GR>I agree, but so far I know of no counter examples at all. But until more
GR>experiments are performed one must be careful and cautious. In what
GR>fashion is this a subtle qualifer? It looks pretty obvious to me.
Then my question is why use the examples that you posted at all? I was
not the one to assert the value of these conclusions in developing my
reponses. In fact I believe that I offered several alternative
interpretations that may have just as much value, depending upon one's
perspective, as your original post.
GR>Are "spectacular increace" and "profusion" some sort of code words for "I
GR>have an agenda? I don't understand what it is you are saying.
I am saying that Smith's account appears more complete. The writers of
your original post left out the part about the increase in species
diversity immediately after the removal of the rabbits, which by the
way, would not confirm their hypothesis.
GR>>The writer's agenda was to prove the stated hypothesis... i.e. that
GR>>predators increased the number of species that can live in a habitat. I
GR>>did not state or imply that their agenda was to prove evolution.
GR>>
GR>So, what is wrong with that agenda?
Nothing. I just don't think that the report accomplished the point they
were trying to make. But you initially posted that they did not have an
agenda...
GR>Wait a minute. Cox and Moore were not engaging in an agenda, especially an
>agenda to prove evolution or the goodness of pedation. They were merely
>reporting an experiment. We should not use such oppugnatum ad hominems to
>besmirch the motives of those with whom we disagree.
then...
GR>So, what is wrong with that agenda? Your current agenda is to prove that
>some author had an agenda. Everybody has agendas. I have an agenda; you
>have an agenda; all God's chillin's have agendas. There is nothing new in
>this. Their agenda is not perverse, deceptive or overriding of their
>objective or professional opinion.
I guess you agree that they had an agenda, but this is just getting
argumentative and not really productive, brother.
GR>This is quite similar to Morris' statement:
Thanks, I hadn't seen that one,
and also thanks for the further comments. Maybe we can pick up on this
after I return in August!
Paul
to: IN:GRMorton@gnn.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu