Summations Only

We did, so that's a yes.As you had no comeback, the question is now whether you can make so much as a token effort to refute it.

That's debatable. They were accumulating facts, but were they making sense of them?

Let me add what I posted on the other thread. Further to my previous remarks, I would point out that only evolution makes sense of the fact that these are adaptations. Why should the neck of the giraffe, which is long and goes up, bear such a striking resemblance to the neck of, say, a pig, which is short and goes along?(If we found two analogous designed objects, such as a footbridge across a short stream and a radio mast, which had the same basic plan, which were so obviously variations on the same theme, this would not make sense to us, we would be deeply puzzled.)Now evolution does make perfect sense of the pig and the giraffe: they have common ancestry, they are adaptations of the same thing, and per the theory of evolution, evolution cannot scrap a design and go back to the drawing board.Without evolution, how would you make sense of it? A creationist might get as far as "God chose to do it that way for some reason", but what is the reason?---This is a particularly good example because it is CRR's. He had the whole of nature to choose from to find one thing that does make sense without evolution, and he chose something that flagrantly doesn't.Should we tell him about the recurrent laryngeal nerve?

Sure, but did people back then make sense of biological facts, or did they merely accumulate them?People looked at rainbows for thousands of years too, but they didn't make sense before we had a theory of optics. (Of course, people had explanations back then too, usually variants on "God did it by magic", but that didn't actually make sense of the rainbow 'cos of being wrong.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, the burden of proof is on someone who disputes a generalization: it's up to them to find a counterexample.You gave an example of something you thought did make sense without evolution, namely the anatomy of the giraffe. You were wrong. Would you like to try again?

No, you don't. No, they hadn't really understood it. Natural selection was seen as exerting only conservative pressures. No-one said otherwise. No-one claimed that making sense of biology is invariably of practical use, just that one can't make sense of it except in the light of evolution.

Heritable change. We've been through this.

But people barely knew anything about it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If I said that nothing in the dynamics of the Solar System made sense except in the light of gravity, and acclaimed Newton as a brilliant scientist, would you reply: "So what's this got to do with Newton? Gravity has been a known fact for thousands of years."

You should really find out what "straw man" means --- unless it is your mission in life to make a damn fool of yourself, in which case please do carry on as you are.If there is still something which, having read my posts, you don't understand, or wish to pretend not to understand, perhaps you could ask me politely to explain it to you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No?Goodnight then.

It doesn't have to be.

Not content with mere fallacious argument, you conclude with a brazen falsehood.

What odd lies you tell. Do you actually hope to deceive Taq when you lie to him like that, or is it just a gratuitous display of dishonesty? "You've joined a cult! This is bad. Here, let me prescribe you some religious mantras that you should recite 30 times daily."

That's a very stupid lie you just told.Whom do you hope to deceive?