In the other slaty thread, I had mentioned that I might forward some of Davison's more ludicrous claims to experts to ilicit their views on salty's claims.
Then I decided that it would be a waste of time. OutofDate then wrote:
"I take it then Scott that you are afraid to solicit opinions from those you regard as experts. Once again, you fail to keep your word. salty "
I heard from Dr.James Crow, well known population geneticist and with little artgument, an expert on the issue.
His reply:
quote:
As for population genetics, I think it is important and in
fact is at the center of our current understanding of evolution. Of
course, evolution as a historical occurrence was quite well
established before population genetics became established, ca 1930.
If you regard evolution as the history of form and function,
population genetics has played a relatively minor role. But if you
ask about the mechanisms of evolution, population genetics has been
most important.
Population genetics, building on the foundation of Mendelian
heredity, has provided a quantitative theory of how natural
selection, mutation, random drift, and population structure determine
how evolutionary changes occur. Recently, population genetics along
with molecular biology has demonstrated the way evolution occurs at
the nucleotide level.
In short, I disagree with Dr. Davison. Contrary to what he
says, I believe (along with most evolutionists) that population
genetics has provided the mechanistic basis for evolutionary change.
Therefore, rather than being irrelevant, it is at the center of
current evolutionary theory.
'Nuff said, "salty"....