Joined: Nov. 2006
Given all of this, I will echo Glen: If you won't adopt the scientific attitude toward these questions but are instead going to stick to your pre-formed conclusion and labor to keep it "evidence proof," then I don't think there will be much of a meaningful exchange here.
What is the "scientific attitude" in your comprehension? Taking darwinian pressupositions to the evolution of horses or what? Do you mean that "natural selection" had been involved in the phenomenon? Because all the concept of random mutation and natural selection is nothing more as an unproved hypothesis, not the "scientific attitude" as you would like us to believe. Daniel Smith quoted prominent scientists of past like Berg and Schidewolf. Daniel might has been inspired by John Davison's Manifesto, which is an extraordinary anti-darwinian source of information.
I supported the view held by John and Daniel using the research of entomologist Franz Heikertinger who waged war against proponents of "natural selection" more than 40 years. F. Heikertinger (himself an evolutionist) refuted "natural selection" as the source of mimicry giving vast number of facts, observations and by darwinists neglected phenomenons.
Those great men were prominent scientists and you have no right to call anyone using their arguments that they use "pre-formed arguments" and not "scientific attitudes".
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-