Me: So you realized it's there.
G3K: Yup, I know it's there, and many articles disproving evolution say they prove evolution. Many people just say that as a mantra without thinking or perhaps because they are afraid to be called kooks. Most scientists are concerned with discovering things, they do not want to get engaged in politics and the evolutionists have turned science into a political arena. The evidence disproves evolution.
You know better than Dr. Baltimore what his work entails and what it means. Have you let him know yet? Have you notified the Nobel Committee?
You also claim to know why people say what they say. Fascinating. You must, therefore, be reading peoples' minds. Can you prove it? I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 10. What is it?
Evolution, uniquely among the sciences, is in the political arena because people who fear it have dragged it there. You now throw the blame on the theory of evolution itself. How utterly Clintonian.
G3K: Such complexity cannot arise by chance.
Me: This is entirely undemonstrated.
G3K: Not according to Darwin. He said that if a complex thing could not be shown to have been able to occur by many small gradual steps then it would disprove evolution. This complexity disproves evolution because in the first place you need many things working together to add any kind of improvement. In the second place, because these changes have to be made without affecting any of the other complex processes of the organism.[sic] So yes, the complexity disproves evolution. Together with all the other problems I mentioned such as the problem about spreading mutations and the problem of the complexity of genes they all join to show that evolution is impossible.
You, not Darwin, said “Such complexity cannot arise by chance.” You have not demonstrated this and neither has anyone else. Your argument amounts to a claim that evolution can’t be true because it can’t be true. You make assertions about what can or cannot happen, but not only do you have no “proof” (your standard), you you’ve been caught right here distorting the words and the works of the scientists you yourself have cited in support of your claims. In these cases, the distortions have been so blatant and easily exposed that what you are now attempting to do is truly pathetic.
Leland Hartwell: My laboratory is beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution.
G3K: If he had proof of such he would not be doing research on it now would he? Therefore his statements about this supporting evolution are assumptions totally unsupported by evidence. My statements therefore are what science knows about the matter. The statements of Hartwell, like most of the garbage evolutionists state are assumptions and therefore are not evidence and in no way contradict my statement, indeed they verify it.
Your utter recklessness is breathtaking. How many times have you been told that scientific theories aren’t ever “proven”? How many times have I told you myself that no one, anywhere, is claiming “proof,” at least in your peculiar sense? Equally breathtaking is your assertion that Hartwell’s “statements about this supporting evolution are assumptions totally unsupported by evidence.” Are you calling Hartwell a liar? A cheat? An incompetent? You're the one who brought him up as the expert in the field.
On the other hand, you keep claiming disproof of evolution. This potential for disproof is real, and in fact is why the theory of evolution is scientific. However, your much-touted disproof has apparently not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Leland Hartwell, who is still actively studying the subject! He’s the expert you chose. You are now engaged in attempting to discredit the very authority you quoted as having “disproved” evolution. He’s done nothing of the sort, doesn’t claim to have done anything of the sort, and is in fact still, “studying how molecular circuits support evolution.” (His words). You lied, you were caught, and now you are trying to weasel out by claiming Hartwell has no "proof." No one ever claimed he did! You were the one who fraudulently claimed he'd disproved evolution.
All of this is utterly typical of you and utterly dishonest. It is here for all to see. Thank you, sincerely, for starting this thread and thereby giving us the tools to demonstrate beyond any possibility of a doubt the depths to which you will sink to achieve your ends.
I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said. I supported my position, Dr. Baltimore did not support his view of how the discovery backs up evolution. The whole extent of the evidence is against evolution and Dr. Baltimore did not say anywhere how his discovery proved evolution. In fact both he and Hartwell said that they had to see how it might be possible to show that their discoveries were in accordance with evolution, nowhere did they say that they had proof that they were explainable by evolution.