[ Evolutionary Theory ] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that Self-Evident axiom some of it's more aggressive advocates would have us believe.
So, what's going on here? He still can't explain HOW life came about. If Ernst Mayr is the "end all" of neo-Darwinism, how can his version of Darwin's theory be so weak as to not withstand basic scrutiny? HIS theory is pure "philosophy", and based on Junk Science.
ROFL!!! Only if you close your eyes real tight and pretend not to see the *mountains* of evidence which provides overwhelming support for evolutionary biology... Where do the anti-evolutionists *get* these folks?
So, what's going on here?
An anti-evolutionist is misrepresenting the state of the science, that's what's going on.
He still can't explain HOW life came about.
Claiming to read minds of the dead now? Fascinating.
If Ernst Mayr is the "end all" of neo-Darwinism, how can his version of Darwin's theory be so weak as to not withstand basic scrutiny?
It can and does withstand scrutiny. What are you trying to say here?
HIS theory is pure "philosophy", and based on Junk Science.
ROFL!!! Okay, you keep believing that, while the rest of the world keeps doing research, which to date has overwhelmingly confirmed evolution.
But just for giggles, feel free to give some specific examples, in detail, of the "junk science" you mistakenly believe evolutionary biology is "based on"...
Let's test whether you really have any idea what you're talking about, or whether you've made the mistake of reading creationist sources -- and believing them. Note: Trying to "learn" about science from creationist sources is like trying to "learn" about conservatism by watching Michael Moore movies.
Whoops! WRONG!! Evolution does not address origins. That is a different theory.