You can start with answering the questions that he is dodging.
Post the question. Link to it.
I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.
There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!
