Joined: July 2007
|Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 07 2018,15:04)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 07 2018,14:21)|
|Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 07 2018,13:58)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 07 2018,13:36)|
|Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 07 2018,13:31)|
|Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 07 2018,09:47)|
|Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 07 2018,11:19)|
|Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 07 2018,08:57)|
After reading the Joke comment that wasn't visible because of the page transition, I agree with you. But I'm an eternal optimist. I am ever optimistic that Joke will write a comment that includes insight, irrefutable arguments and intelligence.
There's optimism, and there's delusion.
I'm just optimistic we'll open rich new veins of silly: probability not even zero, molecules pointing the right way, that sort of thing.
There isn't any optimism that evoTARDs will ever ante up so we can actually compare which has the evidence and science and which is silly bullshit.
It is delusional to even think that evoTARDs are interested in science. It is obvious they cannot follow along and have to make shit up to make themselves feel good by humping a straw man.
JohnW, the TARD who cannot use a thesaurus.
Start with these:
Journal of Evolutionary Biology: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal....4209101
Journal of Human Evolution: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal....olution
Journal of Mammalian Evolution: https://link.springer.com/journal....l....14
After you have read all of the articles in these journals, we will compare the evidence they provide to the evidence provided in those prestigious ID journals. You know, journals like:
Oops, I guess that is all of them. But I must comment that journal. The number of research papers published in 2018 was double that in 2017. If they publish one more, they will have tripled the 2017 number.
Umm, I know that you can equivocate but you cannot make the case that any one of those papers supports the claim of evolution via blind and mindless processes.
So YOU can start with pulling your head out of your ass.
I let the authors (thousands of them) make the cases for themselves. There is no need for me to repeat what they have said more eloquently than I ever could. If their papers are too complicated for you, you could always email them and ask them to clarify. The little envelope icon beside the author’s name will open your email and paste the author’s email address into the “to:” field.
But if you would prefer, we could discuss one of the numerous ID papers published over the last two years. Which one would you prefer to discuss? The one published in 2017, or one of the two published this year?
OK so all you can do is continue to bluff. And you choose to remain willfully ignorant. How is that working for you?
Strange that not one of those authors can say how ATP synthase evolved via stochastic processes. They don't even know how to test such a claim.
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t
simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW
"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton