>>Furthermore, Richardson strongly rejects the way his
>>work has been represented by Wells.
>
>This is absolutely false. Wells and Richardson have a
>very friendly relationship. Keith should provide his
>evidence for this claim or retract it.
Here is what I wrote:
Furthermore, Richardson strongly rejects the way his work has been
represented by Wells. So anyone who wishes to argue this issue needs to
read Richardson's paper.
In a letter to the editor of the journal Science (1998, vol. 280,
p.983-985), Richardson and his coauthors write: "Our work has been used in
a nationally televised debate to attack evolutionary theory, and to suggest
that evolution cannot explain embryology. We strongly disagree with this
viewpoint. Data from embryology are fully consistent with Darwinian
evolution. ... It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that
development in different animals is controlled by common genetic
mechanisms."
The letter concludes with: "Haeckel's inaccuracies damage his credibility,
but they do not invalidate the mass of published evidence for Darwinian
evolution. Ironically, had Haeckel drawn the embryos accurately, his first
two valid points in favor of evolution [increasing differences between
species as they develop, and strong similarities between early human
embryos and those of other eutherian mammals] would have been better
demonstrated."
Wells makes just the kind of argument that Richardson criticizes above.
This criticism is not mine to retract. Since this exchange will be sent to
Richardson. He can clarify the statement for himself.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 16 2001 - 16:36:30 EDT