something scientific, you have to explain the *mechanisms* that
make it work. As the actual mechanisms are now being seriously questioned,
you can't say that Darwin or Dawkins have *not* been undermined.
Perhaps you would like to do some reading?
I'll let Goldschmidt speak for himself:
"The Material Basis of Evolution" (1940) -- if you can get a copy;
"Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist (January 1952)
Also, if you do a web search on "Goldschmidt" AND "fruitflies" you
will dredge up all kinds of material on this subject, some of it quite solid.
Charles Goodwin wrote:
> It isn't just a good question, imo it's THE question! Spontaneous reversal might
> occur easily for some mutations, even on a random basis. We need more
> information to even think about what may be happening here!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:pzielins@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 May 2001 7:18 a.m.
> To: Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Darwin and Deutch were both wrong
> Good question.
> Charles Goodwin wrote:
> > And did the spontaneous reversal happen in all cases, and after a
> fixed number
> > of generations?
> > CG
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/