[gore3000]

There is no Nobel Prize in biology.

I know that very well, still prizes go for people for work in biology and your semantic response does not address the challenge posed to you and your fellow evolutionists which is:

what Nobel Prize winning discovery in biology EVER does not tend to disprove evolution?

(Aside to lurkers - note that while the evolutionists insult me, and make excuses, they do not take up the challenge posed to them. A challenge which should be excruciatingly easy for them to take up IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE).

[Condorman]

What Nobel Prize winning discovery in biology EVER does not tend to disprove evolution?

note that while the evolutionists insult me, and make excuses, they do not take up the challenge posed to them.

You mean like the examples provided by you, demolished by Gumlegs on your "Evidence Disproving Evolution" thread?

And reiterated AGAIN on the same thread?

(Aside to lurkers: "Challenge" seems to be a bit strong, don't you think? Consider, Gumlegs hardly broke a sweat.)

[Right Wing Professor]

what Nobel Prize winning discovery in biology EVER does not tend to disprove evolution?

I still have no idea what he's saying here. Is he saying that all Nobel prize winning discoveries in biology tend to disprove evolution? Anyone?