The so-called Modern Synthesis, which hinges on population genetics, still can't describe an explicit biological mechanism to explain how new species arise
Dr. Crockford ==> "What we need is a new paradigm that takes developmental effects driven by hormones into account. "
Yes, what we need is indeed a new paradigm....that takes SOMETHING ELSE -- OTHER THINGS -- into account.
It may well be that hormones may be the key and it may well be any one of the myriad other things -- some as yet totally unknown -- that may be the key.
But about one thing you are absolutely right -- Evolution, as considered and taught in today's schools at all levels, including to the tip top of academia, has serious problems. Like many fields of study, evolution is mired in Old Thought, clinging desperately to known-to-be-wrong understandings.
As when I chided my university chemistry professor in the 1960s for teaching a model of the atom which was simply wrong, and known-to-be-wrong, he admitted "I don't know what else to teach!"
You said, "Evolution, as considered and taught in today's schools at all levels, including to the tip top of academia, has serious problems."
I'd be interested in knowing what you consider the serious problems. Would you be willing to venture a short list? If the "Species Problem" isn't the worst, what is?
Dr. Crockford ==> "What we need is a new paradigm that takes developmental effects driven by hormones into account. "
Yes, what we need is indeed a new paradigm....that takes SOMETHING ELSE -- OTHER THINGS -- into account.
It may well be that hormones may be the key and it may well be any one of the myriad other things -- some as yet totally unknown -- that may be the key.
But about one thing you are absolutely right -- Evolution, as considered and taught in today's schools at all levels, including to the tip top of academia, has serious problems. Like many fields of study, evolution is mired in Old Thought, clinging desperately to known-to-be-wrong understandings.
As when I chided my university chemistry professor in the 1960s for teaching a model of the atom which was simply wrong, and known-to-be-wrong, he admitted "I don't know what else to teach!"
Thanks, Kip.
You said, "Evolution, as considered and taught in today's schools at all levels, including to the tip top of academia, has serious problems."
I'd be interested in knowing what you consider the serious problems. Would you be willing to venture a short list? If the "Species Problem" isn't the worst, what is?
Dr. Crockford ==> Let me dig through my earlier essay on species and Darwin first, then I'll try a list.
Certainly, the Species Problem is top of the list -- but not all views of that problem are identical. Back to you tomorrow.