Re: IS A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION NEEDED?

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:00:17 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> 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

Yet another embarrassing typo; you should quite while you're behind.
The last sentence of your quote actually reads:

"The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs
rests upon the theory of natural selection."

More to the point, in another sentence, the author correctly
identifies the problem with the above:

"The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it
is absurdly crude and misleading."

The problem here is, you and the author don't realize that what is
absurdly crude and misleading is his expressed description of the
theory of evolution.

He dwells on the origins and amplifications of advantageous functions,
while he completely ignores that natural selection demands the
*environment* to establish what functions are advantageous.  For
example, eyes are useless, in fact DIS-advantageous, where sensory
radiation doesn't exist, as in underground caves.

Also, his expressed credulity of the existence of light-sensitive
cells is absurd, as any cell with a pigment can provide exactly that
function.

Finally, his credulity of evolved eyes is a common PRATT, as Darwin
himself provides an excellent description in OoS.

DOES EVOLUTION THEORY NEED A RETHINK?
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a

And here's another PRATT.  The "rethink" identified by your cite above
*accepts* natural selection, but argues there are other, perhaps more
important, processes involved, as part of an extended evolutionary
synthesis, none of which have anything to do with a purposeful
Designer. 

You have posted similar argument many times in the past, and I and
others posted similar replies as the above.  That makes your post just
another PRATT of PRATTs.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge