(May 14, 2014 at 10:32 pm)RDK Wrote: The fact that I'm finding faults in the compilation of information called evolution is only because there are so many faults to be found. Rather than repeat over and over that I have no concepts worthy of your acceptance, lets try a simpler approach.
Consider again the idea of the first mating pair. There had to be a first one at some time, right. If you say no to this, you have no reason to try to diminish someone who is trying to reason. Can you define the first pair bonding arrangement in simple clear terms, and not try to hide behind what you believe to be scientific progress. Somewhere in time a first mating pair meet, be it cell or whatever. Your difficulty will be to explain in simple terms, the immense number of transitions that an organism would have to make to meet and connect with anything closely resembling itself. And you know that this connection can only happen if the two cells are similar to each other to begin with. Where did the differences come from. It's those differences that make cellular advancement in this way totally impossible. You don't need a degree in science to see how impossible something is.

Surely you noticed during all your "research" that cells don't need mates to replicate before spouting your bullshit, yes?

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!

Must have been god then, huh?

(May 14, 2014 at 11:31 pm)RDK Wrote: 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!

Okay, you win.

All hail Odin ALLFather.

Don't try to misguide the discussion. A scientific fact can not be disputed if the information is logical. You should be able to disassemble the order of the facts at any point and it should all fit together harmoniously (flawlessly). It's the flaws in teaching something with so many diverse mechanisms as if it was a simple 1-2-3. proposition.
I continue to bring up more points to ponder for the amusement or learning of over 3000 visitors who have seen this discussion and refuse to get involved. I don't expect to carry on a full blown debate with people untrained in the sciences. But, everyone is entitled to hearing something else other than your ordinary condemnation of concepts which you do not understand. I'm trying to make this as simple as I can.

(May 14, 2014 at 11:51 pm)RDK Wrote: I don't expect to carry on a full blown debate with people untrained in the sciences.

Like yourself.

(May 14, 2014 at 11:31 pm)RDK Wrote: 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!

If the parts which were going to be used in a future plant, the beginnings of those parts would have to be present in order for the experiment to proceed. I f that is the case, then all creatures should have parts in semi-complete form waiting to be assembled later into something useful. Sorry- does't fly. Try again.

(May 15, 2014 at 1:18 am)RDK Wrote: If the parts which were going to be used in a future plant, the beginnings of those parts would have to be present in order for the experiment to proceed. I f that is the case, then all creatures should have parts in semi-complete form waiting to be assembled later into something useful. Sorry- does't fly. Try again.

No. As I literally just fucking said, each individual part may have served some alternate use before it evolved the use that we see in the present. Additionally, genetic mutations cause new structures to be bred into developing organisms without the need for them to exist prior, and this is demonstrably true. When you say that it would all have had to exist beforehand, you are just making shit up.

You try again, but before you do, take some steps to fucking educate yourself, simpleton.

Partial parts on any creature serve no useful purpose. Obviously these strange additions are there in some of plant life. You can't make an argument for creative additions to a creature before their implementation can have a positive effect. Excuse me, I have a new tree limb trying to grow out of my back right now!

---

Any extra part of any creature that is attached has to have full and complete use immediately. Partial parts have no function, and usually disappear in the next generation. A complete addition requires the mutation to be fully functional which takes trillions of connections to be made throughout the integrity of the creature. Remember, that part has to grow, heal, reproduce, function with nerves or other contacts, and provide for some useful function for the benefit of the animal or that creature can not even use the additional part. This is not a simple game of just sticking on extra parts to see if it might work. Those trillions of connections have to be perfect, all at once, the first time or the part won't work. That's your catch! Besides, take a close look at all of the animals in nature. most do not show anything extra, dangling off for some future experimental use.
These questions I ask are really simple to answer. All you have to do is try another way of seeing things.