Antone's Nightclub
Erroneous Views on Evolution
RECEIVED Tue., Dec. 2, 2003
Dear Chronicle,
In response to Buckna's letter ["Postmarks," Nov. 28], "Theory of Evolution: Theory or Fact?," I would recommend he crack open a textbook or, better yet, review current research before imposing his erroneous views on us all. Evolution is just as much of a "fact" as gravity, and debating its existence is as useful as debating whether you will fall after stepping off a cliff. How evolution operates is a theory and is open to debate. Darwin proposed natural selection. I am always amazed when people use flaws in Darwin's understanding (which was formulated over 140 years ago) to shoot down the current theory of evolution by natural selection; if they would bother to do a bit of research, they would quickly learn investigation into the mechanics of evolution is a vibrant topic full of a multitude of theories which have substantially refined and expanded what Darwin and Wallace proposed in the infancy of the field.
Stephen Jay Gould has got to be spinning in his grave after Buckna's misinterpretation of his writings. In Gould's view, the lack of intermediate forms in some species is a phenomenon of macroevolution called punctuated equilibrium. The punctuated equilibrium theory does not question the existence of evolution but how fast it occurs. In that model, speciation is more rapid than once thought, outpacing the rate of fossilization. In his own words, "Thus the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."
Evolution is a law and operates whether we choose to believe in it or not. The best theory we have on how that law works is natural selection. Classrooms should certainly be a place of academic debate, and Buckna's national poll is a good idea, but instead it should ask, "In this class, is evolution by natural selection taught as fact or theory? Do you have the academic freedom to critique evolution by natural selection? " It is an important distinction.
In response to Buckna's letter ["Postmarks," Nov. 28], "Theory of Evolution: Theory or Fact?," I would recommend he crack open a textbook or, better yet, review current research before imposing his erroneous views on us all. Evolution is just as much of a "fact" as gravity, and debating its existence is as useful as debating whether you will fall after stepping off a cliff. How evolution operates is a theory and is open to debate. Darwin proposed natural selection. I am always amazed when people use flaws in Darwin's understanding (which was formulated over 140 years ago) to shoot down the current theory of evolution by natural selection; if they would bother to do a bit of research, they would quickly learn investigation into the mechanics of evolution is a vibrant topic full of a multitude of theories which have substantially refined and expanded what Darwin and Wallace proposed in the infancy of the field.
Stephen Jay Gould has got to be spinning in his grave after Buckna's misinterpretation of his writings. In Gould's view, the lack of intermediate forms in some species is a phenomenon of macroevolution called punctuated equilibrium. The punctuated equilibrium theory does not question the existence of evolution but how fast it occurs. In that model, speciation is more rapid than once thought, outpacing the rate of fossilization. In his own words, "Thus the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."
Evolution is a law and operates whether we choose to believe in it or not. The best theory we have on how that law works is natural selection. Classrooms should certainly be a place of academic debate, and Buckna's national poll is a good idea, but instead it should ask, "In this class, is evolution by natural selection taught as fact or theory? Do you have the academic freedom to critique evolution by natural selection? " It is an important distinction.
Christopher Murray