posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 03:49 PM
The OP contains a serious misunderstanding, expressed in this paragraph:
"When scientists and others talk about a Theory of Evolution, they are talking about something completely seperate (separate) from the factual
existence of evolution. They are usually talking about Darwin's hypothesis that evolution occurs thru (through) a mechanism of natural selection and
leads to adaptations and speciation."
The error occurs in the final sentence. "Natural selection" is a neutral process that is actually irrelevant to Darwinism, because it applies to
all evolutionary mechanisms.
The real question is, what is the mechanism that causes new critters to appear? (The "change in allele frequencies is merely perfessorial
obfuscation, masking the real issue-- what causes allele frequencies to change?)
For example, if Lamarckian evolution was the operative mechanism for the appearance of new critters, wouldn't "Natural selection" apply perfectly
well to it?
If an Almighty God was the sole creator of new species, would they not also need to compete in the marketplace of life? If God made a critter that
was really bad at finding food, had no defenses, and was edible, how long would it survive?
Natural Selection (NS) is a trivial marketing concept, no different from the processes that determine what cars are available in a city's
dealerships, or what brands of TP appear on a supermarket's shelves. NS has nothing to do with the mechanisms that create cars, TP, or critters.
The OP is, therefore, irrelevant because it fails to address the important question-- what are the mechanisms that cause changes in critters?
Any argument that buys into the absurd notion that HS is an evolutionary mechanism that has anything to do with Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, or the
"modern synthesis" (a P.C. euphemism for neo-Darwinism, as in neolithic) is, by intellectual default, a Darwinist argument.