Given that neither you nor Rana have ever articulated what you wishfully call “Owen’s theory”, this claim remains completely unsubstantiated.
Further, even if this claim were true, it opens the question of whether there is sufficient descent in Owen’s theory for evolution to remain coherent.
Finally, we have only your word for it that your theory is in some way similar to Owen’s. Given that I have seen no evidence that you have either read Owen’s works (as opposed to cherry-picked quotes of him), or an explanation from a genuine Historian of Science of the full extent of his views, I am not willing to take your word for this.
“Secular scientists” have actual expertise in the topics at issue, and so trumps religious amateurs, such as Fazale Rana, ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ and yourself.
I have already challenged that claim:
Describing it in a single word: “incoherent”.
A more expansive description of it would be “a fanciful and disjointed grab-bag of unsubstantiated claims about quantum physics and biology.”
Given (i) your position is incoherent, and (ii) neither you nor Rana have given a concise articulation of what you believe Owen’s position or “theory” to be, this would seem to be an impossibility.
We can add “what is a Straw-man argument”, to the list of subjects that @Meerkat_SK5 knows sweet Fanny Adams about.
I was not mischaracterising your Theory. I was simply pointing out that (i) I have presented a prima facie case (based on Darwin’s own words) that Evolution-without-descent would be incoherent, and (ii) that you have failed to address this.
Hand-waving about Owen’s writings (which you have not read) and his “theory” (which you have not articulated) are utterly irrelevant to this question as Owen’s writings in question were written before Darwin published On the Origin of Species, let alone before his theory of “descent with modification” was fully understood (let alone further expanded upon).
No @Meerkat_SK5, it is you who is wasting my time. You are doing nothing but playing Pigeon Chess.
You are ignorant of Biology, you are ignorant of Quantum Physics and you are ignorant of Richard Owen’s place in 19th Century science.
[my emphasis]
We can add Reading Comprehension to the list of subjects that @Meerkat_SK5 knows sweet Fanny Adams about.
That is also an actual Straw-man argument for your information, as I had just explicitly distinguished between the consensus and the evidence:
O dear! 
-
People who are ‘hoping for a revolution’ in science have perennially been citing Kuhn since that book came out in 1962. The predictions of a revolution have outweighed the number of actual revolutions by several orders of magnitude.
-
Predictions of the demise of evolution have been frequent (and actually predate Darwin), but Evolutionary is still with us and still as strong as ever:
- Even if the current Theory of Evolution were replaced, its replacement would still have to explain the same mountain of evidence as the current version, and so would be indistinguishable from the original to a layman.
The mountain of evidence that has been published in scientific journals for the last 160 years.
What evidence do you have that your ‘theory’ is anything more than the incoherent rantings of a crank?
Given that you have failed to make a coherent argument, and are failing to even address the substance of my comments, I think now is the time to leave you to ‘Rant In Peace’.
The internet, and vanity presses, are full of the works of self-proclaimed ‘experts’, who claim to have disproven or ‘corrected’ evolution. Nobody remembers them five minutes later, and nobody cares. The same applies to your ‘theory’.
Good day to you sir.