We're pleased to announce an update is coming to the community boards.
Saturday, September 24th: We are migrating the boards to a new platform. The site is currently in read-only mode and we will bring it back online as soon as the migration is complete.
Fred Hoyle is a classic example of someone arguing outside his field with no particular understanding of what he is talking about. Hoyle, brilliant as he was, was an astronomer, not a biologist, and his understanding of evolution was just a complete misperception.If you actually look at the book however, Hoyle's representation of evolution does not have glaring errors. His mathematics are generally sound and I think most would agree his understanding of evolutionary theory is better than most discussion board members. The fact that he takes the work of Kimura, Maynard Smith, Haldane, and others and reaches different conclusions than they is not a bad thing.John Maynard Smith, the late, great evolutionary biologist, reviewed Hoyle's book and criticised it for not presenting anything new and for what he considered to be Hoyle's "absurd conclusion" (the impossibility of macroevolution). But Maynard Smith had no problem with Hoyle's understanding of neo-Darwinist theories. I disagree with Hoyle as well, but Hoyle's objections are not trivial.I think brilliant minds should be doing these types of broad speculation. The rest of us with more pedestrian intellects can do the grunt work of filling in the details and testing the nutty ideas. But geniuses should be pushing the envelop. They'll be wrong 99.9% of time, but that 0.1% generates the next paradigm shift.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |