How are people like this getting elected?

[buckshot24]

You believe religion gave birth to science? Where's your evidence?

Who said this? I suggest you re-read what I wrote and respond to that instead and not this.

 

[Paratus]

Who said this? I suggest you re-read what I wrote and respond to that instead and not this.

You said "religious men are the grandfathers of modern science". That makes modern science the child. Grandparents give birth to the parents who give birth to the child.

So if that's not what you meant, maybe choose your words more carefully next time.

It also doesn't make much sense since the foundation of religion is faith. Which is the belief in something without or in spite of evidence, while science requires evidence to support the belief.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

It's a ridiculous statement anyway, as most people were religious in that time period. Even if you weren't religious, you had to pretend to be.

 

[MongGrel]

Who said this? I suggest you re-read what I wrote and respond to that instead and not this.

You said "religious men are the grandfathers of modern science". That makes modern science the child. Grandparents give birth to the parents who give birth to the child.

So if that's not what you meant, maybe choose your words more carefully next time.

It also doesn't make much sense since the foundation of religion is faith. Which is the belief in something without or in spite of evidence, while science requires evidence to support the belief.

Trying to have a logical conversation with buckshot is pretty much like slamming your head over and over into a concrete wall.

Just in case you haven't ran into him often before Paratus.

Then you have to fear being put on his "List"

*shudders*

 

[Paratus]

Trying to have a logical conversation with buckshot is pretty much like slamming your head over and over into a concrete wall.

Just in case you haven't ran into him often before Paratus.

Then you have to fear being put on his "List"

*shudders*

Oh I'm aware. I've already been put on the list at least once.
It's where all the cool people hang out.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Trying to have a logical conversation with buckshot is pretty much like slamming your head over and over into a concrete wall.

Just in case you haven't ran into him often before Paratus.

Then you have to fear being put on his "List"

*shudders*

Oh I'm aware. I've already been put on the list at least once.
It's where all the cool people hang out.

Please, for the sake of continuity, when mentioning The List™
do not forget

 

[Paratus]

Oh I'm aware. I've already been put on the list at least once.
It's where all the cool people hang out.

Please, for the sake of continuity, when mentioning The List™
do not forget

Lol!

What's interesting here is how BS demonstrates faith. He has faith that evolution must be wrong. His posting style proves that he is operating from faith instead of logic or the scientific method even though he couches his requests for evidence as if he was following the scientific method.

Instead he ignores evidence to maintain his belief. Text book definition of faith.

What he fails to realize is his faith is a poor substitute for the actual theory of evolution.

Darwins theory of evolution accurately describes observed evolution in species. The theory underpins modern evolutionary biology and genetics. Scientists use it day in and day out in medicine and biology. In short it is an extremely useful tool to understanding the natural world.

BS on the other hand brings nothing that would compare with this tool. Instead his posts on evolution are merely a way for him to affirm his faith.

 

[Jeff7]

Lol!

What's interesting here is how BS demonstrates faith. He has faith that evolution must be wrong. His posting style proves that he is operating from faith instead of logic or the scientific method even though he couches his requests for evidence as if he was following the scientific method.

Instead he ignores evidence to maintain his belief. Text book definition of faith.

What he fails to realize is his faith is a poor substitute for the actual theory of evolution.

Darwins theory of evolution accurately describes observed evolution in species. The theory underpins modern evolutionary biology and genetics. Scientists use it day in and day out in medicine and biology. In short it is an extremely useful tool to understanding the natural world.

BS on the other hand brings nothing that would compare with this tool. Instead his posts on evolution are merely a way for him to affirm his faith.

Except that for people to accept evolution, they'd need to see a lizard turn into a bear. Bacteria developing resistance to drugs doesn't count. Birds developing different beaks doesn't count.
They won't accept that many small changes can add up to big changes. Many people also can't wrap their heads around things like "millions of years." It is easier and more alluring to say "A big magic man hand-waved everything into existence, and humans are extra special creations that he'll watch over during life, and then admit some of us into an awesome playground after we die." That comfortable idea is then to be preserved and protected at all costs.

I think the evolutionary account is still pretty impressive. We made the gradual transition from disorganized hydrogen all the way to life that has the ability to mentally internalize that very concept, by way of a damned convoluted process. And yet here we are, surviving in spite of a Universe that really doesn't care about our existence, and in many ways is a downright horrible place for life to even develop and persist. (If you can even call our species' existence of a mere few hundred thousand years "persisting" on a cosmic scale. It's not even a blink.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Except that for people to accept evolution, they'd need to see a lizard turn into a bear. Bacteria developing resistance to drugs doesn't count. Birds developing different beaks doesn't count.
They won't accept that many small changes can add up to big changes. Many people also can't wrap their heads around things like "millions of years." It is easier and more alluring to say "A big magic man hand-waved everything into existence, and humans are extra special creations that he'll watch over during life, and then admit some of us into an awesome playground after we die." That comfortable idea is then to be preserved and protected at all costs.

I think the evolutionary account is still pretty impressive. We made the gradual transition from disorganized hydrogen all the way to life that has the ability to mentally internalize that very concept, by way of a damned convoluted process. And yet here we are, surviving in spite of a Universe that really doesn't care about our existence, and in many ways is a downright horrible place for life to even develop and persist. (If you can even call our species' existence of a mere few hundred thousand years "persisting" on a cosmic scale. It's not even a blink.)

Given the laws of nature I would say that consciousness is an inevitability Maybe the universe is self aware and likes to share.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Except that for people to accept evolution, they'd need to see a lizard turn into a bear. Bacteria developing resistance to drugs doesn't count. Birds developing different beaks doesn't count.
They won't accept that many small changes can add up to big changes. Many people also can't wrap their heads around things like "millions of years." It is easier and more alluring to say "A big magic man hand-waved everything into existence, and humans are extra special creations that he'll watch over during life, and then admit some of us into an awesome playground after we die." That comfortable idea is then to be preserved and protected at all costs.

I think the evolutionary account is still pretty impressive. We made the gradual transition from disorganized hydrogen all the way to life that has the ability to mentally internalize that very concept, by way of a damned convoluted process. And yet here we are, surviving in spite of a Universe that really doesn't care about our existence, and in many ways is a downright horrible place for life to even develop and persist. (If you can even call our species' existence of a mere few hundred thousand years "persisting" on a cosmic scale. It's not even a blink.)

We got gay marriage passed within a decade. We can force them to accept this fact as well. We just have to make sure real science is being taught in every school. If you want to indoctrinate your kid, you will have to home school them.

 

[Jeff7]

Given the laws of nature I would say that consciousness is an inevitability Maybe the universe is self aware and likes to share.

Agreed.
Consciousness is just what you get when a life form's brain is able to generate, store, and update a model of its environment. Self-awareness is when the model is sophisticated enough to include the life form itself as part of the model. Intelligence is a measure of the level of sophistication of the model.

But, I'm sure that intelligent life is very improbable. A lot of things have to go right for it to happen, but the Universe does have a nearly unfathomable number of opportunities. Life is also quite capable of existing without a brain. It did just fine on Earth for a very long time before even reaching the point of becoming multicellular entities, not to mention anything with a rudimentary nervous system.

We got gay marriage passed within a decade. We can force them to accept this fact as well. We just have to make sure real science is being taught in every school. If you want to indoctrinate your kid, you will have to home school them.

Passed in some places, but society has definitely not granted it wide acceptance.

I started a thread in OT that concerns how to "properly" cut steak. Society makes a lot of rules for how things "should" be, which helps allow our limited brains to keep a lid on things. For quite a few people, telling them that a long-standing cultural norm is no longer valid, especially when it contradicts ancient dogma, will garner considerable resistance. It may even generate a reaction of physical violence.

 

[buckshot24]

You said "religious men are the grandfathers of modern science". That makes modern science the child. Grandparents give birth to the parents who give birth to the child.

Religious men are not the same thing as "religion". I don't claim that religion invented science which you accused me of claiming. There is a difference.

It also doesn't make much sense since the foundation of religion is faith. Which is the belief in something without or in spite of evidence, while science requires evidence to support the belief.

Then why do you believe genetic copying errors eventually accumulated in the right order to make your brain? There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that mutations could ever do something like that.

What's interesting here is how BS demonstrates faith. He has faith that evolution must be wrong. His posting style proves that he is operating from faith instead of logic or the scientific method even though he couches his requests for evidence as if he was following the scientific method.

Quite the contrary, I "lack faith". I have seen no evidence to help me gain the faith that you and others here have. Genetic copying errors accumulating to form complex interdependent parts from scratch? I'd like to see some actual evidence of this claim. Why can't you just provide it and shut me up once and for all?

Darwins theory of evolution accurately describes observed evolution in species. The theory underpins modern evolutionary biology and genetics. Scientists use it day in and day out in medicine and biology. In short it is an extremely useful tool to understanding the natural world.

The claim isn't that organisms change and the ones best suited for a specific environment survive. The claim is that this process turned a "self-replicating molecule" into people over billions of years.

You don't need to believe that a bug turned into Doug to do modern medicine.

You, true believers, point to things like antibiotic resistances and think this is evidence that your brain evolved into existence. Can't you see a gap in your logic?

 

[buckshot24]

Except that for people to accept evolution, they'd need to see a lizard turn into a bear.

I wouldn't need to see that. I've looked at a lot of mutation examples and I'm extremely underwhelmed by what has been observed to occur. I see NO reason to accept the idea that these mutations could eventually build up to form anything we find in living cells.

Bacteria developing resistance to drugs doesn't count. Birds developing different beaks doesn't count.

Why would you jump to the conclusion that these events could be extrapolated out into forming a person from a single cell organism? It's like the confirmation bias of a conspiracy theorist.

They won't accept that many small changes can add up to big changes.

I won't accept that change is all you need to go from a microbe to a rhino. Why should I? Change may be a necessary component but it isn't a sufficient one.

Many people also can't wrap their heads around things like "millions of years."

Nope, I can wrap my head around this. I can wrap my head around convergent functions in calculus as well. You'd think adding an infinite number of slices would be infinitely large but it isn't always the case.

Begging the question is what evoking billions of years is doing. The question is can mutation and selection converge or diverge?

I think the evolutionary account is still pretty impressive. We made the gradual transition from disorganized hydrogen all the way to life that has the ability to mentally internalize that very concept, by way of a damned convoluted process. And yet here we are, surviving in spite of a Universe that really doesn't care about our existence, and in many ways is a downright horrible place for life to even develop and persist. (If you can even call our species' existence of a mere few hundred thousand years "persisting" on a cosmic scale. It's not even a blink.)

And I'm the one exhibiting faith?

 

[Paratus]

Religious men are not the same thing as "religion". I don't claim that religion invented science which you accused me of claiming. There is a difference.
Then why do you believe genetic copying errors eventually accumulated in the right order to make your brain? There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that mutations could ever do something like that.

Quite the contrary, I "lack faith". I have seen no evidence to help me gain the faith that you and others here have. Genetic copying errors accumulating to form complex interdependent parts from scratch? I'd like to see some actual evidence of this claim. Why can't you just provide it and shut me up once and for all?

The claim isn't that organisms change and the ones best suited for a specific environment survive. The claim is that this process turned a "self-replicating molecule" into people over billions of years.

You don't need to believe that a bug turned into Doug to do modern medicine.

You, true believers, point to things like antibiotic resistances and think this is evidence that your brain evolved into existence. Can't you see a gap in your logic?

If you were truly interested in learning about evolution or at the very least challenging your assumptions you've already been supplied links tenfold over in various threads.

You may think you can fool us and maybe you are fooling yourself but again your postings make it evident that you will hold onto your belief in spite of evidence provided. Ergo faith not science. Your denial of the uses and usefulness of the theory is further evidence of this.

The efficacy of the theory of evolution is not in its ability to convince those who refuse to accept evidence but in how usefully it describes the real world. Speciation, genetics, medicine, paleontology are all informed by the theory of evolution.

Your argument brings..... nothing. It brings no insights. It makes no testable predictions. It fails in every qaulitative and quantitative comparison to the theory of evolution. It will never convince anyone who understands the theory of evolution or the scientific method.

 

[ivwshane]

I wouldn't need to see that. I've looked at a lot of mutation examples and I'm extremely underwhelmed by what has been observed to occur. I see NO reason to accept the idea that these mutations could eventually build up to form anything we find in living cells.
Why would you jump to the conclusion that these events could be extrapolated out into forming a person from a single cell organism? It's like the confirmation bias of a conspiracy theorist.

This dumb bitch says they don't need to see one organism evolve into another in order to believe in evolution but then they proceeds to explain how anything short of seeing that is a leap of faith add they won't accept anything less.

 

[Paratus]

For anyone who didn't catch what Jeff was talking about how hydrogen can organize into life:

First start off with nebula full of hydrogen gas:

Gravity will the compress gas until a star forms. That will form a star that will fuse the hydrogen into helium. As the available hydrogen in the core runs out it will fuse helium into heavier and heavier elements. Once iron is reached it will supernova, (fusing iron takes more energy than is released):

The supernova will create the rest of the elements in the periodic table while creating a new nebula. Gravity will slowly condense it into a new star and planets:

Eventually a planet like Earth is formed with the right climate for all three phases of water. This allows complex chemistry to occur eventually forming pre biological chemicals.

Eventually the first cell is formed, (this is the least understood step currently). Then a couple of billion years of evolution leads to people.

 

[buckshot24]

If you were truly interested in learning about evolution or at the very least challenging your assumptions you've already been supplied links tenfold over in various threads.

I'm interested in you true believers showing why one is a nut for not accepting your outrageous claims. Namely that, genetic copying errors and selection can build interdependent complex molecular machines. None of the links really shed any light on this assertion.

You may think you can fool us and maybe you are fooling yourself but again your postings make it evident that you will hold onto your belief in spite of evidence provided.

What evidence? What is the best evidence FOR the belief that mutations and selections can actually do what you believe it did?

Ergo faith not science.

Show me your science and evidence for mutation and selection building complex machinery we find in cells. I suggest you have absolute blind faith in this fantasy.

Your denial of the uses and usefulness of the theory is further evidence of this.

One need not believe a microbe turned into T-Rex's to treat a bacterial infection. One need not believe a microbe turned into a jelly fish or a pine tree to see bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.

Your argument brings..... nothing.

All I want is some bonafide evidence that mutations can build molecular machinery we find in cells. Not sure what you think my arguments are supposed to accomplish. Your "arguments" are definitely not bringing anything to the table.

It brings no insights. It makes no testable predictions. It fails in every qaulitative and quantitative comparison to the theory of evolution.

I'd simply like some evidence that it is true. I'm not proposing a testable theory anyway.

It will never convince anyone who understands the theory of evolution or the scientific method.

If one is a nut for not believing or accepting self replicating molecule to man evolution then it should be trivially simple to show that person the evidence. Instead all I get are platitudes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Religious men are not the same thing as "religion". I don't claim that religion invented science which you accused me of claiming. There is a difference.

Then it wasn't particularly "religious men" that invented science. Just "men" -- since according to you religion didn't make the difference.

Then why do you believe genetic copying errors eventually accumulated in the right order to make your brain?

That isn't what evolutionary theory suggests. This is a strawman of your own creation.

There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that mutations could ever do something like that.

Not just mutations, but reproduction, selection, geographical isolation, extinction, climate, and the rest of the entire universe of natural phenomena.

Quite the contrary, I "lack faith".

That's an outright lie.

I have seen no evidence to help me gain the faith that you and others here have.

There is only one axiom of faith in methodological naturalism: the world is as it appears to be. When you accept that the world is as it appears to be, then you are compelled to accept evolution. What you are suggesting is that the world is not as it appears to be, and this idea is fundamentally irrational.

The pathetic part -- and the reason why you are mocked so mercilessly -- is that you do accept this axiom basically all the time. When you expect your car to stay where you parked it, or when you anticipate the illumination when you flip your light switch, you are putting that axiom to use.

But when it comes to evolution, since it doesn't jive with your idea that it was rather a magical hocus-pocus production by your figmented Master, you irrationally reject it.

Genetic copying errors accumulating to form complex interdependent parts from scratch?

Nope. Evolution.

I'd like to see some actual evidence of this claim. Why can't you just provide it and shut me up once and for all?

Because it is a lie that you will shut up once you've seen the evidence. You've already been shown it overwhelmingly by numerous people, yet you've uncritically dismissed and continued prattling on with your inane religious superstitions.

The claim isn't that organisms change and the ones best suited for a specific environment survive.

Actually, no the claim is that the genes that promote the greatest reproductive success survive. You see, if you bothered to understand evolution you wouldn't look so silly making these false representations of it.

The claim is that this process turned a "self-replicating molecule" into people over billions of years.

Why wouldn't it? What's stopping it?

You don't need to believe that a bug turned into Doug to do modern medicine.

Are you a doctor? What qualifies you to make that claim?

You, true believers, point to things like antibiotic resistances and think this is evidence that your brain evolved into existence. Can't you see a gap in your logic?

Actually, we point to antibiotic resistance and the fossil record and geological stratigraphy and genetics and the nested hierarchy and endogenous retroviruses and vestigial organs and on and on an on...

Our knowledge within all of those categories is extensive, to say the least. You just don't know about any of it because you're an ignoramus (hence your religion). The only framework within which the collection of all of that knowledge makes any sense is evolution. If the world is as it appears to be, then in order for all the things that we know to be simultaneously true, evolution must be true.

To deny this is simply to paint yourself a moron. You've succeeded. Congratulations.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I wouldn't need to see that. I've looked at a lot of mutation examples and I'm extremely underwhelmed by what has been observed to occur. I see NO reason to accept the idea that these mutations could eventually build up to form anything we find in living cells.

How else they gonna get here? Magic?

Why would you jump to the conclusion that these events could be extrapolated out into forming a person from a single cell organism?

Why couldn't they? What's stopping that from happening?

It's like the confirmation bias of a conspiracy theorist.
I won't accept that change is all you need to go from a microbe to a rhino.

Then what else do you need? Put your fucking money where your mouth is, fuckwit.

Why should I? Change may be a necessary component but it isn't a sufficient one.

Then what is the sufficient component? If you don't know, then you have no basis to reject the evidence that suggests that it is.

Nope, I can wrap my head around this. I can wrap my head around convergent functions in calculus as well. You'd think adding an infinite number of slices would be infinitely large but it isn't always the case.

Evolution deals with the real world, mathematics does not deal with the real world.

Begging the question is what evoking billions of years is doing. The question is can mutation and selection converge or diverge?
And I'm the one exhibiting faith?

You continually assert that there is a missing component to evolution but you can't say what it is or even show evidence that anything like that exists. That seems pretty much like textbook "faith" to me. Are you speaking a different language?

 

[Paratus]

I'm interested in you true believers showing why one is a nut for not accepting your outrageous claims. Namely that, genetic copying errors and selection can build interdependent complex molecular machines. None of the links really shed any light on this assertion.
What evidence? What is the best evidence FOR the belief that mutations and selections can actually do what you believe it did?
Show me your science and evidence for mutation and selection building complex machinery we find in cells. I suggest you have absolute blind faith in this fantasy.
One need not believe a microbe turned into T-Rex's to treat a bacterial infection. One need not believe a microbe turned into a jelly fish or a pine tree to see bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.
All I want is some bonafide evidence that mutations can build molecular machinery we find in cells. Not sure what you think my arguments are supposed to accomplish. Your "arguments" are definitely not bringing anything to the table.

I'd simply like some evidence that it is true. I'm not proposing a testable theory anyway. If one is a nut for not believing or accepting self replicating molecule to man evolution then it should be trivially simple to show that person the evidence. Instead all I get are platitudes.

Cerpin Taxt was kind enough to address most of that.

But until you accept that scientific theories are our best descriptions of observations and the theory of evolution is a scientific theory I see no reason to spend time linking and quoting evidence for you to ignore.

Then it wasn't particularly "religious men" that invented science. Just "men" -- since according to you religion didn't make the difference.


That isn't what evolutionary theory suggests. This is a strawman of your own creation.


Not just mutations, but reproduction, selection, geographical isolation, extinction, climate, and the rest of the entire universe of natural phenomena.


That's an outright lie.


There is only one axiom of faith in methodological naturalism: the world is as it appears to be. When you accept that the world is as it appears to be, then you are compelled to accept evolution. What you are suggesting is that the world is not as it appears to be, and this idea is fundamentally irrational.

The pathetic part -- and the reason why you are mocked so mercilessly -- is that you do accept this axiom basically all the time. When you expect your car to stay where you parked it, or when you anticipate the illumination when you flip your light switch, you are putting that axiom to use.

But when it comes to evolution, since it doesn't jive with your idea that it was rather a magical hocus-pocus production by your figmented Master, you irrationally reject it.


Nope. Evolution.



Because it is a lie that you will shut up once you've seen the evidence. You've already been shown it overwhelmingly by numerous people, yet you've uncritically dismissed and continued prattling on with your inane religious superstitions.


Actually, no the claim is that the genes that promote the greatest reproductive success survive. You see, if you bothered to understand evolution you wouldn't look so silly making these false representations of it.


Why wouldn't it? What's stopping it?


Are you a doctor? What qualifies you to make that claim?


Actually, we point to antibiotic resistance and the fossil record and geological stratigraphy and genetics and the nested hierarchy and endogenous retroviruses and vestigial organs and on and on an on...

Our knowledge within all of those categories is extensive, to say the least. You just don't know about any of it because you're an ignoramus (hence your religion). The only framework within which the collection of all of that knowledge makes any sense is evolution. If the world is as it appears to be, then in order for all the things that we know to be simultaneously true, evolution must be true.

To deny this is simply to paint yourself a moron. You've succeeded. Congratulations.

How else they gonna get here? Magic?



Why couldn't they? What's stopping that from happening?


Then what else do you need? Put your fucking money where your mouth is, fuckwit.


Then what is the sufficient component? If you don't know, then you have no basis to reject the evidence that suggests that it is.



Evolution deals with the real world, mathematics does not deal with the real world.


You continually assert that there is a missing component to evolution but you can't say what it is or even show evidence that anything like that exists. That seems pretty much like textbook "faith" to me. Are you speaking a different language?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt was kind enough to address most of that.

I didn't mean to hijack your conversation, but he generally doesn't respond to me so I must contribute my thoughts to his responses to other people.

Besides, it kinda takes me back to the good ol' days. You don't really run into many nutjobs of his particular strain out in the wild any more.

 

[Jeff7]

I wouldn't need to see that. I've looked at a lot of mutation examples and I'm extremely underwhelmed by what has been observed to occur. I see NO reason to accept the idea that these mutations could eventually build up to form anything we find in living cells.

1+1=2
2+2=4
4^4=256
256^4 = Now you're just being ridiculous. That's impossible.

Why would you jump to the conclusion that these events could be extrapolated out into forming a person from a single cell organism? It's like the confirmation bias of a conspiracy theorist.

Humans are nothing particularly special. We're multicellular life forms with a freakishly large organ capable of retaining and processing a lot of data, which is itself nothing more than a bunch of cells.

I won't accept that change is all you need to go from a microbe to a rhino. Why should I? Change may be a necessary component but it isn't a sufficient one.

This would seem to be at odds with...

Nope, I can wrap my head around this.

...this.

I can wrap my head around convergent functions in calculus as well. You'd think adding an infinite number of slices would be infinitely large but it isn't always the case.

Unless you have an understanding of calculus. Infinity does things common sense wouldn't normally tell you, because infinity is unlike anything we encounter on a regular basis. The Universe is finite, down to the tiniest subatomic particle. Our mathematical language uses a concept like infinity to describe things in a way that is predictable, consistent, and understandable by us.

Begging the question is what evoking billions of years is doing. The question is can mutation and selection converge or diverge?

That question has been answered.

And I'm the one exhibiting faith?

There's a difference between blind faith and evidence-based faith.
I've never seen a human liver, but I've got faith in the knowledge that says I have one.

This line of thinking also really doesn't make sense to me:
"How can I explain this big and complex system of a Universe?"

-"Maybe some life form even more complex made it."

"Where did that thing come from?"

-"It is exempt from causality."

"Ok, works for me. No need to investigate further. We should invent some ritualized ways of communicating with this insanely complex and intelligent entity. Ooh, maybe it will even respond in ways that are extremely vague and indistinguishable from simple random chance!"

 

[Paratus]

I didn't mean to hijack your conversation, but he generally doesn't respond to me so I must contribute my thoughts to his responses to other people.

Besides, it kinda takes me back to the good ol' days. You don't really run into many nutjobs of his particular strain out in the wild any more.

No problem. That's why I copied you. You basically answered what I wanted to say and probably better than I would have.


I've noticed. By far and large the biggest science deniers around here are against climate change. Next largest is probably anti-vaxxers. There's just not many anti evolutionists anymore. Probably a good thing.

 

[abj13]

I've looked at a lot of mutation examples

No you haven't. We are still awaiting your analysis of this review article that discusses multiple new genes and new genetic systems.

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution:little did we know. Annual Review of Genetics. 2013;47:307-33.

We all know you've never read that review. And don't worry, nobody has analyzed it on Google, so you can't plagiarize that person's argument and post it here.

 

[buckshot24]

But until you accept that scientific theories are our best descriptions of observations and the theory of evolution is a scientific theory I see no reason to spend time linking and quoting evidence for you to ignore.

Why is one a "nut" for not believing it? What evidence makes it obvious to any sane person that it is true? I want to know why it is so dang obvious that mutations can and did build interdependent complex parts from scratch that you're insane if you don't believe it.