Calilasseia wrote:

Mr Miller wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:1) Good sir, we have asked you several times now: cite your source by giving us peer-reviewed literature that proves your point.

Already did.

2) Your claim is false. There are no observations that show that natural selection cannot bring about morphological change. In fact, there are genetic mechanisms that can bring about morphological change. See here:

Thats nice, you change random mutation to natural selection (again) and attack an argument you present.

Actually, it's creationists who routinely erect strawman canards about valid evolutionary science, omitting the effects of selection being one of them. In case you never bothered to learn this in basic biology classes, mutation and selection work together. Mutation produces the raw materials upon which selection acts, selection filters those materials and removes those products of mutation that prevent an organism producing descendants. This is among the most elementary of basic principles taught in biology classes, at least in those places where the teaching of valid science isn't corrupted by the ideologically motivated and the duplicitous. Going to learn this elementary and basic principle sometime, or are you going to persist in erecting tiresomely familiar canards that creationists have been peddling for at least two decades?

Mr Miller wrote:"Natural Selection" is a tautology (the fittest population will survive which means that the survivor will be the population which is fitter.)

Wrong. First of all, even Darwin didn't think of natural selection in such crude terms. He, and biologists after him, when engaging in rigorous work, thought of natural selection as "survival of the sufficiently competent". The "survival of the fittest" aphorism was coined by Francis Galton, who himself had ideological motives for doing so. Why am I not in the least surprised that a creationist is either unaware of this, or chooses deliberately to ignore it?

Here's a case in point. A Thomson's Gazelle doesn't have to be faster than a cheetah in order to survive being pursued by a cheetah. It simply has to be faster than the slowest member of its own herd. The idea that every organism has to be the pinnacle of genetic achievement in order to survive and produce offspring is nonsense - it simply has to be good enough.

Mr Miller wrote:Again, I know.

It's obvious that there's a lot you don't know. My introducing you to Betta splendens being a case in point.

Mr Miller wrote:This was known long before Darwinism.

Actually, what was known was that dead organisms don't pass on their traits to the next generation. Which is why, to borrow the words of biologist PZ Myers, humans since the dawn of civilisation chose to breed from the best livestock and crops, and eat the rest. Likewise, as PZ Myers succinctly observes, one of Darwin's insights was that natural forces perform a similar selection task upon organisms in wild ecosystems. Selection consists of all of the interactions within an ecosystem that differentially affect the survival and reproduction of organisms in a population. Predators, disease, parasites, even weather, all exert selection pressures. This isn't a "tautology", it's a process that produces testable results. As one of the papers I presented to you (which you ignored) demonstrates.

Mr Miller wrote:I told you random mutation.

Without selection, this is a canard. See above.

Mr Miller wrote:

Mr Miller wrote:Reproductive isolation does not demonstrate the major phenotype changes predicted by Darwinism. Populations who have under gone adaptive mutations fully governed by the code which are so drastic that copulation is sacrificed is not, (in light of the assertion, that microbes gave rise to all the organisms in existence) verified with the appropriate data and remains outside the realm of science. And that even in light of intensive adaption, which forces the isolation of breeding, organisms remains within the predicted and observed barrier further fulfills predictions made by creation science.

This entire statement is false.

1) Phenotypic changes and diversification of bacteria have been observed: http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/147/4/995

Thats nice. The statement was "Reproductive isolation does not demonstrate the major phenotype changes predicted by Darwinism." You remove the "predicted by Darwinism", the difference from scientifically observed adaptation I have already outlined, and you present:

"Morphological changes in the outer cell envelope occurred in all 18 evolved lineages, including reductions in the capsule (Table 1Up), increased sensitivity to bile salts (Fig. 5Up), and with one exception, increased cell adhesion to a sand matrix (Fig. 6Up). A genomic change also occurred in all of the evolved lineages, including a deletion of a genomic region detected by the loss of a REP-PCR fragment (Nakatsu et al., 1998Down )"

I don't think you guys get it. Darwinism's predictions far surpass these variances.

So you ignored my presentation of the Double Tail mutation in Betta splendens, a large morphological change that under the right conditions is positively selectable? Why does this not surprise me?

Mr Miller wrote:

wunksta wrote:ok, so what you are saying mr. miller, is saying that evolution happens but its not sufficient to bring about 'complex' structures. is that correct?

Let me just make it clear. There are not two, but three groups which are in, or may be in, debate. There is the Creation Fundamentalist. Who believes that every single species, every single life form was individually created and that no adaptation can take place.

And this is supposed to be informative how, precisely?

Mr Miller wrote:There is the Darwin Fundamentalist

Yawn ... wondered when the bullshit would start.

Exactly how is it possible to be "fundamentalist" about an evidentially supported scientific theory? FAIL.

Mr Miller wrote:who believes

Once again, the evidence supporting evolutionary theoyr renders belief superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. Learn this lesson once and for all.

Mr Miller wrote:that every single life form is a result of not only evolution but random mutation and that none were created.

Oh look, you forgot selection again ... tiresomely familiar creationist duplicity in action again ...

Mr Miller wrote:These are the two extremities

Your caricature doesn't exist. Those of us who accept evolution as alid do so because REALITY tells us it's valid. What part of "evolution has been subject to empirical test and verification" do you either not understnd, or, as is more likely, are pretending duplicitously has never happened because it suits your ideological agenda?

Mr Miller wrote:and these two can fight all night long for all I care.

One wonders what nonsense is to be erected shortly ...

Mr Miller wrote:Though you would hardly, if ever, find a CF

We had one posting over at the Richard Dawkins forums when they were still alive. I dealt with him personally. He wasn't unique.

Mr Miller wrote:DF's however, are running rampant.

Yawn. It's the tinfoil hat conspiracy whinge all over again ... the fact that all those scientists who write all those papers that you duplicitously pretend don't exist, provide evidence to support their postulates, is another of those facts you're going to pretend doesn't exist either, is it?

Mr Miller wrote:The third group, Creation Science fantasists

There, fixed it for you. There is NO such thing as "creation science", it's an oxymoron. "Magic Man did it" isn't a scientific hypothesis.

Mr Miller wrote:is that adaption [sic] does occur, but the genome does not have the capability of creating every single life form in existence.

Strange how reality disagrees with this blind assertion.

Mr Miller wrote:This position is in fact, what scientific literature is telling us.

Bollocks. The scientific papers I've presented to you, which you have yet to acknowledge the existence of, say you're talking horseshit. As does that fish I presented.

Mr Miller wrote:I don't care if you breed a dog and get morphological changes to give a chihuahua, a great Dane a bull dog. Is it indefinite. The answer is no.

In other words, your position consists of "my doctrine is right, reality is wrong". How tiresomely familiar.

Mr Miller wrote:I dont care if you breed the bald eagle and get from a pigeon to a humming bird. Is it void of random mutation? Is it a directed intelligent process and does it have a limit in the variances of existing information? The answer is yes across the board.

Bollocks. No one "directed" the appearance of the Double Tail mutation in Betta splendens. It appeared without any teleological direction. All that aquarists did when it appeared was propagate it.

Mr Miller wrote:These are the predictions blind assertions put forward by creation science fantasising.

There, fixed it for you.

Mr Miller wrote:But don't tell me that a hippo can turn into a whale.

With this statement, you simply establish that you understand nothing about real biology.

First of all, evolutionary theory doesn't postulate that one organism "turns into another" courtesy of some form of weird transmutation process. What it actually postulates, if you had bothered to pay attention in biology class, is that populations changes over time, and that individuals in a population can give rise to new forms. The individuals in each generation inherit a set of traits that do not change during the lifetime of those individuals, but if they acquire germline mutations, they can disseminate those germline mutations to the next generation. Mutations resuling in phenotypic change (including that double tail mutation I presented, which you have manifestly ignored), and which are positively selectable end up being propagated to future generations. All it needs is new mutations arising, being selected, and accumulating over time, for the population to change. Appropriate selection pressures in place will drive that change. This is again an elementary principle. Going to learn any of this sometime?

Mr Miller wrote:Or that fish can turn into tetrapods.

Evolutionary theory doesn't say that fish "turned into" tetrapods, it states that they gave rise to tetrapods courtesy of incremental changes over many generations. Going to learn this elementary lesson sometime, are you?

Mr Miller wrote:and not only that but keep going indefinitely. Dont tell me that because you find humans in a isolated jungle area, who are in fact fully human yet cannot mate with the rest of the human population that you have proven Darwinism.

Try learning the distinction between proof and evidential support sometime. Also, try learning that evolutionary biology has moved on in the 150 years since Darwin founded the discipline. As those scientific papers I've presented to you demonstrate more than adequately, or would do if you had bothered to read them.

Mr Miller wrote:I know what Darwinism states.

No you don't, you merely regurgitate the familiar creationist strawman caricatures of valid evolutionary science. Your above garbage about "fish turning into tetrapods" being a classic example. This is merely the tiresome and retarded "I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog" bullshit creationists routinely vomit forth.

Mr Miller wrote:You know what it states.

And several of us have expended the labour of correcting your canards about this. Going to learn from their efforts, are you?

Mr Miller wrote:And I know that everybody on this forum is a Fundamentalist.

Oh, look, it's that creationist staple ... the duplicitous erection of the "fundamentalist" canard with respect to acceptance of valid evolutionary science. Here's a clue for you: it's only possible to be a "fundamentalist" with respect to doctrinal assertions - paying attention to reality doesn't make you a fundamentalist.

Mr Miller wrote:So provide evidence "which produce the morphological changes expressed in Darwin's creation story."

I did. The Double Tail mutation in Betta splendens. Which you manifestly, and duplicitously, ignored.

Mr Miller wrote:The scientific evidence continues to confirm refute predictions blind assertions made by creation science fantasising.

There, fixed it for you.

Mr Miller wrote:

theropod wrote:Hey all,

It seems it's time to pull out this paper which documents the evolution of a single cell algae into a colonial morphology.

Again, this doesnt prove anything.

Bollocks. It directly refutes your assertion that processes pertinent to the production of new phyla cannot happen.

Mr Miller wrote:You claim that it provides us with a conclusive evidence of Darwinism. But thats like taking a bulldog, a dog with no tail, performing selective breeding, getting a great Dane, a dog with a tail, and saying that this is evidence for Darwinism (no tail to tails). There are Dogs with tails and Dogs without tails. The information for tails is within the gene pool, and is distributed via Mendel's laws. There are multi celled algae and single celled algae. There are also those which reproduce asexually and sexually. It would be interesting to find a breeder take an asexual species and produce a sexual and vice versa.

Oh look, more tiresome hand waving away of the valid evidence. What part of "the transition from unicellularity to multicellularity, an essential component of phylogenesis, has been demonstrated experimentally in the laboratory" do you not understand?

Oh, and if you had bothered to READ that paper, which I PRESENTED VIRTUALLY IN FULL EARLIER, you would have learned that the Chlorella organisms remained unicellular for thousands of generations in the absence of any selection pressure driving the appearance of multicellularity, and required the appearance of a mutant form to respond to that pressure. Which refutes wholesale your assertion that this was somehow "always present in the genome".

Mr Miller wrote:But again, don't tell me that this is evidence for Darwinism.

Once again, drop the specious "Darwinism" bullshit. Evolutionary biology has moved on in the 150 years since Darwin. Or didn't you learn about this in basic biology classes?

Mr Miller wrote:And as we see, even after a major cellular change, algae remains algae.

Guess what? Evolutionary theory doesn't postulate that modern organisms "jump phyla", it postulates that they remain within the clades defined by their inheritance, but give rise to new clades that are nested within those inherited clades.

Mr Miller wrote:There may also be algae which are outside of the gene pool

This statement is scientifically illiterate garbage.

Mr Miller wrote:and when confronted with the predator, this lineage will die out.

Funny how some random dude off the Internet postures as being able to lecture people to the effect that the scientists who conducted the actual experimental research are somehow "wrong" because that research doesn't genuflect before his ideology. Now who am I going to pay more attention to here, you, or the actual research scientists?

Mr Miller wrote:

Calilasseia wrote: What was that about "mutations have not been observed to produce morphological changes consistent with evolutionary theory" again?

Hi, I see you've also substituted "Darwinism" with "evolutionary" and posted a litany.

This is because I'm tired of seeing the fatuous "Darwinism" canard being erected, a canard I addressed some months ago back at RDF. Creationists only erect the fatuous "Darwinism" canard in order to pretend that valid, evidence-based evolutionary science is a "doctrine", to distract from the fact that they are propagandising for a doctrine themselves. We know why creationists do this, it's because they have to erect falsehoods about evolutionary science in order to propagandise for their worthless doctrine, because their doctrine is given the stiff middle finger by reality. And I shall continue correcting your duplicitous falsehoods and ideology-driven canards as and when I see fit to do so. If you don't like having your falsehoods and canards thus corrected, fucking tough.

Additionally, what part of "evolutionary biology has moved on in the 150 years since Darwin" do you not understand?

Mr Miller wrote:Youve also taken "morphological changes predicted by Darwinism" and trimmed it to "morphological changes".

No, I corrected your duplicitous ideology-driven canard about "Darwinism", and replaced it with a proper, rigorous statement about evolutionary theory. As you keep being told here repeatedly, evolutionary biology has moved on in the 150 years since Darwin. Scientists are publishing papers containing results that Darwin could only have dreamed of. But which still confirm that his basic insights in several areas were correct.

Mr Miller wrote:You may want to set the example. Those pictures of the fish were nice. But again, these variances do not reflect nor substantiate your claim.

Oh look, I'm going to be told that someone who has never studied the topic knows more than I do, having spent 30 years being familiar with it. This is going to be good.

Mr Miller wrote:For one, they were not a result of random mutation but governed entirely by the DNA code.

And what part of "mutations change the contents of DNA" did you not learn in basic biology classes?

Oh, and your above statement is manifestly false. That mutation was was NOT "directed" at all, it appeared in a batch of fish in the 1970s completely unexpectedly, and when it did, aquarists decided to propagate and develop that mutation. The underlying genetics are well known and well documented, and once again, refute your blatantly false blind assertions wholesale. There was NO "magic hand" delivering that mutation according to some "plan". Drop the unsupported teleology.

Will this be more real world fact that you'll pretend doesn't exist whilst propagandising for your worthless doctrine? Film at 11.

Mr Miller wrote:And two, it was not indefinite.

Oh really? You know this for a fact do you? Here's a clue. Double tail individuals are homozygous. Therefore if you mate two double tail individuals, you end up with entirely double tail offspring. How could this not be "indefinite" in an entirely homozygous population?

Was this another part of basic biology you never bothered learning?

Mr Miller wrote:And I saw you made an appeal to Medel's [sic] laws.

No, I didn't make an "appeal" to Mendel's laws, I stated explicitly that the inheritance of the mutation in question was manifestly governed by those laws, and that this has been established in thousands of real world matings. But given your duplicitous precedents with respect to real world data, I'm not surprised that you try to hand-wave this away either.

Mr Miller wrote:Creation Science fantasising

There, corrected for you

Mr Miller wrote:embraces Mendel's laws

Oh does it? Care to provide a precise citation supporting this blind assertion? Only until you do, I'll treat it in the same manner as all your other blind assertions, namely as being worthless.

Mr Miller wrote:a discovery completely in line with predictions.

WHAT "predictions"?

The only thing creationism has ever produced is a blind assertion to the effect that a magic man is needed to produce the biosphere. It's never "predicted" anything at all. Indeed, there are numerous examples of anatomical curiosities that make NO sense whatsoever from the standpoint of "design" or being fabricated by some purportedly "all-knowing and all powerful creator", because they're complete kludges from any rational "design" standpoint. On the other hand, they make perfect sense from the standpoint of evolution, which builds upon past inheritance and produces modifications of existing features for new purposes.

iamthereforeithink wrote:Could you repeat that please? I didn't hear you.

Calilasseia wrote:

HughMcB wrote:Over 8,000 word post... not bad.

I was feeling lenient.

GenesForLife wrote:Bollocks, Miller, Evolution by natural selection = fixation of random mutations by natural selection + genetic drift.

Your whole argument is turdic drivel precisely because you have not the slightest clue about what you are arguing against, evolution and random mutation aren't separate, random mutations , in conjunction with selection and factors like drift, drive evolution.

wunksta wrote:
so every mutation and every selection of beneficial mutations through natural selection are both actively being done through an intelligent agent?

GenesForLife wrote:Bollocks, Miller, Evolution by natural selection = fixation of random mutations by natural selection + genetic drift.

Calilasseia wrote:Bollocks. The scientific papers I've presented to you, which you have yet to acknowledge the existence of, say you're talking horseshit. As does that fish I presented.

Bollocks. It directly refutes your assertion that processes pertinent to the production of new phyla cannot happen.

Mr Miller wrote:

wunksta wrote:
so every mutation and every selection of beneficial mutations through natural selection are both actively being done through an intelligent agent?

Yes. This agent is a feature of the biological code. And as for what I accept, see creation science. Change in allele frequency is not disputed, but the range and mechanism of said event.

GenesForLife wrote:let him explain this http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/Census/

GT2211 wrote:I'm thinking Mr. Miller is a sock puppet or troll. He refuses to defend his positions, constantly shifts goal posts, and any evidence that is presented that contradicts his position he then claims it as evidence of design.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:
Actually, it's creationists who routinely erect strawman canards about valid evolutionary science, omitting the effects of selection being one of them. In case you never bothered to learn this in basic biology classes, mutation and selection work together. Mutation produces the raw materials upon which selection acts, selection filters those materials and removes those products of mutation that prevent an organism producing descendants. This is among the most elementary of basic principles taught in biology classes, at least in those places where the teaching of valid science isn't corrupted by the ideologically motivated and the duplicitous. Going to learn this elementary and basic principle sometime, or are you going to persist in erecting tiresomely familiar canards that creationists have been peddling for at least two decades?

Natural selection, being blind and dumb - lacking both foresight and intelligence, often filters variations which could be useful in the future.

Atheistoclast wrote:That is the fundamental flaw in the mechanism - it is oppprtunistic and seeks quick fixes and cheap thrills. It is only concerned with reproductive fitness - diversity is something it tries to reduce, not promote.

Atheistoclast wrote:

The only thing creationism has ever produced is a blind assertion to the effect that a magic man is needed to produce the biosphere. It's never "predicted" anything at all. Indeed, there are numerous examples of anatomical curiosities that make NO sense whatsoever from the standpoint of "design" or being fabricated by some purportedly "all-knowing and all powerful creator", because they're complete kludges from any rational "design" standpoint. On the other hand, they make perfect sense from the standpoint of evolution, which builds upon past inheritance and produces modifications of existing features for new purposes.

It predicted that "junk dna" would not turn out to be junk. That was one of the most successful predictions ever made by Denton and others.

Chandra, 1985 wrote:ABSTRACT Certain recent models of sex determination in mammals, Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis ekgans, and snakes are examined in the light of the hypothesis that the relevant genetic regulatory mechanisms are similar and interrelated. The proposed key element in each of these instances is a noncoding DNA sequence, which serves as a high-affinity binding site for a repressor-like molecule regulating the activity of a major "sex-determining" gene. On this basis it is argued that, in several eukaryotes, (i) certain DNA sequences that are sex-determining are noncoding, in the sense that they are not the structural genes of a sex-determining protein; (it) in some species these noncoding sequences are present in one sex and absent in the other, while in others their copy number or accessibility to regulatory molecules is significantly unequal between the two sexes; and (iii) this inequality determines whether the embryo develops into a male or a female.

Mr Miller wrote:

wunksta wrote:
so every mutation and every selection of beneficial mutations through natural selection are both actively being done through an intelligent agent?

Yes. This agent is a feature of the biological code.

Mr Miller wrote:And as for what I accept, see creation science.

Mr Miller wrote:Change in allele frequency is not disputed

Mr Miller wrote:but the range and mechanism of said event.

Mr Miller wrote:

GenesForLife wrote:Bollocks, Miller, Evolution by natural selection = fixation of random mutations by natural selection + genetic drift.

Youve already been told that random mutation was a primitive view of the mechanism behind the observed instances of adaptation.

Mr Miller wrote:We are now seeing that the DNA code is even more complex than first imagined.

Mr Miller wrote:In addition to coding, distribution, packaging, replication, DNA also contains information for another feature, adaptation. More recently outlined here. http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html

Mr Miller wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Bollocks. The scientific papers I've presented to you, which you have yet to acknowledge the existence of, say you're talking horseshit. As does that fish I presented.

To be clear, the fish you presented does not substantiate the claims put forward by Darwinists.

Mr Miller wrote:Of an undirected, indefinite process. Both of which have not been observed.

Mr Miller wrote:And you keep pushing out recitals failing to acknowledge that all you are doing is reiterating Creation Science

Mr Miller wrote:then asking me for evidence of same.

Mr Miller wrote:The observable is what we say.

Mr Miller wrote:The use of the observable to validate an unobserved claim is Darwinism.

Mr Miller wrote:Therefore it ranks as a belief.

Mr Miller wrote:Requiring, in fact, more faith than your opponents.

Mr Miller wrote:

Bollocks. It directly refutes your assertion that processes pertinent to the production of new phyla cannot happen.

You are beginning to contradict yourself.

Mr Miller wrote:First you make the above claim. Then say "Evolutionary theory doesn't postulate that modern organisms "jump phyla"," . This claim is either a deliberate attempt to deceive or you are once again, with the word "modern", claiming common ancestry.

Mr Miller wrote:Furthermore, to account for the diverse number of Phyla, organisms would essentially have to "jump phyla" or produce the morphological changes consistent with Darwinian claims that Hippos can turn into Whales.

Mr Miller wrote:Not Algae becoming algae, fish developing into another kind of fish which reflects those changes already observed in Dog breeding, no different than the discrepancies between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane. This is not what you were asked for and this remains unsupported.

Mr Miller wrote:Regarding the Algae, you fail to realize that what was observed in the Boraas experiment is consistent with a colonial organism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_%28biology%29not a full multi cellular organism. Exemplified in several instances within the literature

Mr Miller wrote:"After 20 days of mixed-species culture, the Chlorella population had many colonies with more than 20 cells (Figs 1c, 2b). The number of cells per colony then gradually declined to a mode of eight and the system entered a steady state (Fig. 2a,b). Flagellates and Chlorella unicells in this steady state had population densities reduced to about 0.1% of their maximum numbers during the transient phases. The bulk of the biomass in this steady state was in eight-celled Chlorella colonies (Fig. 1d), with a mean colony diameter of approximately 17 μm. The cells in these stable colonies of predated cultures were enclosed within an envelope (Fig. 1d), apparently the mother cell wall of the neonatal cells (see Discussion). Empty mother cell walls were virtually absent from the culture."

Mr Miller wrote:And "Colony growth was a `budding' process, based on visual observations. Individual cells of the colony grew in size while dividing into daughter cells; the new colony then separated from the original colony by tearing or breaking the original mother cell wall. We have replicated this experiment many times, and have observed the formation of Chlorella multicells in about 70% of the replicates."

Mr Miller wrote:Youve also failed to realize that an instance of cell differentiation does not substantiate Darwinism's claims.

Mr Miller wrote:Chlorella belongs to the Division, Chlorophyta. Within that same division we find the genus Cladophora, which is infact, multi cellular. A lot more is needed than alga becoming another form of alga.

Mr Miller wrote:Lastly, these adaptations are not a result of stochastic events but a designed feature within the DNA code

Mr Miller wrote:You would have t demonstrate that contrary to modern science, this is a random process.

Mr Miller wrote:And the term "Darwinism" will continue to be used until you recognize your role

Mr Miller wrote:And the term "Darwinism" will continue to be used until you recognize your role

num1cubfn wrote:Edit: Just to clarify, the quote was not mean to call Mr Miller "dumb" or "stupid", it reminded me of the statement because Patrick is clearly stupid, talking about how others are stupid without knowing it, and Mr. Miller is clearly fulfilling the role of science denial protagonist while talking about how others are fullfilling some "darwinian" protagonist role.

Nautilidae wrote:What exactly are the predictions made by creation science?

Mr Miller wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Bullshit. Evolutionary theory has been modified in order to make it commensurate with observable reality. As opposed to creationism, which pretends that it can force-fit reality to the blind assertions of doctrine.

There is no evidence for Darwinism, or the postulation that microbes through a series of random mutations can give rise to a multitude of phyla. We have observed adaptation. This is science. We have also observed that observed adaptation is a result of a strict designed process governed every step of the way by the DNA code. This is science. This is Intelligent Design.

Darwinism is relegated to a belief, supported and driven solely by materialistic aspirations which in fact, fails to produce observable testable and repeatable results.

Observable repeated tests have in fact debunked Darwinism. One has to wonder why it is still alive, if not for the population of materialists scurrying through the scientific community. Time will release its grip.

LIFE wrote:The term Darwinism gets abused left and right.
Why not say "Modern evolutionary theory" or something to avoid any misinterpretations.

Mr Miller wrote:Saying Intelligent Design has been debunked while Intelligent design is continually observed tested and repeated is not good practice. In fact, we don't need you guys to say anything.