Patrickarbuthnot
Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 10 2010,01:55) | | Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,01:21) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55) | | Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49) |
I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species" by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything? |
| Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51) |
comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID? |
So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.
Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades. |
forgive me Dr.Elsberry, I didn't understand what you were referencing to until I reread my post which was suppose to be just a reference for the book I didn't realized the comments which I posted from Amazon's quotes did not paste in it's entirely(book and link) from Amazon, I haven't read either books nor can I offer any opinions on either theories. I was just curious on how her book was received. I am aware of how Davison and IDist are, that is what the origin of my question. I know she is a recipient of the Darwin-Wallace Medal. Yet I was told by a pupil of hers she considers herself Anti-Darwin? Panda's thumb opinion " http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html" yet at http://www.expelledexposed.com she stated " Margulis strongly opposes the idea, widely held within the scientific community, that the driving force in evolution is competition, and thinks cooperative and symbiotic relationships are underemphasized by many evolutionary scientists. Despite holding views different from many in the scientific community, because of her research, she is well respected, and has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and awarded the National Medal of Science." So that is why I was asking clarification? |
OK, I can see how an unsuccessful cut-and-paste job could botch the referent for "that argument". That just leaves the "smell of ID" thing, which I've already answered in the negative.
My two cents: Margulis, like Roughgarden, seems to have a narrow and critical opinion of what Darwin wrote that is not well-founded. That is, they both set up strawmen that they attribute to Darwin and merrily whack away at those. This is perhaps because they are more interested in lab work than actually reading what Darwin wrote. That's not a bad thing on its own, but coupled with expressing themselves hyperbolically on Darwin, it rather reduces my estimation of their scholarship. It takes nothing at all away from their contributions to science, but it is unseemly. |
Okay now I understand where your coming from.Thank you for explaining it. I will proceed to read her work then with precautions, thank you.
--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”
|
