It's exactly the same, and no different than the 3 points I named in my lua response. They just got better and better and the nonsense double talk that you are trying to perfect.
Nope since the neutral theory was not in Darwin's work but is in the mdoern theory now this prove it wrong. Hilarious considering it was one of your own sources. I guess these mistakes happen when you do not read what you link. Another display of your lack of abilities.
I don't believe in double talk; I like cutting straight to the point without all of the fluff.
You have been doing this the whole time. You do not just like it but love it.
That is 100% my point for quoting them. I win.
Nope considering all of them still support the theory and have made additions to the theory which in some studies was done in experiments all you have shown is you do not read what you cite. The neutral theory for example. Sciences is not about 100% certainty that is religion. You confuse the two.
btw "needs work" is merely blind faith optimism speak for "We got nuthin.'"
Nope. It is acceptance that science can always been reformed, developed, added to. This is a principle of sciences but you do not know this since you are an artist.
lol What kind of "support," bogie? Do you have actual measurable facts to support macroevolution or NOT? Don't bother to answer with more of your nonsense double talk. We both know the actual answer though one of us is too shy to admit it.
Evidence is in the fossil records and genetic information. Macro takes place over a longer period of time than micro.
Examples are Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries, Primula kewensis, Tragopogon mirus, Raphanobrassica, Galeopsis tetrahit, Madia citrigracilis. I can mention more if you wish.
Sure it did.
No you didn't since a few of your quotes are not in the actually studies I linked. So you quoted something not in the study. Produce a link of your sources.
Neutral theory proves that PURE CHANCE drives mutations on the molecular level, bogie. PURE CHANCE! Not darwinian natural selection by any stretch of the imagination. Do you understand, Mr. Bachelor's Degree??? That means that when the question "Why is it like THIS, instead of like THAT?" is asked only God's decision fits as the answer. Period. Allah is the sustainer of His creation based on His plan, and of all those who plan, Allah is The Best of Planners.
So what? I already told you Neutral theory is part of the modern theory. Again you are arguing against a strawman since you do not know much about the modern theory. The study never said God but actually provided an explanation. Read what I linked. You will notice it only applies to the molecular levels...... Again not reading what you or I link.
"According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, and phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, as postulated by Charles Darwin"http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100755#pone-0100755-g003
A link shows how the Neutral theory fails