erribly 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