Replies

An aside, to all: Much of this thread was devoted to picking on Darwin and a few of his comments. You want to battle evolution? Better start reading Johanson and White and the geneticists. Brush up on geology and radiometric dating too. Darwin hasn't had a new idea in a century, so if you are battling his comments you are a century behind.

The article was about the fossil record and Darwin. That's why we are "picking" on Darwin.

My interest isn't in evolution per se. But the history of science and how science advances. Not exactly free from human folly and ego.

Have you read:

My interest isn't in evolution per se. But the history of science and how science advances. Not exactly free from human folly and ego. Have you read:

Sure; it was one of many texts required in grad school. I am very familiar with the theory, and agree with virtually all of it.

The theory boils down to: change comes slowly in science, and students pick up the new ideas quicker then elderly professors. When a certain critical mass is reached, the old paradigm is overturned and the new begins.

What is the new paradigm in evolution that this should be relevant?

PE, as I noted in a previous post, is an old idea, going back to Darwin.

Genetics was discovered and didn't change the overall theory, though it added some really nice details.

Dating has continued to improve, and there are more and more fossils.

So where is the sea-change in evolution that Kuhn would see as a paradigm shift?