fred: Larry, I’m not interested in your condescending remarks about what evolution teaches.
And I'm not interested in your misrepresentations of science. If you stop doing that the condescension will stop. Not condescending to one who is clearly not interested in an honest dialogue concerning what scientists actually state is very hard given they are in need of being corrected.
fred: I am interested in science.
No, you are interested in apologetics.
fred: I posted some evidence that runs counter to your theory in another thread. Here again is the link:
And I responded to it. Essentially you are making an argument that we don't fully understand the rates as they are found in one article. This isn't a falsification it is an appeal to the God of the Gaps.
fed: I welcome your comments on it, not side shows and links to the great and wonderful Talk.Origins.
Which also contains citations to the peer reviewed work and highlights the blatant misrepresentations you made about evolution. Either you understand or you don't. If you do understand it, you are misrepresenting it. That isn't exactly something to be proud of.
fred: I’ve read most if not all the FAQs there. I am also well-read in population genetics.
ROTFL.
fred; So stop sending me to Talk.Origins and let’s discuss science.
Then stop making up what evolution claims. Understand? When you lie about what the theory of evolution states, as you have, you will be corrected. Understand?
fred: I don’t have much time to spend on boards, so if you keep up with this rhetoric you going to end up talking to air.
Why is that a threat to me? It sounds more like a predecessor to you pulling the famed creationist disappearing act. Now if you don't like being called for misrepresenting the literature, DON'T MISREPRESENT IT?
fred: Regarding your claim that Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time, I discuss that here:
That isn't all I said now was it? The definition is what I quoted. Then I provide a list of mechanisms in evolution and a link to a good layman's level description that specifically refutes your claim that the essence of evolution is only random mutation and blind selection. Instead of responding substantively to being caught in a misrepresentation you whine.
Your evidence to date is nothing but pointing out the complexity of mathematical models and claiming that this is a refutation of common descent. It isn't a refutation it is an area we don't fully have answers for. Nothing you have presented even resembles a scientific theory of creation and indeed your claims regarding it fit whatever you find.
Cheers,
Larry