[Diamond]

The ridiculous extreme to me is the characterization of a conclusion based on a finite number of observations as equivalent to a declaration of what is and is not possible. With that characterization you introduced the problem of induction into the discussion. Fine. You don't approve of schaef21 inferring a general law or principle from the observation of particular instances of genetic mutation.

And now in this response to me you call my noticing your introduction of the problem of induction into the discussion "a straw man argument".

I'll tell you what; find one observation of a genetic mutation increasing coded information and you falsify schaef21's conclusion and win the argument. Nothing extreme about that.

Cordially,

[tacticalogic]

I'll tell you what; find one observation of a genetic mutation increasing coded information and you falsify schaef21's conclusion and win the argument.

If you find one fossilized skeleton of homo sapiens in the same strata as fossilized dinosaur bones, and you can falsify ToE. To me the difference is that the "Theory" part of ToE means they're at least honest enough to admit that the might be wrong.