quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
TOFF, lets get this straight. I do remember when evos thought that creationist were using the Macro thing as a strategy and that is how it was heard to me but largely because the channel of creationism was not as broad as it is today. But if this is taking sides then you should understand when I tried to make sense of Lerner's concept of genetic homeostatis applied in a book on chickens that seems to have some significance to understand a crossed valley of Mayr with dispute about an agreement between Wright and Fisher that surfaced later then sooner I notice not any of this history but that Lerner was citing Dobshanky about the term "MESO" evolution inbetween what is accused of creationists these days about the difference. I brought this out on Taxacom to no yearly ear so if then, the charge does go both ways. For if any creationism ground were gained in this "tactic" evolutionists would not retreat to Croizat's citing Darlinton of boas on Round Island but to so Dobshanksy that either was the risk Lewonitn knew or something Sturtevant told the DOb. We need to learn more about how to lessent the name calling on C/E disscusion boards and try harder to show where words end and numbers begin.
I'm sorry, but I don't begin to understand what you're trying to say here. Could you reformat your post, including some punctuation, and try to be a little clearer? I can't even tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing.
Except that there's one bit of your post that I think I understand - so I'll comment on that. 'Macro' evolution exists only as an 'excuse' for creationists. It is a scientifically meaningless term, invented by creationists when even they could no longer ignore the evidence of what they termed 'micro' evolution. There is no qualitative difference between the two; even the names are red herrings invented by creationists. To a scientist (and evolution is a science, after all), they are meaningless terms.
[This message has been edited by toff, 02-20-2002]
™ Version 4.2
