> or publish definite statements about how this theory finally "disproves" competing theories. But again, this applies in any area of science.
Which competing theory does evolution disprove?
Which competing theory does evolution disprove?
I was just answering your question.
"I think the evolution of flight is one of the clearest examples that the standard theories of evolution purely by mutation and natural selection are still lacking explanatory power."
The standard response to this sort of doubt inevitably seems to involve a lot of huffing and foot stomping and irrelevant accusations of creationism, as it isn't currently possible to respond with an actually persuasive and non-speculative account of, say, the evolution of feathers via random mutation and natural selection.
Same as an ancap saying “he’s a statist, just accept it, because he says market failures exist”
FWIW, reading the other responses in this thread does not give me the impression that he's a creationist. If someone asks you why your view is more rational than theism, you should be able to respond to that question without shouting -- and the person asking won't necessarily be a theist. Unfortunately, as EGreg says, it's impossible to say anything at all critical of current evolutionary biology without someone screaming at you that you're a creationist and refusing to engage with any of your points.
Your comment over inflates my reaction.