An Example of a Substantive, Non-Trivial Dispute Among Evolutionary Theorists

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

READ THE BLOODY ARTICLE, and then you’ll know. Or is even a one-page article too long for your anti-book patience?

You haven’t read the ARTICLE. The document to which you referred was a LETTER. There was a second LETTER, linked from on the page with the first.

You haven’t even bothered to read the article, nor have you bothered to read the second letter, correct?

The second letter makes the point that the real scientists here have been making in spades.

@Eddie

Chris denied by implication that such disagreements existed.

Amazing. You clearly know that your claim about Chris is false, because you clearly know the difference between implication and inference:

@Eddie

It’s common for people to confuse “imply” and “infer”, too, but that doesn’t make their usage correct.