question for those who reject biological evolution

[YoursTrue]

Huh?
AA is just an excuse for alchoholics to avoid dealing with reality.

wow. Let me figure -- are you an atheist? Sorry if I don't keep up with everyone's personna.

 

[YoursTrue]

Randomness, yet another thing you don't understand.

why don't you explain in your own words as to how it happened, exactly when, ok?

 

[Pogo]

why don't you explain in your own words as to how it happened, exactly when, ok?

How what happened? when what happened?

It has become obviously pointless as you don't even know what the words mean. It is like teaching calculus to second graders.

Reread the first chapters. Evolution 101

 

[leroy]

Every time you write "evolutionists" you accuse science of being wrong about evolution.

What you call "evolutionists" are well educated people who accept results by experts in science. It also includes the experts you claim not to make claims against. Your whole schtick is anti-science. You don't post any credible criticisms against it at all.

Evolution. Every time you make any claim against it is anti-science. You aren't an expert, but you do have religious bias.

Again I challenge you to quote any comment made by me, that conradicts the scientific consensus.

If you dont do that , then an apology is expected for your false accusations

 

[Pogo]

Yet an other unsupported assertion , honestly there is something very wrong with you

It is supported by the fact that you misuse the word.

As for the rest, sure if mutations are necesary random (and you dont have any other source of genetic variation)...... then sure the article on echolocation would disprove the TOE. ..... but there is plentty of peer reviewed research showig that mutations are not always rabdom so for this reason the article doest refute the TOE

This paragraph (?) shows that you do not understand the function of randomness in evolution or even what the word means in regard to evolution.

 

[leroy]

Here's an anti-science post. What makes you, a non-expert, credible and correct here, and all experts wrong? Isn't that what you are saying, that we should listen to you and ignore experts in biology?

Be specific, exacty what claim is "anti science "?

 

[leroy]

It is supported by the fact that you misuse the word.


This paragraph (?) shows that you do not understand the function of randomness in evolution or even what the word means in regard to evolution.

Maybe, but you have to support the assertion , you need to;

1 define random with a proper source

2 show a paragraph where I missused the term random


At this point all we have is you are wrong because I say so

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you believe there is a God (who cares)? And why don't you ask those who do not believe in Spinoza's God here who care enough about others to discuss why they believe in God as well as evolution?

Wow! Okay, there is no need to as people who believe in "Spinoza's God about evolution". If you think that there is then you do not understand Spinoza's God. As to me, it was all of the failures of the Bible. And when you realize that substitutionary atonement is a failure you will likely lose faith as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe, but you have to support the assertion , you need to;

1 define random with a proper source

2 show a paragraph where I missused the term random


At this point all we have is you are wrong because I say so

No, you have been shown to be wrong with sources again and again. And then when specific examples are given you just deny them. Such as your use of the word "evolutionists". You may not verbally deny scientific consensus but your acts do quite often. As in this recent debate where you simply refuse to understand some very basic points.

I doubt if anyone will play your "wayback" games. But if they do you will just deny as you recently did in the above example.

 

[F1fan]

Be specific, exacty what claim is "anti science "?

Every post where you doubt and question the results of science that conclude evolution is how the diversity of life happened.

Anything you say about evolution that isn't a conclusion by experts is irrelevant. Why? Because you aren't an expert, so you lack any exprtise to question experts.

 

[leroy]

Every post where you doubt and question the results of science that conclude evolution is how the diversity of life happened.

Zero post posted by me question the fact that evolution is how the diversity of life happened

Anything you say about evolution that isn't a conclusion by experts is irrelevant. Why? Because you aren't an expert, so you lack any exprtise to question experts.

Zero coments made by me , that contradict what experts say.


So an apology is expected for your false accusations...

 

[F1fan]

Zero post posted by me question the fact that evolution is how the diversity of life happened


Zero coments made by me , that contradict what experts say.


So an apology is expected for your false accusations...

Well, sorry to see you go and stop posting nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Zero coments made by me , that contradict what experts say.

Except for your last big screw up where you constantly misinterpreted what the article was about.

 

[F1fan]

Yes you did claimed beyond reasonable doubt that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms through random mutations + NS alone

Your words few days ago

What, you don't this happens? This is how evolution works.

You posted this:

Again I challenge you to quote any comment made by me, that conradicts the scientific consensus.

If you dont do that , then an apology is expected for your false accusations

 

[YoursTrue]

why don't you explain in your own words as to how it happened, exactly when, ok?

Pogo sorry you won't answer how you and scientists say it happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except for your last big screw up where you constantly misinterpreted what the article was about.

You don't explain.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you have been shown to be wrong with sources again and again. And then when specific examples are given you just deny them. Such as your use of the word "evolutionists". You may not verbally deny scientific consensus but your acts do quite often. As in this recent debate where you simply refuse to understand some very basic points.

You don't explain, but by now that's to be expected. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow! Okay, there is no need to as people who believe in "Spinoza's God about evolution". If you think that there is then you do not understand Spinoza's God. As to me, it was all of the failures of the Bible. And when you realize that substitutionary atonement is a failure you will likely lose faith as well.

Ask someone here who goes to church. And believes in evolution why they believe what they believe. In God and evolution. Perhaps a Muslim or a wicca also. Perhaps they can explain essence to you. Or as Einstein believed.
Is that what turned you off? Atonement failure? Hey again don't ask me, ask someone who believes in God and evolution why they believe in God. And evolution. We know they believe in evolution. Ask them why they believe in God also.

 

[leroy]

Except for your last big screw up where you constantly misinterpreted what the article was about.

Maybe but you haven't shown that my interpretation is wrong......all we have is " you are wrong because I say so. "

 

[leroy]

What, you don't this happens? This is how evolution works.

You posted this:

You are like 120 years out of date..... today scientists know (or at least think) than non random mutations (or non random genetic variation) occure and play an important role .... there is more than just random mutations

Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@Subduction Zone can confirm this claim..... there are other mechanism appart from random mutations that play an important role.