> Even the evolutionary magazine Scientific American once ran
>an article pointedly poking at evolutionary theorists to integrate the
>reality of the Cambrian explosion into the theory.
I have encountered over half a dozen evolutionary explanations for the
Cambrian explosion. Also, Gould overestimated the size of it, as many of
the strange things turn out to fit into categories upon further study. I
sort of feel it serves him right that his attempt to overemphasize the role
of "chance" has been taken as evidence for design, but both neglect the
current evidence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 20 2000 - 09:44:52 EST