====
If I were in charge of this board, I would kick people like you and Arneson off
====

Gee, that sure is a way to prove your point convincingly. Just get rid of the opponents altogether.

(or did i take that quote out of context?)

This is one of the most common quotemines of Gould that there is. I read that essay when it was published, and have had to open my well-worn copy of "The Panda's Thumb" more than a few times. Gould's essay was for popular consumption with the purpose of educating the general public. It is more than a stretch to try to claim Gould's text disproves evolution. One should probably read the essay and at least the chapter from "The Origin of Species" before commenting on them. If you have read both and still think it supports your position, I would suggest a more careful second reading.

====
Your definition of "quote mining" is so narrow and so bizarre, that to you if entire pages are not provided when a quote is given, then that qualifies as "quote mining." No one anywhere writes like that.
====

I'm afraid that my definition of "quote mining" lines right up with what a lot of people think. In fact:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

...all of your quotes are easily found (and explained) in something called the "Quote Mine Project". Why do you think that is?

====
You add reams of uncommented-on material, and imagine that you have added context, when all you have added is filler, because most of what you add does not even relate to what is actually being commented on.
====

I have not added on "new material" to quotes you have given. If I have not pointed to the original source material, I have simply given surrounding material from the same source.

====
No one can show anywhere where I took anything out of context. I quoted accurately, yet you accused me of misquoting, when I was quoting Gould and Darwin exactly.
====

OK, with respect John, but you are really showing your ignorance to your own actions here. You may have quoted accurately, but you have quoted without the proper frame of reference to which that quote was made. This distorts the meaning of the quote.

I don't know why you are thinking I don't know what "out of context" means or what a "quote mine" is. What do YOU think it means?

====
Most of what you say is just plain silly, confused, and simply juvenile. But that is what I would expect from someone who did not even know that Darwin was clearly wrong about gradualism, and that he obviated his own theory.
====

Are you sure he was *clearly wrong*? Where does this information come from (and do NOT say Gould, we've already demonstrated that that is not the case)?

====
Let the record show that you called me "dishonest and perhaps delusional." Look who's talking. You are the one who believes that this complex and intricate world is somehow self-created, when there is no evidence of that occurring anywhere, at any time. Yet you believe it without evidence, and you call that science when it is religion. You are the one who cannot even read a simple sentence and glean the clear meaning of the words. And you are the one who cannot go more than a few sentences without making a personal attack on the veracity of your opponent, to cover up the sad fact that you don't know what you are even talking about.
====

I'm beginning to wonder if you're a professional at this whole thing. You certainly don't seem to be new at this. Do you work at the Discovery Institute? Were you hired/asked by WIYC for some help? Your attacks are pretty glaringly either self-referential or simply ad hominem and baseless.

Let's quit with the personal attacks (this is the third time I've asked this) and let's start talking about the actual evidence, shall we? I've got a load of questions I've asked in previous posts that went unanswered...

Darwin's bear supposition was just that. He was wrong about a number of things. The ancestor of whales was not a carnivore it was an even-toed ungulate. Darwin was right about a several important things. First, whales did come from some form of land mammal. Second, somehow these ancestors gained an advantage from moving out into the water. Finally, this process took a very long time. All three of these deductions of Darwin have been proven correct. Laugh if you want to, but Darwin understood whale evolution alot better than you do. He did not have the advantage of the science of the last few decades that you choose to ridicule and ignore.