musket- when mr dyson developed his cyclone hoover ,it was the result of operational science. I know I keep telling you, but this involves observations on a subject by repeatable experiments. this is not the domain of Darwinism.
shimrod ,I did begin to read origins but it is so boring and hard going ,I gave up. but not before reading his admission that what he proposed could equally be otherwise interpreted from the data he presented. that data is basically the study of natural selection on various forms - I remember ploughing through stuff on pigeons.
and what did he find? changes via natural or artificial selection but they were still birds, and I think still pigeons.
I have before invited you's to give me the section of the book where he demonstrates that it can go any further than that.
nothing was forthcoming- I wonder why !!
perhaps, shimrod ,you can do so from your reading of it?
I suppose I could read dawkins. stuff like how the eye is so badly designed and thus demonstrating no creator or a stupid one.
but he was wrong. the so called backward wiring is the optimal engineered design for sight.
maybe another reason he wont debate creation scientists.
of course over the years, I have read many of the posts of his disciples and I would have thought his admirers would have presented his best arguments.
but then ,you probably have!

Well, lays'n'gelmen, I thought it necessary to reproduce the whole of this post in order to demonstrate unto you a man who professes, and revels in, his own ignorance in such a touchingly irony-free manner. Here we have a man who takes the lies of ancient and tendentious desert-dwellers (most of whom didn't exist) so literally yet who can't get on with the beautiful, simple and elegant, not to speak of neutral, writing of Darwin, a man who, exceptionally, married science to superb literary communication. Of course, he hasn't "read Dawkins", which has, as you can see all too plainly from his post, resulted in his total misunderstanding of every aspect of the man and his writings. I find it very moving, actually, that a man can so freely display his pig-ignorant claptrap for all to see, yet be so immune to embarrassment over his own crass stupidity. His skin must be even thicker than his skull.