…That is simply not at all what NGE does, and I fail to understand how he gets there.
1 Like
@Argon
The reason behind this is because the weakness of DET is Natural Selection, not because it does not mention it, but because it does not develop this aspect of evolution.
When Variation and Natural Selection are confused, one aspect will suffer. For SET it is NS, for SET it will be Variation. The only way tom prevent this is to stop0- the confusion, separation Vatiation and Natural Selection.
@Sy_Garte wrote: Yes, and this is where I think Shapiro goes off the rails, when he claims that natural genetic engineering replaces natural selection.
Meyer is not the only one. Many others say that neutral genetic shiift avoids Natural Selection and is the dominant method of genetic change, so that evolouti0on does an “end run” around Natural Selection.
As I have consistently said perhaps to the point of consternation. we must separate Variation/genetics from Natural Selection/ecology. They are two different and separate processes combined in one action of evolution.
The shortstop needs to field the ball before he or she can throw the hitter out at first base. If the shortstop tries to throw the ball before she/he has it, it will result in an error. Similarly if we thing that that Natural Selection is a part of Variation or vice versa we have a mistake or error in understanding. Bo9th are distinct parts of evolution.
This is the problem that we as concerned human beings need to solve. It involves a change in things, which makes it a revolutionary change… It is not an incremental change as most people think which would make it evolutionary change.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.