Syamsu writes:
Obviously your concept of science doesn't have much to do with standards of organizing knowledge, making your claim that it is scientific just empty pseudoscientific rhetoric.
Well perhaps my 'concept' of science doesn't have much to do with speculative claptrap. Calling natural selection pseudoscientific just because you happened to learn a new word is humorous.
Samysu writes:
Well you are wrong, and the odd place of natural selction or differential reproductive success in the structure of knowledge that follows from an environmental testing theory shows it, that it isn't about scientific merit.
I am assuming you have some research or a paper that backs this up? If natural selection is WRONG then perhaps you can produce a theory that is falsifiable and just as valid in describing how populations could of evolved.
™ Version 4.2
