Darwin's theory or explanation of evolution is distinct from the general concept of evolution. Several explanations of evolution have been proposed over the last few hundred years. To date Darwin's theory has been the most fertile but it also has major shortcomings. Only neo-Darwinists insist that all aspects of evolution must be explained in Darwinian terms.
harry On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed only > one or two anomalies. > > But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that > Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian Evolutionists are > beginning to see that DE theory is becoming untenable. There are new holes > poked thru it everyday. > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium > > On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > > You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million > years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of > radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? > > I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how this > field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at the > quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere scientists > doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be made but with > enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the truth usually ends up > prevailing. I'm really not interested in being told that one or two > interesting anomalies renders this whole field of science invalid. > >
