mitschlag
Posts: 235
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)
|
