On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, AC wrote:

david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, William Barwell wrote:
david ford wrote:

Newman, Horatio Hackett. 1932. _ Evolution, Genetics and
Eugenics_ (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press),
620pp. Newman was a Professor of Zoology at the University
of Chicago. The end of the section "Experimental Support of
the Effectiveness of Natural Selection" and the beginning of
the section "The Present Status of Natural Selection," on
395-6:

Hey, some creationist had to dig around in an ancient book from 1932
to diss Darwin?

Whacky boy!

Of course NS doesn't explain all. Darwin knew that.
There is also sexual selection, which Darwin explained
is part and parcel of how evolution works.

Why show your vast ignorance rooting around ancient books?

You ask "Why?" I ask "Why not?"

Because science, including biology, has travelled a long way in seventy
years.

It certainly would be good to hear of any currently-
known experimental and observational evidence for the
theory of natural selection, today being over 140 years
since Darwin propounded the theory in his _Origin_.
Before you or others describe the evidence for the
theory of natural selection discovered in the past 70
years, humor me for a moment, if you would (I know it
will be hard):

What experimental and observational evidence for the
theory of natural selection dates from before 1932? In
1932, the theory had been widely known for over 70
years. Many experiments had been done in the hope
of demonstrating the theory's validity. Would it be
accurate to say that in 1932, the theory of natural
selection abysmally lacked experimental and observational
confirmation?