Darwin's Illusion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You haven’t shown that the flagellum is not IC.

So what? That was never my purpose.

You haven’t shown that Behe is wrong

Yes I have. He was wrong about the mousetrap.

NO, the burden proof is on you, you are the one who is affirming that Behe has been refuted. I have no burden proof, I am not affirming (nor denying) that Behe is correct, all I am saying is that "we dont know" because we dont know enough about DNA or the flagellum in order to make such a claim

What does the flagellum have to do with this discussion. I demonstrated that Behe had been refuted. Where he was refuted included his claim about mousetraps. It was a gotcha moment in evolution of the events surrounding the Dover trial that humiliated Behe in front of the world. That's why I remembered it well enough to introduce as an example that Behe has been refuted.

Does the video has anything new to say apart form the text that you quoted?

You didn't watch it?

why did you quote an article that is about mousetraps?

Because I am discussing how Behe was refuted, and it was in that claim.

The problem with mousetraps is that when you remove a part the arrangement of the rest of the parts has to be very specific (very finely tunned) and you do need some sort of foresight. So unless you can show that flagellums are not analogous to mousetraps your claim is irrelevant.

Again with the flagella?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is what you fail to understand, it’s not about “how much change”, it’s about “what kind of change” the definition is very clear. A “new gene” equals “new function”

I wrote, "Still vague as to how much change constitutes new and meaningful." Your new answer is equally vague. What's a new function? Recall that I invoked the sorites paradox involving gradual transitions between imprecisely defined states, such as from unconscious to conscious or night to day. There is no sharp dividing line allow us to say precisely when one becomes the other. Your answer above doesn't address that. When according to YOUR definition of a new gene does it become new. For me, it's with any change. How about you?

Do you understand what the notion of randomness entails?

Yes. Do you?

I didn’t introduce Junk. Scientists did. It’s a scientific term.

I asked "why introduce "random junk" into the discussion?" not who invented the term

Junk DNA simply means “non-coding DNA”. It’s a scientific term.

Thanks. I've read some science, so I actually already know a bit about it.

Random changes are not equal to improvements.

Yes, I know. So what?

The EES which was proposed to address the failure of the MS is not agreed upon.

Try to avoid nonstandard abbreviations if you wish to be understood. I Googled it and got Engineering Equation Solver, European Evaluation Society, Entry-Exit Systems and a few more, but nothing related to evolution.

the question is “what are the criteria that define the so-called naturalistic entities?”

Nature, or reality, is the set of entities and processes interacting in space and time.

The expansion of the universe is accelerating vs. slowing down over time, hence the dark energy that is totally unseen and of totally unknown nature was speculated. The name may give false impression of knowledge, but the fact is scientists have no clue what it is, they just trust that there must be a cause and choose to assign a name to the unknown cause. That said, how would you categorize dark energy as a naturalistic or non-naturalistic entity?

Naturalisitic. See above.

What do you know about these forces or its intrinsic nature so you would categorize it as naturalistic or non-naturalistic entities?

They manifest in nature.

you will never invoke it, simply because you will always maintain enough arrogance to fool yourself that you know what you really don’t.

I wrote, "When I need to invoke the supernatural, I will, but not before." It's you being arrogant here. You need supernaturalism to be a real thing because you've committed yourself to a god belief and now seek to justify it to unbelievers. I don't need supernaturalism to account for anything. Nature is enough, and as best we can tell, all there is.

”Multiverse” is a leap of faith, it cannot be falsified, and “history” implies time in a domain with no time.

Multiverse is not a leap of faith. It is a proposed source for our universe. And if the multiverse exists, it is just another aspect of the natural. There is nothing else. Even if a god exists, it also belongs to and is a part of nature.

God is the “distinct source"

I guess that leaps of faith aren't really a problem for you after all. What does "God" mean to you?

Your reasoning is a mix of leap of faith, infinite regress and circular reasoning. If you don’t see it, read it again.

With all due respect, your opinions don't have the weight with me you seem to assume.

When you say that you know that you don’t know, it’s not by any means an acknowledgment of knowledge. It’s the other way around.

I don't agree. Learning what one doesn't know is knowledge.

It’s not based on kalam but sure, and I did demonstrate my reasons

I wrote, "Can we assume that you think this absolute existence is conscious and named God?" I don't recall that demonstration. Why do you think ultimate reality is conscious or should be called God?

You can empirically test the effects never the fundamental causes.

Yet you call conscious anyway.

What??? You don’t get to set the rules, is it merely because you said so?

I wrote, "it is reasonable to assume that other apparently wakeful beings are conscious as well, but only to the extent that these beings are organic, developed through a gestation process from a fertilized egg" Yes, I do get to "set the rules." They're my beliefs and opinions.

Didn’t you previously postulate that robots may be conscious? Last time I checked, robots don’t come from fertilized eggs

So what? It appears that you didn't understand what I wrote, which was, "it is reasonable to assume that other apparently wakeful beings are conscious as well, but only to the extent that these beings are organic, developed through a gestation process from a fertilized egg" Did you want to address what I wrote there? Do you disagree with it? If so, where and why?

there is no evidence that points to the opposite.

Sure there is. Most evidence suggest that mind is dependent on brain. As far as I know, the only evidence suggesting otherwise are near death experience reports, which isn't convincing.

your imagination or things merely because you said so has nothing to do with anything.

Sure it does. It has to do with how I view reality and why I give you the answers I do. I wrote, "My perspective doesn't include calling ultimate reality God. I don't name it and I don't imagine it's like a person aware of our existence." Sorry that I can't join you in your belief in gods or the supernatural, but I don't need either of those concepts to understand and navigate reality.

 

[shunyadragon]

All living systems are irreducibly complex, not only the living systems but also the individual constituents of the living systems are also irreducibly complex, a single cell is no exception.

Complexity is in the sense that any system is essentially composed of numerous components that work in a coordinated manner.

Irreducible is in the sense that no component is functional or meaningful in isolation of the other components.

A fundamental function is at the top of hierarchy of other individual functions, yet each individual function is irreducibly complex from the apex all the way down to the base.

For example, the function of “Vision" at the apex, is the outcome of other two secondary functions.

First, a system to receive and distinguish different frequencies/wave lengths from each other and can convey the data (a camera type system).

Second, a system capable of “Qualia”, i.e., translate the data from the eye to a conscious vision experience, IOW, a system to construct the mental experience from the physical data.

Obviously one component cannot function without the other. As you go down the hierarchy, you can similarly see that the individual constituents are purposeless in isolation of the other interdependent constituents. There is no route for purposeless individual constituents to emerge separately and accumulate towards a future function. The length of the random process dictates the elimination of the purposeless constituents along the way because selection can only work on current options not future goals.

The notion of the random evolution of something such as the human eye is at best willful ignorance caused by false presuppositions.

First of all, evolution is about numerous transitional forms from point A to point B (a lineage). An essential qualifier is the specific ancestral relationships between the numerous transitional forms. If such relationship doesn’t exist or cannot be established, the notion is false.

You cannot refer to totally different living systems without ancestral relationships such as flatworms and chambered nautilus and say look here is the gradual evolutionary steps. Sure, different living systems have different vision systems that address their specific needs but unless these steps are along a specific evolutionary lineage from species A to species B, it doesn’t mean anything.

The naive explanation of eye evolution ignored the function of "vision" and focuses only on the camera aspect to receive the data without addressing the fact that all these alleged steps towards a camera are totally useless without a system that is capable of creating the mental interpretation/construct of the data to transform it into a conscious experience. then there must be a mechanism to translate such awareness of the data to appropriate decisions with respect to survival, otherwise it would be useless. That system, i.e., “cognition” is the fundamental defining aspect of life. It can neither be matched nor artificially created. Sure, you can intentionally build a camera that can receive light, but such camera can never see. Unless YOU can see, your camera is purposeless trash.

Your ancient religious tribal agenda is full-blown here and is not willing to comprehend the reality of evolution as cited in three references concerning the eye, which you failed or better not willing to respond to. In your case, I cannot consider it naive, but intentional ignorance to justify your agenda,

Your over-emphasizing the false concept of randomness in genetic mutations compounds your intentional ignorance. Your response is clearly and specifically refuted in my posts concerning Behe's Intelligent Design foolishness. Genetic mutations and natural selection do not parallel the foolish analogy of the anthropomorphic watch and mouse trap design.

Your empathy with the intentional ignorance concerning genetics and evolution with @leroy is understood since you both have an ancient tribal agenda against evolution.

Your long-winded incoherent posts do not help your case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Last time I checked “ Genitic Engineering” needs someone to do it, right?

See his post #8133

(6) Darwin's Illusion | Page 406 | Religious Forums

Only if one uses the word "engineering". Evolution is the process without agency behind it.

Dude! How can you even begin to refute that which you have no understanding of at all? Such a silly silly argument. A person that was brought up in space in freefall might have a difficult time understanding gravity. And when they heard that gravity was a "fictitious force" they would use that as an excuse to say "I knew that gravity was a lie all along". You are just like that person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Leory has different views than mine but we sure can be friends and have rational discussion. On the other hand, if you don’t learn to address the argument rather that attacking the person, you’ll never make a rational argument.

Have fun.

Not in regards to the sciences. Neither of you understand or embrace the basics of science. And correcting false beliefs is not an attack.

Why are creationists so sensitive just because they are wrong?

And why are you so afraid of discussing the scientific method and scientific evidence? It is almost as if you already know that you are wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you sure? If someone was responding to one of our earlier claims you are the one that still brought it up.


No one has ever demonstrated that it is. And until someone does so it not legitimate. The burden of proof is upon you.

Just about every single dishonest tool that you can find. Don't you know how to debate properly at all?

I mean there are missing links aren't there?? Don't ask me to say where -- you would know better -- but there ARE missing links, aren't there? Or maybe not. What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

You are not following the conversation, my point is that in order to claim (or deny) that a system is IC you need to know the steps.

That would make sense, wouldn't it? Yet -- somehow the exact "steps" are left out. From observation of the stepping. Biologicallyl, of course. And of course, the guesswork is certainly there such as how did plants and animals diverge or maybe just start different from similar sources?

 

[YoursTrue]

You are not following the conversation, my point is that in order to claim (or deny) that a system is IC you need to know the steps.

So nothing controversial there, I am just establishing an obvious truth


creationists shount say that a system is IC because there is not enough evidnece to make that assertion.


Borrowing form the car analogy we don’t know if there is a river between California and New York that makes the trip in car impossible.

So to assert (or to deny) that there is a river is premature.


I just pointed out the fact that @YoursTrue made a good point.




yes My point is that we don’t know if random variation + natural selection is good enough to explain the diversity and complexity of life



Yes I completely agree,

What makes you think that I would disagree?


These are my claims

1 I accept evolution (common ancestry)

2 I accept that organisms evolve through slight modifications (variation + natural selection)

3 I am skeptic on weather if random variation + natural selection can explain all (or most) of the diversity and complexity of life

4 I accept that modern systems (like the eye) evolved from simpler ancestors

5 I don’t think we are in a position to know if there are IC systems or not.

Do you disagree with anything? It seems to me that you don’t´

While I do not KNOW how God did it (yes, i believe "God did it," in other words, created the heavens and the earth in the beginning), what makes you think (believe, perhaps?) that there is a common ancestry? And what would that mean? Two questions. What IS common ancestry regarding the beginning of the process of evolution and how does that work out in the long-er run? Please explain what you mean, if you will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mean there are missing links aren't there?? Don't ask me to say where -- you would know better -- but there ARE missing links, aren't there? Or maybe not. What do you think?

So what? All right, now you have just admitted to not only knowing nothing of evolution, you have also admitted an ignorance of geology. Darwin himself noted that the fossil record was not complete at his time. He never predicted a continuous fossil record because he understood geology. Let me try to explain. Fossilization of terrestrial fossils is extremely rare. The only reason that we have as many fossils as we do is because over hundreds of millions of years even rare events will happen repeatedly. But there are countless species that never left a fossil. That we do not have a complete record is not evidence against the theory. Complaining about "gaps" does you no good. We have found more than enough fossils to confirm the theory beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we have gaps? Yes, of course. Will we always have gaps? Yes of course.

You may not realize this but every new fossil find is a test of the theory. It is conceivable to refute it with a lifeform seriously out of order, but we never find that. That means that every fossil that we have found has also confirmed evolution. Do you understand this?

 

[LIIA]

"Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are not mutually exclusive (as Simpson's work demonstrates), and examples of each have been documented in different lineages. The debate between these two models is often misunderstood by non-scientists, .. Some critics jokingly referred to the theory of punctuated equilibrium as "evolution by jerks", which prompted Gould to describe phyletic gradualism as "evolution by creeps".

Irrelevant

How is the debate between punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism is relevant to Haeckel’s comparison of embryos that was proven to be fraudulent?

That is OK, I do not dispute that. The Dinosaurs failed where rodents (our ancestors) succeeded.

Again, irrelevant. What is your point? If you actually have one.

 

[LIIA]

Again, non-functional would not be "bad".
You seem to only be able to argue against these points by first misrepresenting them.

“Non-functional” is at best “neutral”. But even if the change stayed limited to neutral only, yet the accumulation of the neutral changes in the same gene would cause the loss of original protein-coding ability due to the significant random alterations to the original DNA sequence, hence a gene becomes a “pseudogene". See the link below for pseudogene.

Pseudogene (genome.gov)

 

[LIIA]

And neither does evolution theory (the actual theory, not the strawman you and your ilk like to rant against) predict such a thing to be possible.

So why are you even mentioning it?

No, this is not the theory, this is you denying to see how ridiculous the theory is.

But sure, the theory allows such transformations to take effect provided you give the process time, random changes and selection pressures.

 

[LIIA]

E coli couldn't grow on citrate. Then it could.
A brand new metabolic pathway which was the result of several mutations.

You may now enter denial mode.

No, I just entered the astonishment mode! How many times we talked about this?

The last time I addressed this was in my post # 8503 and #8108. You may also want to see #1245

this is unbelievable, really what is wrong with you guys? Here it is again:

Adaptations are encoded in the genes (preprogrammed) and take effect through cell-mediated processes not random change such as “Escherichia Coli” developing the ability to utilize citrate through a cell-mediated adaptive process that activated an existing but previously silent citrate transporter (Lenski’s experiment).

Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population | Nature

 

[LIIA]

Those mutations are mostly neutral mutations that potentially play a part in future phenotype changes in combination with other mutations.

You think selection will actively try and eliminate neutral mutations. This is simply not true.
They are NEUTRAL. Meaning that they don't affect selection processes at all. They are not subject to selection pressures in any sense.

The vast majority of mutations are in fact neutral.

Individual neutral mutations are not subject to selection processes, but the accumulation of NEUTRAL mutations alters the DNA sequence of the gene to the point that it can no longer perform its original function and becomes a “pseudogene". see the link.

Pseudogene (genome.gov)

Your wording reveals your ignorance on the theory.
There's no such thing as "directed mutations = adaption" and "other mutations = errors".
Mutations are mutations. They are random with respect to fitness.
Some will be harmful, some will be beneficial, most will be neutral (ie: no effect on phenotype, which selection pressures act on)

You insist on an outdated view and totally ignorant of the latest in the felid. It may not be your fault as much as it is the textbooks that were never updated for decades.

Yes, random mutations are DNA replication errors and yes, beneficial mutations take effect through cell-mediated non-random mutations. See #1245.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

The wiki link below addresses the typical random DNA replication errors.
“Mutations result from errors during DNA or viral replication, mitosis, or meiosis or other types of damage to DNA. "

Mutation - Wikipedia

The link below addresses the cell-mediated change (directed mutation)
“Genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes not simply accidents or damage to the DNA.”

How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome - PubMed (nih.gov)

No, it's not. If it were, then the picture would be final in generation 1.
What that is, is a (simplistic) genetic algorithm.
The "goal" of mona lisa is just the defining of selection pressures.
The end result is achieved by starting with a random string of coordinates and colors for max 50 polygons, which is randomly mutated slightly every generation. Top performers (= those matching the selection criteria best) then get to reproduce.

That's exactly what evolution does.
This is exactly what you claimed can't happen with your "the blind can't create mona lisa".
Off course, that claims also hides a bit of a strawman, since evolution isn't exactly "blind"....

Selection pressures acts like a filter which inevitably leads to ever-more optimalization.

You're not interested in learning, are you?

No, The selection pressure (the algorithm) was intelligently programmed to aim for a specific future goal. Every change is evaluated based on its relevance to the future goal. Without selection being aware of the future goal the change is meaningless. This is exactly my argument; natural selection cannot plan for a future goal. Natural selection is not some intelligent programming for a specific future goal.

 

[LIIA]

I wrote, "Still vague as to how much change constitutes new and meaningful." Your new answer is equally vague. What's a new function? Recall that I invoked the sorites paradox involving gradual transitions between imprecisely defined states, such as from unconscious to conscious or night to day. There is no sharp dividing line allow us to say precisely when one becomes the other. Your answer above doesn't address that. When according to YOUR definition of a new gene does it become new. For me, it's with any change. How about you?

This is what you fail to understand, the analogy of something gradually changing (while maintaining its intrinsic nature) doesn’t apply to the functionality of a gene.

The functionality is not measured as an amount that keeps changing. The code is either functional or not. Random alterations to the code don’t mean that the function is gradually growing. The accumulated damage to original code would first lead to loss of original function (the gene becomes a “pseudogene”). Second, considering the impact on fitness due the loss of function, the process will not have the chance to continue indefinitely to warrant a meaningful change.

In conclusion, the process is necessarily long and slow, the accumulated change to the code cannot continue to be without impact on original function, selection will not accommodate the impact and wait for the alleged end product to emerge at some point in the distant future.

I asked "why introduce "random junk" into the discussion?" not who invented the term

Junk is the very definition of a “pseudogene” that lost its functionality due to the accumulation of random changes.

Yes, I know. So what?

The accumulation of the “non-beneficial” is a damaging alteration to original function.

Try to avoid nonstandard abbreviations if you wish to be understood. I Googled it and got Engineering Equation Solver, European Evaluation Society, Entry-Exit Systems and a few more, but nothing related to evolution.

EES means the extended evolutionary synthesis. We discussed the EES numerous times.

Nature, or reality, is the set of entities and processes interacting in space and time.

Manifestations within spacetime is not equal to an entity within spacetime.

They manifest in nature.

See above.

Multiverse is not a leap of faith.

It is. You can neither prove it nor falsify it.

You contradict yourself. Didn’t you say, “Nature, or reality, is the set of entities and processes interacting in space and time.” Why do you invoke some reality beyond spacetime?

Spacetime is an intrinsic aspect of our universe. By your definition, if it’s outside spacetime, it’s not natural. Right?

I guess that leaps of faith aren't really a problem for you after all. What does "God" mean to you?

The logical necessary first cause, the district source, the only non-contingent being, the absolute reference that gives meaning to every relative.

With all due respect, your opinions don't have the weight with me you seem to assume.

I assume nothing. I only stated the fact that is evident in your reasoning. Your reasoning/assumption of multiverse as a "good candidate for the supersubstance from which our universe may have arisen" is a mix of leap of faith, infinite regress and circular reasoning (a universe arises or has its roots in another universe).

I don't agree. Learning what one doesn't know is knowledge.

learning has nothing to be with it. your awareness that you don’t know is not knowledge.

Yes, I do get to "set the rules." They're my beliefs and opinions.

No, you get to believe whatever you want but you do not get to “set the rules" of what is true or false.

So what? It appears that you didn't understand what I wrote, which was, "it is reasonable to assume that other apparently wakeful beings are conscious as well, but only to the extent that these beings are organic, developed through a gestation process from a fertilized egg" Did you want to address what I wrote there? Do you disagree with it? If so, where and why?

so, your reasoning is all over the place. You postulate that mind is a physical product of materialistic interactions yet physical processes don’t imply consciousness, conscious is an aspect of organic beings, but robots may be conscious. It’s fair enough to say that you don’t know. Hence, you don’t get to defend what you don’t know.

You deny that you don’t know but you really don’t. Let it settle.

Sure there is. Most evidence suggest that mind is dependent on brain. As far as I know, the only evidence suggesting otherwise are near death experience reports, which isn't convincing.

This is just you stating what you wish. This is not the opinion of scientists. We discussed that before and I provided the source.

Is There Life After Death? | The New York Academy of Sciences (nyas.org)

Yes, we know that that there is a relationship between mental processes and brain processes, and that different brain regions are responsible for different functions, but scientists never established any physical mechanisms that explain or prove that mental consciousness could be a product of physical processes in the brain.

Whatever you see on your TV was not originated from within your TV but merely a manifestation of external entities that don’t reside within your TV. Sure, different TV functions affect the experience in different ways, but it doesn’t mean that the TV generates the experience; it’s merely a manifestation of an external influence.

Here is another article titled “Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body”

Scientists say your “mind" isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body (qz.com)

Sure it does. It has to do with how I view reality and why I give you the answers I do. I wrote, "My perspective doesn't include calling ultimate reality God. I don't name it and I don't imagine it's like a person aware of our existence.

Reality is not dependent on your perspective or what you may need or not. Again, you can believe whatever you want but your relative belief/view cannot be used as a justification for the validity of an argument.

Sorry that I can't join you in your belief in gods or the supernatural, but I don't need either of those concepts to understand and navigate reality.

Why sorry? You don’t have to join my belief.
Sure, I would be happy if you do but it’s your call and you are free.

From the Islamic perspective, No soul shall bear the burden of another. Yes, I have an obligation to convey the message to the best of my ability but at this point my role ends. I’m not responsible for the decisions/actions of others. I’m only responsible for mine.

“Say, Should I seek a lord other than Allah while He is the Lord of everything? Each soul earns only on its own account, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." [Al-An'am, 164]

 

[LIIA]

I wrote, "Can we assume that you think this absolute existence is conscious and named God?" I don't recall that demonstration. Why do you think ultimate reality is conscious or should be called God

I did demonstrate.

First, the ultimate/absolute reality is the necessary reality from which our universe and every relative subsequent reality have arisen. If consciousness doesn’t exist in the ultimate reality, then consciousness is not real in the absolute sense. If we know for a fact that our relative consciousness is an aspect of reality, then it must be originated from the absolute consciousness of the ultimate reality.

Second, no aspect of reality has the capacity to be the originator of an event in a way that is un-determined by a prior event except the ultimate reality.

The ultimate reality is the originator of all subsequent changes/events but such origination is not determined by a prior event. There is nothing to determine subsequent changes other than the ultimate reality and if such determination is made, there is nothing to interfere. The ultimate reality has the absolute freedom and power to control all existence down the chain of causality.

Yet you call conscious anyway.

See above.

 

[LIIA]

Your ancient religious tribal agenda

Again?

My religion is not your concern; your concern is the argument.

the reality of evolution as cited in three references concerning the eye,

Rather the foolish nonsensical speculations not the reality.

Your response is clearly and specifically refuted in my posts concerning Behe's Intelligent Design foolishness. Genetic mutations and natural selection do not parallel the foolish analogy of the anthropomorphic watch and mouse trap design.

I didn’t say anything about any mouse trap, did I? Go back and read my post #8520 and try to address my specific argument. Hopefully without involving nonsensical talk about religious agendas. Try to be rational if you will.

But guess what, from a conceptual perspective, absolutely, mouse trap is a design and similar to any other design, it can neither function with a missing component nor an individual component can function in isolation of the other interdependent components.

Your empathy with the intentional ignorance concerning genetics and evolution with @leroy is understood since you both have an ancient tribal agenda against evolution.

Stop your nonsense about “tribal agendas”, our background or religion is none of your concern. If you want your comments to be rational/meaningful you must address the argument not merely some fallacious attack on the person background or religion.

After all I don’t think myself and @leroy share the same background, views or religion but even if we do, it’s not your business.

Your long-winded incoherent posts do not help your case.

You may have a point here. English is not my first language and it’s really hard for me to find the specific English words that would properly convey my thoughts in a coherent manner. I try to do what I can and apologize if it’s not coherent enough.

 

[LIIA]

Only if one uses the word "engineering". Evolution is the process without agency behind it.

Dude! How can you even begin to refute that which you have no understanding of at all? Such a silly silly argument. A person that was brought up in space in freefall might have a difficult time understanding gravity. And when they heard that gravity was a "fictitious force" they would use that as an excuse to say "I knew that gravity was a lie all along". You are just like that person.

Irrelevant nonsense. What are you talking about?

@Aupmanyav introduced “Genetic Engineering” as an argument for evolution and I explained to him that his argument is irrelevant. Which part of what I said that you don’t understand or agree with?

 

[LIIA]

Not in regards to the sciences. Neither of you understand or embrace the basics of science. And correcting false beliefs is not an attack.

Why are creationists so sensitive just because they are wrong?

And why are you so afraid of discussing the scientific method and scientific evidence? It is almost as if you already know that you are wrong.

Get the vaccine. You may not have another hope.

Have fun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant nonsense. What are you talking about?

@Aupmanyav introduced “Genetic Engineering” as an argument for evolution and I explained to him that his argument is irrelevant. Which part of what I said that you don’t understand or agree with?

Why do you try so hard to make everyone else laugh?