General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')

It's certainly an interesting topic, and I'd also like to see it promoted. Anyone else interested, do join me in giving it a "thumb's up" here: Message 1

As the Bishop said to the actress, why don't you just learn to turn the other cheek? Trolling? Moi?

It's on topic for you to support the currently unsupported claims you've made in the O.P.You say: You haven't supported your view that hypothetical scenarios involving demonstrably real phenomena (mutations, selection and drift) aren't "plausible" and "realistic".Would you like a one on one great debate with me on "what is and isn't plausible and realistic in relation to the production of novelty in biology"? We could request non-intervention from moderators, and ask them to restrict any comments to the peanut gallery.

Read the research papers that I've linked to on your novelty thread, and you'll find plenty of evidence for mutations creating novelty if you understand those papers. Do it.As you point out, this thread is about moderation. The moderators have been very generous to you on that thread. You've made the bald unsupported claim that evolutionary explanations of novelty are implausible and unrealistic, and the moderators have kindly refrained from asking you to support the claim. It seems that they are bending over backwards to help you, or maybe they are just being patronizing, and have learnt to expect very low standards from you.Why are you avoiding my offer of a great debate? Shouldn't you be jumping at the chance to demonstrate that supernatural beings making things is more plausible and realistic than demonstrably real processes like mutation and selection making things?Are you scared? I'll promise to show you some interesting research papers which will help you to develop your views on biology, as these currently seem to be founded on nothing but desire.