[exDemMom]

That’s a shame, because it gives great insight into the nature of the theory. It wasn’t until I read Origin that I began to realize just how circular the reasoning was by which Darwin supported his assertions. The theory has been refined, but it is still dependent on most of those assertions, so it’s good to examine his reasoning if you want to critically examine modern evolutionary theory.

Okay, let's just stop right here. When you have to copy/paste or paraphrase the same old anti-science nonsense that's already infesting the web in multitudes of anti-science "creationist" sites, that tells me that you have *no* education in science or the scientific method. It also sends me the message that you have no desire to learn any real science. Claiming that you've read On the Origin of Species and "realized" just how circular Darwin's reasoning was--a meme that is widely propagated on anti-science "creationist" websites--does nothing to convince me that you know *anything* about the theory, either as it was originally proposed by Darwin, or in its current form. If you are going to assert supposedly circular reasoning, can you explain how/why the reasoning is allegedly circular? Hint: science is a cyclical/iterative process; to someone who is clueless, I suppose cyclical could appear circular. But it's not.

Here is an example of circular reasoning:

The Bible is infallible.
Why is it infallible?
Because it is the word of God.
How do you know it is the word of God?
Because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is infallible.

Notice how there is NO exterior corroboration of any of the assertions.

I will say one more thing about theory. Theory is an explanation of a physical process that is formulated (and refined) on the basis of extensive observation and testing. The physical process--in this case, evolution--does not change because someone made a theory to describe it. Gravity doesn't exist because of gravitational theory. The electromagnetic spectrum doesn't exist because someone formulated the theory of electromagnetism. And evolution did not spring into existence just because Darwin proposed an explanation for it.

Bonus question: what were some of the other theories of evolution, and how did they fail to withstand experimental testing? (For a double bonus, answer that based on real science, and not on what you read at Answers in Genesis.)

[Boogieman]

“Claiming that you’ve read On the Origin of Species and “realized” just how circular Darwin’s reasoning was—a meme that is widely propagated on anti-science “creationist” websites—does nothing to convince me that you know *anything* about the theory, either as it was originally proposed by Darwin, or in its current form.”

What, you’re calling me a liar now, besides just casting about your “anti-science” slanders? Why in the blue blazes would I want to have a conversation with someone like that? Good day to you.