Page v. Borger

Well since he's praising Borger's integrity I suppose Borger must have admitted that he has utterly failed to disprove neo-Darwinian theory, and that his claim to have done so was based on a misunderstanding which he has been stubbornly clinging to for the past few months.I would really like to see that post. But if Borger is still denying a rather obvious truth then I have to say that his integrity is something not in evidence.

It depends on the issue. If the question is "is Peter Borger a crank" then the answer is rather clear. Given his continued misunderstanding of the concept of "random" mutations in evolutionary theory - a misunderstanding that has been pointed out on a number of occasions and never adequately addressed, and given tat this misunderstanding is the basis for his major argument against evolutionary theory the answer is a clear "yes".See my posts in the _Darwin in the Genome_ topic (Book Nook, IIRC) for more.

Dr. Caporale agreed with my assessment. It appears that you are the one who has failed to read the book correctly. Not that I think that you have read it at all.

Oh I am so sorry that the "evo-logic" idea that the author of a book is likely to have a better understanding of its contents is beyond your intellectual capabilities.And no you can't prove evolution false. Your "proof" shows that you do not understand the basics of evolutionary theory and that you prefer to repeat a falsehood than deal with the truth.Having read the book I am sure you can find a few quotes to mine, but you will not find anything substantial requiring a major revision of neo-Darwinian theory. Although you will probably claim to have found such regardless of the truth.