Those aren't quotes, but I need the boxes. The top box contains observations Darwin either explained or employed in his explanations. Nothing in this box can ever be valid evidence for his explanation. That's right! It's time to crack down on circular reasoning.

The second box contains evidence Darwin did not have available. The things in this box may be evaluated as potential evidence in favor of his explanations.

The third box contains special cases. More on those later.

The objective here is to be strictly scientific. Using any item in the Observations box to support Darwin's explanations would constitute begging the question.

As a goodwill gesture, I will be abusing several terms in this thread, including but not limited to 'theory', 'evolve', 'evolution', and 'hypothesis'. This does not mean I don't fully respect the English language, nor should anyone conclude that I advocate any definition of these terms other than the beautiful meanings they possessed in pre-Darwinian times.

Everyone is invited to help me fill these boxes. I'm sure I left some things out.

It's important to understand, that the contents of the second box are not being granted validity. They are still subject to other valid objections, but we can't rule them out as circular evidence.

A survey of the contents of these boxes is helpful in understanding why so many intelligent people think the theory of evolution is well-supported. As I said before,


It doesn't help matters that everyone specializes these days, and history is treated with little respect. Anti-history, like the example above, makes it difficult for people realize that much of the evidence offered to support Darwin's theory is automatically going to appear to authenticate it to one extent or another.

Regarding transitionals: Four classes are listed. Darwin claimed every living thing is technically a transitional form. This is the fourth class. He knew about it - box 1 - case closed. He also discussed "living" transitional forms. In case the need should arise to distinguish these from the fourth class, I have designated them as third class.

It was desired and expected that some undisputed transitional series would turn up. Something no critic of the theory could gainsay. This would not be any single form, but a group. Flipping through pictures (in order) of such a group would be like watching a movie of a creature morphing into another type of creature. A series of this type would constitute a first class transitional. Individual members of the (potential) group would are designated second class transitionals.

As the most dinosaur-like bird, I think Archaeopteryx might qualify as a second class transitional. Alone, it demonstrates nothing. But if more & more dino-like fossils turned up, a series might be formed, clearly demonstrating a morphological pattern not known to Darwin.

I'm undecided how to deal with genetics at this point.

I'm requesting that folks on this thread to refrain from discussing anything beyond box assignments. Arguing the further issues would just end up arguing the entire theory of evolution. Of course evolutionists are welcome to argue in favor of circular reasoning as well. People can always use a laugh.