Re: Experts Worry That Public May Not Trust Science

Biochmborg@aol.com
Sat, 18 Sep 1999 18:44:48 EDT

I have not yet received Cliff's post that you are responding to here, but I
should point out that Cliff had sent me a private response to a public post
of mine. Thinking that he preferred to finish the discussion in private, I
sent him a private post in response, one that I did not want to make public.
Now I see he has posted a public response to my private post. I consider
that extremely rude of him and I am deeply offended. There is no excuse for
that kind of behavior, no matter how peeved he might have felt over his
perception of the tone of my response.

In a message dated 9/18/99 3:00:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
MikeBGene@aol.com writes:

> Kevin:
>
> >As I tried to point out, what you as a non-scientist would consider a
> >mystery more than likely is no mystery to the scientists who study it.
> >I know of one thing you consider to be a mystery -- the Cambrian
> >explosion -- and I also know it is no mystery to those who study it.
>
> It's no mystery? Pray tell, then what is _the_ explanation (not to
> be confused with a speculation)?
>

A good account of the explanation can be found in _Cells, Embryos and
Evolution_ by John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner, 1997, Blackwell Science, pages
349-374. To make better sense of it you should read the entire chapter it is
imbedded in ("Body Plans") which begins on 296. Additional evidence in the
form of fossilized embryos is described by Stephen Jay Gould in "On Embryos
and Ancestors", _Natural History_, 107:6 pg. 20.

Kevin L. O'Brien