No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
Henry GeeTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin fossils confessions-of-the-darwinists darwinist-confessions macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism fossil-record paleontology
The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.
Gareth J. NelsonTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin fossils macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism fossil-record paleontology
The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons it becomes, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.
Gareth J. NelsonTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin fossils macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism fossil-record paleontology
Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another... Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
Alan H. LintonTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism
I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done I their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: no. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome: the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions: improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
Philip S. SkellTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism
That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.
Robert J. SawyerTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin natural-selection neo-darwinism speciation
In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.
Jerry A. CoyneTags: science biology evolution darwinism conjecture darwin confessions-of-the-darwinists darwinist-confessions macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism pseudo-science speculation
[...] if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
[review of The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life, Nature 442, 983-984 (31 August 2006)]
Tags: science biology evolution darwinism conjecture darwin confessions-of-the-darwinists darwinist-confessions macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism pseudo-science speculation
These mysteries about how we evolved should not distract us from the indisputable fact that we did evolve.
Jerry A. CoyneTags: science biology dogma evolution darwinism conjecture darwin confessions-of-the-darwinists darwinist-confessions macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism pseudo-science speculation conclusion-before-evidence
I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks
Charles DarwinTags: darwin turkey ottoman-empire
« first previous
Page 3 of 7.
next last »
Data privacy
Imprint
Contact
Diese Website verwendet Cookies, um Ihnen die bestmögliche Funktionalität bieten zu können.