Why the Theory of Evolution is not only the right answer, why it is a critical answer

[orogenicman]

And let the record show that the only reason SJ and his posse is here is to derail yet another science thread about evolution. They can't argue the facts (because they have none), nor present an opposing theory (because that would be a terrible admission that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt), so they post page after page of unsupported accusations in order to deflect attention from the fact that they believe that the Flintstones to be a documentary. How pathetic is that?

You never presented any facts to argue against, you posted claims that can't stand up to scrutiny. That's why, instead of answering my very basic questions, you charged in with personal attacks that had nothing to do with what you were trying to sell. And for the third time now, I don't have to present a theory of my own for your's to be flawed. Either you can back up your claims or you can't. You claim common ancestors but can't explain how it happens. It wasn't through breeding, so what was it, magic? When you can give us an answer to that, other than just repeating the word "evolution", then you might have a little credibility. Until then, you're just full of shit. No offense.

And let the record show that 'lying for Jesus' is their new norm.

 

[S.J.]

And let the record show that the only reason SJ and his posse is here is to derail yet another science thread about evolution. They can't argue the facts (because they have none), nor present an opposing theory (because that would be a terrible admission that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt), so they post page after page of unsupported accusations in order to deflect attention from the fact that they believe that the Flintstones to be a documentary. How pathetic is that?

You never presented any facts to argue against, you posted claims that can't stand up to scrutiny. That's why, instead of answering my very basic questions, you charged in with personal attacks that had nothing to do with what you were trying to sell. And for the third time now, I don't have to present a theory of my own for your's to be flawed. Either you can back up your claims or you can't. You claim common ancestors but can't explain how it happens. It wasn't through breeding, so what was it, magic? When you can give us an answer to that, other than just repeating the word "evolution", then you might have a little credibility. Until then, you're just full of shit. No offense.

And let the record show that 'lying for Jesus' is their new norm.

I see you're posting the same diversionary ad hominem remarks here that you're posting in PC's thread, where you're also getting your ass kicked. Let the record show that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[orogenicman]

You never presented any facts to argue against, you posted claims that can't stand up to scrutiny. That's why, instead of answering my very basic questions, you charged in with personal attacks that had nothing to do with what you were trying to sell. And for the third time now, I don't have to present a theory of my own for your's to be flawed. Either you can back up your claims or you can't. You claim common ancestors but can't explain how it happens. It wasn't through breeding, so what was it, magic? When you can give us an answer to that, other than just repeating the word "evolution", then you might have a little credibility. Until then, you're just full of shit. No offense.

And let the record show that 'lying for Jesus' is their new norm.

I see you're posting the same diversionary ad hominem remarks here that you're posting in PC's thread, where you're also getting your ass kicked. Let the record show that the emperor has no clothes.

So you're saying that you sit at your computer in your birthday suit? Oh my.

 

[S.J.]

And let the record show that 'lying for Jesus' is their new norm.

I see you're posting the same diversionary ad hominem remarks here that you're posting in PC's thread, where you're also getting your ass kicked. Let the record show that the emperor has no clothes.

So you're saying that you sit at your computer in your birthday suit? Oh my.

Please keep talking, as your credibility continues to further deteriorate.

 

[orogenicman]

All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.

 

[westwall]

All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.

Typical. I love the threads you guys come up with "critical", "catastrophic" etc. etc. etc. The theory of evolution is not "critical". And biology isn't based on the theory of evolution.
Biology as a science has been around at least since the 5th century BCE. Alcmaeon of Crotona I think it was, was one of the first major contributors to the science of biology (basically invented zoology), so let your hyperbole take a rest for awhile.

It gets tiresome.

 

[orogenicman]

All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.

Typical. I love the threads you guys come up with "critical", "catastrophic" etc. etc. etc. The theory of evolution is not "critical". And biology isn't based on the theory of evolution.
Biology as a science has been around at least since the 5th century BCE. Alcmaeon of Crotona I think it was, was one of the first major contributors to the science of biology (basically invented zoology), so let your hyperbole take a rest for awhile.

It gets tiresome.

And how well has the ideas of Alcmaeon of Crotona stood the test of time? Yes, her understood human anatomy better than most people of his day, but so what. He likely killed more animals with his vivisections than he ever cured humans of disease. And if you don't believe that modern biology is entirely based on the theory of evolution, then you don't know anything about biology.

 

[S.J.]

All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.

I never said I don't believe in science, I just don't buy the bullshit you're trying to peddle here. You shouldn't have such blind faith either because science is only based on what they know at the time. They've made absolute proclamations many times only to prove themselves wrong later. And you're wrong about biology.

 

[orogenicman]

All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.

I never said I don't believe in science, I just don't buy the bullshit you're trying to peddle here. You shouldn't have such blind faith either because science is only based on what they know at the time. They've made absolute proclamations many times only to prove themselves wrong later. And you're wrong about biology.

You don't believe in the theory of evolution, the most important, and best documented theory in all of science. So don't give me this crap that you believe in science when it is clear that you don't even know what it is all about. My knowledge does not come from blind faith, as yours does, but from decades of research and education in anthropology, geology, biology, chemistry, and physics, and experience in the field. And yours comes from? What? A 2,000+ year old Bedouin holy book?

 

[flacaltenn]

All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.

Typical. I love the threads you guys come up with "critical", "catastrophic" etc. etc. etc. The theory of evolution is not "critical". And biology isn't based on the theory of evolution.
Biology as a science has been around at least since the 5th century BCE. Alcmaeon of Crotona I think it was, was one of the first major contributors to the science of biology (basically invented zoology), so let your hyperbole take a rest for awhile.

It gets tiresome.

And how well has the ideas of Alcmaeon of Crotona stood the test of time? Yes, her understood human anatomy better than most people of his day, but so what. He likely killed more animals with his vivisections than he ever cured humans of disease. And if you don't believe that modern biology is entirely based on the theory of evolution, then you don't know anything about biology.

And although you danced around my previous post -- let me slip in here with a rhetorical question that you've already ignored?

Dont worry about Alcmaeon of Crotona -- How has YOUR theory stood the test of time?
My previous point was that "evolution" has evolved faster than any evidentiary evidence that we can point to in the Natural World. When you defend "evolution" as this immutable theory from the 1800s, you're ignoring the vast amount of NEW techniques and thoughts that cast SERIOUS doubt on the old explanations.

Note that I'm not in any way DENYING evolutionary mechanisms, but I find it silly to be constantly staking your honor on something that is a huge moving target. Here's but one example.

Atavisms: Medical, Genetic, and Evolutionary Implications | Nenad Tomi? - Academia.edu


ABSTRACT
Traits expected to be lost in the evolutionary history of a species oc-casionally reappear apparently out of the blue. Such traits as extra nipples or tails inhumans, hind limbs in whales, teeth in birds, or wings in wingless stick insects remindus that certain genetic information is not completely lost, but can be reactivated.Ata-visms seem to violate one of the central evolutionary principles,known as Dollo’s law,that“an organism is unable to return,even partially,to a previous stage already realizedin the ranks of its ancestors.”Although it is still not clear what triggers and controls thereactivation of dormant traits, atavisms are a challenge to evolutionary biologists andgeneticists.This article presents some of the more striking examples of atavisms, dis-cusses some of the currently controversial issues like human quadrupedalism, and re-views the progress made in explaining some of the mechanisms that can lead to atavis-tic features.

Geneticists and biologists are not the only ones who struggle with atavisms:the medical profession, too, finds it difficult, if not impossible,to distinguish ata-visms from malformations. Cleft palate in a human is an abnormality, but inlizards and birds it isn’t. Supernumerary nipples, hypertrichosis, the fetal tripar-tition of the human stomach: do they represent atavisms, or are they traits that,being common to all vertebrates, are usually suppressed and thus do not repre-sent a return to a specific earlier state (Verhulst 1996)?

Thus --- BECAUSE the NEW evolution theory on MECHANISMS for mutations looks NOTHING LIKE the old evolution concept of MECHANISMS for evolution --- we're not actually sure that this concept of the tree of life actually grows straight from ROOTS to LEAVES --- or whether it's more of a twisted gnarly tree..

I wouldn't even place bets on which came first --- The "tail" or the "tail gene".. Would you? How many species carried a "tail gene" before a species showed up with it activated?

 

[S.J.]

All of biology is based on the theory of evolution. What that means is that any cure for illness you might find yourself suffering from, comes from this science that you willfully choose not to believe in or understand. So when you become seriously ill, and there is no doubt that some day you will, are you going to deny yourself treatment for that illness because the science on which it is based, goes against your beliefs? I don't think you will. But that will also make you a hypocrite. An alive hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless.

I never said I don't believe in science, I just don't buy the bullshit you're trying to peddle here. You shouldn't have such blind faith either because science is only based on what they know at the time. They've made absolute proclamations many times only to prove themselves wrong later. And you're wrong about biology.

You don't believe in the theory of evolution, the most important, and best documented theory in all of science. So don't give me this crap that you believe in science when it is clear that you don't even know what it is all about. My knowledge does not come from blind faith, as yours does, but from decades of research and education in anthropology, geology, biology, chemistry, and physics, and experience in the field. And yours comes from? What? A 2,000+ year old Bedouin holy book?

Then you should have no problem answering basic questions about the science you claim to know so much about. Right?

 

[orogenicman]

Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.

 

[westwall]

Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.

It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...

 

[orogenicman]

I never said I don't believe in science, I just don't buy the bullshit you're trying to peddle here. You shouldn't have such blind faith either because science is only based on what they know at the time. They've made absolute proclamations many times only to prove themselves wrong later. And you're wrong about biology.

You don't believe in the theory of evolution, the most important, and best documented theory in all of science. So don't give me this crap that you believe in science when it is clear that you don't even know what it is all about. My knowledge does not come from blind faith, as yours does, but from decades of research and education in anthropology, geology, biology, chemistry, and physics, and experience in the field. And yours comes from? What? A 2,000+ year old Bedouin holy book?

Then you should have no problem answering basic questions about the science you claim to know so much about. Right?

No, I have no problem answering any question wrt the TOE. That's not the issue. The issue is that nothing I can ever present to a hoser such as yourself will be believed because you are too stupid to learn anything. So there's no point. My suggestion is for you to take a class. That way you can waste someone else's time on your own dollar.

 

[abu afak]

Typical. I love the threads you guys come up with "critical", "catastrophic" etc. etc. etc. The theory of evolution is not "critical". And biology isn't based on the theory of evolution.
Biology as a science has been around at least since the 5th century BCE. Alcmaeon of Crotona I think it was, was one of the first major contributors to the science of biology (basically invented zoology), so let your hyperbole take a rest for awhile.

It gets tiresome.

And how well has the ideas of Alcmaeon of Crotona stood the test of time? Yes, her understood human anatomy better than most people of his day, but so what. He likely killed more animals with his vivisections than he ever cured humans of disease. And if you don't believe that modern biology is entirely based on the theory of evolution, then you don't know anything about biology.

And although you danced around my previous post -- let me slip in here with a rhetorical question that you've already ignored?

Dont worry about Alcmaeon of Crotona -- How has YOUR theory stood the test of time?
My previous point was that "evolution" has evolved faster than any evidentiary evidence that we can point to in the Natural World. When you defend "evolution" as this immutable theory from the 1800s, you're ignoring the vast amount of NEW techniques and thoughts that cast SERIOUS doubt on the old explanations.

Note that I'm not in any way DENYING evolutionary mechanisms, but I find it silly to be constantly staking your honor on something that is a huge moving target. Here's but one example.

Atavisms: Medical, Genetic, and Evolutionary Implications | Nenad Tomi? - Academia.edu
ABSTRACT
Traits expected to be lost in the evolutionary history of a species oc-casionally reappear apparently out of the blue. Such traits as extra nipples or tails inhumans, hind limbs in whales, teeth in birds, or wings in wingless stick insects remindus that certain genetic information is not completely lost, but can be reactivated.Ata-visms seem to violate one of the central evolutionary principles,known as Dollo’s law,that“an organism is unable to return,even partially,to a previous stage already realizedin the ranks of its ancestors.”Although it is still not clear what triggers and controls thereactivation of dormant traits, atavisms are a challenge to evolutionary biologists andgeneticists.This article presents some of the more striking examples of atavisms, dis-cusses some of the currently controversial issues like human quadrupedalism, and re-views the progress made in explaining some of the mechanisms that can lead to atavis-tic features.

Geneticists and biologists are not the only ones who struggle with atavisms:the medical profession, too, finds it difficult, if not impossible,to distinguish ata-visms from malformations. Cleft palate in a human is an abnormality, but inlizards and birds it isn’t. Supernumerary nipples, hypertrichosis, the fetal tripar-tition of the human stomach: do they represent atavisms, or are they traits that,being common to all vertebrates, are usually suppressed and thus do not repre-sent a return to a specific earlier state (Verhulst 1996)?

Thus --- BECAUSE the NEW evolution theory on MECHANISMS for mutations looks NOTHING LIKE the old evolution concept of MECHANISMS for evolution --- we're not actually sure that this concept of the tree of life actually grows straight from ROOTS to LEAVES --- or whether it's more of a twisted gnarly tree..

I wouldn't even place bets on which came first --- The "tail" or the "tail gene".. Would you? How many species carried a "tail gene" before a species showed up with it activated?

You're NOT posting a refutation of Evolution.. AT ALL.
You are posting a Mechanism Tweak no larger than those that come up with every other Theory/TRUISM. Gravity too.

I must congratulate your for your unusual Top/Tech-down attempt at scientific-looking attack, although PoliticalChic tries the same thing daily on a less Baffle-em-with-BS level.
That is.. to Dishonestly say something is untrue/discredited/obsolete by pointing to SEEMING contradictions among those who DO believe in evolution even if they have their own Tweak such as Punctuated equilibrium or atavisms or Dollo's law of irreversibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I must also say I find it profoundly disturbing that on this page alone we have TWO mods posting against Evolution (that would be enough of a shock) in the/a science section alongside the board's emptiest numbskulls.
`

 

[orogenicman]

Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.

It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...

No sir, that isn't how science works. Name a major scientific theory developed over the last 100 years that has been completely discarded. You can't, because modern scientific theories are expanded upon, not discarded. Once they get past the hypothesis stage and become a full fledged theory, that's where they stay. Very few are ever refuted. I hate to break it to you, oh dufus one, but Darwin's theory, with modifications and improvements via new discoveries, is alive and well.

 

[flacaltenn]

And how well has the ideas of Alcmaeon of Crotona stood the test of time? Yes, her understood human anatomy better than most people of his day, but so what. He likely killed more animals with his vivisections than he ever cured humans of disease. And if you don't believe that modern biology is entirely based on the theory of evolution, then you don't know anything about biology.

And although you danced around my previous post -- let me slip in here with a rhetorical question that you've already ignored?

Dont worry about Alcmaeon of Crotona -- How has YOUR theory stood the test of time?
My previous point was that "evolution" has evolved faster than any evidentiary evidence that we can point to in the Natural World. When you defend "evolution" as this immutable theory from the 1800s, you're ignoring the vast amount of NEW techniques and thoughts that cast SERIOUS doubt on the old explanations.

Note that I'm not in any way DENYING evolutionary mechanisms, but I find it silly to be constantly staking your honor on something that is a huge moving target. Here's but one example.

Atavisms: Medical, Genetic, and Evolutionary Implications | Nenad Tomi? - Academia.edu
ABSTRACT
Traits expected to be lost in the evolutionary history of a species oc-casionally reappear apparently out of the blue. Such traits as extra nipples or tails inhumans, hind limbs in whales, teeth in birds, or wings in wingless stick insects remindus that certain genetic information is not completely lost, but can be reactivated.Ata-visms seem to violate one of the central evolutionary principles,known as Dollo’s law,that“an organism is unable to return,even partially,to a previous stage already realizedin the ranks of its ancestors.”Although it is still not clear what triggers and controls thereactivation of dormant traits, atavisms are a challenge to evolutionary biologists andgeneticists.This article presents some of the more striking examples of atavisms, dis-cusses some of the currently controversial issues like human quadrupedalism, and re-views the progress made in explaining some of the mechanisms that can lead to atavis-tic features.

Geneticists and biologists are not the only ones who struggle with atavisms:the medical profession, too, finds it difficult, if not impossible,to distinguish ata-visms from malformations. Cleft palate in a human is an abnormality, but inlizards and birds it isn’t. Supernumerary nipples, hypertrichosis, the fetal tripar-tition of the human stomach: do they represent atavisms, or are they traits that,being common to all vertebrates, are usually suppressed and thus do not repre-sent a return to a specific earlier state (Verhulst 1996)?

Thus --- BECAUSE the NEW evolution theory on MECHANISMS for mutations looks NOTHING LIKE the old evolution concept of MECHANISMS for evolution --- we're not actually sure that this concept of the tree of life actually grows straight from ROOTS to LEAVES --- or whether it's more of a twisted gnarly tree..

I wouldn't even place bets on which came first --- The "tail" or the "tail gene".. Would you? How many species carried a "tail gene" before a species showed up with it activated?

You're NOT posting a refutation of Evolution.. AT ALL.
You are posting a Mechansim Tweak no larger than those that come up with every other Theory/Truism. Gravity too.

I must congratulate your for your unusual Top/Tech-down attempt at scientific looking attack, although PoliticalChic tries the same thing daily on a less Baffle-em-with-BS tack.
That is.. to Dishonestly say something is untrue by pointing to Seeming contradictions among those who DO believe in evolution even if they have their own Tweak such as Punctuated equilibrium or atavism or Dollo's law of irreversibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I must also say I find it profoundly disturbing that on this page alone we have TWO mods posting against Evolution (that would be enough of a shock) in the/a science section alongside the board's emptiest numbskulls.
`

Well thanks Abu for that useful lineup of who's in the thread and their batting scores. Itll save ten bucks on the game program and I can buy a chilidog instead..

I wouldnt call the MOUNTAIN of DNA science --- a minor tweak. Neither was the realization that a good millenium of cosmic ray showers could equal millions of years of mutations. These are -- as Oroman pointed out--- the evolution of evolution theory. But many IMPOTANT assumptions of this theory have bit the dust in just our lifetimes. To the point where we honestly dont know that evolution always produces more advanced, more complex life. Spent a lot of time looking at bones and not enough time looking for genome clues.

Hope I dont dissappoint you too much that im NOT trying to disprove evolution, only to point out the futility of arguing thats its some kind of immutable "settled science" that has no surprises left in it. If youre really bummed that im not PoliticalChick, I can put out the special WonderWoman signal and fly her in here.

 

[S.J.]

You don't believe in the theory of evolution, the most important, and best documented theory in all of science. So don't give me this crap that you believe in science when it is clear that you don't even know what it is all about. My knowledge does not come from blind faith, as yours does, but from decades of research and education in anthropology, geology, biology, chemistry, and physics, and experience in the field. And yours comes from? What? A 2,000+ year old Bedouin holy book?

Then you should have no problem answering basic questions about the science you claim to know so much about. Right?

No, I have no problem answering any question wrt the TOE. That's not the issue. The issue is that nothing I can ever present to a hoser such as yourself will be believed because you are too stupid to learn anything. So there's no point. My suggestion is for you to take a class. That way you can waste someone else's time on your own dollar.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You're just too smart to make your case. Can't say I didn't give you the chance.

 

[westwall]

Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.

It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...

No sir, that isn't how science works. Name a major scientific theory developed over the last 100 years that has been completely discarded. You can't, because modern scientific theories are expanded upon, not discarded. Once they get past the hypothesis stage and become a full fledged theory, that's where they stay. Very few are ever refuted. I hate to break it to you, oh dufus one, but Darwin's theory, with modifications and improvements via new discoveries, is alive and well.

Ummmm, actually it is. They're called "superceded scientific theories" and a modern example (of many) would be Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi's Steady State Theory (circa 1950) of cosmology.

As to Darwin, first it was Darwinian evolution, then it was Neo Darwin and now it is Evo -Devo, so no, Darwin is referenced for tradition, but evolutionary theory has gone way, way beyond Darwin.

I am constantly astounded by how little you actually know about science. Seeing's how you're a PhD geologist and all that

Figured out what percentage more population India has yet?

 

[orogenicman]

And although you danced around my previous post -- let me slip in here with a rhetorical question that you've already ignored?

Dont worry about Alcmaeon of Crotona -- How has YOUR theory stood the test of time?
My previous point was that "evolution" has evolved faster than any evidentiary evidence that we can point to in the Natural World. When you defend "evolution" as this immutable theory from the 1800s, you're ignoring the vast amount of NEW techniques and thoughts that cast SERIOUS doubt on the old explanations.

Note that I'm not in any way DENYING evolutionary mechanisms, but I find it silly to be constantly staking your honor on something that is a huge moving target. Here's but one example.



Thus --- BECAUSE the NEW evolution theory on MECHANISMS for mutations looks NOTHING LIKE the old evolution concept of MECHANISMS for evolution --- we're not actually sure that this concept of the tree of life actually grows straight from ROOTS to LEAVES --- or whether it's more of a twisted gnarly tree..

I wouldn't even place bets on which came first --- The "tail" or the "tail gene".. Would you? How many species carried a "tail gene" before a species showed up with it activated?

You're NOT posting a refutation of Evolution.. AT ALL.
You are posting a Mechansim Tweak no larger than those that come up with every other Theory/Truism. Gravity too.

I must congratulate your for your unusual Top/Tech-down attempt at scientific looking attack, although PoliticalChic tries the same thing daily on a less Baffle-em-with-BS tack.
That is.. to Dishonestly say something is untrue by pointing to Seeming contradictions among those who DO believe in evolution even if they have their own Tweak such as Punctuated equilibrium or atavism or Dollo's law of irreversibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I must also say I find it profoundly disturbing that on this page alone we have TWO mods posting against Evolution (that would be enough of a shock) in the/a science section alongside the board's emptiest numbskulls.
`

Well thanks Abu for that useful lineup of who's in the thread and their batting scores. Itll save ten bucks on the game program and I can buy a chilidog instead..

I wouldnt call the MOUNTAIN of DNA science --- a minor tweak. Neither was the realization that a good millenium of cosmic ray showers could equal millions of years of mutations. These are -- as Oroman pointed out--- the evolution of evolution theory. But many IMPOTANT assumptions of this theory have bit the dust in just our lifetimes. To the point where we honestly dont know that evolution always produces more advanced, more complex life. Spent a lot of time looking at bones and not enough time looking for genome clues.

Hope I dont dissappoint you too much that im NOT trying to disprove evolution, only to point out the futility of arguing thats its some kind of immutable "settled science" that has no surprises left in it. If youre really bummed that im not PoliticalChick, I can put out the special WonderWoman signal and fly her in here.

Evolution doesn't have to produce more complex life. It only has to produce viable offspring.