Please provide a source reference for your "one creature "guaranteed" to always survive" statement.
Since there's unanimous desire among evolutionists to see common knowledge presented, and since presenting it will serve to further demonstrate just how stupid evolutionism gets people to become; I am seriously considering doing just as you both suggest.
Since it is my question to which you gave this response, I have to conclude that you are calling me stupid. I am registering my complaint to the moderator of this forum concerning your constant maligning of my intelligence and character.
Now to answer the statement. The theory of evolution and the mechanisms by which it is considered to occur are recorded in papers and books written by evolution biologists. I am not one. Linda is not one. I don't think RAZD is one either. Certainly most of the people you read on forums such as this are not evolution biologists. If you want to say that "the theory of evolution" says this or "the theory of evolution says that" you need to provide a source for your statement. Otherwise your statement isn't worth the pixels it is printed with.
Naturally, I'll begin my search with the usual suspects & work outwards. I may not have time to do much responding to other ...'stuff', I suppose, is the polite term.
We'll see how the priorities go. I have to moderate, and I don't plan to let anything important slip by. If the project proves boring or impractical I'll give up on it. I know what I've seen. You all know you've seen the same thing countless times; and it's just a matter of locating it. Everyone knows.
But I can comply with silly suggestions when it promises to be fun.
Yes, maybe you will start actually answering questions when it becomes fun for you. I'm still waiting for your definition of "harmful mutation".
Who are these "some" that say these things...people you interviewed on the street?
Haven't conducted many street interviews. Just stuck with the same encounters everyone else has had.
Not street interviews...forum interviews!! Note the lack of substantiation with scientific publications.
Perhaps a quote from an actual science publication or an actual biologist would be more appropriate here.
Well, now. That's a worthy goal: find an actual evopro saying such stuff. There is a bit of a problem: lots of posers on the forums. Oh, but you can't admit to their existence either - I forgot. Makes it a little easier for me.
I never claimed to be an "evopro" so I guess I am not one of the posers you are referring to. Since you can't find a professional evolution biologist on a forum then perhaps you should research elsewhere before you assume that wild statements on a forum constitute professional conclusions.
By definition, improving survival chance by a whole percentage point means the selection god(ess) has only one chance in 100 of getting it "right". 1/10 of 1% reduces this to one chance in 1000.
Now if you call them on it, most often they'll say "Oh yes, it could take 3 or 4 generations, but..." Nonsense! No thinking person can believe you'll hit a 1 in 1000 shot in 3 or 4 tries, and this overlooks the fact that in the case of a defect, the defect is being reproduced.
Again a reference for your quote regarding this miniscule amount of "tries" would be good here since it is in quote marks. Otherwise the only "Nonsense!" is your assumption.
I do not make this stuff up. I have seen just such absurdities. We all have.
We have also seen crazy stuff provided by professed Christians on these and other forums...stuff that you would never agree with. Would it then be valid if I then quote them and say that "Christianity means this" and "Christians believe that" as if these people were venerated theologists? No it would not be valid. However, that is essencially what you are doing here. Perhaps you should raise your research standards.
But if you think about it, I could go to another forum, tell of RAZD's claim that compounding periods are all the same, and folks would be pretty reluctant to believe. That'd be a harder sell than something straight out of common experiences like selection goddess claims. They're a dime a dozen.
Almost as difficult to sell as your concept of the working of exponential decay functions.
If this statement is to make any sense at all you need to define your terms, which I requested above.
Not so. The classic definitions of all terms, definitions well-established and recognized throughout the English-speaking world, work perfectly well.
Incorrect. Terms used in a theory must be defined. The theory of relativity has words that mean a particular thing within the framework of that theory. The theory of evolution is the same way. If you are criticizing the theory of evolution then you need to use the same definitions that they use. Otherwise you are not really criticing evolution.
Once they spread, it doesn't become easier to eliminate them - just the opposite. The "good mutations", if they spread, will be likely to remain, but they're going to be outnumbered by 29 to 1. Extinction will occur long before transformation.
Your ambiguous inference as to what a "detrimental" mutation is, makes this statement unsupportable.
I don't think there's anything ambiguous there. Maybe if you assert it a few more times some lurker or another will look it up. That's sure to work to the good as they read their way around this forum.
I think it would be easier for you to define the term rather than act as if it is understood by all who are reading this. The request has been repeated several times because you haven't answered it. You act as if you want your statements to be ambiguous.
