Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
Indeed, it is now difficult to imagine how organisms that depend upon gradual accumulation of stochastic mutations could persist in the evolutionary rat race.

If you define "Darwinian evolution" to be exactly what Darwin wrote, then I agree with you. Darwin mentioned several times in "Origin of Species" that natural selection was a slow process.

Modern biology recognizes your underlined quote to be part of evolutionary theory traditionally called "Darwinian" since Darwin wasn't able to define "slow". So I suppose you could call it a third way if you're a "Darwinian literalist".

540 posted on 10/14/2002 7:43:37 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies ]


To: <1/1,000,000th%
Modern biology recognizes your underlined quote to be part of evolutionary theory traditionally called "Darwinian" since Darwin wasn't able to define "slow". So I suppose you could call it a third way if you're a "Darwinian literalist".

So then who is Shapiro talking about when he jumps on Darwinians in "The Third Way"? But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

More to the point, "stochastic" has nothing to do with slow.

543 posted on 10/14/2002 7:49:21 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson