A ver si aprendes a leer.
Cita:
|
I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
|
1.- Solo se mete con la seleccion natural; con ese "cacho" (muy importante) de la teoria.
2.- Dice que todavia
cree que funciona como un programa de investigacion.
3.- Sigue refiriendose a ella como teoria; y ha cambiado de opinion acerca de su estado logico y su testeabilidad.
Ahora mira lo que dice del resto de la teoria;
Cita:
|
When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
|
¿que opinas de lo subrayado en negrita-rojo?
Creo que esta bastante claro que tan solo se mete (y no mucho) con el concepto de seleccion natural; respecto al resto de la teoria de la evolucion es bien claro lo que opina.
Pero nada, tu sigue como siempre jugando a marear la perdiz como hacias con lo de la termodinamica; como siempre solo prestas atencion a lo que (crees que) encaja en tus esquemas, y el resto lo ignoras
