is this news to anyone? To you? Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) warned Darwin not
to adhere too closely to Charles Lyell's ideas about strict gradualism.
Gould writes in 1977 "Evolution, Huxley believed, could proceede so rapidly
that the slow and fitful process of sedimentation rarely caught it in the
act." (Gould, Panda's Thumb, p. 180)
>This so-called "mosaic evolution" is yet another difficulty of Darwinism,
>which expected that natural selection would be continually working on the
>*whole* organism, as Darwin evisaged:
It's astonishing that they dared to print such an obvious refutation
evolution in "Nature"! :-) How *ever* did they get away with it?
Possibly because it *is* what is expected by those who study evolution. It
is not expected by people who erect a false version of evolution and then
try to shoot it down.
>"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly
>scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those
>that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and
>insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the
>improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic
>conditions of life." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," 6th Edition,
>1928, reprint, p84)
And since Darwin is not Holy Writ, he has since had his ideas about strict
gradualism shown (with evidence, not just rhetoric) to be inaccurate.
Gould also wrote:
"We [Gould and Eldridge] believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The
modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the
operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the
fossil record." (Gould, Panda's Thumb, p182)
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb