Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>Cliff doesn't like the idea that I think gradualism--though it is sometimes
>very rapid gradualism--is necessary.
These days we have two Cliffs posting, H and L.
Very rapid gradualism is a tricky thing which I will leave to others. But when
you absolutely exclude a mechanism, with no mechanistic explanation for the
exclusion, you aren't being scientific, you're just applying a dubious
principle.
>He has a non-mainstream explanation of the Cambrian Explosion that he
>thinks refutes gradualism.
Gradualism is the predominant mode of evolution, it won't be refuted.
In certain cases alternative kinds of processes may have been operating.
There is no mainstream explanation for the Cambrian explosion.
>He keeps the idea pretty close to his chest.
Close to my chest at <http://www.cab.com/segment/tablecon.html>.
>It took me a while to figure out what bothered him about my arguments.
Well, that's it. People with macroevolutionary theories will be bothered
by the absolute metaphysical proscription of the possibilities they
envision. This is religion-driven science, more interested in avoiding
what they think is creationism than in puzzling out the facts.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 30 2000 - 13:18:41 EDT