EXTRA! EXTRA! Professor da Cornell University declara o óbvio ululante: o neodarwinismo está morto!

Gente, eu quase caí para trás! Um professor da renomada Cornell University declarou o óbvio ululante conhecido entre as hostes darwinistas desde um quarto de século: O NEODARWINISMO ESTÁ MORTO!!!

Só a nossa grande agência educacional - o MEC, ainda não sabe disso!!! Só os nossos melhores autores de livros-texto de Biologia do ensino médio teimam em manter a 'ortodoxia' do neodarwinismo como teoria científica. O nome disso é DESONESTIDADE ACADÊMICA!

"THE MODERN SYNTHESIS IS DEAD", prof. Allen MacNeill

A cada dia que passa, mais eu me convenço da inutilidade epistêmica da atual teoria da evolução, mas, como dizem as más línguas, o 'anta do Enézio' não sabe o que é ciência...

+++
Texto original do comentário feito por Allen MacNeill no blog do William Dembski. Segue em inglês para a Nomenklatura tupiniquim não dizer que distorci as palavras de um eminente biólogo evolucionista:

the evidence that macroevolution has happened is all around us, in the patterns of biogeographical distribution of species and in the fossil record. What is not so obvious is the mechanism(s) by which such macroevolution has occurred. Prof. Giertych is probably right in asserting that the “modern synthesis” mechanisms grounded in theoretical population genetics are insufficient to explain macroevolution. However, scientists within the field of evolutionary biology have been saying the same thing for over a century. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution was probably first drawn by the Russian Russian entomologist Iuri’i Filipchenko in around 1927 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html). In the first half of the 20th century, Richard Goldschmidt did pioneering work into possible mechanisms of macroevolution, work that was later discredited and/or ignored by the population geneticists of the “modern synthesis” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Goldschmidt). Eldredge and Gould, in their landmark 1972 paper on punctuated equilibrium (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp) initiated the newest revolution in macroevolutionary theory, pointing out that the “modern synthesis” model of gradualistic macroevolution via purely populaton genetics mechanisms is not compatible with much of the fossil record.

So, the history of the concept of macroevolution is not entirely compatitible with the neo-darwinian “modern synthesis” - this is supposed to be some sort of surprise, or to undermine the idea that macroevolution has not occurred? You folks need to pay a little more attention to what has actually been going on in evolutionary biology over the last half century, and less time tilting at “modern synthesis” windmills that have long since fallen into disrepair within our discipline.

The “modern synthesis” is dead - long live the evolving synthesis!