quote:
macroevolution (real speciation)is finished. Of course I must be daft to make such a totally stupid statement
It's not a stupid statement - just a poorly supported one. Again and again you repeat your favourite names like a mantra - without giving any detailed account of
why their hypotheses should still be considered valid today. You seem to expect us to worship at their altar unquestioningly on your say-so.
The problem is, salty, we can admire Grasse's pointed criticism of Darwinism (I do) and Huxley's breadth of vision (I do) and Broom's exeptional acumen (I do) and still think salty is a waste of space.
(Then again Broom was a
bit cooky, was he not?)
We can read Lev Berg with enthusiasm (having had a past association with sturgeon farming, I can assure you his influence is alive and well), and see him in the long line of orthogenetic thought, but still think salty is not worth reading.
We can admire Schindewolf and Grasse and Remane and regard them as "unfairly maligned", as Gould did, but still not hold salty in much regard.
Moreoever, we can go further and admire those that salty neglects - or should I take a leaf from his book and say he deliberately ignores them because they do not fit his views? It is frankly staggering to read some of your papers and see no detailed to references to Seilacher, the greatest post-war proponent of Berg's work who beautifully expands orthogenetic hypotheses in the language of "Bautechnische."
Probably, just like Darwin, your German isn't good enough to keep up with the interesting and relevant work being done on the continent.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-28-2003]