Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Todd's position falsified???

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... I m glad you said that and hope you will return the favor if I don t press you for a discussion of those matters, regardless of passing comments which I
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      David, you wrote:

      > Don't try to switch to your favorite
      > candy stick. I have no interest at
      > all in discussing Maury with you.

      > Get off it.

      I'm glad you said that and hope you will return the favor if I don't
      press you for a discussion of those matters, regardless of passing
      comments which I might make as I deem appropriate.

      Then you say, David:

      > And stop pretending that this argument
      > is far too complicated to understand or
      > obligate you to grapple with it. You can
      > understand it. If you are going to roll
      > over and play dead like that when you
      > don't have anything you know to say,
      > then I am wasting my time here.

      See, now that's what the above comment from me is meant to address.
      Don't be pushing me
      to switch to your candy sticks! We can talk of things of mutual
      interest, or not talk if our interests are not mutual. For the heavy
      lifting, I encourage you and your efforts with Todd, and maybe Gene (not
      Lipscomb; I think I goofed in my earlier reference to him).

      You wrote, David:

      > This argument is NOT answered by
      > a chicken being closer to a croc than
      > a viper is. I won't let you pretend that's
      > all it is. Don't you think if that were it,
      > Patterson would not have said what
      > he did?

      I have tried to get you to address the possible "why" of Patterson's
      "strange sayings" (what your source is supposed to have said). I can't
      tell that you have done that. I figure it didn't have so much to do
      with evolution at all as it did his "transformed cladism" and the debate
      as to how systematics should be done. I figure Patterson was real
      wrapped up in that when he made his infamous speech.

      Then you wrote:

      > One has to resort to tossing out
      > the whole SUPPOSED evolutionary
      > phylogenetic tree to resolve this
      > problem.

      I mentioned that "tree" thingy before and how Patterson may have felt
      about it in a "transformed cladistic" way. I can't tell you've
      considered that.

      Then you wrote:

      > (T)his comes pretty close to a
      > falsification of the theory to ME.

      Well, I guess that's the problem with your public relations. I see your
      opinion on the matter, but I figure you are just wrong in your opinion
      and the scientific community isn't responding to your opinion about
      that. About all I see in the whole affair is that a prediction has been
      falsified, and a thousand predictions may be falsified without
      deminishing the fact/theory of a thing. About all I see, like on your
      "foot fetish" is that there are still quite a few questions to be
      answered when it comes to our investigation about the world around us.
      Seems not unlike Michael's approach in seeming to deny the evidence of
      sorts because science can be less than exact at times.

      You make a rather bold assertion, David, when you write:

      > It disproves what Todd believes in.

      I'll be interested in hearing from Todd on that. I would venture to say
      you, David, have "misinterpreted" Todd's position on such things.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.