No, you guys are just being ideologically and emotionally reactionary. I'm talking about science done by modern day evolutionists, not fundamentalist Christians or whatever. You're rejecting thought because of its unapealing content and because you perceive a possible association with wacko creationism. That's not science where the chips fall where they may.
Gould's punctuated equilibrium hypothethis predicted squat. It was a "just so" story to account for differing rates of evolutionary change. The real answers will likely be found by microbiology. Gould was a good scientist and popular author, appealing to vestiges of the sixties mindset, but became out of the mainstream of younger evolutionists.
-p (perhaps Lysenkoism would be more to your liking?)
Space/Science » in reply to Thanks, Mark
Impure thoughts