Since we've given you multiple opportunities to share with everyone exactly how evolution works (as in the name of this forum), we'll assume you can't get past the theorical into application.
You might review the thread above named 'Deleted Postings'
"While we realize that most postings are constructive, the determination of which ones are deleted is purely based on our admitted biased opinion. However, we do attempt to retain postings that are constructive and to the point, but we also 'clean up the board' and delete unconstructive rantings and postings that do nothing but pontificate (which include some of mine) and include nothing but opinions without supporting scientific references.
Supporting articles, research papers are needed to substantiate your argument. Blogs and your personal opinion do NOT qualify as 'evidence.'
If you look at our previous forum @ http://www.123forum.com/777 you can see that we were more than accommodating by retaining many postings that included personal slams and juvenile conjecture. We're not that accommodating anymore.
Most evolutionists and creationists desire a robust and respective debate and that is our goal, however imperfect our attempts may be."
If you would like to offer empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, go ahead. Otherwise, I will delete your postings as I did before as they are a waste of time for those of us who desire a constructive debate instead of a philosophical argument.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Yes, I have unselfishly shared a wealth of my scientific knowledge with you and others on this board, even though it's a thankless job. Sometimes I feel a bit under appreciated, but it's my choice.
I'm curious why you would suggest that I don't know how evolution occurs. I'm not going to bother rehashing things that I've already written, because any reader who has gotten this far knows the score. But I'll leave you to reflect on what your motive for dishonesty is.
Finally, as I wrote in a separate post re: the PLoS article, remember that the scope of their findings is very narrow, that the title of the article is absurd, and that their methodology is suspect. Still, it is interesting that you choose to believe this particular article, but none of the others in scientific journals.