Re: transitional fossils

kbmill@ksu.edu wrote:

>Quoting Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>:
>
>
>
>> If you'll accept the criticism, I beg to differ that there is a
>>single 'general theory of evolution.' Probably upon reflection Keith
>>will agree. There are actually many 'theories of evolution,' which is
>>why one of the most well-known Christians of the 20th century
>>referred to it that way. For example, there many be a consensus about
>>evolution in geology, but not in anthropoogy, familiar agreement in
>>botany, but not in cognitive studies. Evolutionary theory is
>>multi-disciplinary and cannot (any longer) be 'claimed' by one
>>academic discipline.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, I was referring to biological evolution and I should have made that
>more clear. Also there are many alternative models of evolutionary
>patterns and processes in biology/paleontology. It is the central
>concept of common descent that unifies them.
>
>Keith
>
>
Yes, this point seems to be often forgotten namely that natural
selection was argued by Darwin to be one of various mechanisms of
evolution and although Darwin considered it to be the most important
one, other processes indeed have shown their relevances as well.
Also variation, which was poorly understood in Darwin's times, has been
shown to have a rich foundation of mechanisms and processes, well beyond
our wildest dreams I'd say.

Pim
Received on Mon Dec 5 10:43:16 2005