No. It merely means that you have failed to understand evolutionary theory.
Maybe that represents the best of @r_speir’s ability.
I do not care about plants. There is not evidence of evolution. Any so-called evidence is forced. Not interested in that conversation.
Irrelevant to answering to the best of your ability.
You just falsified your own claim of interpreting the same evidence differently. Ignorance is not an interpretation.
Of course you’re not interested in discussing any scientific evidence you can’t refute and which destroys your YLC claims. You’ve made that rather obvious.
By the way, @r_speir (and everyone else), the job of the moderators does not include forcing your discussion partners to reply back to your arguments, or adjudicating disputes. There would be too much on our hands if we had to do that. If you think a post goes against our guidelines (An Update about Peaceful Discourse), then flag it.
I would also add that generally speaking, short one liners are rarely substantive.
You did ask:
I answered your question with a link to a paper, and you indicated afterwards that you were interested in direct evidence, so the paper I posted on experimental evolution of plants under observation in a lab should have been exactly what you wanted.
You went silent, however, and and now you’re saying you’re not interesting in talking about plants because you have made up your mind that they can’t possibly evolve. In other words, you don’t want to discuss evidence that might conflict with your preconceived (and ridiculous) beliefs. What’s the point of engaging in these kinds of conversation then?
But Evograd, there were no pictures of seaweed turning into a pineapple.
I have to say this is not the kind of response I would expect from someone wanting to have a genuine conversation.
Teosinte was domesticated and transformed into modern varieties of corn over the past 10,000 years or so. The mutations that occurred during the millennia were ‘natural’ even though we humans selected which ones to preserve. But according to your concept of plants, Teosinte should never have been able to produce mutations in the first place.
I don’t see how you can turn a blind eye, or an empty stomach, to corn!
This is why we tend to roll our eyes when creationists make claims like “We look at the same evidence, but come to different interpretations”. Time and again, this is shown to be false. Creationists refuse to look at evidence on a regular basis.
We are all human, and I think we all understand how ego and pride can get in the way of incorporating knowledge. I would encourage a bit of self reflection and really ask yourself if you are more interested in defending a position or following the evidence.
Sigh, you guys are missing the forest for the trees! Rather than trying to shoot the moon slow down and meet @r_speir where he is. You are missing something important.
“Where he is” is making up the loopiest Creationist strawman versions of evolution and ignoring every last bit of contradictory scientific evidence presented to him. Where is this supposed middle ground?
If I understand what you are getting at, the brain does not control the body by changing DNA. At best, the brain can release chemicals that directly bind to DNA and drive gene expression, but neurons don’t attach to DNA strands and change the sequences of bases. Is that what you are driving at?
Neurons exhibit an electrochemical response or reaction based on sensory data received. That response sends chemical reactions to cells and DNA. I am simply arguing that we should not ignore or dismiss that process as something unimportant in the study of mutations and population genetics. I am baffled at what the motivation would even be to overlook something so important. No one should be threatened by it.
No one here is “threatened” by it. We’re pointing out that you don’t have a shred of evidence to support your argument. You’re not even saying “this might be an interesting avenue of research”, you’re saying “this is how it works”.
No one is threatened by it. We’re just pointing out it’s a totally unsupported idea and contradicted by a huge amount of already available data. Go ahead and test the idea, publish your positive results, then we can have a discussion.
It is at least plausible that neural activity could affect DNA in some somatic cells. But to be relevant to evolution, it would have to affect DNA in reproductive cells. And that sound a lot less plausible.
Explain how this would be less plausible.