my previous comment was partially made in response to this thread, where you asserted that you didn't need to look up evidence because you know it exists. that is missing the point.
"Obviously Scientific fields and study are lost on you..."
no, actually i have a science degree from the top university in my field. it is common for people to make assumptions about what i say because i think differently to the mainstream and the assumptions usually claim that i am ignorant, without taking enough time to find if actually it is just that i think differently and that actually what i am saying is valid.
fyi, i have had such conversations probably close to 100 times in the last couple of years and my position has not changed - not because i am stubborn, but because i know what i am saying is valid. it will take me some time to spell it out more clearly here.
Honestly, if that's the case, then I respect you for staying true to your opinions. And I'm sorry, obviously to me and many others what you advocate doesn't seem like it coincides with modern scientific opinion, so it strikes me as odd.
I definitely wouldn't pin you as ignorant, but from my point of view there isn't any 'valid' reasons to claim the evolutionary model that you're suggesting. I think I have definitely taking adequate time in analyzing your viewpoint, and understanding the defenses for your claims, but we will likely remain at this standstill of opinions.
I DID provide links though to Lamarckism, Mendellian Inheritance and the Weismann Experiment. The first two being a unfunctional than functional model of inheritance, with the later being a method to discredit and disprove Lamarckism. You talked about 1 dude; hof; who has never been considered a scientist, or a valuable consideration in understanding the theory of evolution...... How does this not constitute proof? When you apparently don't even need links like this to support your ideas..
you didn't provide any science at all?
my previous comment was partially made in response to this thread, where you asserted that you didn't need to look up evidence because you know it exists. that is missing the point.
"Obviously Scientific fields and study are lost on you..."
no, actually i have a science degree from the top university in my field. it is common for people to make assumptions about what i say because i think differently to the mainstream and the assumptions usually claim that i am ignorant, without taking enough time to find if actually it is just that i think differently and that actually what i am saying is valid.
fyi, i have had such conversations probably close to 100 times in the last couple of years and my position has not changed - not because i am stubborn, but because i know what i am saying is valid. it will take me some time to spell it out more clearly here.
Honestly, if that's the case, then I respect you for staying true to your opinions. And I'm sorry, obviously to me and many others what you advocate doesn't seem like it coincides with modern scientific opinion, so it strikes me as odd.
I definitely wouldn't pin you as ignorant, but from my point of view there isn't any 'valid' reasons to claim the evolutionary model that you're suggesting. I think I have definitely taking adequate time in analyzing your viewpoint, and understanding the defenses for your claims, but we will likely remain at this standstill of opinions.
I DID provide links though to Lamarckism, Mendellian Inheritance and the Weismann Experiment. The first two being a unfunctional than functional model of inheritance, with the later being a method to discredit and disprove Lamarckism. You talked about 1 dude; hof; who has never been considered a scientist, or a valuable consideration in understanding the theory of evolution...... How does this not constitute proof? When you apparently don't even need links like this to support your ideas..
i did not see your comment in the other sub-thread with the links you posted - i will read that comment now and reply there.