Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Esquilax]

And did I forget to mention symbiotic relationships? Two totally unconnected species connecting for the benefit of both. Take the Venus Fly Trap for example. The plant has obviously deviated from the normal course of photosynthesis to that of devouring bugs. Was sunlight really such a difficult thing to keep using? Of course, eating flies only benefits the plant. What genetic variation has to occur to include a method of catching something it has no way to recognize or plan for? Here is your problem. Any variation, if the plant could plan that far in advance, include all of the necessary devices to catch a bug. In cellular terms , this must have been something like jumping right out of the ground and singing Hello Dolly! Upwardly mobile decisions is not a possibility in evolution, as obviously, there have to be similarities in species before they can reproduce. There can be NO gradual introduction of accidental variations to create this plant. All of the functions of such a mechanism would have to be planned for in advance, stored into a genetic memory, and then implemented into some usable form which can be reproduced with the advantage of an equally advanced mate. Sound impossible? It is! Try another theory!

So, let me get this straight: you bring up the Venus Fly Trap as evidence against evolution, and your reasoning why this is so is that you deny that evolutionary changes can work, and so the plant would have had to spring fully formed?

So, in short: "The Venus Fly Trap is evidence against evolution because evolution as biology describes it can't happen, and so this strawman thing I've concocted must be how science proposes it happens, but that's impossible, and so it doesn't."

Get the fuck out of your fucking fantasy land and address what the science actually says. When your reasoning begins and ends with an unjustified assertion, you've already lost. Besides which, in your ignorance you've completely missed the fact that often, older structures that had different purposes gain new uses over time through evolution. There's absolutely no reason to think that the progression is a straight line, where the mutation that starts the chain could only have the one use to the organism in question.

Read a fucking science book!