Another CTD attempt to hide from reality.

Quote
I dispute the presumption that RAZD is at present a trustworthy authority on either.
Of course you do, you are force to by cognitive dissonance. Otherwise you would have deal with the message instead of attacking the messanger. That is also why you say absurd things like:

Quote
RAZD employs it to the letter, presenting the words of his prophet as if they contain truth:
When I have said that Dawkins is too anti-theist for my taste. You are desperate to keep from dealing with the facts, the evidence, the reality that shows you are wrong.

The evidence doesn't allow you to refute my argument, therefore the only avenue you have left is to attack me personally.

Quote
I avoided no such thing. I exposed the truth by quoting Gould himself, and other sources.
But not Gould talking about PE. You take other quotes out of context and apply them to PE when Gould is on record about just this kind of misrepresentation of PE.

Quote
I've seen that Gould changed his story.
But not about what PE involves and what it does NOT involve.

Quote
You realize this includes about half of the evolutionists who've evaluated PE, don't you?
And this refutes the argument how? Gould himself demonstrated that many evolutionists got it wrong early on as well. The difference is that this misunderstanding has been corrected in the science field while it is being repeated ad absurdum by creationists.

The fact remains that PE deals with speciation, that the different species are necessarily of a genus level relationship: very similar, but noticeably different. The difference would be within the range of variation we see in dogs compared to wolves.

It does not deal with sudden large change of the reptile to mammal kind, for if a mammal replaced a reptile within the space of generations, descent would not be considered, PE or no PE. It would be regarded as one more example of an animal invading and taking over the habitat of another unrelated animal. You obviously do understand this when you say:

Quote
PE doesn't even require macromutations, as anyone following the evidence already presented already knows. PE welcomes macromutations, but does not (in its present form, at least) need them.
Without macromutations PE can only be speciation by normal evolution, it could never involve a reptile suddenly becoming a mammal.

For PE (or evolutionary biology) to "welcome" macromutations, it would first have to be shown that macromutations are possible and actually occur. And without macromutations being a valid possibility, we are necessarily left with normal evolution of one species from another. The kind of speciation that has been observed.

The gaps in the fossil record that are the evidenciary basis for the PE theory, the reason for the theory, are between species.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
... by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
- to learn - to think - to live - to laugh
... to share.