Strolling with a skeptical biochemist
Please could someone summarise Futuyma's stance on evolution and where he fits in relation to Gould and Dawkins?
Are you answering the poll? If you don't know that, maybe you should not
Yeah - I'd hate to mess up the validity of this voluntary response sample by having a clear idea of what each option means!
you have no evolutionary view or knowledge. Do not answer the poll. Or just go ahead and answer dawkins liek allthe other fans who did not know who Futuyma was. hehehe
Don't be an asshole, Sanders.I know more about evolution than most people, and I definitely know quite a bit about the views of everyone else in the poll, but I'm not sure what makes Futuyma's stance special either.
yeah well some poeple who say they know much evolution are just not familiar with the author of the most popular current university textbooks of evolution.
KInda representative of "modern synthesis".
The fact that he's the author of the most popular university textbooks used in English-speaking countries doesn't necessarily mean much for people outside them, or for people who learn biology outside of a university setting.I'm in both of those categories.
I'm Chilean. I assure you it is just that you are not learning through the univeristy. Universities in most countries have this book.
anonymous says,Yeah - I'd hate to mess up the validity of this voluntary response sample by having a clear idea of what each option means!Thanks. I don't want to see a discussion of what each scientist believes. The point of the survey is to find out what your opinion is right now. If you don't know who is closest to your view then you shouldn't answer.I should have put in a category for "don't know/no opinion."
Mr. Moran,I wish the readers of this undoubtledy pitiful page, to realize that SOMEONE had to create the matter that composed "the big bang," used just for example. Under the same ASSUMPTION, SOMEONE had to create the chaos in the equation to CAUSE the big bang, and had to INTRODUCE BIOLOGY into the mix of this planet (and potentially other planets). However, tis the FAITH in one's heart that allows them to actually be able respect: the sun that has enabled all life by means of controlled fusion, the colors that beautify the mountains, the Copper that transfers excited electrons to our homes, all the way to the Uranium that will hopefully power all of our homes, soon. I assure you, there's plenty more to ponder after that!I also think Mr. Darwin should have left the storytelling of how things became to the paleontologists!Thanks for your consideration!BTW, Kudos to Dr. CHU at the U.S. Dept. of Energy for his intense interrogation in front of Congress!
...and extending your logic, then their MUST be a SOMEONE ELSE who made the SOMEONE. And so on ad infinitum . See how this is a wee bit of Reductio ad absurdum?
I put down Dawkins as I think of natural selction (realized gradually) as the dominant factor, though I realize that there are other factors and I haven't the expertise to evaluate which approach is the closest to being "right".
No option for "Fred Flintstone"?I know that Futuyma is author of a popular Evo textbook, but I haven't read it, and do not know in what way his views might vary from other evolutionists.SJ Gould is dead, so my viewpoint is drastically different from his current view.
I like Futuyma's view. He takes a pure science view. Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution is a complex set of well supported hypotheses that explain natural phenomena of evolution. Gould and Dawkins were arguing about various components of the theory of evolution. All good stuff. Our understanding of the phenomena of evolution was advanced by Gould and Dawkins work to further refine the theory of evolution by developing important new ideas, hypotheses and finding the supporting evidence.
@ SandersYou know, you can be educated about the various positions, and still associate with the views of Dawkins most strongly. Though, I know a number of people will disagree that any well read person could choose Dawkins in this poll. ; )And you can know about Futuyma without ever having touched his textbook.
I put Dawkins mainly because the main part of my own education on evolution was in my BSc where the importance of selection was emphasised. In retrospect I'm not sure if I should have because I finished the course nearly 10 years ago and though I work in a related field (ecological consultancy) I haven't kept up with research enough to know how well supported the Dawkins view is. For that matter I mainly did ecology and animal behaviour so I'm not quite clear on how other ideas were viewed at the time in areas like biochemistry.
Does anyone else think that Dawkins is a tad too adaptationist?;-)