I tried to show how Gould is or you will read is logically misworking.
It was not me who tried to compare Simpson and Wright on adaptation. Mayr simply TOLD Gould not to fret so much over "netural polymorhpisms."
Yes, obviously if you agree with Gould ( you have neither said this as far as I am aware nor tried to say how my point TO Gould's work is incorrect), you can try to sustain a writing that the "Origin" is about the origin of species etc. Gould set up a version of the history of biology in which one might THINK there is "no" contradiction there.
I was making the point that DIVERSIFICATION IS A PROBLEM FOR DARWINIANS and that this may be behind YEC criticism. The resolution of this need not show that there is a "logical" contradiction in Darwin's Origin. But if it WAS an INVALIDATION then there would be a rejection of the "Origin" no matter what the "logic" is as logic would only give the form and not the matter suffiently (hence my suspicion down below (in this post)among the mammals rather than between the vertbrate=invertebrate axis) under the dispute. Now if it was an "exception" the field is MUCH wider and as I indicated this would take more than a single post to detail.
If you do not contribute but return control to me I can not proceed (except insofar as I generally do here on EVC, which I do do in due time). Do you, Dr. Adequate hold that Gould's presentation of "species selection" is adequate for all biological parlance?
I was not trying to start a subthread track IN EVOLUTION showing this biology as this was a question about EVC, the YECish threads and issues about Creationism. I was really really really trying to point out to you that it is very very hard to be critical and claiming "inconsistancy" with ICR when the very same problem IS WITHIN current biology.
I would have taken it as a good riposte if you told me that I cant read Gould but you did not say this. Gould teamed up with Will Provine and wrote about confermation of his (Gould's version) hardening from Will WHEN Will was contracturally supposed to be mentoring me and my WRITTEN project on "downward causation" GOULD SUBSEQENTLY to this time realized was a better direction to develop his reading of an orign in "The Origin." Be careful to notice how Dobshanshy is treated differently by Gould and Provine and then see how Mayr "down the hall" responded.
That is working hard or hardly working ( I, unlike Gould and Provine do not think this issue "dissapears into the night" but if you just want to be obvious then like reading Gould my way or some way that Gould would want it to be read is simply to say nothing. Gould asked ME, what a green pepper was. I am not kidding. This, at the same table DS Wilson confidently argued for group selection. Gould wanted to extend the deme argument to these species but he could not eat off the same table. Croizat KNEW that and found out that the American Museum of Natural History failed to "ventilate"(Croizat word) the same. I am NOT confident that these ""things can be object- and Miltonic-wise said about species as Gould is. I notice that the objects and traits considered rather are part of WHAT GOULD calls taxonomy and thus he can WRITE(Look through his whole book on the Fox and the Pox) but that Croizat labeled rather more materially "taxogeny" and can not short of the composition being refined defined and so so fine be so organized. If we are going to have a post-generation of Gouldian biology that substitutes written words in English for actual biological body parts your question would only find a rethorical tone. I know this is not what you intend or so I like to think so, so again it seems you are only requesting a complete potentially Gouldian legacy destroying call from me from which is both not to be a part of this thread nor one that I am inclined to write unless I was paid to (try).
Propose a new thread on issues about Darwin's Origin and Gould's notion of that book and I will slowly and surely ablige, but not here, not now. If I find you are only going to use the internet to make objection to my posting without contributing to the work of reading, it is not going to be simple if you cant "simply" get it, I will have to bow and buy out. I already made the point I am going to make there, here, in this thread. If you want a skinner presentation understand that cats and dogs are not the same adaptive valleys, else go fish & I am not joking nor making making fun of you.
You seem to be asking me futher to respond in the British way that Gould spur Provine for but look, I got my biology from the very source that Gould had to look to Russia for. He did not need to, it was still in the USA. They are arugin about if there were two "phases" dating 1937 or 44 into the early 60s before I was born but it will always come back genetically to if tiatothere's used their horns with some kind of calculus behind it's genes. That was from the 30s. The writing will never get out of this except by failure of the coming generation to be informed.
It really was that easy. Best in the best of all worlds. Brad.
You said in mess 177
quote:
So their website claims both that diversification of species exists and is a problem for Darwinism (very funny, I'm not surprised they don't supply any reasoning) and that "Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study."
So I still do not understand why you are NECESSARILY moving beyond your dual italics to the phrasing from the conjunction...
All I did was start one down a path where there IS REASONING that diversification and problems for Darwinism.
You quoted THEM as saying "neither has anyone else" but then do you understand this, what I started here, or are you hooked on moving backward through your own reasoning from ICR's "a new species orginating." If it was ICR's lets see in this thread the context printed else you are trying to spilt hairs with me that are legs.
™ Version 4.2
