Percy,
You wrote:"The goal of this thread is to reach a consensus on the definition of the Modern Synthesis, not to assess the arguments in the other thread. Success in this thread is defined as arguing successfully with evidence for one's preferred definition of the Modern Synthesis.
I don't know if it helps, but you get an A+ when it comes to arguing for your point of view. You're outstanding in that respect. But you get an F- when it comes to supporting that view with actual evidence."
You still are dodging the real argument. You are clearly avoiding the fact that Larry appears to have changed his argument over time. If he had presented the argument that he is presenting now, most of our past threads of debate would have been avoided. You may think you are being objective, but because you agree with him. I don't think you are capable of evaluating my point.
I really can't put myself in your shoes. I think your just being human. I can't be so sure that I would not use the same tack if I was you. I hope that I wouldn't. But who knows.
Now, Let's not continue this straw man argument over the definition of Modern Synthesis. Afterall, the whole argument is only based on the fact that your side has flip flopped in its definition of the Modern Synthesis. Let's face it. You have been trying to place me in the straw man that the Modern Synthesis has only one meaning. I never made this argument. I even called this stance a predictable straw man, before your side even began to do it. And all I have been really arguing is that I know that the term is often used and define contradictory an ambiguist ways. But because of this fact, I defined my usage of the term, Before I even began the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument. Your side did not at that time present this brand new argument your trying to slip in about the definition of the Modern Synthesis. And in fact, made clear indications that you did not define the term differently. Because my argument is not the aforementioned straw man. My evidence does not have to consist of multiple ways that individuals define Modern Synthesis, but only the way that your side and me mutually agreed to define the term in our actual debate.
Now, I am perfectly happy to avoid the entire issue by using the terms Original synthesis for the original usage of the term Modern Synthesis(or the way that I had defined it and your side originally agreed with) and Theory of Evolution(referring to the way that your side is now redefining the Modern Synthesis).
Do you see the point that if Modern Synthesis was defined the way that your side currently is now, their is absolutely no reason to use the term Modern Synthesis? You might as well say ToE. The names are interchangeable.
But I am ready to move on.