Summations Only

You have not presented an hypothesis. You have presented a belief. When you understand the difference between the two you will understand the mistakes you have made in this thread. The problem is that you have no way of testing the hypothesis. Hypotheses need to be testable.

This isn't a suggested reading forum. This is a discussion forum. This means you need to make your own arguments. It is ok to cite work done by others, but you need to summarize their findings in your own words and be willing to defend those arguments with your own words. Thus far, you don't seem willing to do this.Of course, I am not an admin so take this as a suggestion from a fellow poster.

Are you saying that he is right? If so, demonstrate why he is right by citing evidence.Arguments from authority are useless. Cite evidence.

According to your definition of intelligence, a rock is intelligent because it decides to fall. A cloud is intelligent because it processes surrounding information to produce huricanes. By your definition, EVERYTHING is intelligent.

This process is quite different to how humans learn. Obviously, we are talking about different decision making processes. While some scientists may borrow terms from other areas, they are quite clearly using a different definition.The process that they are talking about is the inheritance of set responses to set stimuli. Set responses that increase fitness are spread through the population at a higher rate than set responses that do not increase fitness or lower fitness. This is a non-intelligent process.This is no different than water using its engrained intelligence to sort particles by density and size. If you take a mixture of sand, dirt, and gravel and mix it with a large volume of water you will find that the largest and most dense particles will sort to the bottom with the smallest and least dense particles on top. The water uses a decision making process to produce this pattern in the same way that an individual cell uses a decision making process to produce a set response to a set stimuli.

What you have just admitted is that you are a crackpot. A somewhat endearing crackpot, but a crackpot nonetheless.What I would suggest is that you learn about Darwin's life history. He didn't write Origins on a whim. He spent years studying as a naturalist before he even felt comfortable writing that book. If it were not for Alfred Russel Wallace he probably would have waited another few decades before publishing. The difference between you (the crackpot) and a scientist is that scientists work hard to support their ideas before publishing them. This belief seems to be very weak. This belief does not even compel you to construct a testable model. You don't even feel it necessary to learn the fundamentals of genetics and molecular biology. If this belief does not even compel you to put forth a minimum amount of effort to show that it has promise, why should other scientists feel compelled to check it out?Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

The falsification of a long standing theory is one of the most exciting things I can think of. You are wrong. We are not protecting a tightly held belief. We are protecting reason and logic, something which you cast aside on a regular basis. We would absolutely love it if you could actually challenge modern theories with something that resembles evidence, reason, and logic. Sadly, you lack all three.