Don’t you see the nonsense. You’ve given arbitrary names to mutations and say, because you think there is a small minority of positive ones, they drive the fantasy tree of life. Even repeating the example of humans when they haven’t evolved into anything else. what’s your point.
You haven’t shown anything factual that shows the ToE to be correct and it will go on like, just more and more babble to confuse the unwary of what your project is. There’s no such thing as a species according to you, it’s actually quite laughable how you’ve collectively engineered ToE.
That link says this:
‘However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested.’
Are you making up nonsense as you go along? A desperate attempt to win debates with disinformation?
You know an ape cannot mate with a human to produce anything right? Now give an example in just one of these experiments where a different species has been observed on that basis. Surely you can do that.
Why can you not supply a single quotation from just one of these experiments to show how a different kind of organism has been made and not just species within species changes. We creationists believe the latter happens. You will probably have come up with a different definition of species.
Why can you not supply a single quotation from just one of these experiments to show how a different kind of organism has been made and not just species within species changes. We creationists believe the latter happens. You will probably have come up with a different definition of species.
In your example what 0.001% of so called ‘beneficial mutations’ have been seen in humans and what’s happened to the 0.999% of other mutations and how does any of it show macroevolution.
I understand ToE is a complete lie based on pure speculation with absolutely no experimental data to support it. The evolutionists you follow believe in macroevolution, have made up the term beneficial mutation to support it and assume differences in the dna of different species are positive...
Nope, I actually said:
…and that was only because I had heard of the term beneficial mutation.
So I looked at that and it said this:
“About 90 percent of DNA is thought to be non-functional, and mutations there generally have no effect. The remaining 10 percent is functional, and has an...
Not for the following. I’ll ask it again:
I’d have to see evidence of the percentage of mutations you’ve been told are ‘beneficial mutations’ as opposed to those having neutral/negative effects before I can see if that is a reason that you believe in ToE.
I doubt anything will be given but...
I’ve tried to debate the topic, haven’t called anyone nasty names for you to give me nasty names? I would just like (and expect) the evidence asked for. Your rules are your rules, I have no control of what goes on on your forum.
Have you managed to get Dr Eugenie Scott to participate in this project? I don’t know much about her debating days but would be a gentleman if I knew which username she used.