>Gould and Eldridge published their research on puncutated equilibria (the
>idea that evolution isn't always gradual) in the late 70s. So real
>scientists probably aren't spending a lot of time on finding alternatives
>to gradualism which have already been found.
What are these alternatives to gradualism you mention? My reading of
PE is that it is merely about periods of evolutionary stasis, which isn't
much of an insight.
Do real scientists spend their time debating creationists? Imagine a
highly trained chemist writing angry tracts against the phlogiston
theory. That would be a riot. I can see him now, slapping his thesis
down on his director's desk, steely gaze tempered by a warm glow
of accomplishment. And wise guys like me writing pro-phlo articles,
so we can ROTFL at his indignant responses.
The real fun is not in championing the dogma, but in criticizing it.
The creationists are way ahead of you here.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com