Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
Table of Contents for "Explore Evolution":
| Quote |
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION 1
DEFINING SOME TERMS 7
ISSUES IN QUESTION 9
UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT
Arguments For and Against
FOSSIL SUCCESSION 15
Case For 16
Reply 22
Further Debate 30
ANATOMICAL HOMOLOGY 39
Case For 40
Reply 43
Further Debate 49
MOLECULAR HOMOLOGY 51
Case For 52
Reply 57
Further Debate 61
EMBRYOLOGY 65
Case For 66
Reply 68
Further Debate 70
BIOGEOGRAPHY 73
Case For 74
Reply 76
Further Debate 79
THE CREATIVE POWER OF NATURAL SELECTION
Arguments For and Against
NATURAL SELECTION 83
Case For 84
Reply 90
NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATION 97
Case For 98
Reply 102
Further Debate 108
A NEW CHALLENGE
Arguments For and Against
MOLECULAR MACHINES 115
Case For 116
Reply 119
Further Debate 121
SPECIAL STUDIES
NATURAL SELECTION AS SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST 126
WHAT FOSSILS CAN'T TELL YOU 128
CONCLUSION
THE NATURE OF DISSENT IN SCIENCE 142
GLOSSARY 144
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 149
CREDITS 154
INDEX 157
|
Does this look like a list of current issues in evolutionary science? I don't think so.
The notion that the Discovery Institute is engaged in any small quibble concerning the power of evolutionary process to produce the history and diversity of life is blown by line six in the table of contents, where they note the heading for the first eighty pages or so will be "Arguments for and against universal common descent". What is the alternative to universal common descent? I expect that they never say so directly here, but our culture is permeated with the telling of the narrow religious doctrine of special creation, so one can certainly ask whether the text that follows especially privileges special creation. That is, they have eighty pages in which to include a sentence saying, "Of course, scientists in the 19th century investigated the doctrine of special creation and found it not amenable to scientific study, and the claims of particular mythologies concerning life's history to have no basis in fact." Will we see any such straightforward disavowal that that is what they want children to accept as an alternative? I don't think so.
Various Index entries that look like they will be applicable:
# CB800: Systematics
* CB801. Science cannot define "species."
* CB805. Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.
o (see also CC201: smooth continuum through the fossil record.)
* CB810. Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus.
* CB811. Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes.
* CB821. Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent.
* CB822. Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited.
The whole section under CB900: Evolution
The whole section under CC: Paleontology
And a bunch of entries related to natural selection, of course.
We shall see.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
