"Elie Gendloff"  wrote in message
news:cdc3u5$2ht8$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> I also agree with Anon. who illustrates my point.  The old theories
> are all important and provide the theoretical basis for evolution.
> Anon. provides an example of the use of molecular biology to address
> the old theories.  To simply argue the theoretical or mathematical
> basis for them is repeating what has already been done and could have
> been done by anyone over the past thirty or forty years.  Molecular
> biology must be considered when discussing the old theories or even
> new theories based simply on logic and mathematical modeling.  I am
> also awed and amazed how molecular results are consistent with the old
> theories, and how much they can really put the old theories into a new
> light, so the old theories are understood to a much deeper level.  To
> ignore modern biology and simply argue the way the old guys did is
> like trying to walk with your eyes closed.  It is much easier to walk,
> and you walk much more accurately if you have your eyes open.

More agreement here.  And as an illustration of how old theories and
new data can illuminate each other, I would like to call attention to
the work of Forsdyke, who ties together things like Chargaff's rules,
hybrid infertility, and Haldane's rule with new statistical insights
into sequence data.  See his web site:
http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/homepage.htm#Homepage
and his book.  Particularly fascinating is how he finds precursors
for his own ideas in such long forgotten theorists as Romanes and
Bateson.  He even hints that the time may be ripe for rehabilitating
Goldschmidt.  It is not just the "successful" old ideas, such as
Wright's, that are worth examining under the new molecular light.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/18/04 6:05:43 AM