Re: News: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: News: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth


"Robert Karl Stonjek" <rstonjek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

Was Darwin right? Should schoolchildren be exposed to contrary views in
science class?

JE:-
Hi Robert,

Schoolchildren should be exposed to every and any EMPIRICALLY
FALSIFIABLE evolutionary theory within their science classes. Note that
Darwinian evolutionary theory remains the only one on the table! All the
others are just non falsifiable i.e. are NOT bona fide theories of
science. This includes oversimplified, uncorrected, Neo Darwinian models
of falsifiable Darwinism, e.g. Dawkins et al, misusing Hamilton's model,
granted genes a fitness independence that they do not empirically have.


RKS:
I think we should be careful about characterising Evolution Theory as
'Darwinism'. Darwin proposed two types of adaptation - natural and sexual
selection. Wallace suggested a further mechanism:-

"Since that famed, side-by-side presentation of the two naturalists'
theories and Darwin's subsequent publishing of On the Origin of Species,
Wallace's views have, for the most part, been deemed synonymous with
Darwin's. And attribution to the founding theories of evolution has, on the
whole, gone to Darwin. A small phrase in Wallace's original essay, however,
was his alone: He suggested that certain organisms, or systems that make up
organisms, have evolved a way to direct the course of their own evolution,
rather than be purely subject to natural selection. As a result, this
mechanism could affect whether traits ever get expressed, and therefore
subjected to the forces of natural selection. Now, a century-and-a-half
later, a group of Princeton University researchers say they're the first to
provide evidence to support Wallace's claim. "

Source: TheScientist
d=55222
Epigenetic vectors for Lamarckian evolution have also been known for nearly
a decade now.

So the unfolding of evolution in Evolution Theory now stems from at least
three roots, the ideas of Lamarck, Wallace and Darwin.

Not that this helps us convince the 50% of Americans who think it's all down
to their spirit daddy.

Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek

<Snip>

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: For Howard: Natural Selection & Causation
    ... evidence) or the Theory of Evolution (complaining about the TOE is not ... on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to ... address the science in special creation. ... Speciation is NOT natural selection. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is evolution?-A LAUGH
    ... In all its debates with ID, Darwin never says. ... > Laughing at Evolution ... Well, not in science, ... which are to kill God and elevate humanism to His throne. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... suggest that you rely largely on creationist sources for information, ... and that you are rather ignorant of most of the history of science. ... It is the combination of Darwin's theory of evolution ... more about evolutionary theory? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... suggest that you rely largely on creationist sources for information, ... and that you are rather ignorant of most of the history of science. ... It is the combination of Darwin's theory of evolution ... more about evolutionary theory? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... science like Evolution by equating it with a hard science like physics. ... In evolutionary theory as in physics, ... events which happened in the past (and in the case of physics in a>>>far more distant past than that covered by evolutionary theory) by ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast