[...]
>
> 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,
>
Hi Bertvan. Apparently you misunderstood what I previously wrote.
I did not say that this 3rd part of neo-Darwinism is not true
nor did I say that many scientists do not believe that its true.
What I was trying to do is give you some alternatives. Not all
scientists believe that "macroevolution is simply a lot of
microevolution".
[...]
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert