Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity

This is not true. This is not true. Something else that your belief shares with flat-Earthism. This demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of science. What you have written is indeed ridiculous. I'm going to guess either that you're mathematically illiterate or that you don't know the difference between the word "similarity" and the word "difference".Biologists, who suffer from neither of these deficiencies, have done the actual math. It's not difficult. I guess that's why we aren't descended from rocks.

This thread seems to be turning into a mere wastepaper basket for creationist nonsense.

The fact that your figures are wrong doesn't affect the validity of an argument supposedly based on those figures?Hey, you want to see some real math?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I have. I gave you the link. You notice how I used real figures?

Again you appear to be reciting creationist rubbish almost at random --- the "Gish Gallop" as it is sometimes called.Here's something to think about. If your nonsense has "everything to do with science", why do scientists (who know about science, which you do not) reject it?

Isn't that rather like asking me what defines a cobbler --- but with none of that talk about mending shoes?Surely doing science is pretty much the sine qua non of being a scientist. Perhaps we might add the qualification that this should be their profession (as indeed with the definition of cobbler).I don't quite see what you're asking of me here. But consider, for example, the following: Now, is there any definition of "scientist" by which these bodies do not consist of scientists? Otherwise my point stands whatever the exact definition should be.

Yeah, I'm adorable.We seem to have different ideas about what constitutes arrogance.I think it's arrogant to lecture people on what "science tells us" without (obviously) having studied science, and when he must be more or less aware that people who have devoted their adult lifetimes to studying science disagree with him completely.You seem to think it arrogant of me to point this out.

I am aware that a tiny minority of scientists are wrong. Heck, even some that have qualifications in relevant fields. And statistically, they must be fewer than the proportion of scientists who hear voices talking in their heads.Let me know if any of them ever come up with any valid arguments.

I didn't. I wrote "mathematically illiterate". Spelling is only one of the many things that I can do. Yes, someone was attacking the results of science as being "ridiculous" by making errors which were in fact ridiculous ... but I'm arrogant for pointing this out. Are you really claiming that genetics isn't a branch of biology?I evidently find ignorance harder to forgive that you do. Also, I can recognize it. You will find, however, that being arrogant and right requires a little more study.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Now. This is why all creationist arguments turn out, on analysis, to be unreasonable. Well, unless scientists are specially immune to schizophrenia, it would appear to follow from the incidence of schizophrenia in the general population and the pathetic paucity of scientists that the special creationists can find to stick on their little lists.

Je sais bien que vous parlez francais. Mais je n'ai pas ecrit "illeterate". (Feel free to correct my grammar, and thank le bon Dieu that you don't have to hear my pronunciation.) I will not flame you for any other errors in English that you may make ... indeed, I recall that I have pointed them out most tactfully. But if you're quoting me, you shouldn't quote me as mis-spelling "illiterate"; and I couldn't let that pass: I'm sure you see why. You're wrong.It's as though I said: "The man driving the motorcycle crashed into the tree", and you were to say: "Motorcycle! You fool, that was a Harley-Davidson."A geneticist is necessarily a biologist, just as a Harley-Davidson is necessarily a motorcycle.---Incidentally, you overestimate the difficulty of the calculations. You would certainly not need a PhD in population genetics to do that particular bit of math.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Not necessarily. I'm not sure --- would it really be possible nowadays to get a PhD in biology without having math skills up to that level? Perhaps it is.But the possibility that some biologists might not be able to do the math does not change the fact that biologists have done the math. A population geneticist is a biologist. A violinist is a musician. A pole-vaulter is an athlete. A blackmailer is a criminal. A geneticist is, and always will be, a biologist. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, I could not have said that, since plant physiology does not subsume the field of population genetics. However, biology does subsume the field of population genetics. If you will be advised by me, you will not in future attempt to make this nor any other point by denying that geneticists are biologists.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Please can you give me links and references supporting this?Thanks.