Nonsense. You might take another look at the first post in the thread. I did everything I said I did. Such a denial is just... well, folks can see for themselves how meaningless it is.
Yet you still avoid answering the questions I asked at the beginning of this thread. Are you this obtuse when you are teaching your children or is it just when you are trying to impart such an abjectly stupid hypothesis to your adoring fans that you resort to these kinds of tactics?
You claim that harmful mutations must necessarily be passed on to the next generation at a greater rate than beneficial mutations. Yet you fail to define or at least provide the theory of evolution's definition of harmful and beneficial mutations. You also have not shown any study, paper, or book by anyone in the field of biology or genetics that states harmful mutations even occur at a higher rate than beneficial ones much less remain in the population at higher percentages.
I used quite a few words in the English language to make that post. I have no intention of defining every last single word I used. If you maintain that this is needful, you can start setting an example and provide definitions of every single word you use.
You haven't asked for any. I only asked you to define 3 phrases yet you bluster about how difficult it is instead of simply stating what you meant by it. Some readers might interpret this as reticence on your part to allow any clear understanding of this grossly misinformed and silly characature of evolution that you parade around on this board.
You've already grossly misidentified the premise(s) in the post. Now you talk of a conclusion? You just got done saying I up & claimed harmful mutations must outnumber beneficial mutations. I did nothing of the sort. I provided a simple, reasoned demonstration that this must happen. But because you don't like the outcome (even 'though you say it has no bearing on your belief) you can't even discuss it accurately.
You say it must happen yet you fail to say what harmful and beneficial mutations are. So how are we to research this and come up with the same conclusion as you if we don't know where you started from?
I did address the facts of your premise which you have not shown are true facts. If these "facts" of yours are so "commonly-known" then you should have no problem providing documentation of such from someone that works in the field of evolution biology.
But I do have a problem. I have a problem allowing my time to be utterly and unquestionably wasted. And you have a problem convincing me to waste my time. So far, you've failed.
It seems like you are wasting more time replying that you don't want to waste time than you would spend providing a few simple explanations of what you mean by harmful and beneficial mutations.
For instance, would you have me believe you're actually so ignorant that you don't know I'm being very, very, very generous with the ratio of good to bad mutations? Does anyone doubt you'd take offense if I assumed you were so ignorant?
There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. That means that a particular piece of knowledge is not held by the person who is ignorant of it. We are all ignorant of something. Besides, even if I did know you were being generous, which I don't, others reading this might like to have a clear understanding of this earth-shattering scientific rebuttal to the theory of evolution. You are putting forth the idea so you should try and make it clearly understood. The fact that you find reasons not to do so, seems indicative of the low value that you really place on this silly hypothesis.
I'll tell you what I do assume. I do assume you've found no actual flaws in what I said. You can beat around the bush if you want, but so what? None of it can make evolutionism work.
I'm not beating around the bush. I asked for a little clarification of the starting assumptions for this misanthrope of a proof and I don't see how anyone can be asked to subscribe to it on its extremely hollow face value.
