quote:
What did you "refute"? That deformation tolerance of 50 percent is empirically based? How did you do that? By showing that 50.5 percent is the correct value? You have refuted nothing. You just keep repeating the same old nonsense.
If you bothered to read on you’d have seen the refutation.
quote:
There is no difference between specific function and new function, since in order to get from old function to new function you need "different-then-old", a.k.a. specific, arrangement of particles. In other words, "function" is simply the name for a group or groups of particles, when they fit certain environment within or outside of an organism.
Now you are just babbling nonsense. Obviously there must be more arrangements that will perform some useful function than there are that will perform one specific function. Different functions will generally require different arrangements.
quote:
With empty appeal to "premise is inadequate" you cannot refute an argument.
Again this refers to an already established fact. Your argument is logically invalid. And obviously so. The fact that you refuse to see it is your problem.
quote:
Also, arguments are either valid or invalid, and have nothing to do with whether you personally accept them or not.
And your argument is obviously invalid, as I already pointed out.
You cannot fix the problems in your argument with arrogant and irrational bluster.