There are no insults except in your mind. You merely project your own personality onto me, an error.
"Provided that the concepts I did grasp were correctly understood, I would much rather have a pre-elementary level knowledge of evolutionary biology (i.e. child-like, your words) than a “God did it, the Bible says so, therefore it’s true” mentality."
You have the same mentality. "Nature did it, scientists say so, therefore it's true." Your mentality is the one you project onto creationists, yet you exercise exactly that mentality for yourself. It's no different. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand.
"To reiterate, I would much rather have an incomplete understanding of science than have a “God did it” mindset. I think relegating everything to God makes life boring. It takes the fun out of inquiry. It makes the quest to obtain strong critical-thinking skills (c.f. “God did it”) enjoyable. Agreed?"
You have the same mindset, except you believe that 'nature did it'. I think relegating everything to nature makes life boring. It takes the fun out of inquiry. It makes the quest to obtain strong critical-thinking skills (c.f. 'nature did it') unenjoyable. Agreed?
Sheesh man, your silly game is rather tiring.
"Sure, you can say that the change in allele frequencies of the moth populations were an act of God as opposed to natural selection, or in your words, “created genetic code.”
Again, you project your simplistic understanding onto me where it is not valid. You totally miss the point and I'm not sure you are able to grasp it.
"If that’s what you think constitutes science, be my guest. As I wrote, I’m for your right to believe that. I’m just not supportive of any attempt on your part to try to add that to the public science curriculum."
What you are doing here is hiding behind the 'a priori' assumption of naturalism again. The belief in naturalism is in no way superior and is merely a different metaphysical belief system imposed on public school students.
"Natural selection picks traits that are already there; it does not create new ones. New traits can only be created through mutations."
That's correct. And mutations, when expressed, are overwhelmingly bad. That many are neutral is a function of the fault-tolerant *design* of the triplet-codon system. That any exist at all is a function of the efficiency of error-correcting systems *designed* into the replication system. That any are expressed is a function of the fault-tolerant *design* of the diploid chromosomal structure. Try thinking just a little bit, please.
"What you wrote does not contradict evolution by natural selection; it just demonstrates poor understanding that can be revealed even by a guy like me."
You are engaging in the bait-and-switch tactic again where you define an observation as 'evolution' and then use the term to mean something not observed. Either you are dishonest or your critical-thinking skills are really bad.
"Antibiotic resistance was indeed already present. Some bacteria have this antibiotic resistance, and others don’t. So, when the population is exposed to an antibiotic, only the ones with the resistance-conferring gene will survive to reproduce. The next generation of bacteria in the population is composed of individuals that have this gene. The allele frequencies of the population have changed, therefore the population has evolved."
Again, the fact that resistance was already present is no unique support for evolution. Previously existing information changing frequency in response to adaptation is equally consistent with a created biology.
"Woah! Already there? You’re making a pretty bold assertion here. I request some sources. You’re directly contradicting the text I linked to earlier by Dr. Campbell."
Look, the fact that larger beak sizes on finches is related to drought cycles has been known for a long time. When the drought passes, beak sizes return to their previous variations.
Since you told me that it wasn't your job to do my research, now I tell you that it isn't my job to do your research for you.
You like the game now that the shoe is on the other foot?
Who said you had to play it? You chose to of your own free will.
I'm going to remind you of two things which you may have forgotten. First, this is America. I can't force you to do anything. Second, I'm younger than you. When was the last time you played a game that you didn't like with a person not of your family who happened to be significantly younger? That you like to use my sentence structures and replace words indicates that you're enjoying this game. You can stop anytime you like.
If I recall, I was nice enough to reply to a user who claimed that evolution is a religion. I defined religion from the AHD and stated that under that definition, evolution was indeed a religion. Not surprisingly, you took advantage of my statement to thank me for "admitting" that. And, since then, despite a few of my requests, never once have you stated that under the definition I provided, intelligent design and creationism are also religions. You don't need to; your posts implicitly demonstrate that intelligent design is a religion under that definition.
I've gotten what I wanted from you, anyway. I wanted you to admit that intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology is not natural, and you did admit that. Thanks.
Oh, as a last point - assertions that the chromosome is designed do not count as "reasoned arguments." You don't need to say "God did it"; "designed" and "created biology" are tantamount.
For future reference, try to avoid using the term "created." It makes your intelligent design mask peel off ever so slightly.