Well CTD it seems we have reached the stage of talking past each other. You don't want to face the evidence of reality, and I tire of your games of multiple distraction and volumes of misinformation, complete with delusions of persecution and deception.
I have not "talked past" anything you said about HY. I directly took on what you said about "large", although you hadn't come even close to proving HY guilty.
I made my reason clear: in order to demonstrate your own guilt. You assist me by responding in this manner.
Here's the situation: RAZD believes he has lured me into a trap.
Nope. Just that you need to look at the information and not just cherry pick what suits you.
Which is why you focus on
one Gould quote? Your defense consists of hoping his fellow evolutionist misquoted him
in this single instance. You yourself quote the very same person you'd say is unreliable in your attempt to demonstrate Gould uses "large" in a manner different to that of other parties.
I'll bold your attempt to adjust the issue, while we're at it.
Of course we can envisage many similar possibilities like this -- yey this still does not mean that Gould says PE necessarily involves macromutation saltation or even rely on it, while the voluminous evidence from other articles clearly states in Gould's first hand words that PE does not involve macromutations.
You now confess that Gould was talking about macromutation. This eliminates your "evidence" that he uses "large" in a different manner. Who wouldn't call a large mutation a large mutation? And who, aside from yourself, would call a macromutation "macroevolution"?
Gould may or may not have said macromutational saltation was
necessary. He did maintain it was
fullycompatible & indicated PE would include it if it could be shown to occur.
In spite of your ability to understand that macromutation and macroevolution aren't synonymous, you repeat your attempt to confuse others on this point:
Everything surrounding RAZD's cherry-picked quote shows how silly it was. Everything!
But he will maintain that Gould doesn't mean "large" when he says "large".
Which is also why I gave two examples of what Gould meant by "large", nor does their change in position on Elena et al., mean they have changed their mind about what "large" means.
Curiously, I can still read his work and see what he means by large: color variations in caterpillars and size changes in single cell organisms are by Gould's usage "large" and you cannot force them to mean what you want it to.
This type of logical false thinking and misrepresentation of the evidence is so typical of CTD's whole argument process that it really become tedious tracking down all the errors of misrepresentation, misreading and misinformation.
See what I mean?
What it boils down to is that CTD's arguments are composed of hot air, wishful thinking, delusions of persecution or conspiracy and moving smiley icons. I'm not sure which is more compelling as evidence of a lack of argument.
You wish. But then your arguments continue to consist of wishes, imagination, and the employment of assertions and conclusions as "evidence".
Volumnious argument that is not founded on a shred of real evidence is like shinola from used-car salesmen, totally untrustworthy.
Thanks for pointing this out. I hope LindaLou & Linear will pick up on this now that one of their own has said it.
That Harum Yahya claimed -- that PE as proposed by Gould and Eldridge required macroevolution of large and sudden change and not regular evoluiton has been demonstrated to be a false claim.
This is not the same as your original accusation, and even this has not been demonstrated.
You have demonstrated a desire to cherry-pick quotes from a source you wish us to consider unreliable, and to confuse us by equating macromutation with macroevolution. Do you claim HY, or anyone else wouldn't call macromutations "large". If so, let's have some evidence.
