Of course evolution provides a framework for scientist to make predictions. If it didn't, it wouldn't be science (or it'd be string theory anyhow).

Evolution is not an intelligence (whatever that means - see my other rant for details).

And what "frameworks and mechanisms" are you proposing? Strict Darwinian evolution proposes (1) heredity with (2) variation directed by (3) natural selection over (4) time. That's it.

It really is NOT controversial, at all. I explained that in another post. Sincerely: Please try to understand those four points. It's one of the easier science concepts to understand. You MUST understand THAT framework before you move on to these other ideas.

Again, sincerely: What about those four points don't you understand?

Please, I'm not trying to be patronizing and respect your obvious intelligence, but if you skip understanding those four points, you will NEVER understand evolution. Even if you want to attack it, you need to understand the argument first.*

Oh, and just as a teaser: Those four points are Darwin's 150 year old evolution. There's been a lot of science since then and, yes, some of it is non-Darwinian and goes well outside of those four points. And some of the science is *gasp* controversial!

* Actually, that's a Best Practice for all good arguments: You should be able repeat your opponent's argument back to them in your own words so that they would agree you understand it. "So, what you are saying is.... right?" And they answer, "Yea, that's pretty much what I'm saying."

Asker's Rating:

Permalink | Report