Why are not all of us happy neoDarwinians?

[buffalo]

Why are not all of us happy neoDarwinians?

The question in the title is asked, and answered, by Gunter Theissen, a geneticist from Friedrich Schiller University Jena. He points out that “many of the biologists criticizing gradualism have been geneticists”. These scientists are not looking for a fight with the consensus evolutionary theory, and if the Modern Synthesis were “able to fully explain the origin and diversification of life”, they would embrace it.

“Unfortunately, the Synthetic Theory and its contemporary derivatives have major shortcomings, for example in explaining evolutionary novelties and constraints, and the evolution of body plans, which to me appear to be especially interesting aspects of the evolutionary process. As long as population genetic based evolutionary theories such as the Synthetic Theory cannot fully explain all aspects of evolution, scientists as well as lay people will, for good reasons, keep looking for better explanations.”

more…

 

[The_Barbarian]

The question in the title is asked, and answered, by Gunter Theissen, a geneticist from Friedrich Schiller University Jena. He points out that “many of the biologists criticizing gradualism have been geneticists”. These scientists are not looking for a fight with the consensus evolutionary theory, and if the Modern Synthesis were “able to fully explain the origin and diversification of life”, they would embrace it.

Saltation was part of Darwin’s theory almost from the start. Huxley, for example showed how rapid evolution could work by natural selection, and Stephen Gould, the architect of punctuated equilibrium pronounced himself a Darwinian. I have to say, I’m surprised that a “geneticist” would not know that Darwin’s theory isn’t about the origin of life. That is rather suspicious.

“Unfortunately, the Synthetic Theory and its contemporary derivatives have major shortcomings, for example in explaining evolutionary novelties and constraints, and the evolution of body plans, which to me appear to be especially interesting aspects of the evolutionary process. As long as population genetic based evolutionary theories such as the Synthetic Theory cannot fully explain all aspects of evolution, scientists as well as lay people will, for good reasons, keep looking for better explanations.”

(Barbarian checks)
Ah, he’s a “hopeful monster” buff. A follower of Oliver Goldschmidt, who imagined that a completely new *bauplan * could arise in one generation. Evolutionary Development has pretty much put that one to rest.

You might want to read "Endless Forms, Most Beautiful to learn why. So should Günter.

 

[ready]

There are different theories of evolution. One that incorporates natural selection is not a problem for me unless it brings in the idea of man sharing common ancestry with apes. I studied the specific topic of Darwinism in an intermediate level college course for a semester. We read all of Darwins books and we read a book called “Lucy” who was supposed to be the “missing link.” I found no real evidence that Lucy was a missing link and could not be swayed to believe we share the same parents with apes. I know I never will have to. I got an A in the class without accepting that we share the same parents with apes and even made it part of my argument in my final paper. I may not have a doctorate in biology or paleontology but one doesn’t need one to contradict a theory of evolution. One just needs common sense, critical thinking, and articulate speech.