"Darwin and Lyell had zero degrees in evolution."
No shit since the field didn't exist. Still, the Wright brothers didn't have degrees in aeronautical engineering either, but their plane flew anyway.
"Since PHDs are needed."
Ph.D.'s are not needed for the most part. They give you training and access to equipment you might need to perform the experiments to prove your hypotheses but anyone can make observations, as Darwin did, and be right about it.
"Maybe you should consider the source, which is also the example. Less you be considered bias and stuck up."
Mirror, mirror...
"1% dna difference = 3,000,000 differences. Now why use 1% and omit the actual number?"
What, precisely, is the difference? Can you not do simple mathematics to calculate the 1% on your own? You think if they say there's 3,000,000 differences that somehow that big number is supposed to impress people and convince them it's wrong?
What exactly are you getting at?
"It's because evolution is so weak, it has to be sold? through omitting evidence that makes it look bad or calls it into question."
You call someone claiming a 1% difference rather than a difference of 3,000,000--when both equal the same fucking thing--to be "omitting evidence"? How fucking stupid are you?
"There are so many unobservable processes that animation is used in the place of what cannot be observed. Which makes evolution only provable in a virtual world, not the real world."
Go catch the flu. Now wait a year. I bet you'll catch it again. Why is that? Evolution perhaps? There's your real world evidence. Now shut the fuck up.
"So just because you can animate something does not make it so."
And obviously because you can string letters into words does not mean you actually understand what you're babbling about.
"Darwin and Lyell zero degrees in science, LOL. How ironic.
So? Neither did the ancient Greeks, Chinese or Arabs and if it wasn't for them, among others who had "zero degrees in science", you wouldn't be able to assault everyone with your blatant stupidity.
