I wouldn’t say that I’m discussing with Jean or that I’m getting ‘more’ technical. I just point to the insufficiencies of his approach which I consider dishonest. His claims of a scientific enquiry (subtitle of his book) is an usurpation of the term « scientific », at least about matters connected with biology.
Concerning multi-resistant bacteria his report is incomplete. Certainly McFadden could be considered as an expert, but his approach doesn’t stand in front of a few minutes datamining from what Jean likes to call a Modest Biologist [that’s me :-)]
I can easily understand your point of view, relying on McFadden’s opinion while reading the manuscript of Jean, not Jean’s naiveté.
On the other hand, Jean present you as an authority validating his point of view. Not the best reference for you.
By personal experience, a lot of molecularists consider Darwinism quite critically and explain their observations with(in) it; this doesn’t mean that they spend their time trying to challenge it, but rather that they build working hypothesis which keep it under constant testing conditions. As far as I know it stands.
Jean’s examples are (all of them, chapter XI) out of focus and incomplete, presented in a schema (intentionally ?) creating a logical illusion. It may be great fun for biologists but dangerous for general public.
The main point of Jean have nothing to do, I understand, with darwinism, biology or science in general, but rather with spirituality and ‘means to make it more credible (without proving it)’. Undirected evolution is his nightmare and he would ‘take’ anything that may give the slightest hint (however false it could be) that evolution is directed by some god.
Are there scientific alternatives to darwinism? Why there should be alternatives? One have to have in hand something unexplainable, not just unexplained, by a model to seek for a new one.
I have a long train trip later in the day, I’ll read « Erwin Schroedinger, Francis Crick and epigenetic stability » and if I find it inspiring I’ll come back to you with questions and/or comments.