Replies

And you failed to understand any of my comments.

Well, let's see:

What LD said in Post 672 was that 3. Evolution as a theory lacks comprehensiveness in that it fails to explain why the phenomena that first created life fails to continue to operate. Of course, this criticism is subject to the objection that initial conditions are impossible to recreate, most especially in the allowing the posited amount of time to pass for a successful observation. Nonetheless, this incompleteness subjects the theory of evolution to the objection that the originating phenomena (perhaps a deity or “intelligent designer”) may be continuing to operate and change living organisms outside of the postulated mechanism of evolution.

What you said in Post 673 was that The comments in #3 are wrong. Evolutionary theory makes no claim that "new" life has or has not occured. Genetic evidence does show strong relationships among all present day life. Fossil structures show strong evidences of relationships of past life (though not as strong as the genetic evidence, IMO.) There simply is no record of other "Trees Of Life." Current evolutionary theory (using data from geology) deduces that conditions are different now than in the pre-Cambrian.

So:

Genetic evidence does show strong relationships among all present day life. . .There is no record of other "Trees of Life" . . .and conditions were different.

So the TOE explains that the phenomena that first created life failed to continue to operate because "conditions are different?" You think that's "comprehensive"? Can you recognize that a change in conditions does not mean that the originating phenomena has ceased operation?