ll, but more like plants or fungi. tinctions bet and animal are not als life fixed to a single spot and ing , and yet is ananimal. “o ts and animalsey. “t any rule t says you o bedemonstrably one or ther.”
Nor is it agreed t tral to anytoday (except possibly some jellyfisies see t, a stab at complexity t didn’t take, possibly because tcompeted by ticated animals of theCambrian period.
“today,” Fortey ten. “t tointerpret as any kind of ancestors of o follow.”
t ultimately t terribly important to t of lifeon Earties believe t termination at t all tures (except tain jellyfiso move on to t parted ’s in any case.
As for t at once people began to questionterpretations and, in particular, Gould’s interpretation of terpretations. “From t tists t Steve Gould ed, s delivery,” Fortey e in Life. tis putting it mildly.
“If only Stepes!” barked telegrap tdoerarytour-de-force,” but accused Gould of engaging in a “grandiloquent and near-disingenuous”
misrepresentation of ts by suggesting t tunned tological community. “t tacking—t evolution marcoward a pinnacle suc been believed for 50 years,” Dawkinsfumed.
And yet t ly to which many general reviewers were drawn.
One, ing in times Book Revie as a result ofGould’s book scientists “ some preconceptions t texamined for generations. tantly or entically, accepting t of nature as a product of orderly development.”
But t directed at Gould arose from t many of aken or carelessly inflated. riting in tion, DatackedGould’s assertions t “evolution in t kind of process fromtoday” and expressed exasperation at Gould’s repeated suggestions t “tionary ‘experiment,’ evolutionary ‘trial and error,’ evolutionary ‘false starts.’ .
. . It ile time al body plans’ ed.
Noion just tinkers new species!”
Noting en t there are no new body plans—is picked up, Dawkins says:
“It is as t an oak tree and remarked, it stranget no major neo be at twig level.’ ”
“It r