The flaws in this chapter go deeper than merely deepening confusion over basic concepts and omitting references to work which address questions they raise. At critical points, EE quotes biologists in ways which misrepresent their views and distort the state of scientific and philosophical discourse about homology and related concepts. To present the discredited 19th century quibbles of Louis Agassiz as if they had never been addressed is ahistorical and absurd. Claiming that Brian Goodwin rejects evolution as a force which explains homology is plainly wrong. David Wake's concerns over the philosophical definition of homology does not reflect any objection to the use of biological similarity and difference to develop and test hypotheses about evolution. This merely reflects EE's needless focus on a single word, rather than the way that evolutionary biology is actually practiced in the 21st century.
September 24, 2008
Misquoting
Table of Contents
- Critique: Exploring "Explore Evolution"
- Preface
- Introduction
- Fossil Succession
- Anatomical Homology
- Molecular Homology
- Embryology
- Biogeography
- Natural Selection
- Natural Selection & Mutation
- Molecular "Machines"
- Natural Selection / Survival of the Fittest
- What Fossils Tell Us
- Dissent in Science
- Critique Summary