>> That is what both Eisley and Goodman are addressing. You are focusing
>> on the wrong topic. "Today, Darwin's theory of evolution does not
>> adequately explain what we know of the phenomenon of man."
>> (Goodman). That's what has yet to be explained.
It has to be explained in the sense that we don't know what caused human
evolution. But this is hardly a surprise. Individuals, species and
ecosystems are so complex that their interactions are virtually
unpredictable. Bipedality, increases in brain size, changes in family
structure, aquisition of language, etc., may have had different causes
at different times.
I disagree with Goodman's statement that the evolution of man is not
only unexplained, but *unexplainable*. After all, the three-fold brain
expansion Eiseley talks about didn't happen overnight. It took over 3
million years, and there are quite a few fossils that look like
transitional forms along the way. No single stage looks particularly
difficult, so I see no problem with the whole sequence.
When Jim talks about the appearance of modern man, I don't know what
he's talking about. Is it Cro-Magnon Man, Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo
sapiens, Homo erectus, the first soul, or something else?
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort CollinsJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765* 1st 1.11 #4955 * "I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!"