Replies

the half not wadded up with creationist dribble

Yes, thank you for noticing that. My problem with evolutionary hypothesis that is is bad science.

the half that can't comprehend the details and the actual science involved in actual science

I am not a dumb man, have an applied math degree, and worked all my life gainfully employed in engineering. I can understand a scientific theory when I see one. If you have a logical proof from evidence I will recognize it. When I hear voodoo that masquerades as science I can tell that as well.

When someone who believes that nonsense repeatedly tells me a story about selection of subspecies -- something no one has disputed to be a fact, -- then varnishes it with irrelevant count of some mutations that may or may not have contributed to the selection, which in the lab could have been produced without them, -- then it becomes clear, with repetition, that the actual science is not there, and, further, plain logic is not there. There is a script being read. It's a cult.

It is good that you come to support a fellow Freeper though. The forum benefits from multi-faceted conversations.

I am not a dumb man, have an applied math degree, and worked all my life gainfully employed in engineering.

I know more than a few engineer creationists - 2 in my family alone. It's taken me a long time to reconcile how intelligent people can have such a gap in their willingness to accept biological science. Is it because results are often difficult to come by immediately? Or because you can't necessarily control the forces of nature? It is an interesting question.

But your opposition to 160 years of solid theory, on the basis of your engineering background, does nothing to diminish the strength of the theory. Sorry. I know engineers hate that.

I can understand a scientific theory when I see one.

Good. Then let's go have a beer now that you've come to accept the fact of evolution.

Anyway, I see you're the type of creationist who accepts evolution and all its tenets - except you can't wrap your head around speciation for some reason. Ring species mean nothing to you, nor does the fossil record. Ok... let's discount reality for a moment and pose a simple question: What is the biological mechanism wherein alleles "know" not to change anymore than just a little "subspecies" bit over millennia or millions of years?

It MUST exist, right? You accept lots of tiny "subspecies" speciation. So you must know the biochemical switch that shuts off when that type of speciation gets to be just a bit too much. Note: Your discovery WILL be published if we can repeat your results.

annalex from #142: "When someone who believes that nonsense repeatedly tells me a story about selection of subspecies -- something no one has disputed to be a fact, -- then varnishes it with irrelevant count of some mutations that may or may not have contributed to the selection, which in the lab could have been produced without them, -- then it becomes clear, with repetition, that the actual science is not there, and, further, plain logic is not there.
There is a script being read.
It's a cult."

First, let's set aside the insults as being just evidence of annalex's immaturity and psychological projections.

Second, I have never used your phrase "selection of subspecies" -- it's just another of your weird terms, along with "evolution between species".
Science doesn't use those terms, and they are give-aways suggesting annalex is more religiously than scientifically motivated.

Third, the count of mutation differences among sub-species and species is not "irrelevant", as you say, rather it is the essence of what makes one species different from all others.

And that ability of scientists over the past 20+ years to compare and contrast the genomes of all species and sub-species has revolutionized our understandings of the evolutionary processes.

To pick out another example, the little Hirax and the big Manatee are both more closely related to Elephants than to any other living species.
This we know by comparing and contrasting their DNAs -- and counting the relevant mutations: