Top questions I think evolutionists need to answer

quote:

---

But I wonder if I would have made the same comment about evolutionists if it had instead been 3 evolutionists with serious guideline violations within 24 hours.

---

I propose a scientific experiment. Mammuthus, mark and I will open up two or three threads each (or resurrect a couple of old ones), fill it full of insulting comments about the intellectual acumen, putative ancestry and logical shortcomings of other posters, cast aspersions and make wild attacks on theism in general and Christianity in particular, and cut-and-paste a bunch of unattributed material culled from some virulently anti-religious website (there's bound to be one or two out there), argue with the Admins about any forthcoming admonitions, and see what comments you make. (I'd say SLPx would be a logical candidate, but that would be toooo easy...)

I'm curious as to how #8 and #16 are not mutually contradictory. In #8, the change in allelic frequency in Kettelwells moths is dismissed as "just population genetics" (like, duh-oh, never knew that...). In #16, population genetics as a science is supposedly "debunked".Please provide the complete rationale for elminating pop gen from the discussion. Please explain the apparent discrepancy between #8 and #16. If pop gen is to be ignored, please provide details of the mechanism that replaces it in the creationist worldview. The mechanism must explain all biological observations including clines, allopatric and sympatric speciation, karyotype differences between clines and/or subspecies, etc. It must explain observed in-breeding depression, ESS, instant speciation in plants, etc. Use examples from specific populations of specific organisms. Please show the derivation of the mathematical formulae used to explain this mechanism from either a theoretical standpoint or an actual study.