@layman,
Quote:
I think you may have it backwards, Farmer. What you are calling "their literature," as it pertains to these kinds of things, does not generally "come from" them. It comes from the scientific literature, and is merely "used" by them
Not so. They may quote 90% and change thelast 10, and then they make up ther own conclusionary statements. Thats where the "a dog is still a dog " was gathered by you. Also "how do fossils show adaptation" i another very popular conclusionary statement.
Im not in any mood to hunt and gather and display your several other "borrowed blather"
You must be more careful when you use statements you feel are innocent enough, theyve all been used several hundreds of times before.
Scientists who inadvertantly 'feed" lines to the quote mined "literature" are similarly worthy of contempt. Then, on toppa that, we hve several real scientists who try just being plain disrespectful to worldviews with which they disagree. These folks put themselves in a counter batch similar to the religious. This confuses the public and leaves casual readers like you clueless thinking there is a big war of attrition going on.
It was the paleontologists (totally unawash in any genomics, who resurrected "genetic drift as a small population phenom, hile the no Darwinists were poo pooing it as a mathematical anomaly..
In fact, it was one of Gould's grad students who basically cast doubt on Punctuated equilibrium based upon Gould and Eldredge's own field plots. The data showed that end member populations in lrger basins and adjoining shallow marine environments gave rise to apparently "PE'd" populations. Where Gould saw separations in time, the grad student (an others) saw spatial separation .
Still, no bioscience war or anyone commiting Sepukku over new data and evidence.
