When I was in kindergarten my teacher told me that when having a discussion with someone, it is generally a good idea to pay attention to what the other person is saying.
Why didn't you take his advice?
Clearly, this advice does not seem to have widespread currency, particularly amongst the true believers.
My comments regarding evolution were clearly directed to Darwinism and the widespread application of his theories. Specifically, I explicitly stated that his theory has two parts: the developments of variation within a species by a process of evolution; and the evolution of species from a common root.
I explicitly, and unambiguously, stated that the former is not an issue of contention; the latter is patent nonsense.
I draw the attention of the true believers to the title of Darwin’s work: “Origin of the Species by Natural Selection”.
If the true believers had either understood the title, or read the book, they would have understood my comments, and their uninformed diatribe would not have been necessary.
Furthermore they would have understood the significance of my reference to the fruit fly experiments, and why they are relevant to the discussion.
I am somewhat confused by the cheerleader’s diatribe about my apparent lack of understanding of evolution. I am of the belief that I have a very solid grasp of both genetics and evolution, in addition to a wide range of other scientific disciplines; I am, maybe somewhat naively, under the impression that this knowledge gives me a pretty solid foundation for the identification of the flaws in Darwinism.
Interestingly enough, one of the chief cheerleaders says: “How life arose, whether it be by abiogenisis, panspermia, God, aliens, or whatever, doesn’t matter, because evolutionary mechanisms don’t apply to non organisms.”
Funny, but the entire foundation of evolutionary theory arose from the need to explain the processes of life; both its creation, and its subsequent development. In addition, life requires an organism for its existence, and organisms by definition are life forms.
Look, it is very very simple. I'll sum it up as succinctly as I can:
Biological evolution depends on organisms passing on their traits. This is why we can only have biological evolution after the first life form has appeared and not before. The first life form is where the boundary is set for the theory's explanatory power; whatever led up to the first life form, is out of reach for the theory.
Do you understand? If not, read what I said again, as I don't think it can be explained any simpler.