As I've previously commented, the fact you can convince some science-illiterate people you're worth listening to doesn't mean you're doing valid science or presenting viable evidence. As the saying goes, you can fool some people all of the time.
How many scientifically literate people have you convinced? How many scientific journal reviewed works have you got behind you? What evidence do you have? Until you can justify your position with evidence it doesn't matter how many people back you, you fail to meet your burden of proof. Instead you're now trying an argument from popularity. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true, else the Earth really would have been flat and the Sun really would have gone around the Earth in ancient times.
I stand by what I've said, you fail to provide any justification or arguments which aren't circular or flat out false.
So its okay if a 'flock' backs up, as your previous paragraph claims, but when science educated people do it there's something wrong?
Perhaps there's a reason we all have a similar opinion. Nothing to do with a conspiracy of silence or fear, its that you fail to present any argument which can stand on evidence. Worse, you've been flat out wrong about many things. You thought the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution. You thought Jefferson was a Christian. You think the literal reading of the bible isn't contradicted by reality.
I've provided evidence you've been wrong on all of those and should any of your imaginary supporters want me to justify them further I'll be happy to do so. If they think I've not got a leg to stand on then why don't they call me on it? Why are they contacting you in private?
Probably because just like your god, they don't exist.
False. The original population could all interbreed. Afterwards there were two populations which could interbreed within themselves but not with one another. Its seen in nature for ring species.
Define 'information'. Information is not some intrinsic quantity like energy, it is context dependent. If your posts were written in French I'd get no information from them as I can't understand French. DNA is analogous to a programming code, it mechanically tells proteins how to construct things. If you change the sequence then you change what the proteins do. One change might be harmful while another results in a protein being able to do its function better. The bacteria which developed a way to break down nylon had a mutation which resulted in some of their proteins being able to split the nylon chemical bonds, a function they previously couldn't do (hence why plastic isn't generally biodegradable).
If you ran a computer program which printed out every possible combination of say 30 letters and letters within it you'd find cases where English sentences are made. Its a random construct, just as any other of the sequences could be but to you it would have information. The random variations due to cell division and growth which occur during reproduction can do the biochemical version of this, though they do it much faster due to the way genetic traits are selected for in populations under pressure.
You claimed no species had been made. You were wrong. Now you're trying to back peddle, while simultaneously misrepresenting the work which was done. You can't 'prove' models in science (only mathematics involves perfect proofs), you test and validate certain predictions within the limits of the tests. The experiments demonstrated the viability of evolution by natural selection by demonstrating explicit documented examples of it.
Drug resistant bacteria say otherwise.
Remember, you're not talking to someone who hasn't heard of any of this stuff so simply lying about it does you no favours.
Please provide reputable journal reviewed publications which refute the things you claim have been refuted.
The claim information can only go down doesn't even stand up to a bit of rational thinking, once you understand what 'information' is and how it related to the biochemical processes done in living things.
Where?
Citation needed. You are simply asserting things without evidence. If you read the www.talkorigins.org site I previously linked to you'll see all your claims addressed, including plenty of published reviewed citations and references. Evidence.
According to whom? You? You have no first hand experience and neither do the people who generally argue about the fossil record not supporting evolution. So whose doing this evaluation then and how are they a credible source?
From now on when you say things like "Its been retorted" provide a reference to who retorted it. If you claim "Its said that..." provide a reference where its said. If you say "Science says..." provide a reference. I'm asking this because you're now employing another creationist tactic, you run through a bunch of things which amount to "Argument [X] by science has been refuted" but you don't say who or when or where. I've provided you links to back up various things I've said. If you're not simply asserting things without basis or lying then finding reputable references to back you up shouldn't be hard.
The fact research is still being done all over the world, including by many scientists who are Christians, shows the work you claim has been done to retort evolution actually hasn't.
Or do you want to claim there's a global conspiracy crossing borders, cultural barriers, even religions, to keep it suppressed?
Flat out false, as I just explained about evidence. Why do you think you can lie so blatantly on a science forum? Do you think no one here has bothered to look into this stuff and learn about it? Do you think trotting out the usual creationist stuff is going to work? Do you think I haven't heard this stuff before? Your laughable attempts are logical arguments (which are invariably logical fallacies) are stuff I've heard many times and it didn't convince me before and it isn't convincing me now.
Can you try to present something original.
Any high school biology book will tell you you're incorrect in how DNA carries information to code genes. A basic understanding of probabilities or statistical processes would do likewise. These default creationist arguments are retorted on www.talkorigins.org , all within anything else you've said.
Are you reading from some kind of creationist crib sheet, trying to go through every debunked ignorant argument which fails to stand up to any scrutiny?
Can they interbreed? If not they are, by definition, different species. Saying "Oh they all look like birds" is a hollow excuse, an attempt to move the goal posts.
Strawman. Go back and read what I said in my last post. No one is trying to do that. It took life 2 or 3 billion years to go from its beginnings to being single celled. After that things moved much faster. A single celled life form is not 'the beginning of evolution', its already a huge way down the line. The simplest original life is thought to have been only a few hundred atoms in size. Enzymes can put together or break chemical bonds, the earliest life was most likely something of that form.
By trotting that argument out twice, including after being corrected, you demonstrate you've either never bothered to find out what abiogenesis research actually involves or you have and you're deliberately misrepresenting it. Either way your argument is flawed.
I use Firefox which has a build in spell checker, it auto-underlines anything it doesn't recognise. I also happen to be British and have it set to UK English. That's why I use words like 'colour' and 'flavour', not 'color' or 'flavor'.
Well done on failing to realise there's people outside the US which speak English (its called English for a reason you know) and being so desperate to take a pot shot at me you resorted to spelling. Are we past your B game and now onto your C game? You've gone from your own arguments to default creationist arguments to attacking me. Even if I couldn't spell it has no impact on whether your arguments are justified. Creationists and cranks often approach 'discussions' with the notion that if they prove the other side wrong then they prove their argument. Its known as a false dichotomy. Even if evolution were proven wrong tomorrow it wouldn't mean the Genesis account is right. Even if someone proved a god exists that doesn't automatically mean its the Christian god.
I could have absolutely zero knowledge of biology (compared to people with degrees and PhDs and beyond I do know very little about it) but that wouldn't make your position any stronger. You have a burden of proof, you have to present evidence. What anyone else may or may not be doing or thinking or saying is immaterial, the only way you can present a viable argument is to present evidence.
Do you admit that Jefferson was not a Christian and that your quote of him does not represent his view of Christianity? Simple yes or no. Go on, be honest for a change....
