The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Ps. It's 'haemoglobin' you philistine.

It seems you need checking an English dictionary.

It seems you do. Ignoramus.

[Greta]

and won't help solve the puzzle of Evolution.

You seem to be the only one puzzled by it.

Exactly.

[Arising_uk]

I haven't offered evidence so far but from reliable sources and authors, like Nature, Scientific American, Thomas Morgan and Isaac Asimov. ...

Hardly reliable as they are decades out of date.

Still, people here insist I'm a religious, mythologist, creationist, mormon, and whatever.

Maybe I'll disappoint you, but I'm neither.

If I had to choose between Mythology and Religion, I'd choose Religion as less bad. ...

Religion is mythology?

Likewise, if I had to choose between Evolutionism and Creationism, I'd choose Evolutionism, but I wouldn't be happy again.

There is no 'Evolutionism'?

...

I ask people how Evolution can explain some perplexing things and they seem so perplexing indeed people can't explain them in light of natural selection. To compose that, they use all types of manipulative rhetoric instead.

But you were shown possible explanations of how NS can solve what appear to be large probability problems and you appear to have ignored them?

[PauloL]

Hardly reliable as they are decades out of date.

Not as old as Darwin's or they are as up to date as that if you prefer. But check all references before answering, anyway.

Religion is mythology?

Did I say so? Or is that a genuine doubt of yours? I think you must learn the basics first.

There is no 'Evolutionism'?

I don't understand what you mean, but whatever you do is semantics anyway (again and again).

But you were shown possible explanations of how NS can solve what appear to be large probability problems and you appear to have ignored them?

Did I ignore one? Tell me which one and I'll apologize and analyze it.

I hope you don't refer some bellow basic level, like the one that can't discern between hemoglobin synthesis and production of hemoglobin ex nihilo.

To the best of my knowledge I rebutted each one here to the point that some people went nuts or gave up under peer's advice.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

ps. If you don't answer then we will know you are just a troll.

Look at the subtle (or not so much) manipulation here. They decide I'm a creationist under argumentation not deserving any credit and say they're right if I don't do what they want me to.

Well you didn't answer so I'll ask it again. What's your point?

[Arising_uk]

Not as old as Darwin's or they are as up to date as that if you prefer. But check all references before answering, anyway.

Except that Darwin's ideas have been confirmed over and over again. Asimov was talking long-ago and your other person even longer. Did you bother to watch the clips that others posted about complex maths, probabilities and evolutionary algorithms?

Did I say so? Or is that a genuine doubt of yours? I think you must learn the basics first.

Yes, you made a choice between them and I was amazed you saw a difference.

I don't understand what you mean, but whatever you do is semantics anyway (again and again).

It's easy, what does 'Evolutionism' mean?

Did I ignore one? Tell me which one and I'll apologize and analyze it.

See above.

...
To the best of my knowledge I rebutted each one here to the point that some people went nuts or gave up under peer's advice.

See above.

[PauloL]

Well you didn't answer so I'll ask it again. What's your point?

I thought you'd use your brains.

[PauloL]

Except that Darwin's ideas have been confirmed over and over again. Asimov was talking long-ago and your other person even longer. Did you bother to watch the clips that others posted about complex maths, probabilities and evolutionary algorithms?

Are Asimov calculations wrong? Do you want to teach me Maths? Don't make me laugh.

Yes, you made a choice between them and I was amazed you saw a difference.

No comment, but find you funny.

It's easy, what does 'Evolutionism' mean?

Why should my answer be different from yours?

See above.

Where? At the ceiling?

See above.

Same.

Just one more thing, Sir. You forgot (or ignored) about the arguments I ignored.

See you tomorrow.

[Arising_uk]

Are Asimov calculations wrong? Do you want to teach me Maths? Don't make me laugh.

So you didn't watch the video on complex maths, probabilities and evolutionary algorithms then. That places you then.

No comment, but find you funny.

Do you. Tell me the difference between a religion and a mythology then?

Why should my answer be different from yours?

Because I don't have one as the term seems meaningless to me but since you made it up I'd have thought you'd have an answer?

Where? At the ceiling?

At the bit in the post that asked if you'd bothered to watch the clip that someone posted to you which explained how evolutionary algorithms can solve complex probability mathematics in a reasonably finite time.

Same.

See above this line.

Just one more thing, Sir. You forgot (or ignored) about the arguments I ignored.

You appear to ignore all arguments that challenge your viewpoint. I guess this is why the other members think your are a creationist in disguise.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Well you didn't answer so I'll ask it again. What's your point?

I thought you'd use your brains.

psst..We only have one.

[davidm]

I haven't offered evidence so far but from reliable sources and authors, like Nature, Scientific American, Thomas Morgan and Isaac Asimov.

Just a timely reminder to everyone while this creationist troll keeps vomiting his bilge.

Asimov intended his number to support and not dispute evolution.

Carry on catering to this creationist creep.

[thedoc]

Carry on catering to this creationist creep.

Thankyou, we will, as long as our stomach's hold out.

[thedoc]

. . . . .

Evolution works perfectly and explains everything. that you don't understand it, is not my problem.

[PauloL]

Arising:

Don't you think it ludicrous offering clips to refute reliable sources like Nature and Scientific American?

If any sober mathematician could refute Asimov's calculations, please refer it reliably.

Your knowledge is too based in clips, don't you think?

[PauloL]

Not as old as Darwin's or they are as up to date as that if you prefer. But check all references before answering, anyway.

Except that Darwin's ideas have been confirmed over and over again. Asimov was talking long-ago and your other person even longer. Did you bother to watch the clips that others posted about complex maths, probabilities and evolutionary algorithms?

Sure. Of course, the only reliable source of all knowledge is The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859.