Forum: Darwnist Ideology

Tell you what - we'll let whomever bothers to read the various references make the determination on who's right and who's wrong, shall we?

Err, no. Raup's contention is that the study of extinction isn't well developed in relation to the way that (he claims) extinction is a driving force in evolution. I agree he's never said the subject is well-developed - that would be a tad inconsistent, don't you think? Of course, I completely disagree with him on the importance of extinction in that context. It's a factor in some instances of evolution, and has been a major factor in the great re-orderings of life that took place at least 5 times in history. However, to get from there to Raup's contention that extinction is a MAJOR cause of evolution is stretching it. Of course, you'd know that having read his book and all the other materials available on the subject, right? Especially the ones Mammuthus and I've referenced for you? Ya know, primary literature?BTW, since you're so familiar with Raup's work, what's your take on the Nemesis Hypothesis?

Sad, isn't it? Extinction is a really interesting topic. Even Raup's book that Syamasu claimed to have read - and apparently didn't - is worth a thread all on its own.Basically, IMO, any thread started by Sy ends its useful life around the third or fourth post. Kill it for all of me...

Man, are you inconsistent or what? This is PRECISELY what I suggested back in post 190 on this thread. You responded that leaving it up to the peanut gallery was unacceptable. Now you ask the same question I did over 40 posts ago? Gaaakh, it's impossible to discuss anything with you, you know that? Read the books and papers and then get back to me.On another note, I notice your friend Nando from Nganjuk has the same style and inability to write coherent sentences as you do - you guys really have it in for Dawkins, don't you? (See this amazon.com review of Dawkin's "Extended Phenotype". Or this one on "Blind Watchmaker"). Is this a major coffee-house topic of conversation in Nganjuk? I mean, you both wrote almost identical reviews of Watchmaker, f'rinstance.

A joke? Why the hell did you ask for references, and then refuse to read them? If you think that reading is too much work, then why ask for them in the first place? As far as "not containing enough information...", this is your evaluation based on, ummm, not actually reading them? Do you have clairvoyant powers or something that allows you to absorb the contents of a book without reading it? Impressive. Ahh. Thanks for the explanation. I was unaware of the equivalency Nando = Syamasu. I actually thought that it WAS two different people when I stumbled across the reviews (linked by Nganjuk, not reviewer name). I was wondering if you guys got together and argued about Dawkins and Darwin over coffee. I guess, in a way, you do.