Re: Glenn wrote:

Ed Brayton (
Wed, 03 Jun 1998 10:54:28 -0400

Ron Chitwood wrote:
> Correct. Operator error cause PC to come out rather than PE, as it should
> have been. You read it right. My point still holds, however. Whether the
> 'hopeful monster' idea has been discarded or not is irrelevant. The point
> is some solution has been attempted BECAUSE of the inadequacy of
> macroevolution to speak to the current problems.

Let's recall what it was you actually said. You said:

> > > 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
findings in microbiology, mathematics, etc. Why do you suppose PC or the
'hopeful monster' idea has been proposed? Its because the data that has
accumulated earlier is proving to be an inadequate answer.>>>

Does this not imply that PE is somehow related to the "hopeful monster"
idea, if not synonomous with it? That was the way I read it. If that is
the point, it is quite incorrect. As for PE being developed because of
the inadequacy of "macroevolution" to speak to current problems, that is
equally incorrect. PE was developed as a result of Mayr's work on
population genetics and allopatric speciation, and applied those
findings to the paleontological data. It deals with the mode and tempo
of speciation events, not with the validity of "macroevolution"
(whatever that is).