Susan Brassfield wrote:
>Someone on this list (probably Cliff) stated that biologists were "not
>allowed" to speculate on the origin of the Cambrian Explosion. (The
>original post is on my home computer, sorry)
>Cliff:
>
>>Some speculation, but none that the establishment has any use for.
>
>I'd like to know the basis for your original remark and the one above.
You need to know the basis for the original remark which you don't remember,
and which you inaccurately paraphrase.
>I did a google search for "Cambrian Explosion Research" and came up with 7
>pages of results. Below is a tiny sample. It's a thriving area of research.
>Why do you keep saying it's not?
There are things going on, but our milieu is still neo-Darwinian;
macroevolution
is not welcome. Consider one of your quotes:
>"The Cambrian explosion is spectacular, but it is not unique; in my view
>the spectacular diversification of the diapsid reptiles, especially the
archosaurs,
>in the Late Triassic is an analogous case, as is the diversification of the
mammals
>after the end of the dinosaurs.
How absurd, to suggest that the origin of all the major phyla, including some
that
are now extinct, was qualitatively no different from any other major radiation,
implying that no unique mechanisms were involved. This is not research, this
is neo-Darwinian apologetics.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 16 2000 - 04:36:49 EST