Renewable Revolution

Let's be clear. I do believe Darwin was a serious scientist attempting to explain the Origin of Species. If you want to call that GUT because the word "Evolution" has been applied UNSCIENTIFCALLY (i.e. sans natural selection in precise combination with random mutations) to several disciplines from cosmology to protein synthesis, that's fine with me. But when we are discussing SCIENCE, specificity is the key to understanding.  Broad, general terms appealing to consensus "authority" do not cut it. So please keep your GUT out of the discussion and keep specific issues in it.

The following points describe briefly how I think this through. I will not engage in a verbal dancing, goal post moving, contest with you if you refuse to discuss these points, period. I do not DO fallacious argumentative techniques.   

1. When evidence is NOT available, the exact same logic used by Darwin (subsequently used by DR. Stephen Meyer to argue against SET) of using the "best explanation inferred by the observed evidence" to postulate SET is what I base my conclusion that natural selection and random mutations (two separate and distinct mechanisms  that need to work TOGETHER for SET to be scientifically valid) DO NOT explain the Origin of the species.

2. AFTER we get past the ORIGIN of the species in general and the ORIGIN of single celled life in particular, natural selection and random mutations continue to be insufficient to produce a MORE complex organism.

3. Although frequently trotted out as "transitional" fossil examples over the past 60 years or so, the scientific journals have consistently discarded each and every alleged "new" group "transitional" fossils as new scientific inquiry and research on these fossils reveals they are nothing of the kind. In short, alleged "transitional" fossils have a peer reviewed shelf life of approximately 10 to 15 years before another group of "transitional" fossils is trotted out.

4. ALL the organs in Homo sapiens hitherto labeled "vestigial" (according to SET) have been proven to not be vestigial at all. I have studied this thoroughly.

5.  The speculation about SET evidence in embryo formation and the "use it or lose it" adaptation mechanism earthlings have only proves the SUBTRACTIVE nature of natural selection.

6. Selective breeding of of animals by Homo SAPS is evidence of HUMAN UNnatural selection.  And in ALL cases, the mechanism has been SUBTRACTIVE of genetic information, just as natural selection is.

7. Homo SAP GMOing  of E. coli to make it produce insulin and/or what Monsanto does to plant genomes is an OBSERVED example of Intelligent Design by humans (depending on your point of view.   ). At any rate, neither natural selection or random mutation mechanisms are in evidence so GMO changes CANNOT be defined as Evolution according to SET or GUT.  


Let us begin with item "1." above. Dr. Stephen Meyer claims the Cambrian Explosion is scientific proof of the lack of transitional fossils. If you want to trot out some "transitional" fossils found subsequent to the Cambrian rock strata layer, then you are not serious. WHY? Because the Cambrian layer has COMPLEX life forms. You cannot "get there from here", as they say in Vermont.

The scientific community accepts the fact that their is no SET explanation for the Cambrian Explosion lack of transitional fossils. Why don't you? In fact, that is why Gould came up with PEET (Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution Theory) in 1972! That didn't work out either, as Gould himself admitted before his death. 

So that leaves us with the "do not pass go, do not collect $200" Cambrian Quagmire for SET.

To finish framing the argument for SET (Standard Evolution Theory or GUT - Grand Unified Theory of evolution) true believers you so you know I do appreciate  the possibility that you believe it is laughable, magical thinking "creationist superstition" to even broach the possibility that SET or GUT is not scientifically valid, please take five minutes of your time to watch Dr. Stephen Meyer answer the charge that Intelligent Design (the competing theory) is NOT SCIENCE:

http://viewrz.com/video/demarcation-argument (five minute video)    

Ashvin and Ka, both scholars and philosophers that can argue the fur off a grizzly bear, will probably enjoy his answer.      I leave it to them to get into the details of the Demarcation Argument (often used to restrict definitions in order to defend consensus view).

The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.