-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Query on Book Review
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:22:30 -0400
From: Richard Levins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion
List<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes. I think Hawkes missed the boat in many ways. Ther first of which is
worrying about Thomas Kuhn's question: is this or is it not a new
paradigm? That will be settled later.Darwin's case did nt depend on the
exquisite adaptations of organisms but on the combination of obviously
beautifully adapted traits that reflect thei environment, and the
non-adaptive traits that reflect their descent(e.g. the floral
morphology
that separates plant families). The asteroid impact does not eliminate
natural selection: it was not a universal killer but rather changed the
context of selection over a period ofseveral million years. There is
nothing in Darwinism thatrequires predictable or constant environments.
Darwin's gradualism was a deficiency that reflected his Whiggish world
view. But it was not argued by Darwin, merely expressed as an opinion,
and
criticized by Marx and Huxley.And as for intelligent design, perhaps an
apprentice designer. But an omnipotent/omniscient one would not let
estrogen (with enough to do in reproduction) also affect bone density
and
produce osteoporosis after menopause.etc. Dick Levins
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Does anyone on this list have a comment on the review of Gould in the
> June 10 _Nation_ by David Hawkes?
>
> Carrol Cox
>
