Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by keiths


1. Do galaxies follow Darwinian evolution?

Comment #15708 by keiths on January 2, 2007 at 7:02 am

Vardu wrote:
No divine fiat states that Darwinism needs to be restricted to biologic systems only.

Vardu,

We're not objecting because galactic evolution is non-biological. We're objecting because it doesn't have the three essential characteristics of a Darwinian process:

1. Replication.
2. Heritable variation.
3. Selection.

#1 and #2 aren't present at all, and #3 is present only to the extent that some galaxies burn themselves out sooner than others.

Development is a far better metaphor than Darwinism for galactic evolution. Galaxies are born, live, and die. The developmental trajectory followed by a galaxy is determined partly by initial conditions (its "genetic" information), and partly by the environments it encounters during its lifetime.

But there is no reproduction, and no heritable variation, so it is not a Darwinian process.

2. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #14022 by keiths on December 20, 2006 at 6:58 pm

Robert O'Brien asks:

Mr. Dawkins:

Do Oxford professors publish pulp science books instead of research? I noted the last time you published was during the Thatcher Administration.

O'Brien,

Have you noticed that Professor Dawkins' title is
"Professor of Public Understanding of Science"? What has more of an impact on the public, an article in a professional journal or a book on the NY Times bestseller list?

Think about it, if you're able.