Carrol Cox wrote:
>It's a long and complex book. It is also a book that anyone who wants to
>propound on evolution should read or shut up. If you aren't a biologist,
I was asking for a simple summation or citation of Gould's refutation about this very basic premise concerning reproductive fitness. I'd think the onus of shutting up would rest with those who evasively point to a long, complex, book in absence of offering a substantial counter-argument to the specific issue at hand.
If Miles wishes to use this point to lecture people on their common sense ignorance of evolutionary biology, he should be directing such comments at the various evolutionary biologists investigating the matter. Afterall, I was relaying their position in this discussion. I'm starting to wonder if from his vantage point Miles sees himself as one of the few people on the planet capable of understanding evolutionary theory.
Arash
>Then you don't understand the theory of evolution or basic genetics.
>A good place to start if you're interesting in getting a handle on this
>stuff: Gould, Structure of evolutionary theory. You'll see why your common
>sense argument is baseless.
>
>Miles