Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,424
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 13:
Line 25: + Line 50:
Line 63: − + +
→Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis
The modern synthesis did not remain as the dominant evolutionary mechanism for very long, although a number of leading evolutionists still defend the model. One evolutionist comments, “And today the modern synthesis—neo-Darwinism—is not a theory, but a range of opinions which, each in its own way, tries to overcome the difficulties presented by the world of facts.”<ref name="roth" />}}
The modern synthesis did not remain as the dominant evolutionary mechanism for very long, although a number of leading evolutionists still defend the model. One evolutionist comments, “And today the modern synthesis—neo-Darwinism—is not a theory, but a range of opinions which, each in its own way, tries to overcome the difficulties presented by the world of facts.”<ref name="roth" />}}
== Theory of evolution and little scientific consensus ==
''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)<ref>
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&_user=681891&_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000037419&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=681891&md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007<ref>
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." - [[Niles Eldredge]], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]]," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14<ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]</ref>}}
==Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis==
==Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis==
In 2005, Massimo Pigliucci, in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref name="arn">http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July of 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi
In 2005, Massimo Pigliucci, in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref name="arn">http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July of 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi
wrote in the prestigous science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref name="arn" />
wrote in the prestigous science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref name="arn" />
==== Atheist Jerry Coyne and Templeton Foundation friction related to revamping evolutionary ideology ====
==== Atheist Jerry Coyne and Templeton Foundation friction related to revamping evolutionary ideology ====
[[File:Jerry Coyne at The Amazing Meeting - 2013.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The atheist Jerry Coyne speaking at a 2013 [[Atheist conferences|atheist meeting]] entitled The Amazing Meeting (TAM). TAM is an annual meeting. ]]
[[File:Jerry Coyne at The Amazing Meeting - 2013.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The atheist Jerry Coyne speaking at a 2013 [[Atheist conferences|atheist meeting]] entitled The Amazing Meeting (TAM). TAM is an annual meeting. ]]
Most of the Templeton Foundation funds for the evolutionary rethink appears to be going to the University of St. Francis which is a Roman Catholic University.<ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/templeton-funds-evolution-rethink-more-links/ Templeton funds evolution rethink]</ref>
Most of the Templeton Foundation funds for the evolutionary rethink appears to be going to the University of St. Francis which is a Roman Catholic University.<ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/templeton-funds-evolution-rethink-more-links/ Templeton funds evolution rethink]</ref>
Previously, creationists have exploited significant differences among evolutionists and the [[punctuated equilibrium]] vs. neo-darwinian gradualists is an example of this matter.<ref>[http://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age Punctuated equilibrium: come of age?] by Dr Don Batten</ref>
Previously, creationists have exploited significant differences among evolutionists and the [[punctuated equilibrium]] vs. neo-darwinian gradualists is an example of this matter.<ref>[http://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age Punctuated equilibrium: come of age?] by Dr Don Batten</ref>
==See also==
==See also==
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theories of evolution]]