traste writes:
[T]oday the fantastic creative creative power of natural selection is seriously question. In facin 2001 scientist from Yale, MIT, and Rice issued a document questioning the creative power of natuarl selection. Developmental biologist Scott Gilbert argued that natural selection explained the " survival not the arrival of the fittest"
This is the abstract of Gilbert's publication that I found on the site of PubMed.
quote:
Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology.
Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA.
Department of Biology, Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania 19081, USA.
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving the wnt genes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
It shows that Gilbert's ideas fall well within the Darwinian paradigm. As usual, creationists and ID-ists have latched onto this idea and ripped it right out of its context. It pays to go to the source, traste.
mutation is a process that break genes so easily
Quite so. But it just as easily creates whole copies of genes which are subsequently altered by more mutations.
A process that break genes so easily is very hard to believe as responsible of bringing up the organization,elegance, simplicity,complexeties which we observe in life.
"Hard to believe" doesn't cut it. It's also hard to believe that a man on a stage can saw a girl in half, and have her dart around the stage in one piece a minute later. It's hard to believe
until you know how the trick is done, which suggests it might be a good idea to study the magic of Darwinian evolution before you declare it "hard to believe".
The Law of recurrent variation show that organism " has real boundaries". The idea behind this is that organism just re- occur no new form is observed. As I already pointed out, natural selection is seriously question,so it no help to your position now.
This so-called "law of recurrent variation" is pure invention in aid of creationist/ID-ist arguing. It has no scientific standing whatsoever.
traste, quoting me writes:
Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong
Are classifications of organism provide the evidence that they evolved? Linneus was able to classify organism but he did not believe that they evolved, he only classified them. This reasoning is like saying because cars was arranged according to there forms and because some forms are similar,therefore they evolved randomly.
You are wrong for sticking to unwarranted presumption like believing that natural selection could create those organism.
You're not paying attention. I was merely saying that you don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. For your information: in Linnean classification fish are a class, in modern taxonomy things are
a little more complicated. In any case, fish are not, as you suggested, a family.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.