In the title, I employ a term some may not know.
New software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced.
One of the single most fundamental assumptions we make is that some sort of "theory" of evolution exists. Clearly this is something that we should not have to assume. If it exists, it should be available. Indeed, it must be available if it is to be tested. It must have been available in the past, if it has been tested already, right?
I would like to read it. I may be mistaken, and I may learn something. At this moment, I do not believe there is an actual "theory" of evolution. I used to take it for granted; now I stop taking it for granted. Until I see an actual "theory", I shall consider it vaporware.
If a "theory" should be presented, I intend to evaluate it. I intend to determine whether or not it is subject to experimental falsification, and meets the proper criteria. A candidate "theory" should be stated as a theory, and clearly recognizable.
We are continually bombarded with "the theory of evolution says" or "does not say" such-and-such. There's an easy way to find out what it says, if it exists.
It may be some time before we see meaningful responses. In the meantime, I intend to spend a few posts discussing how the word "theory" has been abused in a way that facilitates this misunderstanding.
I have a request to those who are tempted to make excuses for the absence of any theory: hold off a spell, and give others a chance. Maybe they can find one, eh?
To those who would sell evolution, here's your chance to present your "theory". I think it's reasonable to ask to see the product, and one might even expect some degree of enthusiasm on the part of the sales staff.
I am fully aware that many people believe such a "theory" exists, and they write about what they imagine. Such does not demonstrate the existence of an actual "theory". Such writings can be found anywhere. Anyone wasting my time linking me to talk about a "theory", rather than a "theory" itself will be reported.
I am only interested in seeing the alleged "theory" itself. Do not waste our time with links like the following:
None of those contain the "theory" itself.
Do not think I will forget after the thread grows a couple of pages, either.