>It seems clear to me that Popper is using an extreme form of a theory
>of NS to illustrate how it can be tested. He finds that the sweeping
>claim that all of evolution can be accounted for by NS is false.
>But this is just an exageration for purposes of illustration. I doubt
>too many Darwinists hold that NS explains all of evolution.
>
That's the impression I get. Genetic drift and sexual selection are also
quite important. BTW, did anyone else notice that Popper seemed to be
claiming that sexual selection (at least in the case of the peacock's tail)
didn't have anything to do with natural selection? I think quite a number
of biologists would consider _that_ statement rather ill-considered.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)