Phil Skell replies to David Campbell

From: Ted Davis <>
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 12:20:11 EDT

Phil has asked me to post this. (He prefers not to join the list himself at
the moment, but he is interested in what we think of his op-ed piece.)

 David Campbell's very learned exegesis of Mayr's description misses
the point that paleontology and modern experimental biology provide
enormously disparate data.

His digression into chemistry is almost totally non-relevant, since biology

is concerned with unique individual organisms, no two of which are
identical in the sense that two samples of the same chemical are identical.

Further, Darwin's theory was based on evidence most of which is lost and
forever inaccessible to experimental tests, while chemistry and its
theories are grossly different in this respect.

Nobels for Physiology/Medicine deal almost entirely with Biology. Darwin's

"theory" is mainly metaphysically-based speculation about matters lost in
deep-time, and makes only meddlesome contributions to experimental
biology. Phil
Received on Wed Sep 21 12:24:38 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 12:24:38 EDT