Joined: Mar. 2006
Look here's what I mean.
|The problem I am having with your contention is that I don't agree with the premises, nor do I think that the ?overly simplistic application of logic to those premises sufficiently encompasses the actual state or theories of evolutionary biology.|
Maaaate you're talking out of your arse.
|Like Ian and Wesley, I would love to see examples of those major deficiencies, the one you claim below doesn't cut the mustard for a few reasons (which I will get to below). I think the reason creationist arguments are treated as plausible by some (very few) people is because these people are either a) ignorant of what evolutionary biology actually is, b) decieved about what evolutionary biology actually is, c) insufficiently intelligent to understand evolutionary biology, d) mistaken about evolutionary biology (i.e. they are capable, informed, and undecieved, but they have made a simple error), e) predisposed to creationist claims for less than honest reasons. I also think this has been amply demonstrated in the public and academic literature.|
Nobody gives a fuck what you say and they never will, the proof is you posted here!
|So, whilst I sympathise with your desire to improve science and scientific communication (it's a desire I share) I am cautious about your choice of topic and manner of expressing said desire. Sadly, you will find a lot of caution, if not derision, from biologists and other scientists if you start claiming that evolutionary biology has gaping flaws in it. Not because of their predisposition to defend it irrationally, but because evolutionary biology has had so many utterly vacuous detractions thrown at it by so many utterly clueless (or mendacious) detractors that a certain ennui with anti-evolution has developed. That's not to say or imply that if genuine problems were to arise the theories would not be modified (of course they would), just that you might find a good degree of annoyance given the phraseology and issue you have chosen.|
Sod off cunt.
|Given that (IIRC) this is not what is claimed by modern evolutionary biology, or to be precise, not exactly what is claimed by modern evolutionary biology, I think it can be discarded. Firstly there are more mechanisms for selection than natural selection, secondly there are different modes of speciation. I would humbly suggest that you read up a bit more on what evolution is rather than attacking caricatures of neo-Darwinism/modern evolutionary biology (for they are not the same thing).|
|Take the extreme ends of speciation as examples: allopatric speciation requires a geographical separation of two groups of organisms from the same species, sympatric speciation doesn't (it requires genetic separation). Those are two fundamentally different modes of speciation even though that at a very trivial level the two "daughter" species derive from the "parent" species by accumulating genetic differences. How those genetic differences arise and how they are then acted upon by selection (of various types) or how they impinge on the specific population's ability to survive in a new environment are very different. However, in terms of their mechanistic basis, i.e. accumulation of genetic differences and separation based on genetic distance, is always going to be similar because this is how organisms evolve full stop. It's no more significant than saying they are composed of atoms.|
Extra words can lead to a Doctorate, bear with me on this.
|Your alternative saltationary idea (yes I did skim quickly through your document) is only a better alternative to your straw version of what evolutionary biology is, based I think, on your misunderstanding of it. I don't mean that as an insult, but I have to say I am finding it hard to see what your genuine objection is. I think what you've done is make a logical argument from a poor understanding of what evolutionary biology actually is. That's a perfectly understandable mistake, but the I freely admit I am not an evolutionary biologist, so I may have missed some nuance or another. I don't think I have, but the possibility exists! ;)|
Did I say I was talking Bs?
Louis (I presume you play a trumpet) don't take this personally. I am mearly taking you to task on your prolixity which may or may not be a good thing, depending.
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane