The evolution of Nietsche

From a Metabunk comment:

In this case, all that is required to refute the claim is to come up with a plausible pathway by which that could have happened. That doesn't mean that it's specifically how it DID happen, it just shows that it's not necessary to invoke an unknown "designer".

I suspect that your argument would cause you to be blind to Monsanto's bioengineering for as long as the engineers were unknown, even if they were in fact engaged in it.

But in any event, plausible pathways is more imaginary evidence. Nothing against it... or philosophical hand waving, as some might project it. But it's not the equivalent of empirical and experimental evidence verifying rigorously specified theories of evolution. Also worth noting, arguing that "God wouldn't do this." is not only a long way from a rigorously specified theory... it actually probably has more to do with what one might imagine God doing or not doing. Some people can't imagine that God would allow his Son to be crucified and sacrificed like an animal so that others who themselves might as well be the symbolic equivalent of predators might eat, I'd imagine. But it would be ironic for Christians to imagine that or a theologian like Darwin to imagine that there is some deep and abiding problem within Christian theology with the idea of predation or the existence of one organism eating another.  (Seriously.)

Because as far as theological arguments about what God should or shouldn't do go, isn't eating incorporated as a central symbol of the Christian faith and what people imagine the Lamb of God allowing?

The opposite view:

...if the lambs say among themselves: 'these birds of prey are evil; whoever is least like a bird of prey, but rather its opposite, a lamb--would he not be good?' there is no reason to find fault with this institution of an ideal, except perhaps that the birds of prey might view it a little ironically and say: 'WE don't dislike them at all, these good little lambs; we even love them; nothing is more tasty than a tender lamb. --Nietzsche

Worth noting that for all his rambling about being Anti-Christ, Nietzsche didn't really get far after he made the mistake of mistaking the philosophical and theological hand waving of Darwinism for science:

As the correspondence of his last period reveals, he imagined himself to be either the God Dionysos or the Crucified. In this latter role he caused a public—and in reality humanely beautiful—scandal, which led to his transfer to the asylum for nervous diseases in Turin:
Nietzsche interfered in Turin with a cab driver who was mistreating his horse, as so often happens in Italy. Nietzsche embraced the horse’s neck and prayed that it be beatified in the name of God. Then he collapsed.
(Nietzsche and After
by Robert Rie
Journal of the History of Ideas,
Vol. 13, No. 3. (Jun., 1952) :366)

What an Ubermensch Nietzsche turned out to be, huh?

Anyway, at least he died with a firmer grip on reality.

That's my ramble for today.