Re: Glenn wrote:

Ed Brayton (
Mon, 01 Jun 1998 23:06:29 -0400

Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >>>>Actually I agree here. It is PRECISELY like what the medieval's did.
> But
> they didn't assume geocentrism either. The ancient peoples looked at the
> evidence before their eyes and saw the sun moving. They didn't feel their
> own motion so they believed that they were stationary. When they moved in
> a cart, they felt motion, jerks and stops etc. Since there was none of
> that when planted on the ground, they used this observational data to draw
> the conclusion they did. it was quite reasonable<<<
> Really, all I am asking is that you take it one step further and realize
> that the sun is setting on macroevolution because of more current findings
> in microbiology, mathematics, etc. Why do you suppose PC or the 'hopeful
> monster' idea has been proposed? Its because the data that has been
> accumulated earlier is proving to be an inadequate answer.

Sorry, Ron, but the "hopeful monster" idea was proposed half a century
ago. It was, and is, rejected by mainstream genetics. I am assuming that
you meant PE (punctuated equilibrium) when you said PC, but anyone who
has read the work of PE theorists like Gould and Eldredge knows that
they reject Goldschmidt's saltationism. The "hopeful monster" is a long
forgotten bit of nonsense from an otherwise respected geneticist. It is
only relevant to demagogues who are banking on the fact that their
audience doesn't know anything about the history of evolutionary