“Descent with modification through natural selection” is faith based.

“Descent with modification through natural selection” is faith-based.

“Descent with modification through natural selection”, is the creation model that Darwinist present. “Natural selection” is not “evolution”. Natural selection and evolution as two separate and non-interchangeable parts of the Darwinian cause and effect creation model. One term cannot serve as an abbreviation for the other; otherwise, the “descent with modification through natural selection” creation models lose their legitimacy and credibility.

Evolution is the ‘effect’ in the Darwinist cause and effect model of creation. It shows what was created, living creatures, or fossils. The other half of the picture is the cause. This would be “descent with modification through natural selection”. This half cannot be found in nature, excavated fossils, or anywhere upon the earth. Absent from the record is the name or description of the parts of nature, and the rules or regulations by which they operate during the creation process. A true creation model will properly demonstrate cause and effect or cause to effect, using terms found in nature. Since the Darwinist creation model is missing evidence-based in nature or science supporting ‘descent with modification through natural selection’, it is argued from inferences and interpretations of the past. When historical inferences and personal interpretations are used, any creation model is sidelined and becomes a point of reference during the testimony.

When reading pro ‘natural selection’ publications I am always taken back by the lack of science, or terms found in nature, and their replacement with personifications, correlations, extrapolations, analogies, and metaphors –none of which is science. Both Natural Selection and "religious based creation" fail as a science model because they both have nothing of nature in it. Both are testimonial links between cause and effect, operate by testimonial attributions made to it, cannot be used to do anything in nature, contain no science, and are both an exercise of faith.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
“Descent with modification through natural selection” is faith-based.
Which part do you think lacks evidence and requires faith?

That organisms have descendants? (descent)

That those descendants are not exact copies? (modification)

Or that those descendants differ in their reproductive success? (natural selection)


Evolution is the ‘effect’ in the Darwinist cause and effect model of creation. It shows what was created, living creatures, or fossils. The other half of the picture is the cause. This would be “descent with modification through natural selection”.
No, evolution is the process, and descent with modification through NS is the primary mechanism.
 
Which part do you think lacks evidence and requires faith?

That organisms have descendants? (descent)

That those descendants are not exact copies? (modification)

Or that those descendants differ in their reproductive success? (natural selection)

You’re playing semantic games. Again ‘evolution’ is the effect, ‘descent with modification through NS’ is the cause. There is no scientific model that explains how ‘descent with modification’ operates using terms found in nature.

Let’s keep it simple.

Science model for making Baklava.

• 1 (16 ounce) package phyllo dough

• 1 pound chopped nuts

• 1 cup butter

• 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon

• 1 cup of water

• 1 cup white sugar

• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract

• 1/2 cup honey

• Preheat oven to 350 degrees F(175 degrees C).

• Butter the bottoms and sides of a 9x13 inch pan.

• Chop nuts and toss with cinnamon. Set aside.

• Unroll phyllo dough. Cut whole stack in half to fit pan. Cover phyllo with a dampened cloth to keep from drying out as you work.

• Place two sheets of dough in pan, butter thoroughly. Repeat until you have 8 sheets layered. Sprinkle 2 - 3 tablespoons of nut mixture on top.

• Top with two sheets of dough, butter, nuts, layering as you go.

• The top layer should be about 6 - 8 sheets deep.

• Using a sharp knife cut into diamond or square shapes all the way to the bottom of the pan.

• Bake for about 50 minutes until baklava is golden and crisp.

• Boil sugar and water until sugar is melted.

• Add vanilla and honey.

• Simmer for about 20 minutes.

• Remove baklava from oven and immediately spoon sauce over it.

• Let cool.

• Per Serving: 393 calories; 25.9 g fat; 37.5 g carbohydrates; 6.1 g protein; 27 mg cholesterol; 196 mg sodium.

The scientific method is an orderly method used by scientists to solve problems, in which X is subjected to a thorough investigation, and the resulting facts and observations are analyzed, formulated in the hypothesis, and subjected to verification by means of experiments and further observation. A simple recipe for Baklava passes the test, it is observable and repeatable. 160 years after the Origin of Species the Darwinist has no multiple lines of experimental, repeatable evidence but observational evidence for ‘descent with modification through natural selection”. And such ‘evidence’ is presented as a testimonial from a novel interpretation of that evidence.



No, evolution is the process, and descent with modification through NS is the primary mechanism.
The discussion is 'cause and effect' which has relationship, if the effect is there that is evidence of the cause, vs processes or mechanisms which do have relationship.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
You’re playing semantic games.
No, I was asking you a question, and you're already evading. That's not a good sign. Please answer: Which part do you think lacks evidence and requires faith? Descent, modification, or natural selection?

Again ‘evolution’ is the effect, ‘descent with modification through NS’ is the cause.
Again, no it isn't. You need to get the basics right before you can refute anything. Evolution is the process, and descent with modification through NS is the primary mechanism.

There is no scientific model that explains how ‘descent with modification’ operates using terms found in nature.
What evolutionary terms do you think are not 'found in nature'?

The scientific method is an orderly method used by scientists to solve problems, in which X is subjected to a thorough investigation, and the resulting facts and observations are analyzed, formulated in the hypothesis, and subjected to verification by means of experiments and further observation. A simple recipe for Baklava passes the test, it is observable and repeatable. 160 years after the Origin of Species the Darwinist has no multiple lines of experimental, repeatable evidence but observational evidence for ‘descent with modification through natural selection”. And such ‘evidence’ is presented as a testimonial from a novel interpretation of that evidence.
Direct experimentation is only one small part of the scientific method. The foundation of science is rather inference to the best explanation, and evolution is by far the most powerful explanation for the observed facts of biological diversity. We don't have direct repeatable experiments for plate tectonics or the life cycle of stars either, but they are still valid science.

The discussion is 'cause and effect' which has relationship, if the effect is there that is evidence of the cause, vs processes or mechanisms which do have relationship.
I can't even parse this to know what you are trying to say.
 

Tiburon

Member
You’re playing semantic games. Again ‘evolution’ is the effect, ‘descent with modification through NS’ is the cause. There is no scientific model that explains how ‘descent with modification’ operates using terms found in nature.

Let’s keep it simple.

Science model for making Baklava.

• 1 (16 ounce) package phyllo dough

• 1 pound chopped nuts

• 1 cup butter

• 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon

• 1 cup of water

• 1 cup white sugar

• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract

• 1/2 cup honey

• Preheat oven to 350 degrees F(175 degrees C).

• Butter the bottoms and sides of a 9x13 inch pan.

• Chop nuts and toss with cinnamon. Set aside.

• Unroll phyllo dough. Cut whole stack in half to fit pan. Cover phyllo with a dampened cloth to keep from drying out as you work.

• Place two sheets of dough in pan, butter thoroughly. Repeat until you have 8 sheets layered. Sprinkle 2 - 3 tablespoons of nut mixture on top.

• Top with two sheets of dough, butter, nuts, layering as you go.

• The top layer should be about 6 - 8 sheets deep.

• Using a sharp knife cut into diamond or square shapes all the way to the bottom of the pan.

• Bake for about 50 minutes until baklava is golden and crisp.

• Boil sugar and water until sugar is melted.

• Add vanilla and honey.

• Simmer for about 20 minutes.

• Remove baklava from oven and immediately spoon sauce over it.

• Let cool.

• Per Serving: 393 calories; 25.9 g fat; 37.5 g carbohydrates; 6.1 g protein; 27 mg cholesterol; 196 mg sodium.

The scientific method is an orderly method used by scientists to solve problems, in which X is subjected to a thorough investigation, and the resulting facts and observations are analyzed, formulated in the hypothesis, and subjected to verification by means of experiments and further observation. A simple recipe for Baklava passes the test, it is observable and repeatable. 160 years after the Origin of Species the Darwinist has no multiple lines of experimental, repeatable evidence but observational evidence for ‘descent with modification through natural selection”. And such ‘evidence’ is presented as a testimonial from a novel interpretation of that evidence.




The discussion is 'cause and effect' which has relationship, if the effect is there that is evidence of the cause, vs processes or mechanisms which do have relationship.
What is the scientific proposition that is being investigated in the making of Baklava?
 
No, I was asking you a question, and you're already evading. That's not a good sign. Please answer: Which part do you think lacks evidence and requires faith? Descent, modification, or natural selection?
Read the OP. Descent with modification through natural selection is the cause. It is one item not two. And it does require fath, there is no scientific model that explains it using terms found in nature. Empirical, quantifiable, verifiable or repeatable.
Again, no it isn't. You need to get the basics right before you can refute anything. Evolution is the process, and descent with modification through NS is the primary mechanism.
Wrong, everything a Darwinist points to is identified as having evolved. Never does a Darwinist point to X and claim it is the process. And if such a process does exist p!ease point it out and explain the process and it's mechanism as a model. Note true science explains causes using models. Or can you point to NS. Or is it all an exercise of faith.
What evolutionary terms do you think are not 'found in nature'?
Tall, big, long, time, short, are terms not found in nature. What is found in nature and used by true science are such terms as temperature [* F, *C] , distance [feet, meters], time [ hours, years ], weight [lb, kg], volume [cubit feet], germs [ rabies, cholera ect.]. "Fitness" for example, is attributed by the user, similar to other terms that do not exist in the physical world, such as far, near, hot, cold, ect.
Direct experimentation is only one small part of the scientific method. The foundation of science is rather inference to the best explanation, and evolution is by far the most powerful explanation for the observed facts of biological diversity. We don't have direct repeatable experiments for plate tectonics or the life cycle of stars either, but they are still valid science.
No one is debating plate tectonics or life cycles of stars, which we do have evidence for, and science models that explain them. Darwinist do not have a science model that explains descent with modification through NS. You think after 160+ years Darwinists would have more than faith.
I can't even parse this to know what you are trying to say.
Let's simplify. Evolution is the cause and descent with mod through NS is the effect. It is a cause and effect model. If the effect is present it is evidence that the cause exist or existed.. The existence of the effect is dependent on the existence of the cause. They are inseparable unlike your process - mechanism model, which lacks dependency.
 
No, I was asking you a question, and you're already evading. That's not a good sign. Please answer: Which part do you think lacks evidence and requires faith? Descent, modification, or natural selection?
Read the OP. Descent with modification through natural selection is the cause. It is one item not two. And it does require fath, there is no scientific model that explains it using terms found in nature. Empirical, quantifiable, verifiable or repeatable.
Again, no it isn't. You need to get the basics right before you can refute anything. Evolution is the process, and descent with modification through NS is the primary mechanism.
Wrong, everything a Darwinist points to is identified as having evolved. Never does a Darwinist point to X and claim it is the process. And if such a process does exist p!ease point it out and explain the process and it's mechanism as a model. Note true science explains causes using models. Or can you point to NS. Or is it all an exercise of faith.
What evolutionary terms do you think are not 'found in nature'?
Tall, big, long, time, short, are terms not found in nature. What is found in nature and used by true science are such terms as temperature [* F, *C] , distance [feet, meters], time [ hours, years ], weight [lb, kg], volume [cubit feet], germs [ rabies, cholera ect.]. "Fitness" for example, is attributed by the user, similar to other terms that do not exist in the physical world, such as far, near, hot, cold, ect.
Direct experimentation is only one small part of the scientific method. The foundation of science is rather inference to the best explanation, and evolution is by far the most powerful explanation for the observed facts of biological diversity. We don't have direct repeatable experiments for plate tectonics or the life cycle of stars either, but they are still valid science.
No one is debating plate tectonics or life cycles of stars, which we do have evidence for, and science models that explain them. Darwinist do not have a science model that explains descent with modification through NS. You think after 160+ years Darwinists would have more than faith.
I can't even parse this to know what you are trying to say.
Let's simplify. Evolution is the cause and descent with mod through NS is the effect. It is a cause and effect model. If the effect is present it is evidence that the cause exist or existed.. The existence of the effect is dependent on the existence of the cause. They are inseparable unlike your process which lacks dependency.
Mmmmmmm.... No its not.
And no it's not.

Congratulations.
And a steering wheel is not a car.



Mmmmmmm.... No its not.
And no it's not.

Congratulations.
And a steering wheel is not a car.
And Pepsi is not Coke. Do you have a point to make?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Read the OP. Descent with modification through natural selection is the cause. It is one item not two. And it does require fath, there is no scientific model that explains it using terms found in nature. Empirical, quantifiable, verifiable or repeatable.
You didn't answer my question: What part do you think requires faith - descent, modification, or NS?

Wrong, everything a Darwinist points to is identified as having evolved. Never does a Darwinist point to X and claim it is the process. And if such a process does exist p!ease point it out and explain the process and it's mechanism as a model. Note true science explains causes using models. Or can you point to NS. Or is it all an exercise of faith.
The process is descent with modification through NS. This is how species evolve.

Tall, big, long, time, short, are terms not found in nature. What is found in nature and used by true science are such terms as temperature [* F, *C] , distance [feet, meters], time [ hours, years ], weight [lb, kg], volume [cubit feet], germs [ rabies, cholera ect.]. "Fitness" for example, is attributed by the user, similar to other terms that do not exist in the physical world, such as far, near, hot, cold, ect.
Can you please define what on earth you mean by a 'term found in nature'? Because you're really not making any sense here. It is an objective fact that some organisms are taller than others, so how is tallness/height not a quantifiable attribute directly observable in nature?

No one is debating plate tectonics or life cycles of stars, which we do have evidence for, and science models that explain them. Darwinist do not have a science model that explains descent with modification through NS. You think after 160+ years Darwinists would have more than faith.
I see the point of my analogy has escaped you. I was saying that evolution, just like stellar evolution and plate tectonics, remains real science despite not lending itself to direct experimentation or repetition.

Let's simplify. Evolution is the cause and descent with mod through NS is the effect.
No, it isn't. You keep repeating this but it doesn't get any less wrong.
 
You didn't answer my question: What part do you think requires faith.
Descent with modification through natural selection is 1 item. It is not 2 separate items. Without natural selection Included in the Darwinist theory all you would have is isolated mutations. Again it is descent with modification through natural selection not descent with modification plus natural selection.

Can you please define what on earth you mean by a 'term found in nature'? Because you're really not making any sense here. It is an objective fact that some organisms are taller than others, so how is tallness/height not a quantifiable attribute directly observable in nature?
Note the following.
Science model for beta blockers. The mechanism of action of beta-blockers (BBL) is heterogeneous, incompletely under-stood and different for available agents. As a basic principle, BBL antagonize adrenergic stimulation of beta-adreno receptors (B-AR) in a competitive way through their structural similarities to catecholamines. In addition to stimulating B-AR (B1, B2 and B3), catecholamines also stimulate alfa-adreno receptors (A-AR) (A1 and A2). B3-AR remain inactivated in basal conditions but impose negative inotropic effects in intense adrenergic stimulation. They also mediate lipolysis and thermogenesis. Catecholamines affect the cardiovascular system by influencing the central nerve system (preganglionic neurons), sympathetic ganglia( postganglionic neurons), the heart, peripheral arteries and the kidney. The ortho sympathetic nerve system is affected both on the central and peripheral level. Activation of central A2-AR inhibits sympathetic activity, which is further modulated at post ganglionic neurons, where noradrenergic release is inhibited by presynaptic A2-AR stimulation (a negative feedback mechanism) but stimulated by activating B2-AR.The heart contains B1-AR in excess to B2-AR in a70/ 30 ratio. Stimulating B1 and B2-AR results, via cAMP-dependent intracellular pathways, in positive inotropic, chronotropic, lusiotropic and dromotropic effects. Adreno receptors on smooth muscle cells in arterial walls mediate vasoconstriction (A2-AR) and vasodilation (B2-AR). At the renal level, release of renine out of juxtaglomerular cells is B1-AR mediated and sympathetic stimulation of the adrenal medulla results in epinephrine release. Adrenoreceptor-depen-dent mechanisms outside the cardiovascular system are, among others, regulation of carbohydrate metabolism through hepatic and skeletal muscle glycogenolysis( A1- and B2-AR), pancreatic insulin release (B2-AR) and lipolysis (B1 and B3-AR), tremor (skeletal muscle contraction through B2-AR stimulation) and broncho-dilation (B2-AR mediated relaxation of smooth muscle.

The above is a science model explaining how beta blockers work. It uses terms found in nature. Darwinist lack any such model explaining how descent with mod through NS operates. What you have is an abundance of personal opinions.
I see the point of my analogy has escaped you. I was saying that evolution, just like stellar evolution and plate tectonics, remains real science despite not lending itself to direct experimentation or repetition.
You forgot to include observable. Can anyone point to descent with mod through ns? No. Can anyone explain it using terms used by real science? No. What you have is an exercise of faith passedoff as science. Basically science-free facts.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Descent with modification through natural selection is 1 item. It is not 2 separate items. Without natural selection Included in the Darwinist theory all you would have is isolated mutations. Again it is descent with modification through natural selection not descent with modification plus natural selection.
Wrong.
Evolution is a combination of descent with modification and natural selection. Descent with modification is the evolutionary mechanism that produces change in the genetic code of living organisms. There are three mechanisms for such changes, genetic mutation, genetic drift and migration. The fourth mechanism, natural selection, determines which descendants survive to pass on their genes, based on environmental conditions. When people are aware of the four evolutionary mechanisms of evolutionary change, they can understand how evolution works and how humans and other animals have evolved from primitive living organisms.

To reprise:
Descent with modification consists of:
Genetic mutation
Genetic drift
Migration.
These three mechanisms ensure that there is a constant modification of genetic material throughout a population.

Natural selection is the fourth mechanism which weeds out genes that are poorly suited to the prevailing environment. It does nothing to modify genetic material. It changes the proportions of various genes in the population.
Note the following.
Science model for beta blockers. The mechanism of action of beta-blockers (BBL) is heterogeneous, incompletely under-stood and different for available agents. As a basic principle, BBL antagonize adrenergic stimulation of beta-adreno receptors (B-AR) in a competitive way through their structural similarities to catecholamines. In addition to stimulating B-AR (B1, B2 and B3), catecholamines also stimulate alfa-adreno receptors (A-AR) (A1 and A2). B3-AR remain inactivated in basal conditions but impose negative inotropic effects in intense adrenergic stimulation. They also mediate lipolysis and thermogenesis. Catecholamines affect the cardiovascular system by influencing the central nerve system (preganglionic neurons), sympathetic ganglia( postganglionic neurons), the heart, peripheral arteries and the kidney. The ortho sympathetic nerve system is affected both on the central and peripheral level. Activation of central A2-AR inhibits sympathetic activity, which is further modulated at post ganglionic neurons, where noradrenergic release is inhibited by presynaptic A2-AR stimulation (a negative feedback mechanism) but stimulated by activating B2-AR.The heart contains B1-AR in excess to B2-AR in a70/ 30 ratio. Stimulating B1 and B2-AR results, via cAMP-dependent intracellular pathways, in positive inotropic, chronotropic, lusiotropic and dromotropic effects. Adreno receptors on smooth muscle cells in arterial walls mediate vasoconstriction (A2-AR) and vasodilation (B2-AR). At the renal level, release of renine out of juxtaglomerular cells is B1-AR mediated and sympathetic stimulation of the adrenal medulla results in epinephrine release. Adrenoreceptor-depen-dent mechanisms outside the cardiovascular system are, among others, regulation of carbohydrate metabolism through hepatic and skeletal muscle glycogenolysis( A1- and B2-AR), pancreatic insulin release (B2-AR) and lipolysis (B1 and B3-AR), tremor (skeletal muscle contraction through B2-AR stimulation) and broncho-dilation (B2-AR mediated relaxation of smooth muscle.

The above is a science model explaining how beta blockers work. It uses terms found in nature. Darwinist lack any such model explaining how descent with mod through NS operates. What you have is an abundance of personal opinions.
This is nonsense. There are vast numbers of papers on evolution, including some that are very technical. Studies of evolution, whether evolution in general, in specific species or groups of species, in geographical areas or ecosystems, in pathogens, in the fossil and genetic record, in behaviour, or any other area, use scientific terminology in order to be precise, and quantifiable data on order to be replicable. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

You forgot to include observable. Can anyone point to descent with mod through ns? No.
Yes, both in experiments and observations, in the lab and in the field.
Can anyone explain it using terms used by real science? No.
Yes, because the scientists who study and use evolution in their work (all biologists for example) are... duh, scientists, communicating science to other scientists in scientific journals. The arrogance you display in your complete ignorance of their work would be breathtaking, if it were not so commonplace amongst no-nothing creationists.
What you have is an exercise of faith passedoff as science. Basically science-free facts.
No, what you have is a colossal amount of ignorance seasoned with an equal amount of arrogance.
 

rossum

Active member
Descent with modification through natural selection is 1 item. It is not 2 separate items.
It is possible to have descent without modification if there are no changes to DNA. This can happen in some bacteria with small genomes.

Hence the "descent" part is separable from the "with modification" part.

Neither descent nor modification (if present) are dependent on there being a situation of resource constraint. With a resource constraint there is competition for resources and hence 'survival of the fittest'. If there is no resource constraint then everyone gets enough resources and everyone survives, not just the fittest.

Natural selection is dependent on some resource constraint being present. That dependency does not apply to either "descent" or "with modification".

There are three separate items with different properties. Your attempt to lump them together into one is in error.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Descent with modification through natural selection is 1 item. It is not 2 separate items. Without natural selection Included in the Darwinist theory all you would have is isolated mutations. Again it is descent with modification through natural selection not descent with modification plus natural selection.


Note the following.
Science model for beta blockers. The mechanism of action of beta-blockers (BBL) is heterogeneous, incompletely under-stood and different for available agents. As a basic principle, BBL antagonize adrenergic stimulation of beta-adreno receptors (B-AR) in a competitive way through their structural similarities to catecholamines. In addition to stimulating B-AR (B1, B2 and B3), catecholamines also stimulate alfa-adreno receptors (A-AR) (A1 and A2). B3-AR remain inactivated in basal conditions but impose negative inotropic effects in intense adrenergic stimulation. They also mediate lipolysis and thermogenesis. Catecholamines affect the cardiovascular system by influencing the central nerve system (preganglionic neurons), sympathetic ganglia( postganglionic neurons), the heart, peripheral arteries and the kidney. The ortho sympathetic nerve system is affected both on the central and peripheral level. Activation of central A2-AR inhibits sympathetic activity, which is further modulated at post ganglionic neurons, where noradrenergic release is inhibited by presynaptic A2-AR stimulation (a negative feedback mechanism) but stimulated by activating B2-AR.The heart contains B1-AR in excess to B2-AR in a70/ 30 ratio. Stimulating B1 and B2-AR results, via cAMP-dependent intracellular pathways, in positive inotropic, chronotropic, lusiotropic and dromotropic effects. Adreno receptors on smooth muscle cells in arterial walls mediate vasoconstriction (A2-AR) and vasodilation (B2-AR). At the renal level, release of renine out of juxtaglomerular cells is B1-AR mediated and sympathetic stimulation of the adrenal medulla results in epinephrine release. Adrenoreceptor-depen-dent mechanisms outside the cardiovascular system are, among others, regulation of carbohydrate metabolism through hepatic and skeletal muscle glycogenolysis( A1- and B2-AR), pancreatic insulin release (B2-AR) and lipolysis (B1 and B3-AR), tremor (skeletal muscle contraction through B2-AR stimulation) and broncho-dilation (B2-AR mediated relaxation of smooth muscle.

The above is a science model explaining how beta blockers work. It uses terms found in nature. Darwinist lack any such model explaining how descent with mod through NS operates. What you have is an abundance of personal opinions.

You forgot to include observable. Can anyone point to descent with mod through ns? No. Can anyone explain it using terms used by real science? No. What you have is an exercise of faith passedoff as science. Basically science-free facts.
Everything you just said is wrong, and for the third time you haven't answered anything I asked.

I don't think you're capable of discussing this topic.
 

Michael R2

Active member
Everything you just said is wrong, and for the third time you haven't answered anything I asked.

I don't think you're capable of discussing this topic.
He brought up this subject about a year ago using the exact same formula. He used the same 'science models' of making baklava and beta-blockers to 'prove' his position of 'terms found in nature'. It's a useless discussion. Honestly, it's best not to waste your time. I wasted three days last year in the attempt.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
He brought up this subject about a year ago using the exact same formula. He used the same 'science models' of making baklava and beta-blockers to 'prove' his position of 'terms found in nature'. It's a useless discussion. Honestly, it's best not to waste your time. I wasted three days last year in the attempt.
Yes, I know. I've actually been through all of this with him before as well.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
When reading pro ‘natural selection’ publications I am always taken back by the lack of science, or terms found in nature, and their replacement with personifications, correlations, extrapolations, analogies, and metaphors –none of which is science. Both Natural Selection and "religious based creation" fail as a science model because they both have nothing of nature in it. Both are testimonial links between cause and effect, operate by testimonial attributions made to it, cannot be used to do anything in nature, contain no science, and are both an exercise of faith.

More than 500 vital functions have been identified with the liver.

Faith in liver fossils that are unseen.

hepat/o goddess?
 
Is Pepsi a part of coke?
No?
Then you miss the point,
“Natural selection” is not “evolution”.
Natural selection is not evolution
And a steering wheel is not a car.
Pepsi is not Coke.

How does that get you to 'Pepsi is not part of Coke?'
You either missed making your point, explaining your point, or understanding your point.
 
Faith in liver fossils that are unseen.

hepat/o goddess?
"Liver fossils" are irrelevant to the subject matter. The topic is not the existence of liver fossils but the existence of a scientific model that explains depicts, shows, how the process of descent with mod through NS operates using empirical terms.
Do you know of one?
 
Top