Deerbreh, I agree with you completely. It is frustrating to minimalize the real arguments on figureheads... particularly when those figurheads, like Dr. Bakker, haven't shown the cross-disciplinary research to justify such a large position.
I don't like the sort of boss-ism that seems to be emerging in this discussion... We in evolution don't have leaders, we have individuals pursuing their own independent research goals. And any attack broadly based on evolution will fail because it does not address the real issue. Evolution is not the change of species... it is the variation in hemoglobin seen across related taxa, it is the intergenerational change in the genome, it is the variance in morphological form of the inominate bones seen in early Australopithecines to readers of this forum.
Simply put, using any individual to represent all of the accomplishments of evolution from paleontology, genetics, biology, physiology, and ecology is misleading and irresponsible. It may be possible to do so for the first ten chapters of Genesis, but not for such an encompasing theory as evolution.
I think were confusing the forest and the trees.
A tout a l'heurre,
Theus
Veri Omni Veritas
™ Version 4.2
