How To Define "Scientist"?

[Woyzeck]

Now why would you ignore "Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks."

Better wipe off those specs, old timer.

Better get thee to a library instead of concerning yourself over glasses.

The fossil record isn't perfect, but we have a whole host of examples of transitional species. Which is what makes their claim cute, especially when they call it 'missing links.' Evolution still stands regardless.

Evolution stands as a theory for one reason, it works. When it no longer works as an explanation it will stop being a theory.

This is true of all scientific theories, from gravity to germ theory.

 

[Woyzeck]

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

Do you know what repeatability means?

Sorry, I forgot, you believe in public schools, you don't know what anything means.

Repeatability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Better get thee to a library instead of concerning yourself over glasses.

The fossil record isn't perfect, but we have a whole host of examples of transitional species. Which is what makes their claim cute, especially when they call it 'missing links.' Evolution still stands regardless.

Not only would Darwin call your post nonsense...

Darwin would be floored on the amount of evidence we have today, and not just the fossils.



I stand by what I said. You haven't given me any reason to not like the fossil record except going "Ooooh look! Paleontologists!"



Scientific literacy and political ideology are not intimately tied.



No, it's quite factual. Evolution has gone under rigorous experiments and examination of evidence since Darwin's time. I could name a few experiments and scientists if you like, they're quite fascinating.



Scientific theory is different from the theory you are using in this context.

You and this thing called a library should still meet up. I'd think you'd get along great.



Do you have actual points against evolution, or are you just going to ramble about bullshit and hope it sticks?



You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution.

Is that what you are protesting???

Why?

Hrm, I accept because its the basis of my ideology, because I'm an atheist. You'll do anything to not actually discuss the merits of evolution won't you?

I don't mind if you have some secular belief, but why pretend that there is profusion of 'missing links'?

'Cause, there isn't.

They're called transitional species. And we have quite a lot of them. I'm not sure why you continue to claim there isn't, or why you continue to call them 'missing links.'

"Do you have actual points against evolution, or are you just going to ramble about bullshit and hope it sticks?"

Your language....are you feeling defeated?

And, you misunderstand.

Mine is not an argument for nor against the theory of evolution.

Simply, the following:

1. It is a theory, not a fact.

2. From my position, due to lacunae it does not obviate the existence of God.

3. Your positon, being an atheist, you must defend 'evolution' to the very end.

I don't see a problem with either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

Do you know what repeatability means?

Sorry, I forgot, you believe in public schools, you don't know what anything means.

Repeatability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments.

Only in a Petri dish. Not with organisms higher than prokaryotes.

 

[Woyzeck]

Not only would Darwin call your post nonsense...

Darwin would be floored on the amount of evidence we have today, and not just the fossils.



I stand by what I said. You haven't given me any reason to not like the fossil record except going "Ooooh look! Paleontologists!"



Scientific literacy and political ideology are not intimately tied.



No, it's quite factual. Evolution has gone under rigorous experiments and examination of evidence since Darwin's time. I could name a few experiments and scientists if you like, they're quite fascinating.



Scientific theory is different from the theory you are using in this context.

You and this thing called a library should still meet up. I'd think you'd get along great.



Do you have actual points against evolution, or are you just going to ramble about bullshit and hope it sticks?



You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution.



Hrm, I accept because its the basis of my ideology, because I'm an atheist. You'll do anything to not actually discuss the merits of evolution won't you?

I don't mind if you have some secular belief, but why pretend that there is profusion of 'missing links'?

'Cause, there isn't.

They're called transitional species. And we have quite a lot of them. I'm not sure why you continue to claim there isn't, or why you continue to call them 'missing links.'

"Do you have actual points against evolution, or are you just going to ramble about bullshit and hope it sticks?"

Your language....are you feeling defeated?

And, you misunderstand.

So that's a no, you don't have any points for against evolution?

Mine is not an argument for nor against the theory of evolution.

Okay. So stop posting like you know evolution is wrong then, and stop wasting my time.

Simply, the following:

1. It is a theory, not a fact.

It is a scientific theory, and it is a fact.

2. From my position, due to lacunae it does not obviate the existence of God.

Okay. Yeah I'm fine with this, evolution does not make a claim about the existence of a deity. You're the one who actually tried pegging it to atheism.

By the way, the whole point of science is trying to figure out how stuff works in our universe. All the hard sciences have gaps in their knowledge, if they didn't there wouldn't be a point to science then. Just because science doesn't know everything (and it doesn't, the entire point of it is to figure it out) doesn't mean science knows nothing.

3. Your positon, being an atheist, you must defend 'evolution' to the very end.

Atheism has nothing to do with it. One of my interests is biology and I have a working knowledge of it. I tend not to like people (usually creationists on here) who don't have either and try to act like they do. Misinformation posing as science is a dangerous thing. Like the autism vaccinations that everyone made a big deal about but turned out to be a load of crap.

So, yeah do you actually have criticisms of evolution, or are you going to continue to act like you don't have problems with it? Because you clearly do, or we wouldn't be arguing over it.

 

[Woyzeck]

Do you know what repeatability means?

Sorry, I forgot, you believe in public schools, you don't know what anything means.

Repeatability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments.

Only in a Petri dish. Not with organisms higher than prokaryotes.

We've seen evolutionary changes in lizards introduced to a new habitat.

There's also the experiment of a Soviet geneticist in the middle of the 20th century who bred foxes with the single trait of tameness in mind, and got the surprising result of them looking and behaving like dogs. Ain't biology cool?

 

[flacaltenn]

THe entire concept of "missing links" is something that shouldn't escape scientific scrutiny.
I think we all would agree. Needs to be explained -- or "does it"?

Darwinian natural selection doesn't focus on the mechanism of mutations.. It only focuses on the "sifting and sorting" that occurs AFTER a reproducible genetic mutation is caused to be produced.

The adaptation does not CAUSE the mutation. The adaptation and selection part has to WAIT on the random occurence of mutations..

Therefore, what if there were to be found great LEAPS in mutation? Some anatomical form change that taxonomy scientists don't recognize as "a link"? Before you scoff -- realize that we can today jump species in the laboratory. It's being done regularly solely at the will of man.. No "missing link" to be found between a natural species and what can be fabricated TODAY in the lab.

I think we know very little about what actually happened during great extinctions. What if there were periods of great mutation. Caused by intense cosmic ray, chemical exposure or even the periodic introduction of alien DNA every 10 million years or so? All (except the alien part) KNOWN scientific accelerators of mutation.

Have we validated the adaptation and natural selection theory for EVERY Branch of the tree of life -- of course not. To do so would require enormous familiarity with food chain, environment, predation, disease, weather, ect, ect.. that accompanied every branch. So what makes us believe that we haven't missed events and eons where the motive force of evolution ran in overdrive?

Don't want to get into this here and derail the thread. Anybody interested could PM me to start one.

But don't SOLELY use Darwin and natural selection to explain every branching of the tree of life. Darwinian theory didn't CAUSE that branching -- it's only the effect that sorted out the results. For instance...

According to the book "Evolution," by Ruth Moore, it is possible to speed up mutations with radiation:

So Muller put hundreds of fruit flies in gelatin capsules and bombarded them with X-rays. The irradiated flies were then bred to untreated ones. In 10 days thousands of their offspring were buzzing around their banana-mash feed, and Muller was looking upon an unprecedented outburst of man-made mutations. There were flies with bulging eyes, flat eyes, purple, yellow and brown eyes. Some had curly bristles, some no bristles...
Mutations fuel the process of evolution by providing new genes in the gene pool of a species.

Then, natural selection takes over.

QED -- no potential missing links. Never were any to begin with... 10 days to new species? Imagine if those conditions persisted for a hundred years!!!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

[snip]

So, so some 'scientists' cheat?

And what is it they cheat about?

It's all in the scientific method, repeated testing yielding and confirming expected results. Do some scientists lie for personal gain? I'm sure there are a few that do, just like the people in every other facet of life that are only out for themselves. Science isn't a matter of belief...if it's not factually represented it's not science, it's theory at best. If someone can't understand this than they probably shouldn't talk about science, and others should disregard them.

I generally wouldn't knock science or the people that propel it forward. I'm not some kind of AGW fanatic, but I don't believe it's completely off-base either. Sometimes the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I am however all for cleaning up the messes we make, some of it is absolutely revolting.

Science is a matter of belief. The difference is scientists base their beliefs on experience and facts, not platitudes.

CERN recently announced that they had almost eliminated the possibility of the existence of the Higgs bosun. Given the fact that the Standard Model of physics is based on the Higgs bosun, no informed person would ever state that science is not based on belief,

I suggest that you jump off a high building and strongly believe that the law of gravity doesn't exist. See how much belief affects science.

 

[Old Rocks]

We are not discussing facts, we are discussing science and how it works. Science relies on belief, and questions facts.

I'm sorry but that isn't how science works.

It's based on Observation and repeat-ability. One who does anything else is no longer being a scientist.

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

Believe me, nobody here that understands the working of scientific inquiry is under any illusion that anybody has succeeded in educating you on how science works.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."

Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks.
Intelligent design creationism and ... - Google Books

Oops! Did I just ruin your day again, deanie?

Naw, you just proved yourself an ignoramous in yet another area of science.

That's all right, PC, we understand that some people are just incapable of facing reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now why would you ignore "Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks."

Better wipe off those specs, old timer.

Better get thee to a library instead of concerning yourself over glasses.

The fossil record isn't perfect, but we have a whole host of examples of transitional species. Which is what makes their claim cute, especially when they call it 'missing links.' Evolution still stands regardless.

Not only would Darwin call your post nonsense...

...but so would contemporary paleontologists, such as the experts referenced.

But rather than merely skewer your idea, as I just did, I'd rather consider the basis for your ideology.

Evolution is a theory....yet the ideologues such as yourself pretend that it is fact.

You do know the difference between theory and fact, don't you? 'else you need to get thee to a library.

There must be some burning desire to shut your eyes tightly, cover your ears, and stamp your little feet....

Could it be your view that man is a self-creator, that there is no God, and you folks will protest any view that suggests that there is a Divine, Nature's God, a Creator, a Supreme Judge of the World, and Divine Providence....you know, the terms used in the Declaration of Independence?

Is that what you are protesting???

Why?

I don't mind if you have some secular belief, but why pretend that there is profusion of 'missing links'?

'Cause, there isn't.

My, my. Only a theory. You just demonstrated your total ignorance of science, old gal.

Theory is as good as it gets in science.

How is the meaning of theory in science different from the everyday use of the term? - Yahoo! Answers

A scientific theory is a scientific work, which describes a system behind observations and makes predictions for future observations.

This should also be the everyday use, but there are also people, who think, a theory is sloppy work, not always true and untested.

But that is wrong - a scientific theory is the highest form of a scientific work, with a long list of conditions reached, not turn a simple hypothesis about the observations into this theory. A theory for example, has to be fallible. That means: It must be contain a prediction, which would invalidate the theory, if the prediction does not come true. The theory of evolution for example predicted the existence of a way to give the attributes of the parents to the children. Almost a century after the theory of evolution, the DNA was found.

Of course, science can be wrong. That's why a theory has to be able to be wrong. A theory, which is under all imaginable conditions true, is not scientific. But that is no problem for science. When a theory is found to be wrong, there has to be a better one. Science is a dynamic process. The theory of gravitation for example is still not done. We know that there are many phenomena, this theory does not describe. For example Black holes are still not adequately described by it. So, there is now the search for a better theory.

But that does not mean, that a scientific theory, which was found wrong, is also bad. The theory of gravity by Galileo is already found wrong for centuries, but still, you can do a lot of good work, by assuming a constant gravity acceleration. It is not accurate, but often accurate enough (for example for rocket guidance, this model of gravity gets often used for simplifying math). Each new theory becomes more accurate.

So, a good theory, which passed many tests in history, can still be wrong. But: the chance that it is right is around 99.9999%.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Better get thee to a library instead of concerning yourself over glasses.

The fossil record isn't perfect, but we have a whole host of examples of transitional species. Which is what makes their claim cute, especially when they call it 'missing links.' Evolution still stands regardless.

Evolution stands as a theory for one reason, it works. When it no longer works as an explanation it will stop being a theory.

This is true of all scientific theories, from gravity to germ theory.

Never said otherwise.

I am trying to point out that those that think science relies completely on facts, whatever they think facts are, do not understand science. We are very close to a major upheaval in physics right now because CERN has not been able to find the Higgs boson. That does not change the fact that physics relied on the Standard Model for years, and will probably continue to use it even though it is wrong. If it works, it is used, if it doesn't, it is, tweaked, reworked, ore replaced and discarded.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

Do you know what repeatability means?

Sorry, I forgot, you believe in public schools, you don't know what anything means.

Repeatability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments.

I am not challenging evolution, I have as much faith in it as any scientist. I am just trying to educate some people who think they can define science for the rest of the world. No two lab experiments in evolution ever produce exactly the same results, that is what repeatability is all about.

That does not make evolution not true, it just means that people who try to use textbook definitions to prove they understand science should keep their mouths shut.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's all in the scientific method, repeated testing yielding and confirming expected results. Do some scientists lie for personal gain? I'm sure there are a few that do, just like the people in every other facet of life that are only out for themselves. Science isn't a matter of belief...if it's not factually represented it's not science, it's theory at best. If someone can't understand this than they probably shouldn't talk about science, and others should disregard them.

I generally wouldn't knock science or the people that propel it forward. I'm not some kind of AGW fanatic, but I don't believe it's completely off-base either. Sometimes the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I am however all for cleaning up the messes we make, some of it is absolutely revolting.

Science is a matter of belief. The difference is scientists base their beliefs on experience and facts, not platitudes.

CERN recently announced that they had almost eliminated the possibility of the existence of the Higgs bosun. Given the fact that the Standard Model of physics is based on the Higgs bosun, no informed person would ever state that science is not based on belief,

I suggest that you jump off a high building and strongly believe that the law of gravity doesn't exist. See how much belief affects science.

What if I fly? Does that invalidate science?

Your problem is that, since you are an idiot, you assume the people who post things you do not understand are idiots also. Jumping off a building and challenging the existence of gravity would not affect nature one iota. Gravity does not come from science, it comes from mass. The fact that you do not understand that proves that you should not be involved in a discussion about science in the first place, because science is not nature.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry but that isn't how science works.

It's based on Observation and repeat-ability. One who does anything else is no longer being a scientist.

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

Believe me, nobody here that understands the working of scientific inquiry is under any illusion that anybody has succeeded in educating you on how science works.

If you ever get to the level of understanding grade school science it will be an improvement.

Your last post demonstrated you do not understand science. That means I am not the one that needs to be educated, but I do so enjoy mocking idiots that think they are smarter than I am simply because they already know everything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My, my. Only a theory. You just demonstrated your total ignorance of science, old gal.

Theory is as good as it gets in science.

Theory is not as good as it gets in science.

As an aside to Woyzeck, do you see what I meant when I said I was talking about people who think they can define science when they do not understand it?

You seem to have missed Newton's laws of motion when you took science in third grade.

1. The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.
2. The acceleration of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force and inversely proportional to the mass.
3. The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

Those are laws because they have been tested and actually are proven to be true. Laws are verbal or mathematical statements of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, and they are as good as it gets in science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Better get thee to a library instead of concerning yourself over glasses.

The fossil record isn't perfect, but we have a whole host of examples of transitional species. Which is what makes their claim cute, especially when they call it 'missing links.' Evolution still stands regardless.

Not only would Darwin call your post nonsense...

...but so would contemporary paleontologists, such as the experts referenced.

But rather than merely skewer your idea, as I just did, I'd rather consider the basis for your ideology.

Evolution is a theory....yet the ideologues such as yourself pretend that it is fact.

You do know the difference between theory and fact, don't you? 'else you need to get thee to a library.

There must be some burning desire to shut your eyes tightly, cover your ears, and stamp your little feet....

Could it be your view that man is a self-creator, that there is no God, and you folks will protest any view that suggests that there is a Divine, Nature's God, a Creator, a Supreme Judge of the World, and Divine Providence....you know, the terms used in the Declaration of Independence?

Is that what you are protesting???

Why?

I don't mind if you have some secular belief, but why pretend that there is profusion of 'missing links'?

'Cause, there isn't.

My, my. Only a theory. You just demonstrated your total ignorance of science, old gal.

Theory is as good as it gets in science.

How is the meaning of theory in science different from the everyday use of the term? - Yahoo! Answers

A scientific theory is a scientific work, which describes a system behind observations and makes predictions for future observations.

This should also be the everyday use, but there are also people, who think, a theory is sloppy work, not always true and untested.

But that is wrong - a scientific theory is the highest form of a scientific work, with a long list of conditions reached, not turn a simple hypothesis about the observations into this theory. A theory for example, has to be fallible. That means: It must be contain a prediction, which would invalidate the theory, if the prediction does not come true. The theory of evolution for example predicted the existence of a way to give the attributes of the parents to the children. Almost a century after the theory of evolution, the DNA was found.

Of course, science can be wrong. That's why a theory has to be able to be wrong. A theory, which is under all imaginable conditions true, is not scientific. But that is no problem for science. When a theory is found to be wrong, there has to be a better one. Science is a dynamic process. The theory of gravitation for example is still not done. We know that there are many phenomena, this theory does not describe. For example Black holes are still not adequately described by it. So, there is now the search for a better theory.

But that does not mean, that a scientific theory, which was found wrong, is also bad. The theory of gravity by Galileo is already found wrong for centuries, but still, you can do a lot of good work, by assuming a constant gravity acceleration. It is not accurate, but often accurate enough (for example for rocket guidance, this model of gravity gets often used for simplifying math). Each new theory becomes more accurate.

So, a good theory, which passed many tests in history, can still be wrong. But: the chance that it is right is around 99.9999%.

"Theory is as good as it gets in science."

Absolutely true...with folks like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments.

Only in a Petri dish. Not with organisms higher than prokaryotes.

We've seen evolutionary changes in lizards introduced to a new habitat.

There's also the experiment of a Soviet geneticist in the middle of the 20th century who bred foxes with the single trait of tameness in mind, and got the surprising result of them looking and behaving like dogs. Ain't biology cool?

I must say, this article certainly supports your thesis.

But it was hardly an example of human-initiated experimentation that can be regularly replicated.

Further, the definition of evolution is tortuous here, as even your link suggests...

"What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."


What is being identified is a sudden genetic change, known as a mutation.
But I will stipulate that mutations are the mechanism of evolution.
On that basis I'll send a rep.

Still, I don't believe that the example represents any the validation of your premise: "Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments."

Nor does it deny the aspects that a religious perspective adds to the theory.
But I did find it interesting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's all in the scientific method, repeated testing yielding and confirming expected results. Do some scientists lie for personal gain? I'm sure there are a few that do, just like the people in every other facet of life that are only out for themselves. Science isn't a matter of belief...if it's not factually represented it's not science, it's theory at best. If someone can't understand this than they probably shouldn't talk about science, and others should disregard them.

I generally wouldn't knock science or the people that propel it forward. I'm not some kind of AGW fanatic, but I don't believe it's completely off-base either. Sometimes the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I am however all for cleaning up the messes we make, some of it is absolutely revolting.

Science is a matter of belief. The difference is scientists base their beliefs on experience and facts, not platitudes.

CERN recently announced that they had almost eliminated the possibility of the existence of the Higgs bosun. Given the fact that the Standard Model of physics is based on the Higgs bosun, no informed person would ever state that science is not based on belief,

I suggest that you jump off a high building and strongly believe that the law of gravity doesn't exist. See how much belief affects science.

Now, Rocks....surely you're not saying either that no scientists 'cheat,' nor that all of science is proven...or provable?

'Evolution' is one largely based on faith...as is religion.

On the other hand, it is clear that you are unaware of the huge amount of cheating, stealing data, manipulations designed to prove a premise, ect.

I suggest you look at the work of Dr. Goodstein of Caltech who has written extensively about said problem.
And....

"How common is scientific fraud? Nobody really knows. Defenders of science's purity often argue that such fraud is very rare, the product of a tiny number of "bad apples." But I doubt that. My suspicion is that the cases of fraud that are exposed are just the tip of the iceberg."
Cheating in Science, Part I: The Tragic Story of a Young Man

Too bad you are unable to divorce yourself from the global warming fraud, or you could accept the facts about many 'scientists.'

 

[Woyzeck]

Only in a Petri dish. Not with organisms higher than prokaryotes.

We've seen evolutionary changes in lizards introduced to a new habitat.

There's also the experiment of a Soviet geneticist in the middle of the 20th century who bred foxes with the single trait of tameness in mind, and got the surprising result of them looking and behaving like dogs. Ain't biology cool?

I must say, this article certainly supports your thesis.

But it was hardly an example of human-initiated experimentation that can be regularly replicated.

You could, to an extent. If you introduce a new species to a new island and leave it alone it will evolve separately from the host population you took it from. It's a basic method of speciation, via geographic isolation.

You're not going to get the same lizards to evolve the precise same way, but you'll get them to evolve.

Further, the definition of evolution is tortuous here, as even your link suggests...

"What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

What is being identified is a sudden genetic change, known as a mutation.
But I will stipulate that mutations are the mechanism of evolution.
On that basis I'll send a rep.

Gratzi.

Still, I don't believe that the example represents any the validation of your premise: "Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments."

Well that's a pity, because it does. Would you perhaps like some more examples? Maybe you're a fan of bacteria, my personal favorite is one that Richard Lenski did for over twenty years, centered around E. coli.

Let's see, if you like foxes, here's a link about the experiment the Soviet geneticist I described above did.

Do you like fish? John Endler did an experiment concerning guppy color and cameoflauge in the 1970s. Here's a PBS page that describes his experiment quite well.

I have more if you like, although if you still think this doesn't show evolution in organisms, I'm afraid I have to conclude you don't seem to understand the term 'evolution.'

Nor does it deny the aspects that a religious perspective adds to the theory.
But I did find it interesting.

I'm not sure what religious perspective you could add. Evolution makes no quibbles or qualms concerning religion. It really doesn't have much to do with it.