[betty boop]

Full retreat into the meaning of words is no answer to my rather simple question.

You continue to miss my point: the complete description of natural phenomena does not exclusively reside in physical descriptions.

I give up, allmendream. After five years of corresponding with you, I have not achieved one single success in getting you to think "outside the box" of your Darwinist "conditioning."

Plus, how on earth could you possibly digest in about ten minutes, what it took me several hours to write?

Jeepers, you must be a true genius!

[betty boop]

p.s.: PLUS your question — what is the physical mechanism that drives evolution? is simply "stupid" in the first place: For if we cannot say what it is that is doing all this "evolving" in the first place, what is the point of the exercise?

And Darwinism has nothing to say on this point.

JMHO FWIW.

[allmendream]

We have been over this before.

I repeat myself because you seem incapable of understanding.

If it is not ESXCLUSIVELY a physical phenomena - SOME component of it must be a physical phenomena - but you seem to have no idea what it is - or any curiosity about what it is - or any plan to discover what it is. How lazy. How inelegant. How useless. How typical of creationism.

It didn't take long to read through your garbage and discern that it did absolutely nothing towards answering the question I asked - just more inartful dancing around the subject.