A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Ernst Mayr Stephen Meyer Terry Mortenson
Joao Magueijo (b. 1967) Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College Web Amazon LoC GBS
Peer review is an unpaid and usually anonymous activity. Perhaps for this reason the average referee report is sloppy and sleazy. Reports usually reveal that the referee has not read the paper. Acceptance of rejection often reflects the personal relationship between authors and referee. Publishers have always been reluctant to open their files to historians of science and sociologists. Clearly they are embarrassed to reveal how little science, and how much sociology, there is in their files. Electronic Archives and the death of journals
Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005) Professor of Zoology at Harvard University Web Amazon LoC GBS QMP AV
It is quite true, as several recent authors have indicated, that Darwin's book was misnamed, because it is a book on evolutionary changes in general and the factors that control them (selectivity, and so forth), but not a treatise on the origin of species. Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) p.147
The basic framework of the theory is that evolution is a two-stage phenomenon the production of variation and the sorting of the variants by natural selection. Yet agreement on this basic thesis does not mean that the work of the evolutionist is completed. The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate and its application raises numerous questions in almost every concrete case. Populations, Species and Evolution (1970) p. 6
The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila, is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles. Populations, Species, and Evolution (1970) p.253
The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties. Populations, Species, and Evolution (1970) p.253
I am taking a new look at the Darwinian revolution of 1859, perhaps the most fundamental of all intellectual revolutions in the history of mankind. It not only eliminated man’s anthropocentrism, but affected every metaphysical and ethical concept, if consistently applied. Science June 2, 1972 p.981
Every anti-evolutionist prior to 1859 allowed for the intermittent, if not constant, interference by the Creator. The natural causes postulated by the evolutionists completely separated God from his creation, for all practical purposes. The new explanatory model replaced planned teleology by the haphazard process of natural selection. This required a new concept of God and a new basis for religion. Science June 2, 1972 p.988
The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces. Nature March 22, 1974 p.285
Darwin produced embarrassingly little concrete evidence to back up some of his most important claims. This includes the change of one species into another in succeeding geological strata, or the production of new structures and taxonomic types by natural selection. Nature March 22, 1974 p.285
It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist). American Scientist May 1977 p. 323
The real core of Darwinism, however, is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Darwinian becauuse it permits the explanation og adaptation, the design of the natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention. Darwinism Defended 1982 pp. xi-xii
In high school I read Haeckel's Weltratsel naively and avidly, not as a guide to evolutionary studies but to have ammunition in arguments about the Bible and religion! The Evolutionary Synthesis (1981) p.413
Curiously, the so-called scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a movement largely confined to the physical sciences, caused no change at all in this attitude toward creationism. All the leading physical scientists and mathematicians – Descartes, Huyghens, Boyle, and Newton – were believers in a personal god and strict creationists. The mechanization of the world picture (Dijksterhuis, 1961), the dominant conceptual revolution of the time, did not require, indeed could not even tolerate, evolution. A stable, uniquely created world maintained by general laws made complete sense to one who was steeped in essentialism and who believed in a perfect universe. The Growth of Biological Thought (1982) p.309
Since the shift from a strict belief in creation to one in evolution requires a profound conceptual -- indeed, ideological -- reorientation, one must consider Darwin's attitude toward Christianity. No fundamentalist can develop a theory of evolution, and the changes in the nature of Darwin's faith are, therefore, highly relevant for our understanding of his conversion to evolutionism. The Growth of Biological Thought (1982) p.401
The theory of natural selection can describe and explain phenomena with considerable precision, but it cannot make reliable predictions, except through such trivial and meaningless circular statements as, for instance: “The fitter individuals will on the average leave more offspring." Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (1988) pp.31-32
Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (1988) p.402
By cleverly employing mathematics and making numerous arbitrary assumptions, one can develop macroevolutionary models based on beanbag genetics. However, there is no way to test these models for their validity. At the present moment, unfortunately, the genetics of microevolutionary processes has been unable to provide a full explanation of macroevolution, nor has the analysis of macroevolutionary phenomena provided any answers as to the nature of the genetic processes characterizing macroevolutionary events. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (1988) p.405
In scientific controversies, there is rarely any argument about facts. It is rather their interpretation that is controversial. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (1988) p.489
Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (1988) pp.529-530
Why did it take so long for evolution to be seriously proposed? And why did Darwinism face such an uphill battle after it was proposed? The reason is that Darwin challenged some of the basic beliefs of his age. Four of them were pillars of Christina dogma. One Long Argument (1991) p.38
There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories. One Long Argument (1991) p.99
The demarcation between science and theology is perhaps easiest, because scientists do not invoke the supernatural to explain how the natural world works, and they do not rely on divine revelation to understand it. When early humans tried to give explanations for natural phenomena, particularly for disasters, invariably they invoked supernatural beings and forces, and even today divine revelation is as legitimate a source of truth for many pious Christians as is science. Virtually all scientists known to me personally have religion in the best sense of this word, but scientists do not invoke supernatural causation or divine revelation. This Is Biology (1997)
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science -- the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain. “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” Scientific American July 2000 p.80
Another aspect of the new philosophy of biology concerns the role of laws. Laws give way to concepts in Darwinism. In the physical sciences, as a rule, theories, are based on laws; for example, the laws of motion led to the theory of gravitation. In evolutionary biology, however, theories are largely based on concepts such as competition, female choice, selection, succession and dominance, These biological concepts, and the theories based on them, cannot be reduced to the laws and theories of the physical sciences. “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” Scientific American July 2000 p.81
Ernst Mayr Stephen Meyer Terry Mortenson
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z