Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Mister Agenda]

Don't try to misguide the discussion. A scientific fact can not be disputed if the information is logical.

A scientific fact cannot be disputed because the evidence is conclusive...even it it doesn't seem logical, it's still a fact if it's to what the evidence points.

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'm willing to blame your teacher, too. They say there's no such thing as a poor student, maybe it's true.

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.

You move on to new points without acknowledging your previous points have been thoroughly demolished...that's true enough. Be straight with me: Is Esquilax paying you to support his contention that people who don't accept evolution don't understand it? If so, I appreciate times are hard, but I think you're overdoing it.

I don't expect to carry on a full blown debate with people untrained in the sciences.

We're not all untrained in the sciences. You seem to be implying that you are. Let me guess: engineer (sorry you other engineers out there, but it's an identifiable trend, and I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with a bias to see design in everything you examine).

But, everyone is entitled to hearing something else other than your ordinary condemnation of concepts which you do not understand.

Your problem isn't that we don't understand the concepts you're presenting, your problem is that we do, and they're just bullshit.

I'm trying to make this as simple as I can.

A better tactic with bullshit is to make it more complex and hope people will think it's something else.

[Anomalocaris]

At some point, you just have recognize creationist brain serves no purpose despite it being nominally there, and trying to make a creationist think is just about as futile as trying to make a rock think.

[Crossless2.0]

At some point, you just have recognize creationist brain serves no purpose despite it being nominally there, and trying to make a creationist think is just about as futile as trying to make a rock think.

I think that's what "evolutionists" call a vestigial organ -- further evidence of evolution.

[Chas]

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.

You have proven that you are utterly unqualified to make any intelligent or informed comment, let alone criticism, of evolution.

You lack the knowledge or understanding of the evidence, the theory, and even the scientific method.

You continue to embarrass yourself by posting your ignorant and misinformed nonsense.

---

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.

You are a fucking ignoramus. Have you never heard of mutation? If you have, it was probably from an X-Men movie.

[RobbyPants]

"Guys, they way I imagine evolution to work doesn't make sense, so therefore it's wrong!"

[Mr Greene]

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!

Number 1: The Venus Flytrap - fly relationship is predation, not symbiosis. The relationship isn't particularly beneficial to the fly...
Number 2: The Venus Flytrap still performs photosynthesis, its metabolic pathway isn't primarily gathering carbon compounds from the insects as an animal would be. This and other insectivorous plants grow in nitrate poor soils and primarily harvest nitrogen compounds from the insects.
If you want an idea of how this may have evolved look at other insectivorous plants such as the Pitcher. Indeed you might take the time to research Nitrate fixation before posting any more of this claptrap (Or do I have to Google that for you again?)

Back to sex; More primitive organisms are frequently hermaphroditic,


We've actually observed species develop sexual reproduction as a response to genetic damage in the irradiated zone at Chernobyl.

[ThePinsir]

Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. It'll help you to remove head from ass and learn a thing or two about evolution.

[Esquilax]

Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. It'll help you to remove head from ass and learn a thing or two about evolution.

If he knew how to read he'd be paying more attention to how thoroughly he's been getting his ass handed to him these last few pages.

[Mister Agenda]

At least Alpha Male was making a sincere effort.

[RDK]

Has someone implied that a vestigial appendage is some sort of evidence of upward evolution? What about the seeming leg remnants in a whale. Have you seen any walking whales in history? About the poor girl with the twin attached, I'm sure she will carry on that mutation to the next generation.
I understand that all of you are biased toward an explanation that has to include any clues that you can dig up to support an unproven theory. It's easy to look at a finished product and decide that it had to come from something simpler earlier on to make sense out of a lack of real proof for anything substantial. I know that you guys can't really agree with anything which might approach sense if it involves agreeing with a theist. You are really embarrassing yourselves.
If animals are changing as radically as you all imply, then every animal that exist should still have multitudes of unfinished variations in progress, proving that this process is still ongoing. We would not see one vestigial appendage, but a total package of changes that make up all animals. You should be able to pick out hundreds of these changes as there are multitudes of subsystems that are being altered. Where are of these mistakes? If life can only work when all of the packaged parts work in harmony to design a viable living creature do any of these changes make sense? I liken this to a house which under constant and total remodel all of the time. You couldn't live in such a structure as it is not fit for habitation. If you add thousands of years for these changes to be finished, you should see the progress, since partially designed parts have not been finished in their design. This stuff is happening accidentally, as you say. There is only one way for a part to be added to a creature before it can use the part. There are billions of ways to get it wrong. Where are all of the ongoing accidents showing that this process is still continuing?

---

Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. It'll help you to remove head from ass and learn a thing or two about evolution.

If he knew how to read he'd be paying more attention to how thoroughly he's been getting his ass handed to him these last few pages.

I wish that I could be online 24/7 to monitor all of the "off the wall" comments that you all like to make. If any of you could answer the simple questions that I have already proposed, I might be slightly convinced that honest and caring people are out there who really have something important to say. Don't let your frustration come back at me, just be nice.