“You will note that I said ‘species’. Organisms that evolve through natural selection are not ‘new’. They are variants of the same species made prevalent by selective forces.”
You obviously do not understand what “species” are and are not. You act as if a “species” is a distinctly separate group of biological organisms, whereas in the real world a “species” is an arbitrary grouping of biological organisms for purposes of organizing the nomenclature and other information for similar biological organisms with apparent genetic relationships and behavior characteristics. Whether or not a population arises which can be designated a news natural or unnatural species is dependent upon the extent and types of changes which have accumulated on the successive generations of the genomes in the population/s. So, this concept of a distinct and unvarying species of biological organism is be definition of the meaning of the word “species” and invalid and false concept.
“Humans did not descend or evolve from Apes.”
That is the logical fallacy known as the Strawman Argument, because evolutionary theory does not say Homo sapiens sapien descended from the “apes”. on the contrary, evolutionary theory says the scientific evidence indicates Humans and Apes have a common ancestor, just as evolutionary theory says all vertebrates have a common ancestor, who by the way also were not Apes.
“Evolutionists claim ***mutations*** (not natural selection) ‘caused’ such ape to human evolution.”
Again, you obviously do not understand the definitions of the terminology you are using, and you have once more used the entirely fallacious “ape to human evolution” strawman argument. If you cannot get such simple facts correctly understood, it is no wonder you cannot begin to fathom the science in its simplest details. The characteristics of a biological organism is determined by its genome. When the genome is changed, the inherent properties of the individual organism is changed in some way as well. When enough changes of the genome have occurred to have a significant effect upon the population of a group of related biological organisms, the successor population of these new organisms may be recognized by biologists as a separate group with a separate species nomenclature.
“That is entirely in the realm of speculation. The maximum likelihood estimates of such mutations are completely speculative and based on ‘wanting’ to prove, in fact groping for a fit to a flawed theory.”
That is a completely false statement, as demonstrated by the hybridization of plants in our own garden to produce cultivars with substantially different genomes.
“Evolution of species adopted natural selection as an explanatory tool and in time hijacked it as the causal force to explain all things descending from a primordial soup.”
Again you are using a strawman argument against the 155 year old hypothesis which has subsequently been replaced with 155 years of scientific experience with physics, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, genome mapping, and paleontology.
“Correlation does not imply causation. But the reverse is certainly true. And evolutionary ‘science’ (actually astrology) utilizes statistics as its method of inferring things.”
Your statement uses the word “astrology” as a pejorative in a strawman argument to smear evolutionary theory, which is much like using astrology to falsely smear astronomical theory as if astronomical theory was also pseudo-science. Obviously, the Earth is now known beyond a shadow of a doubt to orbit around the Solar System’s common barycenter located within the radius of the Sun. Likewise, the 155 year old theory you are misusing to criticize current evolutionary theory constitutes a false argument because evolutionary theory, old or new, is not solely dependent upon statistics to produce valid observational results.
“Evolutionary astrology uses statistical correlations and writes from these correlations certain fictions of causation that fit its preordained narrative.”
Such a statement is a false defamation and a half truth used to invent a false conclusion to fit your own pejorative and “preordained narrative.”
“Evolution is not science. It is not even close.”
You have demonstrated that you do not even know the meaning of “Evolution” and its related terminology, so it is no wonder you are too ignorant of the subject to recognize what is and is not science.
“But it deceives by hijacking a narrative of the forces of Natural Selection to its domain of publication.”
You do not even understand what “Natural Selection is and is not, because you have totally misused the terminology. Therefore, your comments about the subject must be rejected as a collections of irrelevant and non-scientific fantasies.
"You are not using terminology correctly. Therefore Evolution is solid science."
I ain't buying anything you say. Just as I say that Global Warming and Evolution are very similar, I will also note that Evolutionists seems to engage in a great deal of semantic obfuscation -- just like Marxists. People who REALLY have a handle on truth can express themselves simply and concisely. Marxists cannot do this. They talk about politics and just use a hodge-podge of made-up vocabulary and sum it up by saying: "Scientific Socialism has once again been proved to be true."
I see you doing exactly the same thing. You prove absolutely nothing, but you spend an inordinate amount of time critiquing the vocabulary used by others. If we all just talked correctly, we would understand how solid the science of Evolution really is.
I think it's a fraud.
Yes you do type a lot and confuse things greatly.
Try toning it down and having an intelligent discussion rather than an hysterical rant.
Focus on a simple example say sickle cell anemia, its causes and the effects of natural selection on the prevalence of resistant haplotypes.
Depending on the quality of your response I may or may not respond.