You can of course choose to discuss it any time you like. However I do not understand why you call genetics a "special case." It has tested and verified the ToE and you don't seem to be keen any time soon to try to explain why you think the opposite.
I prefer to discuss the others first. Once they are all assigned to their correct boxes, we can proceed to genetics.
But if I cannot convince you that explaining a pattern of fossil arrangement by pointing to the pattern itself is unscientific, I have little confidence in my capacity to explain the genetics situation in a manner you will understand.
Your intention here seems to be to invalidate the ToE on the grounds that it is circular reasoning. I am explaining to you why it is not circular reasoning and how it is instead a testable, falsifiable theory. To continue to tell me that this is off-topic, and to tell me that my other questions are sidetracking you or that you're not ready to answer them yet, would seem to put you in denial mode.
Sorry, I missed your explanation. Is it hiding somewhere in the jumble of off-topic questions?
I'm incredulous about your ability to show that the entire ToE must be invalid because it is circular reasoning. I am also beginning to be incredulous about your ability to present your alternative model, which fits with everything you listed in your boxes.
Box 2 isn't empty; I intend to add thereinto any non-circular evidence you submit. Or any other evolutionist. Or anyone else. If anything in box 1 needs to be moved to box 2, I intend to move it.
In this thread I'm discussing box assignments, and the validity/invalidity of circular reasoning. 'Most everything else I consider to be off-topic. I'm not interested in granting any theory a pass. If evolution theory's scientific, I don't see why its promoters shouldn't be eager to demonstrate that it can succeed without employing circular reasoning. Why are you dragging your feet?
You're also welcome to argue that I'm wrong in refusing to grant an exception. I can't help imagining "anything should be considered scientific if it atheistic enough", although I don't imply you yourself would use that. EvC did have its entertainment value at times...
I suspect you're unwilling to acknowledge just how ambitious Darwin was. He attempted to account for a whole lot of things in his explanation(s). You look at the evolution paradigm and you see a whole lot of evidence. Some of it is box one evidence, and some is box two evidence. I think it's important that the difference be clearly understood. Do you?
