-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Query on Book Review Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:22:30 -0400 From: Richard Levins <humaneco at HSPH.HARVARD.EDU> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List<SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE at LIST.UVM.EDU> To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Yes. I think Hawkes missed the boat in many ways. Ther first of which is worrying about Thomas Kuhn's question: is this or is it not a new paradigm? That will be settled later.Darwin's case did nt depend on the exquisite adaptations of organisms but on the combination of obviously beautifully adapted traits that reflect thei environment, and the non-adaptive traits that reflect their descent(e.g. the floral morphology that separates plant families). The asteroid impact does not eliminate natural selection: it was not a universal killer but rather changed the context of selection over a period ofseveral million years. There is nothing in Darwinism thatrequires predictable or constant environments. Darwin's gradualism was a deficiency that reflected his Whiggish world view. But it was not argued by Darwin, merely expressed as an opinion, and criticized by Marx and Huxley.And as for intelligent design, perhaps an apprentice designer. But an omnipotent/omniscient one would not let estrogen (with enough to do in reproduction) also affect bone density and produce osteoporosis after menopause.etc. Dick Levins
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Does anyone on this list have a comment on the review of Gould in the
> June 10 _Nation_ by David Hawkes?
>
> Carrol Cox
>