here is something related:
It’s related in that it’s another attempt by Ruben to change phylogeny without actually doing any phylogenetics. He (and some of his students) did a bunch of these papers, none of which convinced scientists, and for good reasons.
The article also refers to a really bad attempt at a phylogenetic analyisis, James & Pourtless 2010, which was uniformly rejected by dinosaur systematists.
Just so you know.
This leads immediately to two damning conclusions:
-
You didn’t search very well. I found this when I wasn’t looking for the full article.
-
You quote from articles you haven’t read without indicating the quotes come from a secondary source.
The latter means that any quotes you provide can be ignored. Because you’re copying quotes from creationist websites without confirming them in the original text, you (i) can’t be sure they aren’t taken out of context, and (ii) can’t even be sure they’re accurate. There are a lot of misquotes and quote mines circulating in creationist articles - from experience, about half of all such quotes are out of context (including this one), about a quarter differ from the original text, and about 5% are completely fictional.
If you had bothered to read Gould’s essay before ‘quoting’ from it. you’d know that you’re wrong on two counts: PE does not require rapid bursts of increased complexity, and does not require saltations. You have no business telling some-one else to get better sources while attempting to describe the contents of something you haven’t read.
The only response necessary to these and any other quotes you produce in future is: “Please confirm this quote is accurate and representative of the author’s views”.
3 Likes
What I was searching for was the article called Evolution’s Erratic Pace. And so far I’ve still never found a complete copy of that essay online. @T.j_Runyon was kind enough to let me know that this essay had been republished as a chapter in Panda’s Thumb, so I will be reading it from there.
How did you fail to find that out for yourself? As I was edited to, you didn’t search very well.
Also, did you find this?
I note you ignored my second point, that you have been ‘quoting’ from articles you haven’t read, and therefore anything you ‘quote’ in future can be rejected immediately. .