Re: Nei's "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson
- From: Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:56:13 -0500 (EST)
Arlin wrote:
Please be aware that many evolutionary biologists today will assert--
with implacable confidence and without any documentation-- that the
MS says something else, in the faith that whatever seems reasonable
today must be what they meant back then. Sir Richard Dawkins,
however, is stuck in a time capsule and still holds firm to the actual
historical MS position. In his NYT review of Behe's book this past
summer, he castigates Behe for suggesting that evolution depends on
the rate of mutations, insisting that "If correct, Behe's calculations
would at a stroke confound generations of mathematical geneticists,
who have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by
mutation. Single-handedly, Behe is taking on Ronald Fisher, Sewall
Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin,
John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and
intellectual descendants."
The review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html?pagewanted=print
I'm suprised Dawkins wastes his time with the dumb ramblings of Behe.
He seems to have a habit of attempting outreach programs into the
gutter. Frankly, I couldn't be much less interested.
Anyway, Behe is arguing the case that there are not enough mutations
to account for observed evolution. Dawkins is pointing out that that
position is dumb - and is not supported by the evidence.
The phrase "evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation"
just means that there are at *least* enough mutations to account
for observed rates of evolution - which is perfectly true.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Feedback wanted on article about Bayesian phylogenetic analysis
- Next by Date: Re: Nei's "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson
- Previous by thread: Re: Nei's "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson
- Next by thread: Re: Nei's "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
