Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Esquilax]

Partial parts on any creature serve no useful purpose.

Untrue: half an eye is a hell of a lot better than no eyes at all. Half a wing helps to glide. Hell, our upright, bipedal posture is only partially done: we still have the spinal nerves of a forward slouching quadruped.

Yet again, you're just making things up.

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!

And again, you aren't listening, and are instead just trundling along the same idiotic path: as I've said twice now, evolutionary changes aren't a straight line directly towards a single eventual goal: a structure can have many, many alternate uses as it evolves toward what it is today.

Seriously, it's getting to the point where I'm not even sure you're reading my posts: I've addressed this contention of yours multiple times and you keep responding as though I haven't said anything.

[Ryantology]

Any extra part of any creature that is attached has to have full and complete use immediately.

I bet that's news to her.

[Rampant.A.I.]

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.

The "flopping around useless" part, if it can even be called that, only happens when a species is losing the need for limbs or other appendages.

As in whales:

[Esquilax]

Any extra part of any creature that is attached has to have full and complete use immediately.

Why? Because you said so?

Partial parts have no function, and usually disappear in the next generation.

Your little toe bears no weight, and has failed to do so for the entirety of human history; it has no function, and yet it has existed for generation after generation. Are you just making this up as you go along?

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.

Or, that part could be used for something else, and over time it grows in complexity and gains new functions. The eye, for example, began as a patch of light sensitive cells. A very simple mutation, a cupping form around those cells, introduced the ability to ascertain the direction of that light. The cup begins to deepen, offering more directionality, and the other parts, the optic nerve, the retina, the eyeball itself, all evolved in later, building complexity based around the idea that visual awareness confers a survival advantage. This is a demonstrated scientific fact, and your only response has been to demand, like a petulant child, that the only way this could work is if the new features just popped into place all at once, despite that fact that an alternate method has been offered to you, and confirmed through science.

This is not a simple game of just sticking on extra parts to see if it might work.

Yes, because evolution doesn't work like fucking Spore!

Those trillions of connections have to be perfect, all at once, the first time or the part won't work.

Why? Because you say so? What's your education in biology, that you make this claim so confidently?

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.

Vestigial organs are all over the place. Humans have several. Some snakes have little useless legs. Emus have little claws on their stubby, useless wings. Dogs have pointless dewclaws. Giraffes have a couple extra meters of useless Laryngeal nerve, at least.

And that's just playing by the rules you've set up, even though those rules are wrong anyway. You are so fractally incorrect that the conclusions you made using incomplete premises don't even work out the way you wanted them to.

These questions I ask are really simple to answer. All you have to do is try another way of seeing things.

"If only you would be more open minded to the fact that I am absolutely correct, while I ignore everything you say."

Fuck off, dirtbag.

[downbeatplumb]

I suppose that I should have mentioned the absurdity of mating couples by accident. What was the male of every species on earth doing before his mate was constructed? You have a male with all of the capabilities of using his sexuality before there was even a mate. What are the odds of two different sexual beings being accidentally together at the same time with all of the necessary opposite parts being complete at the same time so an offspring could be created. No Possibility! Did the male have all of the female parts himself, and then share them with another man? You know where that one ends up.
Both creatures had to be built to be compatible in every way before a birth could even occur. Birth? What a monumentally problematic idea that had to be. A sole creature had been making offspring all by himself, then one day, an opposite and completely correct match was found accidentally that could provide life. Is this getting dumber by the moment?

Yes it is....but not in the way you mean.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So just to conclude RDK's entire contribution on this thread;

argument from ignorance
argument from personal incredulity
knock down a strawman of evolution with hilariously inaccurate accusations that nobody here has even supported

Repeat.

I hope RDK is ok.

[Bad Wolf]

RDK, have you ever been taught biology? I mean, taught by an actual qualified teacher? Someone with at degree in biology? Or have you 'researched' and 'studied' biology and evolution yourself like so many Christians do with the bible: ignore and dismiss anything that challenges your worldview and focus on the parts which support your worldview. Not that anything you have said so far supports your idea that evolution is wrong.

[Tonus]

These questions I ask are really simple to answer. All you have to do is try another way of seeing things.

What, the wrong way? Those questions have been answered. Most of them rely on assumptions that are simply not true, and therefore the correct answer has been repeated numerous times: educate yourself.

[Mister Agenda]

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?

One finds predatory plants in poor soils. They still use sunlight, they're basically grabbing themselves some fertilizer.

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?

A long series of many small ones that each benefited the plant but was not planned in advance.

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.

No advanced planning is involved. Each variation conserved by natural selection had to be useful to the plant. Finding actual evidence that preplanning was involved would serve the Intelligent Design folks enormously, yet they haven't been able to find a single example of it that stands up to scrutiny.

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.

You can't even be bothered to Google 'evolution of the Venus flytrap' before making your pronouncements, can you?

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.

No, they wouldn't, and they weren't.

Sound impossible?

Sounds like an ignorant creationist strawman.

It is! Try another theory!

We did. It's called evoluton. What do you call YOUR cockamamie theory?

[Rampant.A.I.]