John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<41583203.1040506@pacbell.net>...
david ford wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<414CC876.4000501@pacbell.net>...
[snip]
By the way, Gould is wrong here.
How about here?:
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), G&E:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
I think I'm going to stop responding to your mindless questions except
to note that I've stopped responding to your mindless questions. Let me
know if you ever have anything to say. If it's on topic, so much the better.
[snip]
OK.
Leigh, Jr, Egbert Giles. 1999. "The modern synthesis, Ronald
Fisher and creationism" _Trends in Ecology and Evolution_ 14:
495-498. Leigh is at the Smithsonian Tropical Research
Institute, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. The
abstract:
The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most
biologists that natural selection was the only directive
influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however,
dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and
creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The
central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or
to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random
mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation.
.
