>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
Thanks, Susan, Larry Moran was one of the few people on Talk Origins for
which I had great respect. I wanted to make sure Neo Darwinism was really
something with which I disagreed. It is. For example:
"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that
populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not
adaptively directed) mutation and recombination;"
Since no on knows very much about how mutations arise, (everyone admits most
mutations are harmful and positive mutations are very rare) no one can state
with certainty that they are not adaptively directed. Up until now
randomness has been such an important part of the dogma that no one has
investigated to see if they might be adaptively directed. Some scientists
are now undertaking such investigations. (Lee Spetner, a creationist, for
one.) Let's wait and see what they come up with.
The definition of neo Darwinism had three assertions. The third was:
"3.It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual
accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that
macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution."
I'm pretty sure Moran himself no longer believes this-- nor does Brian
Harper. If a third of the definition of Neo Darwinism turns out not to be
true, how could anyone still call it Neo Darwinism? And surely those
scientist who don't believe in "gradualism" aren't saying,
"We don't know the mechanisms of macro evolution, but we are certain they
aren't environmentally directed."!!!!
Bertvan