Which approach is best suited to end Origins debate?

[John_Harshman]

I have to question the credentials of these supposed “reviewers” in the relevant fields, which would appear to be physics, neuroscience, origins of life, systematics, paleontology, and evolutionary biology. I only count myself expert or informed in three of those, but those parts of the revised manuscript are indeed incoherent. I have no reason to suppose that the rest of it is any different.

No, it is not nearly ready for publication. It will never be nearly ready for publication.

As an example, I offer this word salad:

Created kinds: A recognizable base form and structure that does not change over time (Breeds within a kind). They are separate and unique (no common ancestors) and fully functional (no trial and error). Similar in form/design/ variable surface features owing to similarity in function and common designer. Can produce many species; has wide genetic diversity and can acclimate to environment. [43] Example - 196 Bird kinds, Wolf kind, Elephant Kind

Species: A similar base form and similar surface features that do change over time, such as size, song, color, etc. (Breeds within a species). Represents the entire group related by common ancestry from present generations. Can produce many varieties; has narrow genetic diversity and is acclimated to environment. [43] Example – Over 10,000 bird species today; Wolf/Dog/Fox; Asian and African elephants/Mastodon/Mammoth

Basic types: Represents the entire group related by common ancestry including both past (created kinds) and present generations (species). Reproductive discontinuity between basic types; Reproductive continuity within a basic type.

Didn’t your reviewers even suggest that you use complete sentences?