I didn’t say a word about either Newman or the two Wagners, and I didn’t direct my comments in their direction at all which is why you’re resorting to desperate measures such as making (false), suggestions about what I was “implying” about them.
I directed my comments to your established pattern of making your own claims about the literature, while bungling it incompetently, and being repeatedly corrected by people who actually know what they are talking about.
I left it to other people to correct your interpretation and representation of them, which they did more than once. Your response was to tell them they were wrong (!).
You didn’t have to. It clear to anyone who reads English that I was offering them as examples of theorists who had some disagreements with other theorists. By refusing to address their thought, or even show any curiosity about their thought, you treated my mention of them as irrelevant to my point to Chris, when in fact it was central to my point to Chris. You rejected them as legitimate examples of “theorists who differ” by implication. Your implicit rejection was based either on reading them, or not. I suspect the latter, based on the fact that all your discussions of evolutionary theory for the past few years have never shown even an inkling of awareness of their lines of thought. But you can correct me if I’m wrong. Tell me what you’ve read of them, that warrants your dismissing them as good examples to give to Chris. (What you’ve read, not what others here have read, since the charge of non-reading we are discussing is against you, not the others.)
There are so many chicken or egg paradoxes in biology! For example, who came first, ATP or ATP synthase? But chicken or egg paradoxes are paradoxes only in a naturalistic framework that dissipate in an ID framework.
When you claim that I cast aspersions on them, then yeah you need to provide evidence that I actually did it. Remember, your original charge was “criticizing book and authors you haven’t read”. Your story on this has changed several times since.
First it became “implicitly criticized”.
Then it became “treat active, competent, respected evolutionary theorists as if their views were negligible garbage”.
I don’t think you can even keep track of your own fantasies, let alone provide evidence for them.
So what? It is clear to anyone who reads English that I said nothing about them, even by implication, and did not disparage them at all. It is clear to anyone who reads English that you are simply making this up.
What juvenile nonsense. I didn’t mention them because they were literally not what I was talking about. You really are desperate. Completely unable to find any evidence for your claim that I disparaged them, you point to my lack of mention of them, and claim that this constitutes dismissing them as “bona fide evolutionary theorists”.
Why do you persist with this pattern of behavior? It’s because you can’t discuss the science. As @Mercer told you, “your approach to scholarship is laughably shallow”. You couldn’t even tell the difference between a comment an an article, and you didn’t even realise you hadn’t actually read the article you were pontificating on.