so he came up with a bizarro view of heredity
According to your own link, his "provisional theory"(this should really be labeled an hypothesis) was replaced by Mendel's laws of inheritance. In his time, no one knew the mechanism of inheritance and genetics. Darwin proposed a possible answer, but his possible answer was replaced by current genetics. It may surprise you to learn that science is not religion and if a better explanation of observations and facts can be found, then the new explanation is adopted. Darwin proposed his hypothesis in 1838. Mendel proposed his in 1865.
reminescent of how the Nazi's invented the "frost" cosmology
You do know that the Nazis came about 100 years after Darwin came up with his hypotheses, right? Darwin didn't copy them as you seem to imply.
because they were embarrased by all the advances made by Jewish cosmologists (who incidentally were mostly Germans themselves)
I am not sure what this has to with anything. I can only guess the entire Nazi thing was just a pathetic combination of red herring and poisoning the well
To put it bluntly, your entire post is bullshit and shows your ignorance of both the scientific method, how scientific advancement works, and the current state of the Theory of Evolution. You should go read an actual scientific book on the Theory of Evolution before you spout off and make a fool of yourself again.
missing intermediate species or disputed claims of finding them
The "missing intermediate species" boils down to moving the goalpost. Creationists, such as yourself say "Find a link between these two thing you claim are related." An intermediate species is found and they say "Find one one between that one and this then!". It is a handful of unqualified crackpots, such as creationist engineers, disputing the claims.without evidence. Their personal incredulity is not evidence against anything.
Darwin's doubled-down denial of genetics
I have no idea what you are talking about with this. Nothing in Darwin's theory denies genetics. In fact, the Theory of Evolution relies on genetics for both a mechanism and evidence.
What we don't need is a return to the dark ages creationists would love.
That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.
The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order and if that doesn't work, spend a couple bitcoins on an assassin
This comment states one of the best response to a request for an interview is to murder the requester and it is now at +5 interesting? What the actual fuck, people? The person who posted this comment is apparently a paranoid psychopath and you are effectively praising him.
Does this mean that you think all people should have to bear identifying signs in public?
No, because people are sufficiently different from one another that they are easily distinguishable.
If not, why should only people in vehicles have to display such signs?
False statement. The people are not required to the signs. The vehicles are. And, again. while people are, in general, easily distinguishable from one another, vehicles are not. It is not uncommon for one to have several effectively identical vehicles in a single parking lot. (fun fact: the vehicles would most likely be "champagne" colored Toyotas)
What commercial activity did I talk about banning?
I stand corrected. I was thinking of a different thread.
I would only use a cover outdoors if I didn't care about the car's pain
Again, the entire purpose of a car cover is to protect the car's paint.
One problem is transparent covers are illegal in many places.
Where I live transparent covers are legal, but translucent or colored covers are illegal if the vehicle is in motion.
I would love to have practical and legal countermeasures against this sort of thing
Check your local laws. A rag or towel may do just what you wish.
And if currently legal methods are put into widespread use, they will simply be outlawed.
That is an assumption that has no basis in fact.
As long as one is not trespassing, then it is in no way intrusive.
Depending on local law, taking photos is only a crime if one is taking photos in a location where taking photos is prohibited by law. In many places it is legal to take pictures any place that it isn't legally banned, but one can be ordered to leave if one takes a picture and it becomes trespassing if one refuses.
Many people think taking pictures is illegal but it is generally legal in any public or publicly accessible space where it is not banned by law. The person who took my camera and smashed it for taking a picture of his vehicle found that out the hard way when he was arrested for theft by snatch.
And, again, laws vary by jurisdiction, but I know of no laws that are being broken in any way.