RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,14:00   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2008,13:48)
     
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 06 2008,02:51)
Daniel Smith, why have the ideas of Schindewolf, Berg, Goldschmidt, and Davison failed to gain scientific traction and have become footnotes in the history of biological thought?

My answer: They have not generated fruitful, testable hypotheses.

Your answer: ?

I think it's because their proposed mechanisms are saltational - and that seems to be a dirty word in scientific circles.

Thank you for responding, Daniel, but you didn't really answer, did you?

So, we'll work with what we've got:  Why do you think that "saltational" is a "dirty word" in scientific circles?

Could it be the case that saltational theories of evolution are neither fruitful nor testable?

You realize, don't you, that if a scientific idea is fruitful and testable, its attraction to scientists is irresistible?

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]