I am not sure “gametes” is the term you want here. This implies that the fortunate cell will be off searching for a mate, and that is getting way ahead of ourselves. But if your audience is sophisticated enough to know what you mean, then maybe OK.
1 Like
I noticed this being posted in an intelligent design Facebook group. Buggs should not be giving cdesign prpopnentsist ammunition, just to gain himself some attention. My reply to the ID post follows.
The writer, Richard Buggs, says that Dawkins states that “every gene delivers approximately the same tree of life”, and that scientists should be prepared to be corrected by the evidence.
He says, “If this were true (what Dawkins says), terms like horizontal gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, introgression, and molecular convergence would be rare curiosities in the genomic literature. But they are common (click on the links in the previous sentence to see searched for these terms on Google Scholar).”
This is mere quibbling about what he means by “approximately”, and I know for a fact that Dawkins accepts horizontal transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, introgression and molecular convergence.
He is merely poo-flinging and missing badly. But Richard Buggs is an evolutionary scientist. http://richardbuggs.com/
5 Likes
No, he’s an ID advocate, as I mentioned above.
1 Like
He’s clearly both an evolutionary scientist and an ID advocate, and IMO there are plenty of scenarios in which that needn’t be a problem. His piece is grossly misleading and laughably irrelevant, and that’s what he should be criticized for IMO. That he also holds silly religious beliefs is another matter.
2 Likes
Well, the silly religious beliefs may be an important contributing cause to his writing a misleading, irrelevant piece.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.