My author friend wondered why I had not been using the quotes from his 1994 book (which uses material compiled in the late 1980s). So, I sent him a table listing all the quotes he wished to use. What the table showed was that all the quotes were either very old, unreliable, taken out of context or off-point. I figured he would see the table and say "You're right. If I use these quotes I may impress some people who don't have access to the Internet, but most people will either yawn from having seen these so often before or lambaste me for using stuff that is incorrect and/or deceptive." That's what I figured, anyway. Here is what I got (pretty much as it was written to me - I omitted the salutation at the very beginning):
this is absurd and shows a real divergence between us on this book.in essence, you accept evolution. i question it. but it is my book.you are overly deferential to science when you don't need to be. dawkins' weasel experiment? have you read any of dawkins many, many critics. why do you take what he says at face value?as far as the quotes are concerned, what's wrong with the dates? darwin is from 1859. so should dawkins not quote him?as far as adaptation being refuted, it was replaced by genetic mutation. you know that. so i don't understand your comment at all. it was neo-lamarckian.as far as mutations being almost entirely lethal and harmful, read dawkins. he says the same thing.if you don't want to use older quotes, and i see nothing wrong with it, then find newer ones on the same subject. but you have crossed a line and are now writing YOUR book instead of mine.how can you say that mutation depends on environment? noone questions that 99% of mutations are harmful. you have become more a believer in it that dawkins or anyone else.you are not doing the research we alwayd discussed. we talked about updating, not dissecting.your comments here have really unnerved me. we need to meet asap. in the meantime, you must please follow the mandate of what we talked about.wehther or not mayr knew of the most recent DNA data has nothing to do with how detrimental mutations are. i find your comments incredulous.
Let's respond to each point.
"this is absurd and shows a real divergence between us on this book." - We can't disagree on the fucking evidence we bring in to educate our readers? Puh-leeze. The abusurdity is the hissy-fit being thrown in my direction when what we should be having is a discussion between mature individuals.
I sent a mea culpa. I want to go on with this. But I am losing love for this guy.