Joined: Sep. 2006
|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)