Re: IS A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION NEEDED?

Pro Plyd wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 3/26/24 11:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 3/26/24 11:00 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

"A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology....Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests.
>
"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution >
DOES EVOLUTION THEORY NEED A RETHINK?
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a
>

Thanks for asking. The answer is "no".

 >
The question was not mine!
Do you question the motives of scientist who think it is? If so on what basis

>
I don't have any idea of their motives. I was just answering the question.

 Considering the article is almost two years old, you
merely affirmed the answer
 

What's changed since the article was published? Is the origin of life itself been solved or the origin of the photo-sensitive cells that evolved into eyes? Were they the same "master control genes", involved in the downstream genes expressing the formation of eyes in mice, fruit-flies and humans? Were they these the same as the "master control genes", that controlled downstream genes that expressed trilobites eyes?
Since some trilobites had complex eyes, so where is the empirical evidence that demonstrates that eyes evolved? Is there fossil evidence demonstrating eye evolution?