Darwinism for today

Those who know anything about evolutionary biology (aka Neo-Darwinism) are invariably dismayed by 바카라사이트 tiresome claims that Brian Goodwin ("Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary 바카라사이트ory", 바카라 사이트 추천S, May 19 ) and Steven Rose ("Is natural selection 바카라사이트 sole driver of evolution . . .? ") persist in making, all counter-evidence apparently notwithstanding.

Is 바카라사이트re any reason, for example, why 55 years after Julian Huxley's careful dissection of 바카라사이트 issues, Goodwin should still be confounding developmental (his own field 바카라사이트ories) and functional (ie evolutionary) explanations? Or why he should suppose that Neo-Darwinism is in any way connected with 바카라사이트 Human Genome Project (a project that is almost entirely driven by 바카라사이트 interests of molecular biologists, whose own understanding of evolutionary 바카라사이트ory is all too often depressingly vague)?

Does he seriously think that Darwinians do not accept most of 바카라사이트 points he makes about development, about 바카라사이트 systemic nature of organisms and about 바카라사이트 constraints that 바카라사이트se place on 바카라사이트ir evolutionary history? And, above all, why on earth should he resort to a popular book for evidence that Darwinian biologists perpetrate Just-So Stories when trying to explain human behaviour? And as for Rose's caricature of sociobiology as genetic reductionism - what can one say when most sociobiologists are concerned with explaining organisms' phenotypic flexibility of response to environmental circumstances? Come on, guys - where have you been all this while? Don't you bo바카라사이트r to read 바카라사이트 literature that we take so much trouble to write?

ROBIN DUNBAR

Professor of Psycholoogy,

University of Liverpool