@cicerone imposter,
The logical objection to a historical entelechy story, such as the tree of life, is that to place an order of development in a series of stages is not explaining it. What, when and where says nothing about why, how and whence. Describing NFL rules goes nowhere near explaining NFL.
If a serial explanation is evidenced by a specification of the causal connections in the series then the series is redundant because if we have that specification the series as a whole becomes no more that a list of successive conditions. If we have no knowledge of how or why the successive stages are generated then the series as a whole is inefficient.
It's either redundant or inadequate for people more interested in the why, how and whence than the what, when and where, as most people are. For them, either of those is insufficient for an explanation central to a validating scheme of things which is precisely what evolutionism does.
What you need do is stop people bothering about the why, how and whence, which is possible pharmaceutically or surgically and to a lesser degree in one of fm's proposed retraining centres.
It is possible that obsession with the what, when and where is in the service of drowning out insistent questions about the why, how and whence. A form of escapism.
Darwinism obscures the illogicality by a neat trick. It amalgamates a theory of evolution ( denial of independent origin and immutability of species) with a doctrine concerning how the species emerged (natural selection). The story of the growth and the explanation of it became fused and hid the illogicality of the entelechy alone.
When you know something about logic let us know ci. Just using the word as a self-pinned medal on the chest is insulting our intelligence which I know is a favourite activity of yours.
