[gomaaa]

Right! Right! That's how it works! You generate a theoretical framework to explain the mechanisms that produce the factual evidence the world gives you. That's science. Physics, chemistry, biology, whatever, we wll work like that! Evolution is the best theoretical framework available to explain things like the fossil and the weed. It has the potential to be falisified, in which case we would try to find another framework that could stand more difficult tests. So far it's performed admirably. That's what Gould was saying.

[AndrewC]

That's what Gould was saying.

And what some say is that the facts do not support that theory. Archeopteryx is older that any purported predecessor, and the Oxford ragwort is itself a hybrid as is the Senecio. Here is what Dr. James Shapiro has to say.

Yaakov
Hi James, It seems to me that what you are saying throws out Darwinian(or NeoDarwinian) theory of evolution as the "major" means of evolution of life on Earth and now this 21st century evolution sees a much more elegant and orgerly mechanism to induce a guided development of life when needed. Do I understand your propositions correctly

...

James Shapiro
Yaakov, you get the message. Evolution, yes, Randomness and gradualism, only in the fine-tuning after the heavy lifting has been done.