randman writes:
My point is that this is an admission of what I and many have been saying about the fossil record all along.
"Admission" is a strange choice of words in this context, Rand.
Did Schwartz formerly support the gap-in-the-fossil-record explanation even though he didn't actually believe it, but now he has repented?
That would be an admission.
Is Schwartz a spokesperson for evolutionary scientists in general who previously felt the fossil record has gaps but lied about it?
That might fairly be called an omission.
But, no, Scwartz is offering his own theory for a genetic mechanism to drive evolution and suggests that what appear to be gaps in the fossil record could actually be evidence for that theory.
This is not an admission, it is a falsifiable hypothesis.
How could we falsify his hypothesis?
Do you agree that one well-recorded process of gradual change in the fossil record would falsify his theory?
"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch,
Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
™ Version 4.2
