Not with an attitude like yours I don’t- I’ve read numerous enough examples and run across plenty enough statements to back up what I said and won’t cater to your little games and argumentative blanket dismissal. As I said- what I said stands and you can either go on along in blind denial of the evidence that is readily available to you or you can check them out and quite frankly, again, I could care less which you choose. You can level all the petty little accusations about me and those of whom I speak all you like- it still doesn’t negate the fact that the info is freely avsailable to you or anyone else. Had you presented yourself more civily I’d have more gladly undertaken some research for you- however I’ll take a pass given your redienss to symantically dismiss everythign you read because they don’t meet your unrealistic requirements. You fully accept that Darwin said the things he said simply based on other’s testimony that he said them to them, however, you fully dismiss anything that you we’ren’t there to personally witness and document for yourself if it was reported by someone else that scientists don’t all have a dogmatic beleif that mammals evolved from reptiles? Double standards there? Why yes, I do beleive it is. I gave you plenty of evidences and even gave you leads to others- that’s all you’ll get from me, and you can cry about there not being more, and dismiss all the others because you ‘haven’t the inclination’ to read through them, all you like, but that’s fine- I’m used to arguing against nonsense like that and know when to wash my hands of such frivelousness. Good day to you sir-
I'm not making any assumptions in that regard you haven't made yourself. You're asserting that buried somewhere in the collected works of these three major symposiums is the proof that Darwin's theory is disproven. You cannot profess to have disproven a theory that was never put forth in the first place so you have to have assumed he did, without having actually witnessed it yourself, at the outset.
You seem impressed with the idea that an since attempt to prove his theory mathematically failed, we should assume that theory to be disproven. Let's try that methodology out. You have a theory that the evidence you claim is somewhere in that collective works from these symposiums. Unless we can come up with mathematical proof that it exists, we should assume that theory is flawed.