Sir, - I was amused to read the replies to my recent letter. Mr Toby Joyce (July 8th) takes me to task for something or anybody else did not say, ie that Darwin was or would be "refuted" or that Newton was refuted by Einstein.
I accept the concept of evolution (which was recognised before Darwin), but I question that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection or the neo-Darwinian Theory, which explain variations within species, are adequate to explain the evolution of species, given the many objections - just one of which is the absence of transitional fossils.
I suggested that another mechanism should be sought for the evolution of species. I made a comparison, perhaps too subtle for Mr Joyce, with the situation in physics where Newton's mechanistic model of the universe proved to be incomplete when it came to the cosmic and the subatomic levels.
Tom Harper, in his interesting letter (July 11th), mentions some recent fossils with rudimentary limbs, but the real problem is the unheralded arrival on the Eocene scene of fossil whales which are not too different from the modern variety, 55 million years later. A walking whale fossil is reminiscent of Coelocanthus, which was hailed as the missing link between marine and terrestrial life. A few years later, a living specimen was caught by a fisherman in Africa and its four fins were shown to be anything but amphibious.
One worrying aspect of the Ultra Darwinians is how the ideas of the primacy of natural selection and competitive reproduction have been carried into sociobiology. Biological determinists such as Richard Dawkins have a political effect. In his book The Selfish Gene he states: "The privilege of guaranteed support for children should not be abused".
Individual humans who have more children than they are capable of raising are probably too ignorant in most cases to be accused of malevolent exploitation. Powerful institutions and leaders who encourage them seem to me less free of suspicion."
Yours, etc.,
Ormeau Drive,
Dalkey, Co Dublin.