You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Yale Computer Scientist David Gelernter Abandons Darwinism (video)
2019-08-23
[Breitbart] Renowned Yale computer scientist David Gelernter claims that he is abandoning Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Gelernter, who formerly served as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, published a column earlier this year detailing his move away from evolutionary theory. The column, which was titled "Giving Up Darwin," provides Gelernter’s arguments against Darwinism.
Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.

But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing. Darwin himself was disturbed by their absence from the fossil record. He believed they would turn up eventually. Some of his contemporaries (such as the eminent Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz) held that the fossil record was clear enough already, and showed that Darwin’s theory was wrong. Perhaps only a few sites had been searched for fossils, but they had been searched straight down. The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting‐and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted.

A group of scientists, including Gelernter and Meyer, sat down to discuss evolution this summer in a conversation that was hosted by Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
Posted by:Besoeker

#10  When someone, like my elder Brother, says "I don't believe in Evolution!" then my response is "Define what you mean by that statement ... then we'll talk."
Posted by: magpie   2019-08-23 20:31  

#9  Saying your "abandoning Darwin" makes as much sense as saying you're "abandoning Democritus" and his model of atoms -- there's been a hell of a lot of other work since then, and that phrasing just makes you sound ignorant. Frankly, coming from an over-inflated Ivy Leaguer, it's what I expect.

It's not just finches and fossils.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2019-08-23 19:43  

#8  In the last decade the availability of cheap genetic mapping has caused a reshuffling of the Tree of Life™. Things that looked alike tended to have far different ancestors ( Evolution in Action, eh?) .... so fossil evidence? :Meh:
Posted by: magpie   2019-08-23 14:28  

#7  All the f*cking "fossil history" is 99% conjecture. Evolution, on the other hand, you can see in a lab.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2019-08-23 07:46  

#6  He's got a point. There is no trace of Trump in Republican fossils, for example. But, sometimes there is random skip-a-step evolution, when the 'gamma ray' hits a cell harder than normal. I guess. Evolution never took Algebra I and tried to get a passing grade. It probably never will.
Posted by: Beau   2019-08-23 07:42  

#5  :-)
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2019-08-23 07:27  

#4  No bones about it g(r)om.
Posted by: Besoeker   2019-08-23 07:23  

#3  If these people had (just a bit less) arrogance, and just a bit more brains - they'd be talking about origin of life. Not yammering about fossils.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2019-08-23 07:22  

#2  ....what you say?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-08-23 06:52  

#1  @...They could not have all blown out suddenly...@

actually, the normative view is that in about a 10 million year period early in the Cambrian (about 500M years ago) there was such a 'blow up' and that's why it is called the Cambrian Explosion

there are no accepted causal theories of why this happened and for this to have happened the rate of successful mutation would have to have been at least 4 orders of magnitude greater than anything measured -- those problems make the 'explosion' a tough one to accept for many
Posted by: lord garth   2019-08-23 03:50  

00:00