picking holes in…Picking Holes in the Concept of Natural Selection | BioScience | Oxford Academic

The academic world has finally produced some critics of Darwin, but as this review shows, the world of biology is so confused the critiques can’t register. The reviewer here becomes so sophistical that he misses the key point: the statistics of natural selection don’t work and the process of evolution requires a different explanation. Such reviews are not trustworthy because they cannot do anything but quibble and cannot in public express doubt about Darwin’s theory These two critiques seem to have blunted themselves, but remain critically important contributions. The overall issue is thus very simple: the statistics of natural selection can’t produce complex biological structures at random.
These two books are by two figures with sufficient prestige to take on the establishment of Darwinism.
Let’s hope the whole paradigm will soon pass away. Here the study of the eonic model can be of indirect help. It is remarkable that science ever got into this mess, after all there is not a single case of speciation in time that has been observed empirically. It is an impossible task! Millions of years of data about a species and the mechanism of change on the surface of a planet. Perhaps that’s why the Darwin bluff persists: no one can prove anything, but they can’t disprove anything.
Here the eonic model can be of some help because its shows some facets of the evolution of civilization. It is the only evidence we have at close range of an ‘evolutionary’ something, and it is detectable because for the first time we have at least some data since the invention of writing in Sumer and Egypt. The evolution of organisms is obviously different, but the eonic effect gives a glimpse of something related. The point is that we must deal with teleological issues, and field action over the surface of a planet. Random changes in biological structures can’t explain anything. Evolution must construct blueprints of what it develops. A real theory is going to be very complicated. The eonic model is not a theory, but a field map of civilizations. Stephen J. Gould almost got it right, puncuated equilibriusm, but then he turned around and mixed that with natural selection, confusing the issues still further.

hat Darwin Got Wrong.FodorJerryPiattelli-PalmariniMassimo. Macmillan (Picador), 2011. 320pp., illus. $16.00 (ISBN 9780312680664 paper).Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. NagelThomas. Oxford University Press, 2012. 144pp., $24.95 (ISBN 9780199919758 cloth).

Source: Picking Holes in the Concept of Natural Selection | BioScience | Oxford Academic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s