Johnathen Wells doesnt do himself any favors with that piece, sadly. First of all the title:
<Why Darwinism Is False>
Well, no one has a definition of "Darwinism" (despite Ann Coulters commentary on the topic), so he'd have to start there. Is Darwinism "evolution"? What is he trying to falsify? He uses this statement:
<<In Why Evolution is True, he summarizes Darwinism—the modern theory of evolution—as follows>>
He has to be clear here but isn't. Is Coyne saying "the modern version of Darwinism" or that Darwinism IS the modern theory of evolution? Again, what is he trying to falsify? He has to be very specific! He DOES get specific here... but
Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”
1Secondly, "falsification" is exactly what a scientist would look for... ie. 'falsifying a theory'. With his lack of definition of what he's trying to falsify, the article is a non-starter.
It appears later in the article that he's actually talking about the pre-Cambrian explosion, a well known problem with the some "modern synthesis" versions of evolutionary theory that rely on 'random mutation' and very slow steady change.
So moving along that tangent, I didn't read the original article only what is posted here, but Coyne and guys in the "EVO DEVO" field of evolutionary biology (as well as others) have a regular "feud" running on the topic of the pre-Cambrian explosion and what it means, yet Wells DOESNT EVEN MENTION this, it sounds as if (again, I didn't read, so hopefully I'm wrong) he's saying he thought this all up on his own... where actually he's using well known information (among those who actually study this stuff) and pretending it's his??????? Hopefully not.
A web search for "Jerry Coyne vs Sean Carroll" or just Carrolls name, should bring up lots of stuff about the topic and even pictures of them debating the topic:
newyorker.com
And here's one specifically directed to "creationists" {yea, I know we haven't defined it yet. :)) } And speaks of Coynes brash style, etc. Don't know much about him, but hopefully he's not a budding Dawkins.
rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com
Good debate here:
scientificamerican.com
Bottom, line, this stuff is not new, and NOT unnoticed by mainstream science... AND thos noticing STILL believe in evolution and Darwins addition to the world of knowledge.
That said, for myself, I'm more LaMarckian to be honest. :))
DAK |
