We were having an adult convetsation until you busted in and derailed the topic.
I must have missed that part. Any derailment lay in the assertions you made that are contradicted by the evidence.
Darwinism is always appropiate when your talking natural selection, it was the theory that launched him into the academic stratosphere.
Darwinism is appropriate if you are referring to the basic concept of natural selection and sexual selection identified, investigated and demonstrated by Darwin and independently recognised by Wallace. It is less appropriate to describe the theory that has evolved from those early insights.
Darwin was well into the academic stratosphere before publishing
On the Origin of Species. His meticulous field work on the Beagle, the diverse collection of flora and fauna he acquired during that voyage, the extensive geological observations made on it that offered confirmation of Lyell's uniformitarian position and included gems such as the perceptive recognition of the origin of coral islands, all captured in publications after his return, assured him of a sound reputation as a biologist and an outstanding reputation as a geologist. His subsequent work on barnacles led to a medal from the Royal Society and secured his reputation in the top ranks of biology. Only a handful of his acquaintances, such as Hooker and Lyle, were aware of his developing thoughts on evolution and yet he was already in that "academic stratosphere" you mention. Had he never published or developed his thoughts on evolution he would still be ranked among the greatest of Victorian scientists. It seems your knowledge of the man is lacking in detail.
Or it is a central theme in the develement of eugenetics (sic) through Galton and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Irrelevant unless you are singing from the Creationist hymn book that falsely blames Darwin's theory for producing Hitler, in which case the sentence is irrelevant and distasteful.
You dont seem to have a clue about the Modern Synthesis developed at Harvard by Ernst Mayr or the reveberating thunder of atritious Darwinian culture tyrany during the culture war that produced the likes of you.
Just as you seem to be unaware that the author of the Modern Synthesis was not Mayr. There was no single author.
There was a need, by the 1930s, to blend (or synthesise) the genetics of Mendel, resurrected by de Vries, Correns and Tschermak at the turn of the century, the work on population genetics by the likes of Haldane and Sewall Wright and the remnants of Darwinian thinking. Arguably first into the fray was Dobzhansky, closely followed by Mayr, then by G.G. Simpson.
Regarding your closing clauses - "the reveberating thunder of atritious Darwinian culture tyrany during the culture war that produced the likes of you" - normally when words are concatenated in a phrase, clause or sentence it helps if they make sense.
ts called a unified theory sport, the RCC ruled western Europe for a thousand years with one called Aristolean Scholasticsism. It was a dialectical synthesis of Aristotle, Plato and Catholiicism. The modern synthesis is Darwinian naturalism and Mendelian Genetics. But you'll never bother learning any of that, why learn something when you can convince yourself you know everything by putting on these pedatic performances for an audiance that has left the theator.
I have learned all that and much more besides. Your own error strewn take on the matter suggests your are less knowledgeable on the topic than you imagine.
Classic argument from credulity from someone who has none. You dont even reference the work of your cherished secular clerics as you pretend to defend.
1. Classic argument from direct observation and analysis of the evidence.
2. Since the work of my "cherished secular clerics" runs to hundreds of thousands of research papers referencing them would be impractical and hardly relevant to my assertion.
3. Why do you think I would be pretending to defend them? Did your train of thought leave the station without you?
Yes, pitiful anger is hardly a substitute for substantive reason, your like the poster child. You go straight to that ad hominem fallacy and abandon any hope of a rational or evidential logic.
"straight to". For months and years I've read the nonsense you post. For months and years I've offered reasons why you were mistaken in your interpretation of the facts. For months and years I've offered alternative arguments. For months and years you have ignored all of this, responding with fatuous content. Then you pull out of the ether a claim of an ad hominem attack when none has occurred. I have no meaningful knowledge of you, your personality, your education, your political persuasion, or anything else that would provide grounds for an ad hominem attack. I attack the nonsense you post for being poor sicence, misinterpreted science, corrupted science, etc. If you don't like having your posts critiqued for espousing nonsense, then don't post nonsense.
You then patter on with some vague remarks that contain more typos than sense. What I can glean from it is that I seem to have hit a soft spot in your psyche and caused you some pain. I would probably regret that, were it not that it offers some hope you might, in the still of the night, in the theator (sic) of your mind, reconsider the egregious conclusions you have reached, for you can do so without for one moment abandoning your faith. I'm not expecting much of a result, as there is a lot of stony ground around, but once you've calmed down you could give it a go. You would have my full support in that.
