hooberus
For those that don't know, ReMine believes the number of mutations that would arise from a common ancestor in the amount of time since a common ancestor is not sufficient to cause the difference between humans and that common ancestor (a take on the so called "Haldane's Dilema").However, in doing so he does LOADS of stuff you'd not accept, (even if you ignore him accepting a FAR longer chronology than you hooberus).
For example he puts dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes in what he calls a 'monbaramin' (his definition of this is "a group containing only organisms related by common descent"). By doing so he is placing 12 genera and 34 species together and claiming common ancestry. He thus endorses macro-evolution, (even if he doesn't realise it himself), as not all of the species in his group are interfertile, and thus are different 'kinds' in Creationist-speak.
You, unless I am wrong, refuse to accept evolution beyond the boundaries of an interfertile 'kind'. Thus you endorsing his arguements by citation is actually endorsing arguments that contradict your own claims on several different levels.
Any clearer on why I think you quoting someone that diverges from your opinion to that extent is wrong?
Remine's Haldane population genetics argument (which I have discussed on this forum) deals with the calculated limits of the possible speed of the substitution of beneficial traits over a given period of time (by using evolutionists own population genetics calculations).
It is dealt with in a different chapter in his book than are his comments (which I have not discussed) on his beliefs of the determinations of the variation that has occurred within the basic created types (baraminology), and most importantly his Haldane style population genetics argument does not use, nor is it dependant on his baraminology variation beliefs. Thus, even if* his his baraminolgy variation beliefs were hypothetically different than mine, there is still no contradiction for me to use his population genetics calculation references. (It should also be noted that creationists do not believe that the variation within a created kind would necessaily have required the substitution of beneficial traits to have had occurred.)
Therefore your claims that I have endorsed "arguments that contradict" my "own claims" and that I have done something "wrong" is fallacious. Finally, see no further need to continue taking valuable time here to deal with anymore of your accusations on this issue (of my referencing ReMine).
*My use of the hypothetical "if" was primarily for the sake of the hypothetical point above, and was not meant to imply that ReMine's baraminology is necessarily at variance with what biblical creationists believe. If anyone would like to learn what creationists believe on this (as well as what typoe of biological change such baraminolgy truely "endorses") I will provide the titles of publications available.