You are woffling with vaguary. What do you mean?<quoted text>
I've run into Polymath. He's knowledgeable but for the sake of argument, you both think of "proof" differently than a skeptic would. Creationists expect to observe things directly with their senses. In truth, they usually don't understand the conditions nor the math behind modern tests so it's a waste of time to debate with them.
I understand the underlying assumptions of algorithmic magic for both sides of the debate. How about you?
The way evos refute creos is by providing research presented as empirical when it is not empirical evidence at all.
All the evo woffle around junk dna is just one example of it.
Just how valid would you suggest all the algorithmic magic presented as empirical evidence for 98% junk dna was?
That is the platform from which you are sprooking off your mouth from. It is a baseless and mindless stream of woffle with absolutely no foundation at all.
Here is somethinjg else you may be interested in on beneficial mutations accumulating to produce overwhelmingly negative effects re epitasis.
Feel free to refute the substance of these articles with more than your opinion.
These articles that are published and peer reviewed do not support an organisms unlimited ability to adapt. Rather they imply huge cost and restrictions around variation on the back of accumulating beneficial mutations, as if evos actually know what a beneficial mutation is in the first place.
Now let's see what baseless and unsupported reply I get back, if any. Evos tend to scurry away when the going gets tough or offer some opinuionate woffle based on "I beleive because researchers that are continually wrong said so". eg my assertions re junk dna. That is about the best you lot appear to be able to provide here.