Orac, obviously there isn't much good going to come out of continuing this discussion, since your take on it is that you are right and we are wrong. I think your problem is that you have gotten caught up in the student syndrome where you know everything you need to know and everybody else is wrong. This is a common mistake made by students.
So the thing about it is, you have decided that QM has all the answers. But one thing that you have to keep in mind is that classical physics has been working wonderfully well in the its range of applicability for a long time now. Where it is applicable it provides very good answers. And so far, while there may have been hints as to how to extend QM into the larger world where classical physics is still working, nobody has actually managed to completely bring them together. So that you are trying to tell people who have very good observations of how evolution works that they don't know what they are talking about, based on unproven, or at least untested, theoretical ideas.
So I will ask. Does your explanation provide any testable predictions as to how evolution works? Or is it just a theoretical assemblage that is so complex you can't work it out? Basically the classical approach that you so deride is providing answers that can be worked out and tested in the lab and in the field.
Bill Gill
