This is a very strange response for several reasons.person123 wrote:I don't like this website, because it has so much data that no one understans, so people always use it as a cover. I'm 100 percent sure that you personally after reading the article from that link, can't understand what they are talking about there and how it proves anything. Evolutionists always use this website. It's like a religious person will respond "go read the bible, the answer is somewhere there". This is not the first time people used this website while arguing with me, and this is just a trick. Now be honest and admit that you yourself never actually read this article, and even if you did, you didn't understand how it proves that DNA can produce new information by random mutations and natural selection.
- That web site, The National Center for Biotechnical Information, is primarily a repository for scientific studies. It is a collection of studies, not a textbook or "bible." You don't seem to understand what the web site intends or provides.
- You claim no one understands anything on that web site. That is not true. Most scientific studies require advanced degrees to write and comprehend. That is partly because the standards for precision and accuracy are so high in these fields. Biological scientists do understand these studies, so you are wrong on this count.
- Other scientists will review and critique or accept these studies. So you are wrong that using that site is a trick.
- You mention proof several times. You don't seem to understand the scientific process. A study is not intended as proof of the subject. It provides evidence to be evaluated by scientific peers. The study I linked may have flaws or it may be providing significant new information, time will tell.
- You stated several times that no studies have been done to address your concerns about the 1 - 2% DNA variance. I presented one and although you immediately rejected it as incomprehensible, it proves your assertion is wrong. I'm sure there are many other studies that address your statements.
- No, I do not understand the entirety of the study, but I apprehend the gist of it and see the deep experience of those who conducted it. I expect it provides interesting information for other experts in the field to evaluate, we shall see. You do not need to understand all of the study to realize it disproves your assertion about a lack of such studies. I also do not need to understand the mathematics of nuclear fusion to know the sun generates that type of energy as stated by generations of physicists.
- It is important for you to reject conflicting information as quickly as possible and you appear to be good at that. You have a very strong confirmation bias, where one sees only information that confirms your assumptions while literally being blind to anything that conflicts with your beliefs. You make incorrect claims about a lack of scientific data because you don't seek it out and dismiss it as soon as you trip across it. You admit to not being interested in reading books on the subject even if they include information directly addressing your confusion. It makes me a little sad to consider you will probably spend the rest of your life railing about the 1 - 2% DNA, ignoring all explanatory or conflicting information, learning nothing, complaining about not understanding advanced information, and remaining over-confident in your knowledge.