Is “macroevolution” even a meaningful term? It’s time to ask.
|March 13, 2014||Posted by News under Evolution, Intelligent Design|
As philosopher Vince Torley’s post here that went viral (“A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution”) looks to reach 150k hits some time soon: We’re all pleased with the well-justified public interest in Vince’s work.
But there is a context, and it may be gleaned from some of the other posts that whistled through here after it in the last week, posts about stuff published in the journals:
Peer reviewed article misquotes creationist … doubtless, but the context is that key assumptions of modern Darwinism (neo-Darwinism) are being overturned. Their account of evolution is inadequate to today’s science.
(Remember, this is the stuff that the Darwin in the schools lobby attempts to enforce through legislatures and courts.)
Giant viruses that act like cells threw a wrench into tidy, dogmatic scenarios
The last universal common ancestor was a “sophisticated cellular organism,” not a neo-Darwinian proto-cell
New study finds little evidence for key Darwinian doctrine
Animals didn’t arise from oxygenation, they created it, researchers say
Are the journals already dropping Darwin? (It would seem so. It has never been easier to criticize him, and lots of people are doing it now.)
Is “vestigial” a term that should be retired?
Epigenetics: Inheritance of acquired traits gradually gaining acceptance (Just what your local Darwinist said no, no, no to)
Now back to “World famous chemist,” reposted a week ago, after it suddenly spiked:
Re “macroevolution,” one of chemist Tour’s detractors notes, “there’s no such thing. It’s a Creationist red herring. There is no microevolution, and there is no macroevolution. There is only evolution.”
Well now, that’s how it should be, of course. The fact that it isn’t seen that way is not of Darwin’s opponents’ making but of his supporters’.
The evolution that Darwin’s theory accounts for (natural selection acting on random mutation) is, in the real world, small changes that don’t add up to much over the long term.
That is why the term “macroevolution” had to be invented. It was a leap of faith to assume that Darwinian “microevolution” would become “macroevolution” instead of just being washed out by other types of change (what usually really happens).
But gradually scientists are becoming less afraid to talk about this: Macroevolution apparently happens, but not by Darwinian means.
G’bye, Darwin. We packed the crumpets for ya.
Will it soon be: So long, Darwin-in-the-schools pressure groups? Gee, how they’ll be missed in the legislatures and courts.
No, wait, we’ll all be too busy figuring out what really happens in the history of life. It’s a fascinating story and now – for once – we might get to read it without all the interruptions.
– O’Leary for News
Follow UD News at Twitter!