"ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING, ESPESCIALLY THAT WHICH YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE".

This is good advice, but it certainly isn't Xian advice. This is the method of science, not religion. Religion is all about not questioning and believing based on faith.

As I leave I shall kick the dust from my shoes after being in this place.

Folks, I do believe we've been scriptured... Is there a technical term for this?

To function in the field of Science, whatever your field of knowledge, even if you have no better qualification than working as a Clerk in a Patents Office, need others to undertake the solution of the more complex mathematical problems, are slightly dyslexic and refer to God occasionally:-

"ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING, ESPESCIALLY THAT WHICH YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE".

As I leave I shall kick the dust from my shoes after being in this place.

You won't understand this, but that is your problem.

I think I owe both of you more information in relation to my comments re Gravity and Mass.

I doubt I would know whether you were making sense, as I said I'm qualified to argue in the biological sciences. My physics is of the armchair pop science variety and not well grounded.

It appears OH MY GOD FATHER has blown a fuse. I do not intend to respond to an hysterical man,

I do not like getting directly involved in other peoples debates but... OMGF has a pugnacious style and he obviously enjoys a good online scrap, but in my experience his comments are invariably pertinent and his underlying knowledge is evidently sound. Ignore the style and take more account of the content, he really is trying to tell you something useful here.

OH MY GOD FATHER

Not what it means.

I do not intend to respond to an hysterical man, no matter what colour of lipstick he wears.

Coming from a crank? Wow.

If OMGF will now do me the favour of ignoring my postings I would be grateful.

Whatever.

I do not know whether or not you will approve of the slight deviation from the Evolutionary side of the discussion but OMGF did put meanings into my comments which detracted from the thrust of argument.

So you keep saying without showing. Problem is that you've made some pretty stupid comments.

The Big Bang. I am fully aware that time, as we know it, did probably not exist.

Probably? Do you even understand how we measure time?

That change being a wave front rising, or falling, in an infinitesimally short time.

More nonsense.

Now, by Fourier, a wave front rising in an infinitesimally short time will generate an infinite number of frequencies.

Sigh, no it doesn't. An infinitesimally short pulse in space would be made up of (near) infinite wavelengths according to Fourier. IOW, the shorter the pulse, the more frequencies are used to make it. Take your square wave example. It's the shape and physical makeup of the wave, not how quickly it oscillates.

The theory on diffraction gratings is incomplete and incorrect for both photons and electrons.

Go publish and then pick up your Nobel Prize.

The answer to my query regarding human diversity was quite simple, if anyone had even considered the point.

People have considered the question and found you wrong.

The time scale of separation of humans across the globe and the differences between the Environments has not been sufficient to produce Evolutionary change.

You're now introducing a new claim. Please define what you mean by this.

There! Simple answer without the rude and patronising comments.

There's nothing rude about pointing out that your assertions are unsupported and not representative of evolutionary theory, it's all in how you take it (is your ego that fragile?)

Or perhaps you are incapable of both civility and rational discussion.

If civility means I must kowtow to your claptrap, then yes, guilty as charged. And, as I've said before, rational discussion involves correct information, so if you wish to continue to spew out ignorant, creationist ramblings, then any lack of rational discussion is on you.

If my answer is incorrect, or or my assumptions are erroneous in any way, I should expect to be advised as such without the overbearing ignorance continuing.

This makes no sense. You were advised that you were in error, yet you persisted in your ignorance.

Apparently I have made the mistake of believing this was an open forum such that all could comment and possibly learn.

It is an open forum. You are allowed to comment here. It also seems that you are the one that needs to learn about evolution, so if no learning is happening, that's again your fault.

You query my definition of God, yet comment made by yourself and Steve Bowen is to the effect that you keep an open mind on the existence of God. How could you recognise any input by God? Total nonsense as a statement, which has even less credence than any input by myself. If one of your prehistoric humans were find a C.D., you know what I mean, pretty colours. Would he come to the conclusion it was made by a more advanced human or would he regard it as just an unusual seashell? Do I really need to labour this point any more?

Yes, because although I understand all the words you are using here, you have yet to put them into a coherent pattern that expresses an idea.

A Code is a Code, changes by evolution are not excluded by any of my inputs, end of story.

You're a bizarre one.

Before the Big Bang? You clearly didn't understand my use of "" "". I thought my intelligence was in question?

Do you even know what you are talking about? You want to base an argument about what happened before time existed (as we define it) and when corrected you claim some bizarre notion about using quote marks as if that somehow buttresses your argument? If you knew what you were saying was nonsense, then why did you say it, and why do you still think you've made a good argument? IOW, you've just shot yourself in the foot.

Big Bang again. I did not say nothing could happen, the energy involved could quite easily have ended in a form other than that capable of supporting life. The probability that the Universe would be created probably n to the power of some astronomical negative number.

With what basis do you make that comment? Show your work. You are simply claiming that event X was improbable and expecting us all to agree with you.

The rest of your posting is mainly padding which enables you to argue that which you surmise, or have projected, from my original elementary posting. If you wish to argue I suggest you find a less demanding blog site.

Whatever. I suggest you learn to post in paragraph forms so that we can actually read your vomitous ejaculations.

I have realised that the scientific communities suffer badly from incest. That's right, incest of though. Many breakthroughs in the fields of Science are made by free thinkers, not your definition of free thinking.

First of all, you don't even know what my definition of free thinking is. You've imparted upon me positions and thoughts that I do not hold as if you have some magic ability to know what I think. Secondly, you're going to have to support this with some examples.

I have been amused at the invention of new 'particles', Gravitons, to explain gravitational 'pull'. Then came 'String theory', quite an interesting philosophical and mathematical distraction but probably the best you can say of it.

These are attempts to explain data that we haven't quite figured out yet. What is your explanation? goddidit?

The most depressing part I find is that the works of Maxwell, Einstein, Schrodinger and Fourier have not led to the most blindingly obvious explanation of both gravitational 'pull' and the form of 'matter'. Inertia and momentum being derivations.

Oh great. You're an armchair, crank, physicist that knows all about life, the universe, and everything, and if only those real, practicing physicists would agree with you, we'd all know the answer is 42.

So why should I 'bluster' about that which I unable to get movement.

Perhaps you should try ex-lax?

Purely for the reason that, when I am long gone, others will remember. Possibly even OMGF. Please don't even think about making comment on this. You will be out of your depth and I shall simply not involve myself in discussion with closed minds.

If your knowledge of evolution is any indication, I'm not worried.

No matter what I type he appears to have some irrational fear that I am trying to undermine the whole principle of evolution.

Sigh. No, more like you are typing some erroneous things and I am correcting you. If you start actually talking about what evolution says and does, then we'll be all set.

If I were a 14 year old boy I would expect an explanation of perceived mistakes rather than the comment "nonsense".

When you post long debunked creationist tripe, there's almost no other appropriate response.

In relation to the 'Deity'. I have my own interpretation which certainly differs from the image OMGF appears to wish to force on me.

Which is funny, because in your last comment you admitted that I asked you to define your deity. So, which is it? Am I forcing a deity concept on you or have I asked you to define it? You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps #17 could been framed better but, #21 by OMGF, I considered gave me, and us,no room for discussion.

Cry me a river.

To put it quite simply, if the Laboratory personnel I had worked with had responded at first instance in that manner, they would have been out on their ear.

Oooo, threats.

The 'Deity' I would identify most closely with, would be one who used natural events to provide the outcome of his wishes. That is why I made an initial attempt to move Evolution into an area which could be accepted by Religious Theologians. My statement that there must have been a first man and woman does not negate the whole of evolution, but puts the developing human species into the realm of being chosen.

Except that evolution does not operate in such events as having a first man or woman. If you want to be a theistic evolutionist, fine, but that's not the position you are taking. The position you are taking is of a middle ground that makes no sense. You can't "move evolution" into any area, because it stands or falls on the empirical evidence. You also can't simply make blanket statements that evolution fails at X, Y, or Z, simply to prop up your religious leanings or to make it more palatable to theologians.

I thought my intelligence was in question?

Perhaps not your intelligence, Francis, but either the currency of your understanding of the subject matter, or the clarity of your thinking on those subjects may be in question.

You have a way of arguing that is not particularly clear. Some of your comments appear to be non sequiters, some make use of common terms that we are all using -eg "God" "evolution" "mechanism" "diversity" - but without, apparently, giving them their common meanings, and some of your points are just plain obscure.

Just for an example:

The most depressing part I find is that the works of Maxwell, Einstein, Schrodinger and Fourier have not led to the most blindingly obvious explanation of both gravitational 'pull' and the form of 'matter'. Inertia and momentum being derivations.

I couldn't even begin to make a guess at what you mean in this sentence. What to you is the "blindingly obvious explanation" that Maxwell, Einstein, Schrodinger and Fourier missed. What are "inertia" and "momentum" derivations of? And why have you not published your "blindingly obvious" corrections to the conclusions of these theorists in a physics journal, where the people most familiar with that theoretical ground can comment?