[donmeaker]

Now me, I am an evolutionist, interested in the maths of evolution. Species species interaction leads quickly to complexity and non-linear differential equations, meaning that the future can not be predicted.

Global warming pretends to be able to predict the future far in advance, and to do so would require solving non-linear differential equations (Navier Stokes, for example) to an infinite precision.

Hence Global warming is bunk. Evolution which always responds to the present is interesting and useful.

[IntolerantOfTreason]

So can you formulate a lab experiment that reproduces the alleged evolution of some early one-celled organism into a fish? Scientists keep claiming that if you can’t test your hypothesis and reproduce results, then it’s junk science ... like cold fusion and global warming.

[dps.inspect]

What do you mean by saying you are an evolutionist... is there a concrete definition, or is the definition itself an “evolving” concept? And, is “evolving” considered a self directed activity, or is it an activity that is directed from an outside force, AND is “mind” involved whether self or outside force directed? Math is good an’ all, but it does require mind; could the first cause have been the result of mind; can mind exist if mind never existed?

[onedoug]

I suspect that evolutionary changes start primarily with cellular mutations by extremely high energy
cosmic ray collisions in the molecular, atomic and even sub-nuclear distance scales.

[fabian]

Any objective look at the evidence shows that there is indeed micro evolution...adaptations that God programmed into the species dna. However, there is and never will be any evidence of macro evolution . If there was, these scientists would not take this stand and the whole debate would not even exist!