Go and sin no more my child. 
Try this on for size: Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry.
No rebuttal yet from anyone.
You keep removing the parts of my comments where I provide my reasoning.
You can actually engage with my reasoning, or keep asserting that I have provided no reasoning (which would be incorrect).
You didn’t provide any reasoning, just demand we reject your silly strawman version of evolution.
And for those of us here who actually take @Swamidass seriously, the fusion of theology and science is part of the narrative, when God uses “seemingly random” mutations, and “seemingly obvious” common descent, to create life forms that are part of his grand plan!
Do you accept that God can use evolution as part of His plan?
Or are you one of those allergic types who just can’t stand the thought of the word Evolution coming out of his or her mouth?
I never sin.
Debbie: Gomez, You Lady killer.
Gomez: Acquitted
Joshua, but isn’t that a completely trivial statement “mutations are consistent with biochemistry”?
How does that prove Naturalistic Large-Scale Evolution (single naturalistic universal tree of life; or naturalistic universal common descent) to be true?
BTW, you realize that my original statement was not directed at you? It was directed at the atheist who was using insults instead of rational dialog or reasons for his faith in evolution.
You’re the one who keeps claiming small micro changes can’t accumulate over time to produce macro change. Your job to explain / provide evidence for your imagined barrier which prevents the accumulation.
SInce you have removed my comments, I have no idea what comment of mine you are responding to… So I have no idea what this conversation is about 
Did you read the link? You would see.
Are you now going to start playing the clown to duck the tough questions you can’t answer?
1 Like
No rebuttal… only thankful praise!
And this is an example of the essential Intellectual Dishonesty of NALSE-Faith.
It is NALSE that claims that ALL of the biosphere arose by neo-Darwinian (or related) mechanisms (NDM).
When a Rational Skeptic (like me) asks for evidence that NDM created the entire biosphere, NO such Evidence is EVER provided.
And yet, somehow I am asked to believe in NALSE-Evolution… by Blind Faith?
Sorry, I do NOT have enough Blind-Faith to believe in NALSE-evolution.
SInce you have removed my comments, I have no idea what your question was (in response to my comment).
Heh. Now we went from “I don’t accept macroevolution” to “show me how evolution produced the entire biosphere”.
Someone is being rather intellectually dishonest for sure. 
Here is what I saw when I clicked on the link – I have NO idea how that allegedly proves NALSE, NUCD, NSTOL to be true.
Quote → In a previous thread I discussed what science meant by random mutations and how this term is defined by experimental results and statistics. A lot of this work was done in the 1940’s and 50’s, and since then many new facts have been discovered in the field of genetics, such as the discovery of DNA. This gave rise to the field of molecular biology and allowed us to understand biology at the molecular scale.
So what exactly causes mutations? We once again have to reiterate the the limited scope of science. What science can do is put forward hypotheses and see if the evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. What science can not do is make ontological statements about absolute truth. With that in mind, the next few posts will discuss the evidence that links mutagenesis (the production of mutations) with the biochemistry of the cell and why scientists aren’t simply assuming that mutations are caused by biochemistry.
But that isn’t the main sense in which @Peter_Berean seems to think you reject Darwinism. He appears to think that you reject natural selection as a force capable of explaining big adaptive changes.
So the answer is yes, you are going to resort to clowning as a childish evasion. Got it.
You realize you are making Patrick’s worry about you come true, right?
Your response doesn’t actually help me to understand what your question is
It is not meaningful to state that you reject Darwinism if you accept Natural Selection + Random Chance as the Core Creative Agency that creates ALL of the biosphere.
So, when a biologist states that he rejects Darwinism (is NOT a Darwinian), I take his statement at face value to indicate that he rejects the core of Darwinism → i.e., that Natural Selection + Random Chance is the Core Creative Agency that creates ALL of the biosphere.