Most of the links I used were very clear and spoke for themselves needing little interpretation. And when there was a possibility of multiple interpretation, a chorus of adversaries were there to render theirs as the correct one. I don't see how the rules obligate one to rspond to all of these claims, some of which just weren't worth my time.
In the following exchange between Percy and myself, the link spoke loud and clear, but that didn't seem to make a whit of difference as to my performance, nor was there a retraction of any kind of the charges.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NS is impossible without RM. So the buck stops, so to speak with RM.
Percy:
Yet another meaningless, unsupported bare assertion, and another violation of the guidelines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, I used plain old common sense to come up with my conclusion that alleged NS wouldn't happen before alleged RM. So when you debunked it as "unsupported bare assertion", in defense, the support was found very quickly in a search. Consider this from an academic source:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conventional wisdom suggests that random mutation precedes natural selection, i.e., random mutations that allowed giraffes to reach higher leaves than their competitors fixed in the population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.inside.bard.edu/academic/programs/isrop/research