26
edits
Changes
Comment on evolutionary methods
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry, Philip, but I must disagree. The quote from Mayr says "it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations" - and this is ridiculously out of date as a representation of evolutionary thinking. No evolutionary biologist's credulity is at all strained these days by the notion of random mutations leading to finely balanced systems. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:42, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry, Philip, but I must disagree. The quote from Mayr says "it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations" - and this is ridiculously out of date as a representation of evolutionary thinking. No evolutionary biologist's credulity is at all strained these days by the notion of random mutations leading to finely balanced systems. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:42, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Regarding PJR's comment, "Storr's letter would only be out of date if he had retracted it": that's incorrect. Science can (and very often does) go out-of-date even if the author of a hypothesis doesn't retract it. Or indeed, isn't alive to retract it. Lamarck, for one, whose theory of evolution was entirely reasonable based on the state of scientific knowledge at the time he lived but was, of course, entirely superseded by the Darwin-Wallace model of evolution by natural selection and by developments in genetics in the 20th century. Or Aristotle, whose theory of logic is arguably the basis of Western scientific thought but some of whose biological theories have, to put it mildly, not stood the test of time. Or many, many others, alive and dead, whose hypotheses have been disproved by new discoveries. [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 17:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
:::And regarding PJR's comment that "nobody has produced a finely-graded sequence of fossils going from dinosaurs to birds": sorry, not true either. The series of links between non-bird theropods and birds is now very good. It has even been possible to map the evolution of five stages of feather evolution onto points of divergence among theropod lineages (inc. birds). [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 17:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)