Oh gosh, I didn't know I was being tested - I am left wondering who is my judge? The facts you cite always seem to me either entirely irrelevant or just plain wrong - but then I actually know a lot of chemistry and molecular biology.
That's amazing--because you seem to be unable to convey it to the many other people here who also know chemistry and molecular biology. However you imagine yourself brilliant enough to make the following assertions which nobody can pin you down on.
1. "there's no such thing as memes"
2. "current evolutionary theory and abiogenesis has big problems"
3. "ribonucleic acids are too unstable to be the first replicators"
4. "information via the sun and oscillations should be considered the "designer" of life's code--and the replicators should be considered the cells"
5. All other conjecture about abiogenesis is trite and readily dismissed as uninteresting and unimportant.
6. You assert that humans have something special (in your link) called "free will"--and other life forms don't have it. And this is important to your concepts of how sexuality, humor, and sexual deviancy evolve-- You don't think genes and memes are sufficient or good at explaining these traits and traits such as morality, and presumably you think you have a much better explanation but no scientists will listen to you.
So here is your chance. Everyone tries to listen--but no one can yet sum up what you are saying. Feel free to correct anything I got wrong. You have had chance after chance after chance--you cannot seem to fathom that maybe your ideas are not being grasped because they don't take the facts we know into account and/or they are not clear, useful, nor helpful in furthering understanding. Plus you see to have absolutely no curiosity about current developments in the field.
Calling everyone who tries to muddle through whatever you have to say a "lying cheating meanie" who is too stupid to understand anything--just helps fulfill your belief that you are a genius who has the key to show that evolution is on the wrong track and you somehow can explain it better through a more useful "epistemological" explanation. Certainly, you can see how that makes you very much like Michael Behe--a known creationist. These traits are traits of his as well as all scientists who have attempted to wade through his crap can probably attest...except for maybe those who have a vested interest in "intelligent design".
You guys cry like you are going to "take your ball and go home"--but you never had the ball.
Yahzi, Dr. A., and Schneibster are my heroes. You guys bleat on for pages saying nothing and tell yourselves how evolution is a false "dogma" while never bringing anything of value to the table when you have a willing audience, well schooled on evolution willing to subject the facts to any actual test that someone has. The knowledge brought forth by evolution is amazing , strong, and verified in incredible ways all the time. You lie to yourselves and anyone who will listen to you to support some illusory purpose. You add nothing to the knowledge of others because you are too busy protecting your ego and lying to yourselves--you can't believe that you could be wrong.
And your summation of Kleinman's views is an insult to Paul who spent hours explaining and testing and clarifying and writing programs for his idiotic contention that genomes couldn't evolve according to some inane math problem. No answer satisfies you guys...no amount of evidence ever will... You waste time, but at least you are online and not making the masses ignorant, and the rest of us have the pleasure of watching evolution explained and tested and refined in action.
If you can't communicate your hypothesis, test it, use it, nullify it--or explain why it is stronger than the information we have--then it is only good in your imagination. It is only right to you. It's useless in reality. Do you want to know the truth as best we can--or do you want to believe that somehow you already have it and the rest of us just won't listen?
