Joined: Jan. 2006
"Darwinism" was part of biology, in case you didn't know. And Nobel Prizes of medicine are often given to biologists. Muller got one if I recall properly. I don't know if he was a strict Darwinist himself, but you wouldn't endorse his views. Same goes for Tinbergen.
|I have heard about nobel prices for literature, physics, economy etc. Is there any Nobel price for "darwinism"? Who got it?|
Anyway, I meant that if you had evidence of you hypothesis, whatever that his, to the same level we have evidence that man descent from fish, you would earn a Nobel Prize.
|Try latest pages on Frontloading's thread or EvC where I started the thred about it on Biological evolution section. I summarized there main ideas of Dacque, Naef and Troll.|
Maybe I'll have a look at it, but I would prefer you to expose your own views here.
|That's your argument?|
No, that's not an argument.
|When something is published it must be right.|
Nope, but at least it tests an hypothesis with the scientific method.
| Once they published in Nature an article that babies faces are similar to those of their fathers, because our predecessors would have killed them otherwise. The Nature was honest enough to publish another article that our predecessor didn't have mirrors.|
Whatever you say, Martin.
|And do not please confuse darwinism with theory of evolution (ToE).|
You're kidding again right? Who's been confusing Darwinism with the theory of evolution from the beginning?
|Another theory of evolution is Lamarckism, Nomogenesis or professor John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. They are all theories of evolution.|
I'm talking about the theory of evolution. Not unproven hypothesis or some fantasies of a crank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
So, you're an evolutionist Martin? Do you support prescribed evolution or special creation? Even that is unclear.