who was this 70s researcher who questioned evolution?

Hi jimiwa, and welcome to the fray. There have been several people I've heard about that expressed some reservations regarding strict Darwinism, and which have been misquoted or misrepresented by creationists as doubting the truth of evolution. This includes developmental biologists, a field that involves how embryos develop into mature organisms, and where environmental effects (chemicals, temperatures, etc) can alter the development. The results of such effects are not passed in the DNA, yet they do affect survival and reproductive success.You can also look through the lists of names compiled by various creationist and intelligent designists of scientists who doubt evolution.See A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia for a discussion of same (including the analysis of the statement used).What you may have is most likely a statement that some aspect of evolutionary theory is not a complete explanation for the diversity of life as we know it. For instance" In a strict sense Darwin's theory was that natural selection was the cause of some variations being more successful in passing on hereditary traits to offspring, and we know that this is not the only mechanism involved: it's not so much that it is false, but rather incomplete as a explanation of all the evidence. The theory of evolution, however, is not limited to just natural selection.Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities, and this includes several mechanisms, one of which is natural selection. We know that these processes and mechanisms occur and cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits, and thus that evolution does in fact occur in the world around us. Evolution has been observed to actually occur, including speciation and the formation of trees of hereditary traits by descent from common ancestors.The Theory of Evolution is that the processes and mechanisms of evolution are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. It is pretty hard to convince someone with an open mind that something demonstrated to actually occur is false. Proving X to be false does not mean that Y is any more likely to be true. The problem with creationism is that it does not explain the facts of the diversity of life as we know it, not that evolution is a better explanation.Enjoy.

Hi sfs, Curiously, I was not talking about probabilities.As Y is either true or false, regardless of how many other explanations exist, the probability for Y being true is unchanged.Disproving evolution does not make creationism more likely.Enjoy.

Hi Coyote, Or Kurt Wise? Kurt Wise - WikipediaNeither are biologists (not that this fact matters to creationists).Enjoy

Hi Taq, Or someone (of several) in developmental biology that said something to the effect that environmental effects are more important than natural selection.Someone like Jeff Schwartz? "Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H SchwartzEnjoy.