Evolution is a fact, let me show you why.

[Dr.Physics]

Here is the evidence for biological evolution:

-Paleontology (fossil record)
-Genetics (comparative sequence analysis, phylogenetic reconstruction)
-Comparative anatomy (common morphology, and living examples)
-geographical distribution (Continental distribution, Island biogeography, Endemism of species, Adaptive radiations)
-Comparative physiology and biochemistry (Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns)
-Observed natural selection (E.Coli in the lab, lactose intolerance in humans, Nylon eating bacteria ect... )
-Observed speciation (examples: Blackclap, Drosophila melanogaster, Polar bear, ect...)
-Artificial selection (dog breeding, ect...)

in summation, evolution is one of, if not the most sound scientific fact that exists, because of the extensive reasons listed above. checkmate, now lets move on

[delcoder]

First, there is a real "classical evolutionary theory" as opposed to the neo-evolutionary theory. I run across these terms all the time.

Sure, but that doesnt mean they are legitimate.

And I suppose you are the only legitimate source for what is legitimate and what is not? You are not the center of the universe and the sun does not rise and set in your rump. I think you are far too enamored with yourself.

How am I supposed to debate what you observed if I don't know anything about the circumstances of your observation? You posted none. Do you want me to say, "No you didn't observe speciation?" My, that would make for a rousing debate now wouldn't it?

You could have just asked for it, instead you resort to hostility.

You could have posted it without asking instead of making a totally unsupported statement.

I have been in too many troubleshooting situations where I had to deal with personnel who "saw" something happen and in the final analysis what they "saw" was not what happened at all. (Pilots who consider themselves to be experts on everything are the worst.)

Irrelevant. You never tried to analyze my claim.

What claim? Your unsupported claim to have personally witnessed speciation? The only thing you present leads to no analysis other than grammar.

Am I supposed to take your word for this or do you have some evidence to share?

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

You want me to provide the evidence for what you say you observed? I am kind of special, but I am not clairvoyant.

If I recall correctly your post on radioactive influenced plant mutations said nothing about the radioactivity increasing the incidence of mutations. Did it or did it not?

Why should it?

He who answers a question with a question is either being coy or has no answer. In either case it doesn't work in a debate.

The radiation is the stress. Let's expose you to some and see if you get stressed out.

The radiation does not cause stress. At least not that kind. Radiation in the form of UV has been a stress which is why we have melanin.

Stress, regardless of kind, is stress.

Remember, we are comparing bacteria to much larger organisms. We cant see the types of stuff we see in bacteria in larger organisms because of the longer generation times. As far as I know, bacteria have developed radiation resistance in the lab.

Exactly. That is why stress is added to speed up the mutations. Actually I do not know why you added radioactive material to the seed beds, but I do know radioactive material adds stress to just about anything and stress causes hypermutations.

Adaptive mutation is very prevalent on the internet. Try googling it.

Im not saying its not out there, Im saying you are taking the term far to literally, and combined with you limited knowledge on genetics you are twisting it to be something it is not.

I take everything literally. If one uses proper english no other possibility exists. My limited knowledge led to the conclusion that far better fits the evidence than does yours even with your vast biological and genetics knowledge.

One of the primary tactics of debating is to attack the opponents knowledge. It is usually employed when the facts seem to support their position. If you think this tactic is going to prove effective you are sadly mistaken.

Im sorry dude but you have yet to show me you have a basic understanding of biology, ecology or genetics. I hate to make things personal, but if you are going out and saying all the professionals are wrong then you are putting your credibility out there and frankly, its lacking.

That's your opinion. I have an entirely different one. My opinion of you is in spite of an extensive education and hands on experience you have yet to show one iota of critical analysis or original thought. Instead you mindlessly plod along a road carved out by those who refuse to employ critical analysis and original thought and who insist on forcing all evidence to comply with random mutation/natural selection theory.

I am a troubleshooter. I know how to apply logic and critical analysis to any situation. I have successfully troubleshot many faults when I had limited knowledge of the system involved. I am not a doctor, but I figured out I had lyme disease. How? By critically analyzing the symptoms and researching things that could and things which could not cause them. I am not a neurologist but I successfully diagnosed my sister's back problem without even seeing her by research and symptom analysis.

Sorry, I call BS. Your "research" gave you the facts to diagnosis a simply problem. Lyme disease isnt that hard to diagnosis. You dont have any of the facts or research you need to support your grand claims against evolution.

I think you are out of your profession with respect to lyme disease diagnosis. Many who have contracted it have gone years without being correctly diagnosed. Are you aware that blood tests for lyme disease are at least 30% negative even when it is present? I had three blood tests. Two were negative and one was positive. My doctor did have them done until after I told him I thought I had lyme disease.

As to my facts or research to support my "grand claims against evolution" are concerned, you seem to lack the ability to employ even basic logic in evaluating them.

The first question I had about AKI's E Coli experiment was into what kind of environment was the bacteria placed? That was not published in the abstract he presented. You, I think, said it had an antibiotic in it. That provided the stress. I interpreted the high incidence of mutations which leveled off to almost nil to be a result of "directed mutations" rather than random beneficial mutations.

Wrong. The type of mutations which were selected decreased. There was no mention that ALL mutations had slowed.

Ever hear of hypermutations? What do you think causes them? Do they just by chance occur?

Why? Because of the significant change in the population in such a short time. Purely random mutations would have taken forever if ever to provide the change in the population necessary for survival. Why? Because the larger percentage of random mutations are detrimental rather than beneficial. More of them are neutral than are beneficial. The likelihood of said random mutations occurring in areas where they would have an effect on surviving the antibiotic is miniscule. This kind of analysis and conclusion came from an individual who didn't even take biology in high school. How can that happen? Honest and critical evaluation of the evidence.

This whole experiment isnt even revolutionary or groundbreaking. We see it all over in nature. The thing is, you are literally fabricating facts to fit your non-existent model. You are making conclusions beyond what the paper says and you are cherry picking the evidence. You have the nerve to sit here and criticize the professionals when you cant even apply the most basic scientific principals.

I fabricated no facts. In fact I don't remember presenting any facts with respect to this experiment. I merely interpreted the facts (observations) presented. Granted my interpretation was different from the researchers and yours, but that's only because I was objective and not bound by a lock step thought process.

I only criticize the professionals because they needed it as do you. I did not make conclusions beyond what the paper said, I made conclusions different than what the paper said. I don't apply the "most basic scientific principals" of evolution because they lead to false interpretations of the evidence. I refuse to honor lock step predetermined outcomes to experiments. Unless I mistake what experiments are all about they should be critically analyzed sans the pressure to make them conform to predetermined conclusions. How do you think science corrects itself? By applying time worn agreed upon methodologies? Someone, I think has to apply original thought or all will continue to migrate down the same road to error.

I said some gene mutations are from transcription errors. The quote I linked and quoted bore that out. I even underlined it for you. What did I get? "You are wrong."

Please, show me in here where it talks about errors from gene transcription:

The process of transcription begins when an enzyme called RNA polymerase (RNA pol) attaches to the template DNA strand and begins to catalyze production of complementary RNA. Polymerases are large enzymes composed of approximately a dozen subunits, and when active on DNA, they are also typically complexed with other factors. In many cases, these factors signal which gene is to be transcribed.

Changing the argument will get you nowhere. You said there was no such thing as gene transcription. This statement proves there is such a thing.

I see nothing about mutations or errors. Ill even add cartoons. Please point out where the mutation come from:

So, tell me, where does the mutation come from? How does this process create mutations?

This is where/when most mutations happen:

[youtube][/quote]

You must have posted this before you had your coffee. I don't debate generalities. At this point you have morphed a very simple gene transcription statement into whatever you have posted here. I proved you wrong about gene transcription and even underlined the reference. To date you have not attempted to refute my reference, but instead have introduced a multitude of new issues.

Based on Wallace's expertise I think I'm going with him rather than you.

We learn more about evolution in 1 week than what wallace learned in his lifetime. He was in a brand new area of biology long before we had any of the details figured out.

Wallace and Darwin were contemporaries. Darwin respected him enough that he agreed to a joint presentation of their theories. Nothing that Wallace said about why creatures evolve has been disproved.

And you failed to provide the link.

http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/ ... 2&id=55222

[nygreenguy]

And I suppose you are the only legitimate source for what is legitimate and what is not? You are not the center of the universe and the sun does not rise and set in your rump. I think you are far too enamored with yourself.

Another strawman.

You could have posted it without asking instead of making a totally unsupported statement.

MY statement was unsupported? You were the one claiming no one has ever witnessed speciation. I didnt need to add any more than to say I witnessed it. You are the one with the unsupported claim.

He who answers a question with a question is either being coy or has no answer. In either case it doesn't work in a debate.

Actually, asking questions in a discussions makes the other person analyze their argument further and can expose its weaknesses and flaws. If it was good enough for socrates, its good enough for me.

Exactly. That is why stress is added to speed up the mutations. Actually I do not know why you added radioactive material to the seed beds, but I do know radioactive material adds stress to just about anything and stress causes hypermutations.

Wrong. Radioactive particles physically alter the DNA. The particles knock out bases, make base mismatches and all sorts of funky stuff.

I take everything literally. If one uses proper english no other possibility exists. My limited knowledge led to the conclusion that far better fits the evidence than does yours even with your vast biological and genetics knowledge.

And thats your problem. No other possibility exists? I take it analogies are not proper english then?

That's your opinion. I have an entirely different one. My opinion of you is in spite of an extensive education and hands on experience you have yet to show one iota of critical analysis or original thought. Instead you mindlessly plod along a road carved out by those who refuse to employ critical analysis and original thought and who insist on forcing all evidence to comply with random mutation/natural selection theory.

Another ad hom....

Wrong. The type of mutations which were selected decreased. There was no mention that ALL mutations had slowed.

Ever hear of hypermutations? What do you think causes them? Do they just by chance occur?

This isnt even relevant to what I said. You claimed there were less mutations. Im asking you to prove there were less mutations.

I fabricated no facts. In fact I don't remember presenting any facts with respect to this experiment. I merely interpreted the facts (observations) presented. Granted my interpretation was different from the researchers and yours, but that's only because I was objective and not bound by a lock step thought process.

another ad hom...

Changing the argument will get you nowhere. You said there was no such thing as gene transcription. This statement proves there is such a thing.

Show me where I ever said there was no such thing as gene expression.

Lets follow the statements:

Does science have any explanation for "random" mutations cause or are they just considered to be transcription errors?

Transcription errors? Mutations do not come from transcription error. Transcription is protein synthesis. Mutations primarily come from DNA replication and things like carcinogens, radiation, etc...

Where did I deny gene transcription?

The Transcription Process
The process of transcription begins when an enzyme called RNA polymerase (RNA pol) attaches to the template DNA strand and begins to catalyze production of complementary RNA. Polymerases are large enzymes composed of approximately a dozen subunits, and when active on DNA, they are also typically complexed with other factors. In many cases, these factors signal which gene is to be transcribed.

You claimed mutations come from transcription errors. Transcription is, as your link states, is the reading of DNA and eventual production of a protein. So tell me, if the RNA is mis-transcribed, how is this a mutation? How does this ever go beyond having a single altered protein? This is a totally non-heritable alteration. Its not even in the DNA.

Mutations need to happen on the DNA for them to be relevant. We simply can NOT get this through transcription errors.

I even underlined it for you and you still can't see it. Here it is again, "these factors signal which gene is to be transcribed" Did you notice the words "gene" and "transcribed" in this sentence?

Do you know what gene transcription is? Is the reading of a gene by RNA polymerase which then creates RNA. In what world does this cause mutations? Tell me, since you seem to have everything figured out, the process? What are the proteins and enzymes involved? How are the mutations passed on?

There, this is pretty much the entire discussion on this. Where do I dent transcription, and where does your source say "Does science have any explanation for "random" mutations cause or are they just considered to be transcription errors?"

You must have posted this before you had your coffee. I don't debate generalities. At this point you have morphed a very simple gene transcription statement into whatever you have posted here. I proved you wrong about gene transcription and even underlined the reference. To date you have not attempted to refute my reference, but instead have introduced a multitude of new issues.

Your reference is right, YOU are wrong. This "simple statement" is a big deal. You cant alter the facts in science, even a little. Also, the fact that you stuck with this argument and didnt even bother considering I may be right speaks volumes about your ability to be "objective" as you claim to be. How can you be a great problem solver if you cant be objective and get the facts in order?

Wallace and Darwin were contemporaries. Darwin respected him enough that he agreed to a joint presentation of their theories. Nothing that Wallace said about why creatures evolve has been disproved.

Nothing? Ever? Really? Even despite the fact they both knew jack about genetics?

[cnorman18]

MODERATOR WARNING

And I suppose you are the only legitimate source for what is legitimate and what is not? You are not the center of the universe and the sun does not rise and set in your rump. I think you are far too enamored with yourself.

That kind of remark is unacceptable here; there are FAR too many personal comments in this post, and in some others we have observed. This is a very bad habit. If you can't debate the issues without adding gratuitous insults, you aren't getting the point of "civil and respectful debate," which is what we do on this forum.

Be careful. With this kind of attitude and this manner of posting, you are skating on very thin ice.

[Clownboat]

I am a troubleshooter. I know how to apply logic and critical analysis to any situation. I have successfully troubleshot many faults when I had limited knowledge of the system involved. I am not a doctor, but I figured out I had lyme disease. How? By critically analyzing the symptoms and researching things that could and things which could not cause them. I am not a neurologist but I successfully diagnosed my sister's back problem without even seeing her by research and symptom analysis.

I respectfully request that you get off of your high horse and back to the debate.
We have all done stuff that we are proud of in our lives! Move on please!

Your claims do not make what you say special in any way. Readers care about your words here in this debate, we don't care if you make the claim that you invented ketchup, you're still no more special or intelligent than anyone else here because of your claims. You're being judged by what you say here, nothing more.

I feel this debate is a good one, your chest pumping is really getting irritating and I worry more debaters will just choose to give up trying to have a debate with you. That would be unfortunate.

[delcoder]

I am a troubleshooter. I know how to apply logic and critical analysis to any situation. I have successfully troubleshot many faults when I had limited knowledge of the system involved. I am not a doctor, but I figured out I had lyme disease. How? By critically analyzing the symptoms and researching things that could and things which could not cause them. I am not a neurologist but I successfully diagnosed my sister's back problem without even seeing her by research and symptom analysis.

I respectfully request that you get off of your high horse and back to the debate.
We have all done stuff that we are proud of in our lives! Move on please!

I respectfully request that you get off of your high horse and debate instead of attempting to correct me.

Debate please!

Your claims do not make what you say special in any way. Readers care about your words here in this debate, we don't care if you make the claim that you invented ketchup, you're still no more special or intelligent than anyone else here because of your claims. You're being judged by what you say here, nothing more.

I make no attempt to influence anyone that I am special. I use experiences to explain how I arrive at my conclusions. Maybe you should do the same as I cannot in any way determine how you arrive at your conclusions.

You can not imagine how little importance I put on how I am judged by people who I have never met and know only by what they post. If you oppose evolution on any forum you had better get ready for every kind of attack possible including the kind you are launching here. If the acclaim of people on a forum is your goal you are messed up pretty badly.

I feel this debate is a good one, your chest pumping is really getting irritating and I worry more debaters will just choose to give up trying to have a debate with you. That would be unfortunate.

My chest pumping as you call it is my means to lend credence to my conclusions. I have no degree in biology or genetics or chemistry. nygreenguy has informed us of his academics and experience. Why? To lend credence to his positions. I didn't notice you condemning him for that. Why?

I am a former Christian church organization administrator, a former Pastor, a former Evangelist, and a former Christian school administrator. How many times have you witnessed me introducing religion into the debate? That answer would be zero. Do you have any concept how difficult it is to debate evolution purely on the evolutionist's ground? Try debating Christianity purely on the Christian's ground. If that's not bad enough the evolutionists keep attempting to negate your positions because they do not line up with the main stream evolution theory. If that is necessary the debate is over. If one must be confined to accepted evolutionary conclusions how can one refute them?

So I come here to debate evolutionary scientists on their own ground with their own evidence. The only option I have is to present my personal conclusions based upon their evidence. nygreenguy wants to take that away by finding it incredible that I challenge the established evolutionist scientist's conclusions.

Here it is in a nutshell. The evidence provided by experiments are for the most part unrefutable. That's the way experiments are to be performed. The conclusions drawn from that evidence, however, are highly debatable. Validation of one's conclusions cannot rest upon their religious beliefs. What then can I call upon to validate my conclusions? High on the list is my ability to critically analyze the facts. Now you want to take away that validation.

nygreenguy has frequently stated that his position is validated by his experience, education, and a host of like minded scientists. Well, I have some experience and education also. I have an ability to critically analyze evidence. I have done that very successfully for a major part of my life. I am in the process of writing a book on troubleshooting.

So you can complain all you choose. If you are so bothered by my attempts at validation, I suggest you not read my posts because I do not intend to change for you or anyone else who will "judge" me.

[delcoder]

And I suppose you are the only legitimate source for what is legitimate and what is not? You are not the center of the universe and the sun does not rise and set in your rump. I think you are far too enamored with yourself.

Another strawman.

A strawman is an attempt to distort another's position to your liking and then debate the distortion. The fact that I don't feel you are qualified to determine what is legitimate or not is not a strawman.

You could have posted it without asking instead of making a totally unsupported statement.

MY statement was unsupported? You were the one claiming no one has ever witnessed speciation. I didnt need to add any more than to say I witnessed it. You are the one with the unsupported claim.

My complaint was based upon the fact I wanted to debate the conclusions you drew from what you witnessed. That's rather difficult to do without the surrounding facts.

He who answers a question with a question is either being coy or has no answer. In either case it doesn't work in a debate.

Actually, asking questions in a discussions makes the other person analyze their argument further and can expose its weaknesses and flaws. If it was good enough for socrates, its good enough for me.

Still no answer?

Exactly. That is why stress is added to speed up the mutations. Actually I do not know why you added radioactive material to the seed beds, but I do know radioactive material adds stress to just about anything and stress causes hypermutations.

Wrong. Radioactive particles physically alter the DNA. The particles knock out bases, make base mismatches and all sorts of funky stuff.

Thank you for the explanation. I accept it. My objection was based upon several instances of scientists who introduced ultraviolent light into their experiments to speed up mutation frequency.

I take everything literally. If one uses proper english no other possibility exists. My limited knowledge led to the conclusion that far better fits the evidence than does yours even with your vast biological and genetics knowledge.

And thats your problem. No other possibility exists? I take it analogies are not proper english then?

Analogies are supportive explanations of facts. They can be taken literally, but not as facts themselves.

That's your opinion. I have an entirely different one. My opinion of you is in spite of an extensive education and hands on experience you have yet to show one iota of critical analysis or original thought. Instead you mindlessly plod along a road carved out by those who refuse to employ critical analysis and original thought and who insist on forcing all evidence to comply with random mutation/natural selection theory.

Another ad hom....

In fact it is not. It is an honest evaluation of your posts. I see no original thought anywhere. I see no tendency to buck the popular position anywhere. You seem to have the ability to be a ground breaker but not the tendency. Maybe its fear of rocking the boat.

Wrong. The type of mutations which were selected decreased. There was no mention that ALL mutations had slowed.

Ever hear of hypermutations? What do you think causes them? Do they just by chance occur?

This isnt even relevant to what I said. You claimed there were less mutations. Im asking you to prove there were less mutations.

Several experiments have been performed to ascertain if stress causes hypermutations. The indications thus far is it does. So, in AKI's E Coli experiment who is to say that the stress (antibiotic) in the experiment did not cause hypermutations at the outset? If that is the case, as the stress lessened would the hypermutations not decrease to a "normal" rate?

I fabricated no facts. In fact I don't remember presenting any facts with respect to this experiment. I merely interpreted the facts (observations) presented. Granted my interpretation was different from the researchers and yours, but that's only because I was objective and not bound by a lock step thought process.

another ad hom...

Not at all. I do not wish to insult you. I have often attempted to get you to exercise your cognitive ability sans the walls that shut out objectivity.

I posted the quote about gene transcription. I cannot, however, sustain the fact that it results in mutations. Perhaps I was thinking of gene copying.

Wallace and Darwin were contemporaries. Darwin respected him enough that he agreed to a joint presentation of their theories. Nothing that Wallace said about why creatures evolve has been disproved.

Nothing? Ever? Really? Even despite the fact they both knew jack about genetics?[/

The fact they knew nothing about genetics does not negate the validity of their observations. Evolution was a prominent theory before DNA came down the pike. It was based on change and natural selection. The fact that "change" was not based upon gene mutations did not negate the theory.

[nygreenguy]

Thank you for the explanation. I accept it. My objection was based upon several instances of scientists who introduced ultraviolent light into their experiments to speed up mutation frequency.

Well, radiation does speed up mutation frequency by causing mutations. Radiation is a mutating agent. Not all mutations come about through pure physiological processes.

Several experiments have been performed to ascertain if stress causes hypermutations. The indications thus far is it does. So, in AKI's E Coli experiment who is to say that the stress (antibiotic) in the experiment did not cause hypermutations at the outset? If that is the case, as the stress lessened would the hypermutations not decrease to a "normal" rate?

In that one paper you posted (which I downloaded and read the entire paper), the explained that when subject to a specific kind of stress (we can only extrapolate to what happened in the experiment and cant go beyond saying it was just that ONE type of stress) the bacteria switched over to using a protein which was bad at copying DNA. This did increase the mutation rates in the bacteria.

Now, the paper also talked about how this only happens in micro-organisms. You and I, birds, fungi and plants cant really do this.

Also, for aki's paper, there is no evidence, one way or the other on what was really happening in the genes. All we do know is there was a change in the rate of fitness. We can not extrapolate, like I think you are trying, that this is due to any sort of hypermutations. I also dont think we can rule it out. Either way, its up in the air without any sort of genetics data from aki's paper. Then again, that wasnt the purpose of their paper.

Your idea of "adaptative mutations" and what ever predictions you want it to make are confined to bacteria so you can not extrapolate your hypothesis anywhere beyond that.

I posted the quote about gene transcription. I cannot, however, sustain the fact that it results in mutations. Perhaps I was thinking of gene copying.

Gene copying IS where most of the mutations occur. If it happened in transcription, we wouldnt have evolution because nothing would be heritable.

[Clownboat]

I am a troubleshooter. I know how to apply logic and critical analysis to any situation. I have successfully troubleshot many faults when I had limited knowledge of the system involved. I am not a doctor, but I figured out I had lyme disease. How? By critically analyzing the symptoms and researching things that could and things which could not cause them. I am not a neurologist but I successfully diagnosed my sister's back problem without even seeing her by research and symptom analysis.

I respectfully request that you get off of your high horse and back to the debate.
We have all done stuff that we are proud of in our lives! Move on please!

I respectfully request that you get off of your high horse and debate instead of attempting to correct me.

Debate please!

This is your rebuttal to me saying that we have all done stuff in our lives that we are proud of? If everyone listed stuff they are proud of in a topic, the topic would be stifled, that is what I see happeing here and thus why I wanted to voice my opinions.

Your claims do not make what you say special in any way. Readers care about your words here in this debate, we don't care if you make the claim that you invented ketchup, you're still no more special or intelligent than anyone else here because of your claims. You're being judged by what you say here, nothing more.

I make no attempt to influence anyone that I am special. I use experiences to explain how I arrive at my conclusions. Maybe you should do the same as I cannot in any way determine how you arrive at your conclusions.

Pro Tip: If you are ever confused as to how people arrived at their conclusions, you need to ask for clarification, don't throw insults.

You can not imagine how little importance I put on how I am judged by people who I have never met and know only by what they post. If you oppose evolution on any forum you had better get ready for every kind of attack possible including the kind you are launching here. If the acclaim of people on a forum is your goal you are messed up pretty badly.

Good for you! My goal is to see this debate furthered, what I see happening is people getting tired of trying to have an actual debate with you, that is a shame.

I feel this debate is a good one, your chest pumping is really getting irritating and I worry more debaters will just choose to give up trying to have a debate with you. That would be unfortunate.

My chest pumping as you call it is my means to lend credence to my conclusions. I have no degree in biology or genetics or chemistry. nygreenguy has informed us of his academics and experience. Why? To lend credence to his positions. I didn't notice you condemning him for that. Why?

I am a former Christian church organization administrator, a former Pastor, a former Evangelist, and a former Christian school administrator. How many times have you witnessed me introducing religion into the debate? That answer would be zero. Do you have any concept how difficult it is to debate evolution purely on the evolutionist's ground? Try debating Christianity purely on the Christian's ground. If that's not bad enough the evolutionists keep attempting to negate your positions because they do not line up with the main stream evolution theory. If that is necessary the debate is over. If one must be confined to accepted evolutionary conclusions how can one refute them?

So I come here to debate evolutionary scientists on their own ground with their own evidence. The only option I have is to present my personal conclusions based upon their evidence. nygreenguy wants to take that away by finding it incredible that I challenge the established evolutionist scientist's conclusions.

Here it is in a nutshell. The evidence provided by experiments are for the most part unrefutable. That's the way experiments are to be performed. The conclusions drawn from that evidence, however, are highly debatable. Validation of one's conclusions cannot rest upon their religious beliefs. What then can I call upon to validate my conclusions? High on the list is my ability to critically analyze the facts. Now you want to take away that validation.

nygreenguy has frequently stated that his position is validated by his experience, education, and a host of like minded scientists. Well, I have some experience and education also. I have an ability to critically analyze evidence. I have done that very successfully for a major part of my life. I am in the process of writing a book on troubleshooting.

So you can complain all you choose. If you are so bothered by my attempts at validation, I suggest you not read my posts because I do not intend to change for you or anyone else who will "judge" me.

(Matthew 7:3-5 NIV)
(3) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (4) How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? (5) You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Us readers do not care if you claim to have diagnosed lymes disease or any of your other irrelivant claims to this topic. You will not impress anyone here.

Nygreenguy has credencials that are significant to this topic, why would I jump down his throat if he references them in a thread like this? Seriously... If we start a topic about self diagnosing lymes disease, I could then see your (non-verifiable) claim as having some significance.

[delcoder]

This is your rebuttal to me saying that we have all done stuff in our lives that we are proud of? If everyone listed stuff they are proud of in a topic, the topic would be stifled, that is what I see happeing here and thus why I wanted to voice my opinions.

I gave my reasons for posting actual cases where I employed critical thinking to illustrate what it is and that I am good at it. It was my job. If I care less about what you or others think of me then why would I be bragging. Bragging is the worst thing one can do if it is one's goal to engender respect.

Pro Tip: If you are ever confused as to how people arrived at their conclusions, you need to ask for clarification, don't throw insults.

What insults? I can't debate generalities. Further, I really didn't solicit any pro tips from you nor can I say I consider you one who I would accept tips from.

Good for you! My goal is to see this debate furthered, what I see happening is people getting tired of trying to have an actual debate with you, that is a shame.

You seem to use "people" and "we" a lot. Are you a spokes person for a group? I hear politicians telling me what the people said constantly. I have never been able to determine how they knew what people said unless they talk to them all.

(Matthew 7:3-5 NIV)
(3) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (4) How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? (5) You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Very good scripture quote. If you are saying you need to get the mote out of your eye before trying to remove something from my eye I fail to see how that applies to our discussion.

Us readers do not care if you claim to have diagnosed lymes disease or any of your other irrelivant claims to this topic. You will not impress anyone here.

There it is again "Us." You must be a spokes person for a group or is it everybody? I not only have no desire to impress people, but I certainly don't have any desire to impress you. What you are saying here and in the previous post is off topic. That being the case, I am beginning to feel I am wasting my time replying to your posts. Feel free to keep speaking for "we", "the people", and "us."

[delcoder]

In response to your assertion that radioactive material placed in your seed beds please note the following:

Plants grown in contaminated soil near the Chernobyl nuclear power station in Ukraine have mutated at a much faster rate than expected.
Researchers from Switzerland, Britain and Ukraine warn in an article in the latest edition of the journal Nature that their experiments show that the effects of radiation on plants are not well understood and may be more severe than was previously thought.
The scientific team, led by Olga Kovalchuk from the Friedrich Miescher Institute in Basel, planted identical crops of wheat in two locations - one on a highly radioactive plot close to Chernobyl, the other in uncontaminated but otherwise similar soil 19 miles away. They then grew further crops from the seeds of each set of wheat.
Even though the plants close to the nuclear power station were exposed to radiation for only 10 months, the genes of the crop raised from this seed showed a sixfold increase in the mutation rate compared with the normal wheat.

emphasis added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/05/jamesmeek

It appears there are some researchers who don't agree with you.