@richrf,
richrf;87710 wrote:Fine, so let's not invoke it, whatever evolutionary theory might be. I was told to read Wikipedia and Wikipedia invokes Darwin.
First, let me warn you that you are being an absolute
troll in this thread and I'm about 2 seconds from killing it once and for all. Consider this a final warning that you can debate the
topic all you want, but if you're going to waste everyone's time taking picayune potshots at people and playing people against one another on matters of trivia, then that is not how this forum runs.
Regarding Wikipedia, that divine arbiter and oracle of all knowlege: Darwin was foundational to evolutionary biology. His initial demonstration of natural selection was instrumental to the development of this science. And now, a century and a half after the voyage of the Beagle, natural selection is such a well-established part of biology
independent of Darwin's own works that it doesn't really matter what Wikipedia or your gut says, it's an easily demonstrable feature of population biology that has nothing to do with metaphysics.
It makes sense to bring up Darwin when talking about evolution, just as it makes sense to bring up the Beatles when talking about Rock and Roll -- but you can define and analyze and understand Rock and Roll without ever talking about the Beatles.
richrf;87710 wrote:Nope. There are are lots of inquisitive souls (I mean that literally) like John Stewart Bell and David Bohm who just keeping exploring and finding new things. That is what makes living exciting for me.
Oh, so you mean that physics is revising itself too, then.
richrf;87710 wrote:OK. Show me a monkey turning into a human.
I refer you back to my example of sickle cell. This is an active,
real time example of a malaria-susceptible human turning into a malaria-resistant human.