Re: Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"

david ford wrote:

> Newman, Horatio Hackett.  1932.  _ Evolution, Genetics and
> Eugenics_ (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press),
> 620pp.  Newman was a Professor of Zoology at the University
> of Chicago.  The end of the section "Experimental Support of
> the Effectiveness of Natural Selection" and the beginning of
> the section "The Present Status of Natural Selection," on
> 395-6:


Hey, some creationist had to dig around in an ancient book from 1932 to 
diss Darwin?

Whacky boy!

Of course NS doesn't explain all.  Darwin knew that.
There is also sexual selection, which Darwin explained
is part and parcel of how evolution works.

Why show your vast ignorance rooting around ancient books?
Try the better experts of today.

Creationsim, for idiots only.


Cheerful Charlie














>      All of these [just-described 4 sets of] experiments
>      merely tend to show that discriminate survival actually
>      occurs, but only the experiment of Weldon has a bearing
>      on the possibility that mere quantitative changes of
>      small dimensions might under certain conditions be of
>      selective value.  We badly need more experimental
>      evidence of this sort and until this is forthcoming we
>      shall have to admit that there is very little experimental
>      evidence in favor of the type of natural selection that
>      Darwin stood for.
> 
>      It has come to be rather generally believed that the
>      natural selection that Darwin himself believed in stands
>      almost unscathed as one very important casual factor.  In
>      fact it is the only explanation ever offered for adaptation
>      that even approaches adequacy.  As an explanation of
>      the origin of new types or new species it falls far short
>      of adequacy, and I think Darwin evidently realized this,
>      although he was unfortunate enough to entitle his book
>      _Origin of Species_.  As an explanation of the origin
>      and perfection of adaptation natural selection has only
>      one rival, the far less satisfactory Lamarckian theory of
>      the inheritance of acquired characters.
> 
> Compare Weismann, 7th from the bottom in
> 
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311221324210.8339-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu

-- 
Bush! Chimp or chump?

Cheerful Charlie