Unanswered questions

[Esquilax]

As witnessed by my last discussion about the HIV virus, and now this one, I've noticed the the word 'mutation' is used like a crutch to explain anything and everything that you can not explain. It's almost like how you people stereotype christians defaulting to "God did it." In other words you all use 'mutation' to maintain a blind faith.

The difference, of course, being twofold: first of all, since evolution is just genetic mutation and variation, it would be incredibly odd of a discussion of evolution not to include that term. You'd essentially be asking us to discuss evolution without discussing evolution. Stop being childish.

The other important distinction between mutation and your god is that we can demonstrate that mutation happens. Just saying.

Not that genetic mutations are not possible. It's just none of you have provided any evidence to support your 'mutation' fall back arguements, which makes your use of the mutation arguement a crutch to explain what your not able to explain. Without supporting evidence to back your assertions your grasping at straws. (Your rules not mine.)

Except that we're not making any assertions. Evolution is a fact. It happens, it's observable, and therefore it's not actually a leap to conclude that, whatever the state of a given biological organism is, evolution is the cause. Just like I don't need to give any evidence to prove that you breathe air; things that are functions of biological organisms need evidence to the contrary, not evidence for something that has been true for every other organism on the face of the earth through all of recorded history.

You, however, are making an assertion of design, something you nor any other source has been able to demonstrate at any point and in any capacity, and to justify your assertion you present your own lack of understanding as to the evolutionary process, and an argument from ignorance: you can't think of a way this could have evolved, and therefore it must have been designed. This is a failure of argumentation on every possible level.

For one, the lack of an answer currently from the evolution side does not lend any more credence to your inane proposal. Secondly, an argument from ignorance such as yours, especially when its foundation is nothing more than your further ignorance as to how evolution works, has absolutely no credibility or weight. And finally, your basis for even making the claim at all is complete idiocy; you actually need to provide proof of your assertions, not just poke holes in the prevailing science.

Oh, and I'm still being charitable: the hole you're trying to poke isn't even a legitimate hole, because, as I mentioned, you don't have the first clue as to how evolution works. You're just fractally wrong, here.

Again, I do not care enough about the subject to further discuss it. I simply want to take this arguement to the point to expose your use of hypocritical faith in what you believe. All to ask, why is it not ok for Christians to show faith, but it is ok to have faith in science?

All you're exposing is your own lack of understanding of the things you deem yourself knowledgeable enough about to disprove, and the utterly banal schoolground depths you'll sink to in order to drag down everyone else into the mud you wallow in. Sorry, but I'm not playing that game; you're simply wrong here. Maybe you should go and pick up a biology textbook, like I did, and learn about this stuff.

You'll see that there's no faith involved in things that can be tested, and replicated no matter where you are.