Reply #73: They did not write the article.

[LeftishBrit]

Susan Mazur has a very clear ideological axe to grind.

'But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.

Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants? '


And by the way it's been accepted for a very long time that natural selection does not always mean survival of the toughest individuals and their offspring, but refers to anything that leads to increases in the prevalence of a particular gene.

BTW, I know a little of John Odling-Smee's work and it is about 'niche construction'. He argues that in natural selection there is more interaction between the organism's original characteristics and the existing environment than is sometimes taken into account: i.e. the organisms don't just adapt to their environment, but can take an active role in influencing their environment, which in turn influences their chances of passing on their genes. This is not the same thing as saying that natural selection doesn't exist, or is all just an 'industry'.