-
Firstly there is the problem that we can have no confidence that you have in fact “actually read these articles” – as you have a long track record of citing sources that you have only seen quoted by secondary sources (and all too frequently these secondary sources turn out to be apologists with no expertise in the fields they are making claims about.
-
But even if you have read the articles, it does not help your case any unless you can demonstrate that you comprehend them. This is particularly important in a field as complex, poorly-understood and mathematical as Quantum Physics. Lacking any demonstration of sufficient physics and maths background, you are simply confirming our strong suspicion that you are merely blindly parroting whatever bits of these sources you think help make your case, without any comprehension.
For these reasons I must continue to INSIST that you answer my questions:
Are we back to that stupid complaint yet again?
As you have been told before:
-
No “counter source” is needed when your source is not an expert on the issue you are citing them in support of. Such citations are merely an Argument from Authority *fallacy (in that “the putative authority’s expertise is [not] relevant to the claim at hand”). This is particularly true for Fuzzy-is-neither-a-biologist-or-historian-of-science and for the Youtube apologist you were citing early on (and whose citations list you plagiarised as your own) on the subject of Quantum Physics.
-
No “counter source” is needed when your own source does not support your claim – as has proven to be the case far too frequently in the claims you have made.
In order for a demand for a “counter source” to have any validity, you must FIRST establish a prima facie case with (i) a credible source, which (ii) actually supports your argument – otherwise there is NOTHING TO REBUT!
That you know of no “difference” between “Darwin’s original ideas, contained in The Origin of Species” and “modern biological concepts, that derive from Darwin, and thousands of other biologists” is simply further evidence of your complete ignorance of biology.
Only if (i) you are so gullible as to believe Fuzzy-is-neither-a-biologist-or-historian-of-science, and (ii) ignore Natural Selection.
Balderdash!
There is no connection between Owen’s work (which never rose to the level of a scientific “theory”) and Penrose’s. The only connection exists in the wishful thinking of somebody who is ignorant of quantum physics, of biology, and of basic logic.
[Addendum: I would note that I could find no acknowledgement, by either Penrose himself, or others, that his work “built upon” (or had any relationship whatsoever) to Owen’s.]
This ludicrous conspiracy theory is easily debunked by the millions of students who graduate each year from the Catholic education system, accepting evolution.
Given that (i) evolution (at-least-partially) by Natural Selection is the only viable Theory of Evolution we currently have (and Owen never even proposed a competing mechanism for NS), and (ii) both this mechanism, and the theory, have survived over a century of testing (so are clearly not just “assumptions”) – I can simply dismiss your vacuous ‘rejection’ as simply the result of willful ignorance of biology.
Given that you have provided no satisfactory explanation of how any of this evidence can be attributed to “common DESIGN”, this is simply an empty ignorant assertion.
I would note that you have achieved nothing in your response except provide further evidence of your own complete ignorance of biology.
Based on your performance to date, I would doubt if you could pass even the most elementary introductory module on Evolution – which make your pretensions that you can somehow supplant that which you don’t understand all the more absurd.
You are like a life-long blind person trying to explain why Impressionism is bad art.