@farmerman,
A sufficient reason, fm, to not get too dogmatic about Q's claim that Darwinism, and Neo-Darwinism, is a hoax is that they are promoted to the public as if they don't reduce life to mere mechanism, which they do, and view the human body as a machine and, as such, having no characteristics which machines don't have.
Maybe your projections into the future envisage machines falling in love or getting angry with each other. Like the Daleks. Your oft expressed anger actually exterminates your entire position. Lock, stock and barrel. As do any other expressions of emotion. You could say, you might have to, that such expressions are merely lack of lubrication in the mechanism or a screw having come loose. Symptoms of entropy.
I do not think for a moment that the public will accept that in the slightest degree. And I don't think you do either. Which is why your lot have an in-house agreement to keep it hush-hush, always have had with Darwin's enthusiastic connivance, and to focus the public mind on sedimentary rock formation, alleles and such like mesmeric charms which not only appeal to the public's sense of self esteem but delude it into believing you are not hiding anything important from them. Which you are.
In many cases hiding something from yourselves. Simply by putting it on Ignore and talking in a loud, somewhat nervous, voice. which easily becomes hysterical under stress.
Which is not quite as funny as Apisa not knowing whether he is a machine or not and refusing to guess. Both guessing and refusing to guess are not characteristics of any machine.
You might remember that I raised the issue many years ago and you all put it on Ignore and talked loudly.
You are hoaxing the public, or some of its units, by not allowing them to know what Darwinism means and has been known to mean even before 1859.
