Todd's position falsified???
- David, you wrote:
> Don't try to switch to your favoriteI'm glad you said that and hope you will return the favor if I don't
> candy stick. I have no interest at
> all in discussing Maury with you.
> Get off it.
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 argumentSee, now that's what the above comment from me is meant to address.
> 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.
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 byI have tried to get you to address the possible "why" of Patterson's
> 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?
"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 outI mentioned that "tree" thingy before and how Patterson may have felt
> the whole SUPPOSED evolutionary
> phylogenetic tree to resolve this
about it in a "transformed cladistic" way. I can't tell you've
Then you wrote:
> (T)his comes pretty close to aWell, I guess that's the problem with your public relations. I see your
> falsification of the theory to ME.
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.