Yeah - but there is a real distinction between theory and hypothesis, which that guy is probably acutely aware of. (Cmd-F on one page of his site shows the word

Yeah - but there is a real distinction between theory and hypothesis, which that guy is probably acutely aware of. (Cmd-F on one page of his site shows the word hypothesis used 17 times). Reading a bit more, it seems like he's got expertise in a corner of science that could be relevant to what the article calls 'morphological change': "As the increasing apparent, magnificant, speed with which morphological change can occur continues to present itself for us to comprehend, the standard theory of random mutation followed by slow environmental selection, seems to stall. In my own opinion, female choice ... , but other mechanisms of mutation ... , now need to be considered anew. The role of hybridization in driving morphological change, as McCarthy has observed time and time again, particularly in his studies of avian species ... , may be the most powerful mechanism of all." Okay, so if the "speed of change" problem is a pretty wide-open question without a lot of firm answers, and if this guy has staked out a claim in the problem space ... my reaction is basically "good on ya'!" Go play god with interspecies breeding and come back in 5 years with an update. :)