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

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

Thanks. I got it!

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

Evograd already explained the gist of it to you.

I was seeing if you understood the gist of it and could explain it.

@Eddie

Why do you want my discussion of the science – which would be secondhand – when you can get it from the horse’s mouth?

To see if you understand it, obviously.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

To see if you understand it, obviously.

So your purpose is to test me. Forget it. I’m not interested in being tested by a purported expert on evolution who is so out of touch with the past ten years of discussion that this is first time he has heard of the work of Erwin, Valentine, the Wagners, etc. on animal body plans and origins of new biological form. Step out of your bacteria lab once in while and read some stuff that isn’t your usual fare. You badly need broadening.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

So your purpose is to test me. Forget it. I’m not interested in being tested by a purported expert on evolution who is so out of touch with the past ten years of discussion that this is first time he has heard of the work of Erwin, Valentine, the Wagners, etc. on animal body plans and origins of new biological form. Step out of your bacteria lab once in while and read some stuff that isn’t your usual fare. You badly need broadening

In other words, you don’t understand the science.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

So your purpose is to test me.

His purpose is to see if you understand the science. Clearly you do not understand the science.

@Eddie

Forget it. I’m not interested in being tested by a purported expert on evolution who is so out of touch with the past ten years of discussion that this is first time he has heard of the work of Erwin, Valentine, the Wagners, etc. on animal body plans and origins of new biological form. Step out of your bacteria lab once in while and read some stuff that isn’t your usual fare. You badly need broadening.

As usual, when you are caught out by the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you simply insult the person who caught you out, in order to change the subject. You also cast aspersions on their credentials, despite the fact that they are far more qualified than you, and despite the fact that unlike you they actually understand the topic under discussion.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

A petty, uncooperative approach to responding to other human beings. A gentleman would have simply provided the link when asked.

A gentleman would not have falsely accused me of cowardly hiding behind a pseudonym while hiding behind a pseudonym himself.

Now that I’m retired, I just ask friends or former students. May I infer that you have neither of those sources?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

A gentleman would not have

Burke accused me a while back of employing the tu quoque fallacy. I wonder if he will jump in here and note that you are doing it now. Somehow I doubt it.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I think points have been mad, ad naseum, repetitively all around. This discussion is closing.