[Diamond]

Ridicule and dismisal will not be persuasive in lieu of a demonstration of full and complete human knowledge of the history of a subject organism and all relevant mechanisms of mutation and probabilities of same. Absent such a demonstration, said assumptions are a necessary part of Darwinian theory, but assumptions nonetheless.

Cordially,

[js1138]

You are assuming, of course, that anything outside your personal consciousness actually exists.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Ridicule and dismisal will not be persuasive in lieu of a demonstration of full and complete human knowledge of the history of a subject organism and all relevant mechanisms of mutation and probabilities of same. Absent such a demonstration, said assumptions are a necessary part of Darwinian theory, but assumptions nonetheless."

Essentially, *Were you there??!* but with more words.

[Right Wing Professor]

Ridicule and dismisal will not be persuasive in lieu of a demonstration of full and complete human knowledge of the history of a subject organism and all relevant mechanisms of mutation and probabilities of same. Absent such a demonstration, said assumptions are a necessary part of Darwinian theory, but assumptions nonetheless.

'How do you know. You weren't there' is a stock and much derided creationist response. How do you know George Washington was the first president?

If you want to avoid derision, stop posting risible arguments.

We don't in general require a full and complete knowledge of the history of a phenomenon in order to regard it as adequately explained. Requiring such for evolution is just a sign of tendentiousness.

Once again, the function of L-GLO is not an assumption. L-GLO is defined by its function.