Pelecius:

people who argue complexity don't even argue that evolution didn't happen
Absurd claim! You should say that evolutionists don't argue that evolution didn't happen. Or do you think that all scientists subscribe to evolution? Even with the risk involve in publicizing your scientific criticism of evolution (the Darwin "bulldogs" won't even allow such publication), thousands of scientists don't subscribe to it.

Secondly, you had ignorantly joined the bandwagon in erroneously claiming that evolution has nothing to do with complexity. Why are you now implying that? Which should we take? That complexity have been trashed some centuries ago or people still discuss it (and is very relevant in evolutionary biology)?

they obviously do not think that speciation has evidence and evolution doesn't.
Again, you've limited yourself like the car battery analogy. Speciation does not equate to evolution. It's a well known mechanism and I have discussed that using some classic examples earlier. But you seem to be locked in your world of speciation belongs to evolution only, which is wrong. Just as a battery does not belong to a car only.

The argument they present is whether it's unidirectional or random
When I say you just begged the question now, all hell would be loosed. You are yet to show that your first paragraph is valid and true, yet, you assume it and now proceed to make a case for them.

Evidence suggests that it's not unidirectional and that's why natural selection takes the weaker traits at any given point in time
Do you mean that because evolution is not unidirectional, that's why natural selection take the weaker traits? (What's non sequitur again sef? )
Again, you just prove my point by declaring the general believe about evolution. The fact that it's allegedly not unidirectional indicates that there is increased complexity and even reduced complexity. The former is what we have been asking for it's evidence, the latter is what I have provided evidence for (which is definitely what most evolution dissenters talk about). In fact, the latter is what you set out to prove yourself, as will be seen.

A simple experiment to test this is to study the mutations in the spike proteins in the measles rebeola virus. Any single mutation in these proteins doesn't lead to any complexity, the virus loses its ability to enter host cells and it dies off
That has been what I had talked about. Just that in this case, the virus is not complex enough such that loss of genetic information (in the spike protein) is fatal for it. Unlike in higher organisms where loss of information in one part may be near neutral to such organism but accumulation of mutation in the genome will eventually lead to genetic entropy and eventually, extinction.

These example are very numerous in nature and that is why we have several genetic disorders
This is what creation scientists have predicted all along, and if not for modern medicine, humans should have reached a genetic bottleneck. Mutation has been the mechanism provided by Darwin and disciples as mechanism for gradual modification in gaining
and developing new functions. But empirical studies have shown that opposite is usually the case. It's what we know, O "learned" one. You're the one who should study WIDE

This is also the basis for the production of measles vaccine. You see why evolution is very important in biology?
Funny. Measles vaccine is just another type of vaccine and vaccines have been developed before Darwin. One important one was even developed by Lois Pasteur (I mentioned his name specifically ).
So how is vaccine production related to evolution? But believers would mostly enjoy some self delusion to maybe make themselves happy. Just like the usual mantra of anyone who does not subscribe to evolution (as evidence against it is just overwhelming) is ignorant and stupid.
Anything to make believers happy

I don't expect you to understand anything I typed
Like I said earlier, anything to make believers happy .
The way you've been postings since makes me doubt your stories. As I believe that one with such degree in Biochemistry should not be acting (both in knowledge and behavior) the way you've largely been.

the basics is that evolution doesn't have any aim of increasing complexity. That's jargons.
No one have said that as far as I have discussed. I only asked you to provide evidence of how speciation would lead to increased complexity, since you were equating speciation to evolution. And you can't argue increasing complexity again as I have provided screenshot of how evolution experts have tried to provide mechanism for it.
You have only end up in attacking straw man. (Logic 101 )

So if you are talking about increasing complexity, maybe you learnt that from the Bible because that's obviously doesn't exist in science class.
Your question begging epithet is noted. (Logic 101 ).
I have attached a screenshot of few sites who promotes evolution and which talked about increased complexity. I want to believe that our "learned" one knows more than them . And since they talked about it, they must have learned it from the Bible. And what they present does not exist in our "learned" one's science class. LWKD

You don't know these because you learn science from the Bible, which is a very wrong place to learn about things that are real and existing.
Another absurd claim. We showed already that top organizations agree with what I have been saying. But seems you're the one who knows better, O "learned" one
Clearly, those organizations must be talking about things that doesn't exist since they agree with me. LWKMD

Workch:
You think I haven’t read the Quran?

I have gone as far as reading the Hindu Dharma-shastra, Book of Mormon, Midrash and even the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

None is consistent with reality. Of all, the Hindu Dharma-shastra and Buddhist Sutras is closest to reality but still full of fictions

HedwigesMaduro:


What the hell is that gospel of the flying spaghetti thing? I thought it was some kinda internet joke, so I never bothered about researching on it.

Pelecius:

The issue is that you vehemently excluded complexity from evolution as seen from this screenshot.
Do you still hold on to that position?
If yes, do you imply that those sites are wrong?
If no, would you be willing to admit to being wrong?

Pelecius:

jamesid29:

Well done sir/ma. We might disagree slightly on a few points (which is normal,we all disgree on one or two things), I truly applaud you for defending your position adequately with grace against arguments that are mostly ad hominem and evasions without concrete substance behind them.. Kinda makes one question workch's pedigree as an advanced degree holder with the types of arguments he's making.

Anyways, for what it's worth, well done sir/ma and Happy new month.

LordReed:


I said it because I thought you were implying that complexity was a mechanism of evolution. I have now asked you at least 2 times for what you mean by genetic complexity, you are yet to clarify. I would say the same thing if I thought someone was implying that intelligence was a mechanism of evolution.

jamesid29:

Well done sir/ma. We might disagree slightly on a few points (which is normal,we all disgree on one or two things), I truly applaud you for defending your position adequately with grace against arguments that are mostly ad hominem and evasions without concrete substance behind them.. Kinda makes one question workch's pedigree as an advanced degree holder with the types of arguments he's making.

Anyways, for what it's worth, well done sir/ma and Happy new month.

Pelecius:

You are not being honest and you know it. You cunningly play around words so as to never admit to being wrong.

You claimed that evolution does not DISCUSS complexity, but diversity. Even accused me of pulling stuff like that from theological garbage.
Now you were presented with evidence that evolution actually discuss complexity (and of course, diversity) and all you can do is to blame me for you being wrong? That's really pathetic.

I'm not going to waste my time in explaining what's easily accessible. And I have hinted on what I meant (in context to speciation) when I replied Budaa.
But of course, your initial question was not to ask what I meant (since I already explained in the post). It was to ridicule my argument, unfortunately, it turned around to you. Which was why I smiled before responding with a similar approach.

Workch:
measles vaccine is just another vaccine and vaccines have been developed before Darwin, it means Evolution started when Darwin discovered it?

It’s just like saying people were flying before Isaac Newton discovered Gravity

You are so full

slowpoke doesn’t know that to formulate a vaccine perfectly, you have to monitor the evolutionary trend the pathogen, how do you think they manufacture the annual influenza virus? By guessing the next variant? You be Mumu, I swear .

What did you even study in school?

LordReed:


That is your problem if you can't understand when someone repeatedly asks you for clarification. Anytime I ask you a question you deflect to something else and I have to piece together what you mean. Now you want to blame me for misinterpreting your statements. You hinted? So you could not answer the question straight up?

If your are so paranoid to think the only reason someone would ask you a question is to ridicule you then that is on you.

I have made it clear that I would say the same thing if I thought someone was making out intelligence to be a mechanism of evolution. Get over yourself and stop being paranoid.

Pelecius:

There's no paranoia here. You are accusing me again of what you actually do; deflect.

Firstly, show me what part of my posts implied complexity as a mechanism for evolution?

Secondly, how does your question of down syndrome relates to mechanism?

Lastly
If someone claims that Christians are ignorant of science. And another ask the person why large percentage of Nobel laureates in science are Christians?
What is the question meant to do?


You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. John 8:32

LordReed:


Now you want to blame me for misinterpreting your statements.

Pelecius:

Wait! I don't understand o!
How would you blame your error of misinterpreting my comments on me?

This mental and word gymnastics is strong o

LordReed:


SMH. You refused to clarify. If you did and I still misinterpreted it then it would be on me. You didn't, repeatedly.

Pelecius:

If you'll continue like this, I'm off.

Do have a good day

LordReed:



Can you point to anywhere you asked me a question and I deflected to something else?

Pelecius:

LWKMD

I'm glad someone (and maybe a couple more) else noticed what I noticed with you.

Enjoy yourself and have a nice day

Image123:


Here's the summary.
1Pe 5:7 KJV Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.

It's the safest known, most guaranteed way out of your predicament.

HellVictorinho:



Were you born to waste my time?

Image123:


They are both God, welcome to life.

1Sharon:
.

Image123:


To make you happy

HellVictorinho:


Then you have failed


But I know it's a matter of choice.

People like budaatum want me to feel bad or accept their derogatory views about me till I commit suicide.

Image123:


Choose Jesus Christ. The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. It's up to you, like you say a matter of choice.

HellVictorinho:


Where is Jesus

Image123:


Standing at the door of your heart.

HellVictorinho:


What does this mean?

I want a literal answer.

Image123:


He wants to be your Saviour, Shepherd and Lord.

HellVictorinho:


Where is he?


I want to know his location.

You are in Nigeria.
Where is he?