[GourmetDan]

"In layman's terms, Dan is saying "any exploration into u by observing P, Q is moot because it is based on the assumption that u<>0 but I demand u=0 a priori". In other words, "don't show me proofs of Evolution because by doing so you are postulating that Evolution is true"."

No. I am saying that the fact that life exhibits a certain mechanism or behavior is not proof of evolution unless you engage in logical fallacy. You beg the question by assuming that you are showing a 'proof of evolution'. All you have really done is offer a simple fact of life. Nothing more.

[drtom]

Not sure where you got the basis for your statement.

Where did I say that sexuality is conclusive and sufficient proof for evolution? You have to follow the chain of argument before impute such a thing. If anything, the fallacy occurred on the theists' side:

Consider the claim in post 32. It stipulated that there will never be a plausible way to bridge the emergence of sexuality and evolution, effectively implying that there CANNOT be a bridge because sexuality is a hallmark of creation (if anywhere, this is where your fallacy argument comes to play).

In response, I showed that sexuality is in fact compatible with an evolutionary context.

Where did you see a postulation "because there is sexuality, evolution is proven"?