[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dealing with the real fish? problem

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, D. Martin Moore wrote:

While I don't agree with creationism I do agree wtih Martin to some extent
that theories of evolution are still being modifed and worked upon and many
questions remain unanswered.  BTW, Evolution is not a theory, it is a process,
the various theories are how you explain it (ie neutral theory, natural
selection, creationism etc etc).  However, I don't think it is a _very shaky_
theory.  One also has to remember that our present theories on evolution are
very new, hence you wouldn't expect them to be able to explain everything.  It
took a couple hundred years before Einstein could sow up a few holes.  We only
figured out the basics of DNA in 1953 (date?) and new techniques continue to
be developed every year.  No doubt the theory will change somewhat over time,
but that's what happens with theories.  And sure, most theories have somewhat
of a "faith" to them because there are always unknown elements that don't
quite add up.  That doesn't matter what discipline you are in.

> IMO, there is another theory which has yet to be given birth.  It will
> explain things like "punctuated equilibrium" and all of the sub-theories we
> have invented to explain away data which doesn't fit into the overall
> picture.

Actually, I think you will find Gould, Eldridge and others would agree that
punctuated equilibrium is not counter to natural selection and is infact fully
compatible with it.  There seemed to be more controversy made of that one than
was necessary.

Peter Unmack