Og

You are wrong. There is nothing dogmatic about it. Any little holes your poking have to account for the vast volume of genetic (and otherwise) evidence that clearly illustrates a process of evolution.

I'll quote Joseph McCabe here: "a law of nature is NOT a formula drawn up by a legislator, but mere summary of the observed facts--a 'bundle of facts.' Things do not act in a particular way because there is a law, but we state the 'law' because they act in that way." (substitute law w/ theory as they are the same concept in science).

Your entire perception of science is backwards. Have you ever participated in the global peer reviewed scientific community? Do you have any publications in evolutionary biology? Have you tried to publish? What work have you worked on? Are all of your examples anecdotal or hearsay? How do you account for the vast volume of genetic sequence homology that clearly indicates divergence via random mutation?

You offer no argument to cover existing data and your argument for design is simply an argument from ignorance (i.e. I don't know how it works, so it must be designed). Your stance fails to propose anything that matches existing evidence and it fails to include an explanation of that same evidence.

Bottom line. What you are talking about is NOT science.

As was stated in another post here, evolution implies no such thing. The theory makes NO value judgments at all about the nature of the organism. It MERELY speaks to the origin of the life form from simpler constructs. It is illogical to try to draw a comparison between the behavior of a jackal or a rat and a human being. Our brain and sensory inputs and behavioral outputs are dramatically more complex than these creatures. A rat has about 100 million neurons in its brain while we have about 1000 times that number. The connections in our brain are far more complex. We have highly developed means of inter organism communication.

The notion that evolution says ANYTHING about social or behavioral implications of an organism driven by a complex and adaptive nervous system is crap. Stating this notion simply indicates how far off you are from even having the most basic understanding of the science involved. You dissolve your foundation for your own arguments by making such remarks.

You have done no such thing.

Then if you are not a Dentonist under this argument, why would any proponent of the theory of evolution be considered a Darwinist?

What does it mean to be a thinker if you're not a scientist? Do you not think using a corrective feedback process that creates hypotheses based on observation and then attempts to disprove these hypotheses?

What the heck is a thinker if its not a scientist? I think this distinction has something to do with the silly stance you take. You think scientists are some collaborating group of people all working in concert to propel a theory with no evidence.

And yet the pharmaceutical industry and GM food industry is producing all kinds of amazing products based on the principles of biology upon which evolution is built. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The theory is useful and used. We can express human proteins in goat milk for treatment of certain disorders... We can express jelly fish or human brain neuron proteins in fruit fly brain neurons.

Again. Your argument is one from ignorance. Nothing you put forward explains existing evidence nor does it refute existing theories. Your stance is wrong. Finding another audience isn't going to change that.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

McCabe is right to a point. We see a solution and then decide the function (equation) that lead to it. Where I separate from him, and you, is that because we think of the approximation you think we invented it when in fact if the function (mechanism) didn’t exist we would not have seen the solution.

I do not like intelligent design, but your cell phone example pointed to it. Substitute people with proteins. You take it the rest of the way.