Are you sure you want to delete this post?
just posted on Demo.
I'll get flak on my statement that Evolution is theoretical and not proven.
This gets ideation into the realm of linguistics. "Evolution", like the overwhelming majority of terms/words is a "construct". A composite. We use words as if their referents are monolithic, indivisible. But each of the millions (inclusive of other languages billions?) of sonic entities represents a composite of componentials which are the actuality. A "man" is a name for the subjective representation of an organic complex within an environmental matrix within an integrated system and dynamic of solar-centricity within a galactic gathering and even universal expansion.
A "rock" is a composite of particulates.
Even an atom is a systemic agglutination and accrual of substantives and non- (such as forces and waves and spin).
Thusfar the consideration of "things" which are defined by their terms and names as if indivisibilities. But their designations are of vast complexes and composites. Things are composites of sub-things.
Evolution is a dimension of consideration even more problematic linguistically. Evolution is not a thing.
"Evolution" is the term for a collection of postulates, and assumptions and observations (yes) and conclusions.
"Evolution" is not proven. For one thing, that it exists in any specific systematology is predicated upon the origin of the universe in the very "creationistic" phenomenon of THE BIG BANG -- which is recognized as theoretical. And "evolution" is based upon a "mechanism" by which componentials (from subatomics on up to organisms) complexify and combine and diverge and vary -- and in reciprocity with surrounding influences and their inherent operants (amino acids, genes, etc) manifest the "overview that we term Evolution".
But what we term "evolution" is predicated on unknowns -- such as the actual origin loci of life-forms as transitions from complex inorganic molecules (in the primordial brine? In riparian clay deposits?) "Evolution" in the present "neoDarwinian Synthesis" assumes absolute micro-mutation as the means and ways -- the actual mechanism of variation that will be assimilated/selected or rejected de facto nonadaptative.
"Evolution" mainstream allows for no "macromutations". Only micro-mutations on the genetic level (the results of which are selected from the variation of phenotype manifestations) are accepted as evolutionary process. (Gould's "punctuated equilibria" attempts to get beyond this uniformitarian problem).
And "Evolution", as I've noted often elsewhere and even here . . . asserting "random" as process, is almost committing statistical doctrine as its "faith in Creator" format. "Random" is the god of evolution's theory.
And at this point, my premise should be obvious, if not proved. "Random" cannot be proven. Random and uniformitarian combined appear counter-systemic to the origin of species of such astounding diversity -- but in in view of such observable phenomena as metamorphosis (caterpillar to butterfly, larva to moth, etc.) which evidence, if not genetic macromutation, a supervening phenotypic macromutation manifestation.
It's all so simple. Evolution is a theory inclusive of an unproveable origin even though ongoing phenomena such as mutation and variation, adaptation and extinction, are documented.
It's all so simple-minded -- that anyone would dogmatically insist that evolution is not theoretical.
But it's idiotic that anyone with any education would believe that a guy in the sky said "let there be" and that's how it all came to be. That's a substitute for a universal systemic? That's an image of a failed magician: God.