you most certainly can, when you're pushing your 'opinions' as facts.  

Just because you're pushing them as facts doesn't mean they are. It's still an opinion, as I'm sure you know.

that's precisely the point.  People shouldn't be content to just live inside their own bubble of opinions and faiths under the guise that everything they believe is right, especially if being wrong about things can harm you, like the people who believe vaccinations are evil mind control things as their kids die of polio.  

It's hard not to lump you in with the others because you use the same slurs "Don't post ridiculous comments" and the good old rhetoric. But okay, not that you told me I'll make an effort to think of you as a separate thought altogether.

As for the driven nature of evolution, that's not what I learned from the theory. What I learned was that, given natural selection, certain random mutations take precedence in persistence over others. How is that driven other than by natural selection, which in and of itself is more of a filter than a logical process. Tell me if I'm wrong, because it seems like with every different person a new perception of evolution is shared with me.

Evolutionary changes are absolutely driven. You are clueless. Here's a very short document explaining why no one takes you seriously.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KpO_UN4dWuwJ:uwf.edu/jgould/neodarwin.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjmj4qyFmxa1A6ad5sCpoDgH1zoSUYHyl8rogXedkIOR-Yh-M6pesynVBykGClFsYwgP82e8JTXXAiJsZobVU9DzwVP741NjfWXZ1kZ8r27DU5u5gGKWFALgnAhxXXuy9JS4OjJ&sig=AHIEtbRYVDIPAirvAPBJEXYSAsgtMTD63g

And a more in-depth document concerning speciation (I think this will rebut any future questions of inbreeding/cross-breeding):

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html

PS: You ignored my previous post to you.

You are a man with an agenda. Nothing in my post explaining my understanding of evolution (and its driven/not driven nature) was counter-argued in the document you posted (the first one). If you can't show that I am clueless, better not say that unless you want me to demolish your arguments once again.

And lol at cross-breeding not mattering. From your second link:

"This concept became criticized by biologists because it was arbitrary. Many examples were found in which individuals of two populations were very hard to tell apart but would not mate with one another, suggesting that they were in fact different species."

Wow, using the incompatibility of breeding between two individuals SUGGESTS that they were in fact different species. In your own article. Now look who's clueless. Yep, it's you.

Oh my tamil tart, okay this is priceless:

'Biological species concept: This concept states that "a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups." '

IN YOUR OWN SOURCE.

The source then mentions two types of limits to cross-breeding: pre-zygotic isolating mechanisms and post-zygotic isolating mechanisms. Nothing in the section in speciation mentions the intricacies of an evolution and if or when it leads to these isolating mechanisms and thus, speciation ('Given time and selection, the two populations become two species. They may, at some later time, spread back into contact. Then we can ask, are these two "good biological species"? '). We are just blindingly assuming that this is not a problem and that from one evolution to another there is no isolating mechanism such that two individuals would need to have the exact same mutation for the speciation to persist. Talk about a constraint.

Imho this could only work over a long time and even so a bridge theory whereby individuals of evolutionary stage B can mate with A and C yet C cannot mate with A is a pretty odd concept to be completely honest, and quite far-fetched.

Apart from talking theories (far-fetched I may add), here is what we see in nature, from your own article:

"Hybrid is healthy and fertile, but less fit, or infertility appears in later generations (as witnessed in laboratory crosses of fruit flies, where the offspring of second-generation hybrids are weak and usually cannot produce viable offspring). "

Oh, don't mind me. Tagging 16.

Once again, still ignored my post.

"This concept became criticized by biologists because it was arbitrary. Many examples were found in which individuals of two populations were very hard to tell apart but would not mate with one another, suggesting that they were in fact different species."

Wow, using the incompatibility of breeding between two individuals SUGGESTS that they were in fact different species. In your own article. Now look who's clueless. Yep, it's you."

This states that cross-breeding is not relevant. How you missed this obvious point is beyond me. It states that once an evolutionary change occurs (population a -> b) population b is more advanced and would not mate with an inferior population due to incompatibility. This does indeed make sense as per the E. Coli experiment which I cited for you several times. 

Perhaps you're incapable of understanding the articles provided to you. Here: http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/sp/Speciation 

It's for kids so you should be able to get it.

Now for cross-breeding and its role in evolution - again, not relevant. There are cross-breeds in modern times, but as far as I know that isn't seen historically. Probably because they become extinct over time (as they are generally inferior).

Evolution isn't about cross-breeding, you don't seem to get it.

I'll try again.

http://evolution-for-kids.blogspot.com/ 

I expect a response to my post you ignored.

EDIT: I find it hilarious that you find all this nonsensical and yet believe two people produced the entirety of the human race (despite inbreeding causing defects). 

here to watch the fireworks? I'm having a grand old time watching a certain someone get completely owned time and time and time and time again thanks to him being completely ignorant of evolutionary biology.  It's hilarious.