Richard Wein wrote:
>From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@cab.com>
>
>>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 wheels out his old straw man again, this time elevating it to the
>level of an "absolute metaphysical proscription".
>
>This is the classic hallmark of the proponent of a crank theory. Refusing to
>accept that his theory could have been rejected for its lack of merit, the
>crank insists that it was rejected because of metaphysical blinkers.
>
>As I've said before, duplication of segments and merging of symbionts are
>*not* beyond the pale of mainstream evolutionary biology. It's your
>particular version of them that is seriously flawed.
I wrote in response to Susan's "very rapid gradualism", which I took to
refer to morphological evolution, not to Richard's genetic view of
evolution, in which gradualism includes macroevolution, in that small
genetic changes can produce large etc.
Any elucidations of serious or minor flaws in my proposal are welcome.
But it's a long article and I can certainly understand not wanting to delve
into something that doesn't look like your cup of tea.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 01:49:33 EDT