WTF is wrong with people

Faith writes: Interesting that all anyone does now is throw accusations at me...

You have a way of sucking people in, even those who have long experience with you, into thinking that a coherent evidence-based discussion with you is possible. Gradually realization sinks in.

The power of your ideas is not based upon what you think of them, but others, and in science discussions their assessments are to a great degree based upon the correspondence to real world evidence. But you don't really care about evidence. You think evidence you don't understand supports your ideas, and you ignore evidence you realize doesn't support your ideas.

--Percy

Interesting that all anyone does now is throw accusations at me, or in Frako's case a completely new topic; no comment on any of my argument. After you've demonstrated yourself to be clueless at the level you've managed here, why should anyone care about your argument? You've demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that you don't understand the terms used to describe evolution while posting for years on the subject.

Which ought to clue you that I DO know what the terms I use the most mean but I am giving a different model or theory which changes the way evolutionists use them, and I've tried very hard to be clear about the differences. This OUGHT to be clear by now. Insisting on the evolutionist interpretations just misses the whole point of what a Creationist is trying to do. ARGUE those interpretations, fine, but insisting on them is just begging the very questions being addressed here.

To make such a big deal out of my admission that Genetic Drift has been unclear to me is REALLY missing the point since I haven't argued anything in relation to it until the last few posts. NOW I grasp it but the word "sampling" which I still hate and will refuse to use from now on, just confuses its meaning for me.

You have admitted being utterly incapable of reading any scientific paper on the subject, but that does not keep you from insisting that evolution is not science.

True it does not keep me from that. I have a grasp of what I need to have a grasp of for my purposes and the technical language only serves to obscure the basics. I am not a scientist and if you want only scientists here to defend Creationism that should be advertised up front in a big banner so we nonscientists will stay away. Otherwise it ought to be clear by now that you have to talk nontechnical language if you care at all to talk with us, which perhaps you don't anyway. The mission here is to be sure Creationists get put down and ridiculed; the very idea that we might have something to say is simply unthinkable.

Years of dicussion and you still cannot state ideas from Origin of Species correctly?

What ARE you talking about?

I don't know what's wrong with you, but whatever it is causes you to start thread after thread on a subject you know nothing about, and on which you could not possibly post anything like an evidence based attack or rebuttal. I don't see any reason to respect anything you post on the subject of evolution.

Nor anything I say on the subject of microevolution or how selection and isolation reduce genetic diversity which defeats the very idea of evolution beyond the evolving species; how the mere description of most mutations makes it clear that they could not possibly be the basis of normal alleles; or how changed allele frequencies are caused by the simple splitting of a population, especially if the population is smaller, and how this alone brings about phenotypic change. All that is a correct use of the truly scientific concepts when set free from their false evolutionist baggage. But you're going to make an issue of obscurantist trivia instead.

My question is what is wrong with posters who expect you to learn anything about evolution after the demonstration you've put on over the last few years.

Well there's a big problem, that anyone wants me to learn more about evolution, but that's not my mission here. I am quite sure I know enough about the ToE, but since I reject it I'm not going to use what is truly scientific in any way that appears to give it credence; what is truly scientific supports many creationist views, mine included, and my effort is to show THAT.

"Drift just now came up". Seriously? You talked about the impossibility of mutations adding to diversity and you didn't feel the need to address drift? What kind of advocacy is that?

Yes, as a topic of focus it just now came up. Before that I was using the concept of random breeding patterns wherever it was applicable, which is the same thing as drift, though I didn't think of it as drift because of that indigestible term "sampling," and I also had the CORRECT basic idea that drift contributes to phenotypic change along with reduced genetic diversity WITHIN a population rather than by physical splitting, just as the other selecting and isolating "mechanisms of evolution" do. That is completely valid and sufficient for this entire discussion.

I've been doing my best to be clear about how I use the terminology, I believe I've used it correctly and for the most part defined it well enough to show how I'm using it, although there is always room for improvement.

"Oh, all right then, we'll call it a draw"

You have a way of sucking people in, even those who have long experience with you, into thinking that a coherent evidence-based discussion with you is possible. Gradually realization sinks in.

That's almost a compliment so perhaps I should thank you. Perhaps there's another explanation for the phenomenon, however, that continues to allow that I AM working from evidence although within a different explanatory context. From that point of view it's the foreign creationist explanatory context that uses the evidence differently that eventually alienates evolutionists, rather than any lack of evidence. Not to say I always use the evidence accurately, but I know I do more than is credited to me.

The power of your ideas is not based upon what you think of them, but others...,

But of course in this debate the "others" I'm up against are the entire Evolutionist Establishment, people who have been trained for years in the kind of thinking I'm arguing against. Their judgments are not going to be favorable to any new way of thinking or new way of using terms they've learned to use differently, and especially if it's a creationist presenting the argument. One keeps plugging away hoping to hit on a choice of words that might break through the bias. To you I am wrong, and I'm not going to say I'm not wrong about SOME things, I don't know, but I know my main argument is overall NOT wrong.

and in science discussions their assessments are to a great degree based upon the correspondence to real world evidence.

Which of course in many cases I dispute since so much of evolutionary theory IS pure speculative cogitative castle-building and not at all about the real world.

But you don't really care about evidence. You think evidence you don't understand supports your ideas,

Well, from what YOU presented of the Jutland cattle, THAT evidence DOES support what I've been arguing all along. Beautifully. Small new herds developing new phenotypes RAPIDLY? Right down my alley. Especially now that I have more of a handle on genetic drift, which I've nevertheless been talking about all along in different words.

... and you ignore evidence you realize doesn't support your ideas.

I don't ignore it, I put it aside hoping to understand it better later. I believe I've made some important points against evolution, on this thread, and elsewhere for that matter, and I try to be careful not to let myself get sidetracked into issues that I don't fully understand yet. If my good arguments aren't being recognized, why would I want to be drawn off into something else until they are? Also,when I sit for a while on some of the arguments against me I eventually see the errors in them OR how in fact they do support my ideas rather than what they are presented as supporting. Too often MY points are ignored here, or mangled through gross misunderstanding, and there is no attitude of grace toward one who hasn't paid the scientific dues so I have to fight to keep my argument on the table at all.

quote:

---

That's almost a compliment so perhaps I should thank you. Perhaps there's another explanation for the phenomenon, however, that continues to allow that I AM working from evidence although within a different explanatory context. From that point of view it's the foreign creationist explanatory context that uses the evidence differently that eventually alienates evolutionists, rather than any lack of evidence. Not to say I always use the evidence accurately, but I know I do more than is credited to me.

---

Believe me Faith, it's the arrogance, the dishonesty and the double standards that really annoy people. And that behaviour, sadly is typical of Creationists.

quote:

---

But of course in this debate the "others" I'm up against are the entire Evolutionist Establishment, people who have been trained for years in the kind of thinking I'm arguing against. Their judgments are not going to be favorable to any new way of thinking or new way of using terms they've learned to use differently, and especially if it's a creationist presenting the argument. One keeps plugging away hoping to hit on a choice of words that might break through the bias. To you I am wrong, and I'm not going to say I'm not wrong about SOME things, I don't know, but I know my main argument is overall NOT wrong.

---

You have FAITH that your argument must be correct, but you don't know it in any rational way. I know that for a fact, since you still haven't managed to patch the major hole in your argument that I identified years ago.

Nor have you manage to deal with the fact that - as you yourself admit - your argument is not consistent with the conclusions of science. And I'm afraid that conclusions based on solid evidence outweigh your opinion.

quote:

---

Which of course in many cases I dispute since so much of evolutionary theory IS pure speculative cogitative castle-building and not at all about the real world.

---

Which means that you reject anything that contradicts your religious dogma.

quote:

---

Well, from what YOU presented of the Jutland cattle, THAT evidence DOES support what I've been arguing all along. Beautifully. Small new herds developing new phenotypes RAPIDLY? Right down my alley. Especially now that I have more of a handle on genetic drift, which I've nevertheless been talking about all along in different words.

---

But not in any way that would contradict evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

I don't ignore it, I put it aside hoping to understand it better later. I believe I've made some important points against evolution, on this thread, and elsewhere for that matter, and I try to be careful not to let myself get sidetracked into issues that I don't fully understand yet. If my good arguments aren't being recognized, why would I want to be drawn off into something else until they are?

---

I will point out that showing that an argument has a fatal flaw is not "ignoring" it, and that a fatally flawed argument is not "good". If you have come up with a genuinely good argument against evolution I don't remember it.

But again, if you think you have a genuinely good argument against evolution I am prepared to give it a serious evaluation. Just point me at it.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Sure, it's "arrogant" to think you are right and evolutionists wrong; sure, it's "dishonest" to claim that terms mean something different than they mean to an evolutionist. Double standard? Clever way of insisting I talk like an evolutionist, seems to me.

I don't know if I'll come back to this post or not but I was going to try to answer your earlier one and it got rather stale so I let it go. But maybe I could at least comment again on this idea of a "hole" in my argument, by which of course you mean that I haven't effectively answered the claims about mutations. Here's how you put it in that earlier post:

I have no idea how it can be obvious to you [that mutations can't make the difference evolutionists expect them to]. It is intuitively obvious that increases in diversity can offset decreases and I believe that is obvious to you, to. So you need a reason specific to this case and quite frankly you haven't offered anything that cones close to explaining such a reason.

So I'll try to answer it now: I agree that in the abstract it looks obvious, of course, just a matter of alleles-out-alleles-in, but considering what I’ve been arguing it’s far from obvious.

The argument, again, first describes the trend to reduced genetic diversity through the various “mechanisms of evolution” that select and isolate new populations, including even most particularly Natural Selection. This trend is NOT normally acknowledged in discussions of evolution, it's always described as mutation plus selection onward and upward through the entire supposed genealogical tree, although when I point it out some here will acknowledge it without acknowledging that it hadn't entered their minds before.

…and second, another part of the argument is that maintaining a new subspecies or breed or variety DEPENDS on preventing genetic increase -- or, (as breeders know about their own work), you’ll just destroy your NS-wrought adaptation or Speciation-wrought new “Species” which are, according to the ToE, supposedly stepping stones along the way upward and onward -- sky’s the limit -- to more and more new and different “Species”;

With that in the back of my mind it is intuitively obvious to me that mutation even if it exists and does anything like what you all think it does, is at best redundant, at worst an interference with what the ToE requires on the way from single-celled organism to human being.

And then, third, of course it looks to me like mutations of the sort you expect do NOT exist and those that do DON’T do what you think they do. Percy quoted the article about the Jutland cattle as referring to mutations, and the two mutations described are “stuttering alleles” and changes in a segment of DNA that do nothing (as far as anybody knows). From that kind of mutation you couldn’t possibly get anything remotely like what the ToE requires.

That's my answer. There is no "hole" in my argument.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps there's another explanation for the phenomenon, however, that continues to allow that I AM working from evidence although within a different explanatory context. From that point of view it's the foreign creationist explanatory context that uses the evidence differently that eventually alienates evolutionists, rather than any lack of evidence.

No. You run all evidence through a filter.

If it confirms your religious beliefs you accept it uncritically, along with wishful thinking, speculation, and just outright nonsense.

If it contradicts your religious beliefs you reject it no matter how solidly documented.

That is the characteristic of creation "science" not real science. It is pure religious apologetics no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, and try to delude your audiences.

But the saddest part of all of this is that you have to delude yourself first of all.

No. You run all evidence through a filter.

And so do you.

If it confirms your religious beliefs you accept it uncritically, along with wishful thinking, speculation, and just outright nonsense.

If it confirms the ToE you accept it uncritically, along with wishful thinking, which is really all the ToE is anyway, speculation, ditto, and just outright nonsense, ditto.

If it contradicts your religious beliefs you reject it no matter how solidly documented.

If it contradicts the ToE you reject it no matter how well argued it is (although, to be fair, I don't think you are capable of recognizing a good argument against the ToE to begin with.)

That is the characteristic of creation "science" not real science. It is pure religious apologetics no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, and try to delude your audiences.

That is the characteristic of the ToE, that all true science is made to fit it no matter how strained the fit, and since the theory is nothing but unprovable fantasy, you can go on indefinitely deluding yourself and others with it.

But the saddest part of all of this is that you have to delude yourself first of all.

Ah well, the ToE is the biggest delusion that was ever foisted on humanity. Wish God would show at least some of you how that is the case. Make that a prayer.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Interesting that all anyone does now is throw accusations at me, or in Frako's case a completely new topic;

Well it was pointless to argue with you on that cause you cant see reason so i decided on a new approach. So i decided to show you actual physical evidence that has only one possible explenation common descent.

Clearly there's no point in my continuing here, but I do have at least another post I want to make.

Yes because we show you examples of beneficial mutation as soon as you think we forgotten that you go back to your no beneficial mutations claim.

And I can assure you that I understand evolution as well as the average person who has ever thought about evolution.

Ok then explain what is evolution i asked you this right at the beginning of this thread and you claimed by who Darwin or Dawkins, at the time proving my point that you dont know what a theory is or what the theory of evolution is.

e have been bombarded with it all our lives and many have taken time to think about it at least occasionally

Yes there are also people who devoted their lives to the study of evolution and every single one of them knows that if they manage to disprove it they get fame and fortune.

which I did quite a bit when I still believed in it before I became a Christian.

What where you before an atheist, did you come from a secular family or did you belong to a different religion.

And I'll also say again since I haven't said it in a while that the science that is done in the name of evolution is often good science, but what it supports is always microevolution and never macroevolution.

But there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution there is only evolution

Is the retrovirus since that has been done good science? And does it deal with micro or macro evolution? I would like to hear your explanation on how retroviruses just happened to insert themselves in the same exact spot on the genome in so meny different "kinds", common descent explains that how does creationism do it.

I do like that Jutland cattle study, it really does support my own theory here, very nicely.

Yea well its the study of breeds or what you would call micro evolution so id be surprised if it wouldn't.

Ok then explain what is evolution i asked you this right at the beginning of this thread and you claimed by who Darwin or Dawkins, at the time proving my point that you dont know what a theory is or what the theory of evolution is.

Oh good grief. Darwin's theory was that species originate from other species back to some primordial life forms by the means of natural selection of the best adapted individuals, those best fitted to their environment, which he based on his observations of artificial selection in domestic breeding, which he did a lot of himself.

But the definition has acquired other parts since Darwin, particularly including mutations as at least equally important in explaining how new species can arise.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

1. Observed instances of new species forming Observed beneficial mutations and speciation in Anolis lizards

Were the allele pairs in the parent generation for the trait attributed to beneficial mutation studied to prove it was a mutation and not just a normally occurring allele?

Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.

Speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse

Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.

Evolution of five new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.

Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.

Speciation in action among Larus seagulls.

Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.

A new species of Evening Primrose named Oenothera gigas

Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.

Evolution of a new multicellular species from unicellular Chlorella

Either microevolution or something else peculiar to one celled creatures.

A new species of mosquito in London Culex pipiens

Microevolution.

Finch speciation in the Galapagos

Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.

2. Observed instances of new genetic material(information) arising RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated,

Mutations occur, but what's the benefit of a gene duplication?

and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur." (Zhang et al. 2002)

No way to judge what this is about.

"Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further." (Brown et al. 1998)

Unicellular creatures have their own peculiar genetics.

Some old world monkeys developed a mutation in the protein TRIM5 that created a new protein called TRIM5-CrypA. This novel protein helped protect cells from HIV and other retroviruses. (Newman, 2008)

No way to judge this.

A chromosome fusion event in stickleback fish of the Japan Sea resulted in the formation of a new species.(Gilbert, 2009)

Either a genetic mistake that didn't do much of anything (except perhaps reproductively cut off the new "species" from the old?), or some form of microevolution, certainly nothing in support of the ToE.

Begun et al., 2007 and Levine et al., 2006 observed the formation of de novo genes arise from mutations in noncoding DNA in a population of Drosophila.

And what did the de novo genes DO if anything?

Cai et al. 2008 found that a new, functional gene in a specific yeast species had evolved from a previously non-coding region. The HIV virus has recently undergone rapid evolution which has resulted in the emergence of new genetic information; specifically, the Vpu gene.

Not going to comment on one celled creatures since they do things in some way peculiar to themselves.

A new gene arises by Gene duplication in Zebrafish

Typical mutation. Of what value to the Zebrafish?

Formation of a novel X-Chromosome in Stickleback fish

Doesn't sound healthy to me.

3. Observed instances of beneficial mutations Beneficial mutations of yeast in a low phosphate environment Yeast adapts to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection Chlamydomonas adapts to grow in the dark Bacteria evolve to eat nylon

No comment on unicelled creatures.

Resistance to atherosclerosis was documented in small population in Italy. The resistance was caused by a mutation in the angiotensin-converting enzyme gene, which affects the plasma levels in an individual.(Margaglione, et al., 1998)

Maybe a true beneficial mutation, but boy are they RARE.

E. coli evolves to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose E. coli evolves to metabolize propanediol E. coli evolves to digest citrate Klebsiella bacteria develop a new metabolic pathway to metabolize 5-carbon sugars

No comment on unicelled creatures.

Fruit fly adaptations to low oxygen environments

I'd suspect this to be mere normal microevolution. Perhaps drastic natural selection wiping out most of the rest of the population?

Blowfly Insecticide Resistance

Same suspicion as above.

Fungi evolves to harness high radiation levels in Chernobyl, Russia Chlorella algae evolves multicellularity in response to a predator

Yep those unicelled creatures have their own peculiar genetics.

4. Observed instances of large morphological changes Croatian Lizards change body shape to adapt to a new environment

Ah yes, that video of the lizards of Pod Mrcaru. Definitely standard microevolution.

Anolis Lizards change body shape to adapt to new island environments

Same as above. Not necessarily environment-driven, just natural variation through new allele frequencies.

Galapagos Finches morphologically change in response to seed sizes

All within the built-in genetic capacity of the creature, simply normal microevolution, and probably NOT in response to the seeds, more likely the genetic change came first and then they gravitated to the seeds for which they were now suited.

Autralian snakes adapt to introduction of poisonous toads

Probably a true case of natural selection, which is just one kind of microevolution.

Change in size of the bony armor of Stickleback fish

Boy those sticklebacks are genetically busy creatures. Are all the changes noted here part of the same adaptive event perhaps? I'd have to go back and reread. But in any case there is nothing outside the normal genetic variability in such a size change of the bony armor. Just normal microevolution.

Will have to get to the rest later.

Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.

Yea and we are back to how much change do you need to see

Either microevolution or something else peculiar to one celled creatures.

Yea anything but macro
Back to the question how much change do you need to see?

going form SINGLE CELLED calcification to something well technically something new i guess isnt enough

Mutations occur, but what's the benefit of a gene duplication?

Um try reading the whole sentence dont QUOTE MINE ME

quote:

---

and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur." (Zhang et al. 2002)

---

and if you red a bit further you would find an example of JUST gene duplication being beneficial

quote:

---

Yeast adapts to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection

---

No way to judge what this is about.

Yea it fits with the quote you quote mined

Unicellular creatures have their own peculiar genetics.

I guess your 2 doctorets on epigenetic and genetics qualify you to say that while every other layabout quasi scientists disagrees with you. When they turn in to multicellular organisms as the example way above do they still have their own peculiar genetics or does that change?

Either a genetic mistake that didn't do much of anything (except perhaps reproductively cut off the new "species" from the old?), or some form of microevolution, certainly nothing in support of the ToE.

Yea the same chromosome fusion mistake or mutation that probably separated us from other Hominidae, all other homineds have 24 chromosome pairs we have 23 pairs, if you lay a chims 2p and 2q end to end it is identical to our chromosome 2.

Explenation 1:The first is that we share a common ancestor with chimps and that, during the course of evolution, chromosome fusion has taken place.

Explenation 2: the deisgner, god, zeus, or Yahweh was a prick and really wanted to test mans faith so he designed the second human chromosome to look like it was a fusion of 2 from other primates even leaving the telomires in the middle that are normally only found at the ends of chromosomes.

And what did the de novo genes DO if anything?

They add to the genetic diversity of the species. I dont have the time or the will to read trough the whole thesis to find out if they actually looked at what the gene did and if it was beneficial neutral or deleterious. Only to get an answer like yea those fast reproducing small creatures like flies have their own peculiar genetics.

Not going to comment on one celled creatures since they do things in some way peculiar to themselves.

Yea they reproduce very fast and that is causing trouble for creationists because that means they evolve faster. The Escherichia coli long-term evolution experiment reached a milestone of 50 000 generations in 2010.

You cant breed cow's enough times in a persons lifetime to see that much change thats the only difference.

Doesn't sound healthy to me.

yea well loads of species do fine or better with multiple sex chromosome systems.

Maybe a true beneficial mutation, but boy are they RARE.

Does not matter how rare because they stay in the population while deleterious mutations dont.

Now that you final accept that beneficial mutations happen, dosent matter how rare they are, do you accept that over time if we say had 4.5 billion years to play with that they would accumulate and change a species beyond simple variation, or micro evolution.

And im still gonna ask how do you explain those retro viral insertions? Is god testing our faith and making species look like they follow common descent. Because the only explanation other then common descent is its a miracle.

Yes there are also people who devoted their lives to the study of evolution and every single one of them knows that if they manage to disprove it they get fame and fortune.

However, haven't there been some who have studied it extensively and devoted their lives to the science who have come to see it as false, even written books against it but do NOT get fame and fortune?Or if they do they don't get it from the scientific community, which remains untouched by their new insights.

To my mind this goes to demonstrate that the whole thing is far from science and really just a matter of belief and opinion, something that can't be definitively pinned down because it's all unproven speculation etc. If someone does see through it there is no way for them to actually prove their case either. It's always a matter of hoping to be persuasive about some vague plausibilities. That's the case on both sides of the debate in the end.

So, while a lot of actual science IS done in the name of the ToE, the ToE itself is pure mental conjuring out of thin air.

which I did quite a bit when I still believed in it before I became a Christian. What where you before an atheist, did you come from a secular family or did you belong to a different religion.

My parents sent their four offspring to church just because it was the thing to do and a way to get us out of their hair for a while on the weekend. They themselves went only on the holidays and for special occasions. Neither of them was an atheist but they certainly weren't believers either. They might as well have been secular but they didn't preach that point of view either. It was a teacher in high school who aggressively ridiculed Christianity that turned me into an atheist, which I remained for the next thirty years. During which I also believed in evolution and read articles about it from time to time.

And I'll also say again since I haven't said it in a while that the science that is done in the name of evolution is often good science, but what it supports is always microevolution and never macroevolution. But there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution there is only evolution

I believe I've demonstrated on this very thread that that is false, that there is a natural genetic barrier to macroevolution. Thought I'd bold that because I have the impression you didn't bother to read much of what I wrote anyway. On this thread or any of the others where I've pursued the same argument.

Is the retrovirus since that has been done good science? And does it deal with micro or macro evolution? I would like to hear your explanation on how retroviruses just happened to insert themselves in the same exact spot on the genome in so meny different "kinds", common descent explains that how does creationism do it.

I don't know. I stick to the topics I feel I can best argue and I believe I've shown that macroevolution is impossible, in which case all the other unanswered questions just have to be left for later.

I do like that Jutland cattle study, it really does support my own theory here, very nicely. Yea well its the study of breeds or what you would call micro evolution so id be surprised if it wouldn't.

I doubt Percy sees it that way.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

However, haven't there been some who have studied it extensively and devoted their lives to the science who have come to see it as false, even written books against it but do NOT get fame and fortune?Or if they do they don't get it from the scientific community, which remains untouched by their new insights.

Only when they "get religion" do they turn away from scientific evidence and rely on woo. You're a poster boy for this. Anyone who follows the evidence accepts the theory of evolution.

To my mind this goes to demonstrate that the whole thing is far from science and really just a matter of belief and opinion, something that can't be definitively pinned down because it's all unproven speculation etc. If someone does see through it there is no way for them to actually prove their case either. It's always a matter of hoping to be persuasive about some vague plausibilities. That's the case on both sides of the debate in the end.

False. Utterly false. You demonstrate the point of this thread every time you post.

But just as a test, can you name one, just one, scientific theory that has been proved?

...there is a natural genetic barrier to macroevolution.

So you've claimed on many occasions. Until you can show somebody with a big "STOP" sign where microevolution ends and macroevolution begins, you've got nothing but religious belief. That's pretty thin gruel when you get to the evidence part of things.

...I believe I've shown that macroevolution is impossible

What you believe and reality aren't even on speaking terms. You couldn't see reality with the Hubble Telescope!

I've asked for this thread to go to Summary mode because you have shown yourself utterly incapable of learning, no matter the evidence that is provided. In that, you are the poster boy for "WTF is wrong with people," which is the subject of this thread.

And, you have shown St. Augustine was right some 1,600 years ago. I think he'd be disgusted with you.

But just as a test, can you name one, just one, scientific theory that has been proved?

You'll parse "proved" to prove that there is no such thing as "proving" anything but sure,

Newton Gravity
Harvey Blood Circulation
Germ theory Pasteur
Solar system planets circle sun Galileo, Copernicus
Wegener's continental drift
The spiral helix form of DNA Crick and Watson

And many more.