In actual fact, guys like Dahmer, Hitler, and Stalin were real evolutionists in that they actually lived their lives in accordance with evolutionist logic and precepts and according to the evolutionist notion that "survival of the fittest" is the only moral law in nature. The people you'd call evolutionists, in contrast, are basically just a bunch of yuppie nerds using evoluitionism as a kind of an ideological fashion statement.
Yes, you're really on to something. As we all know, Charles Darwin himself, in his later years, ran amok through the streets of London and was known as "Jack the Ripper." That ol' eeevilooshin will do it every time.
If you are going to rely on Dahmer, Hitler, and Stalin for a definition and explanation of evolution, you are seriously in need of help. Their misbegotten beliefs are no more representative of evolution than Torquemada and Jim Jones are representative of Christianity.
Whatsamatter, "Cracker"? Cat got your tongue??
No, lunch did.
...Assorted personal attacks and mindless analogies omitted...
A quote is not an argument. An argument consists of a proposition (or claim), followed by evidence (a warrant). Your quotes are frequently bereft of both.
The only thing the quotes attempt is an Arugment From Authority. But the argument from authority is at best only persuasive, and even then requires that the authority be an expert on the subject at hand, that their opinions be reflective of the current state of knowledge on the subject, and that the quoted material be a fair statement of their opinions. Again, your quotes have few if any of these attributes.
Your quotes are all more than 14 years old. They are unsourced or unqualified in may cases, and are from individuals whose expertise lies outside the fields they are commenting on. And, in the few cases where you cite recognized luminaries in the fields, as in Darwin and Gould, you do so OUT OF CONTEXT. Did you not read the lengthy discussion by Gould, posted by Vade at #1146, wherein Gould directly contradicts your assertions and clarifies the quote you use? Or perhaps #1198, where Gould is again explained?
When the author of your quote states that he is being quoted out of context, and explains himself, I think you have a far larger burden to meet if you are going to continue to cite him for support of your crazy Saturnian theories.
Thus far, you have not responded to Gould's defense, you have not produced any recent quotes, you have not produced anything current from ANY major peer-reviewed scientific journal in support of your obscure lunacy, and then you suggest that I am not willing to defend myself? My good man, your chutzpah is amazing. Delusional, even.