To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory.
Charles DarwinTags: science biology evolution darwinism conjecture darwin natural-selection eye confessions-of-the-darwinists darwinist-confessions human-eye macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism pseudo-science speculation
For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.
James A. ShapiroTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism
All disciplines of science are built on the causality of the relationships governing related events. Yet the theory of evolution is built upon the idea of accidental changes that resulted in complex living systems. I was unable to comprehend how the notion that an infinite number of random accidents systematically happened to produce living species, and kept improving these beings, is justified.
T.H. JanabiTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism
The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.
Vladimir L. VoeikovTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism
I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma. Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say.
Raul O. LeguizamonTags: science biology evolution george-bernard-shaw darwinism darwin macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism
Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest... The origin of species — Darwin’s problem — remains unsolved.
Scott F. GilbertTags: science biology evolution darwinism darwin confessions-of-the-darwinists darwinist-confessions macro-evolution macroevolution neo-darwinism
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
Page 1 of 3.
next last »
Data privacy
Imprint
Contact
Diese Website verwendet Cookies, um Ihnen die bestmögliche Funktionalität bieten zu können.