As I have listened to Cameron over the last few months it seems very
obvious that he accepts:
1. Common descent/Descent with modification
2. Small/Medium scale changes that result from the modern evolutionary
theory
3. The fact that macro evolutionary changes occurred by some mechanism.
I also accept the above.
What I deny and what I hear Cameron denying is that the modern
evolutionary theory/evidence is adequate to explain macro evolution. I
do not hear him denying that the evidence may eventually prove to be
adequate. He does think intelligence is necessary to produce macro
evolutionary changes, but again he seems open to revision in light of
future discoveries.
Cameron If I have misread you please correct.
Coyne in his book devotes a whole chapter to what he calls evolution of
complex evolutionary features. As I read him he admits that there is no
direct proof that the proposed mechanisms are adequate. Sure he does a
lot of hand waving and ranting but if he had direct proof he would put
it forward in a minute.
None of Dennis' responses really seem to address what Cameron disputes
but deal with points 1, 2 and 3 above.
I agree with Cameron that if we found proof that evolutionary
theory/evidence is inadequate to explain macro evolution that not much
would change in the every day activities of most biologists. Personally
I doubt such proof is possible but it could be.
In summary I would say that the proposed mechanisms for large scale
evolution is unproven ie it has not survived sufficient realistic
attempts to falsify it. If it had both Coyne and Dawkins would surely
be writing about such results. Note I did NOT say disproven!
Dave W
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 30 09:08:01 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 30 2009 - 09:08:01 EDT