Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Matt Silberstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In talk.origins  I read this message from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Moran):
> 
> >On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:13:07 +0000 (UTC), 
> >Lenny Flank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> david ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
> >> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Tracy Hamilton wrote:
> >>> david ford:
> >>> 
> >>> > > Eldredge, Niles.  July 1980.  "An Extravagance of Species"
> >>> > > _Natural History_, 47-51.  Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
> >>> >
> >>> > I agree that 1980 was a good time to re-examine the role of natural
> >>> > selection.  What do *you* think the outcome was, since this has been
> >>> > done?
> >>> >
> >>> > Please use your own words, as we have seen no evidence of any
> >>> > understanding on your part.
> >>> 
> >>> Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
> >>> considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection 
> >>> have concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how 
> >>> the biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 
> >>> billion year existence, and have concluded that the theory does not 
> >>> find confirmation in the fossil record, particularly at those 
> >>> locations in the fossil record where we have particularly good and 
> >>> numerous specimens.
> >> 
> >> Horse shit.
> >> 
> >> Name five degreed biologists who reject this.  
> >
> >I think the *majority* of evolutionary biologists would agree that the
> >theory of natural selection is not sufficient to account for the history
> >of life.
> >
> >One might quibble with the exact wording of David Ford's statement
> >but it's essentially correct. His problem (and yours too, apparently)
> >is that he doesn't know that modern evolutionary theory includes
> >much more than just natural selection.
> 
> I would do more than quibble, it is ambiguous at best. Larry, do
> you think that the fossil records does or does not confirm
> Natural Selection? If it does not, should it? 

Read Gould's 1343 pages, and all will be revealed. The answer is:
Yes and No. :-)