Joined: Nov. 2012
I couldn't get the tinyurl to open for me but google knows all, tells all. Linked me directly to the sciencemag article.
It's a well-written review, and since Marshall is actually cited by Meyer - in the infamous 15-page ellipsis - I enjoyed hearing that Marshall was not biased against Meyer by Meyer's bad manners:
|I like to read the arguments of those who hold fundamentally different views from my own in the hope of discovering weaknesses in my thinking. And so even after reading the flawed first part of his book, I dared hope that Meyer might point the way to fundamental problems in the way we paleontologists think about the Cambrian explosion. |
However, my hope soon dissipated into disappointment. His case against current scientific explanations of the relatively rapid appearance of the animal phyla rests on the claim that the origin of new animal body plans requires vast amounts of novel genetic information coupled with the unsubstantiated assertion that this new genetic information must include many new protein folds †
Looks like Meyer has failed yet again to win over a neutral scientific observer, athough hundreds of his BFFs on Amazon swear he's changed their whole lives with his wonderful book :p