OK. In this post you did not. Of course, I'm not responding to your post
in a vacuum--much else has been written.
My objection is this--any critique of neo-Darwinism implicitly supports ID,
YEC, or any other anti-evolutionist perspective, even though those who give
the critique by no means see that as an implication of their view. They
are refining/expanding the presently accepted picture.
TG
>Terry Gray wrote:
>
>>What can you tell us about whether or not Miklos, Gerhart, Kirschner, or
>>Raff are still evolutionists in spite of their rejection of the
>>neo-Darwinian explanation?
>
>All are still evolutionists.
>
>>I appreciate your point as it contributes to the present discussion, but I
>>must say that I find the enlistment of the work of these folks (and other
>>evo-devo types) into the ID supporting evidences (as you and Phil and
>>others often do) as nefarious as the enlistment of the work of punctuated
>>equilibriumists into the young earth creationist supporting evidences.
>
>Then maybe you can show me where, in my post entitled "Speciation and
>Macroevolution," I enlisted Miklos, Kirschner, Gerhart, or anyone
>else in support of ID. I had thought I was addressing the bearing
>of speciation on macroevolution.
>
>Paul Nelson
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801