Summations Only

This one is funny. Oh, I don't know. Even after 2000 thousand years since Jesus was supposed to be alive, fundy Christianity still haven't provided us any knowledge in even trying to describe microbes...

This is how I know that you're delusional and that your arguments are really, really stupid.Your "argument" starts like this: Your arguments are stupid as I don't believe in Darwin nor his arguments. At all.You are clueless.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I don't believe that Spooks did it. Just naturally occurring humans. No Spooks involved. That's my deduction.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I disagree. A Chimp is far more functionally complex than a human.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

To me, too. All the way down from the first prokaryotes to the variety of living things today.

This one is funny. Thank Odin for that. If science could answer every question I won't have a job. I'd be standing on a busy intersection with a hand-written placard stating: "Two kids to support. No job. No internet. Hungry. Please give. God bless".Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I'm always quite puzzled when creationists think that defining species exactly somehow is "a problem for evolution".Fuzzy boundaries would be a prediction of evolution, unlike "created kinds" by creationists where the boundaries are supposed to be totally fixed .Note to myself: You've been watching too much Amcan tv lately, hence the word "totally". Should watch more European tv to embroaden my English vocab!

Started reading it till I came to: How do you measure genetic information to know whether it was a loss or a gain? Please quantify.

Or, maybe it's because the subject itself, life, is a concept very hard to define in one sentence or paragraph? Ever thought of that?

The one with the loss of genetic information? It's useless because you can't even tell us how you know whether genetic information is lost or gained...

Thanks for that, Dredge. Could you please provide an exact reference to the original document where he wrote/said that?

That's why I'm asking, you, personally, Dredge, to provide the exact references to the original. This will enable us to try and verify it, ourselves.Don't tell me you quoted from somewhere without reading the original sources?I don't think you will pass any first year science course at any University...

Ok, let's solve it. On evc there is a function where the originals could be sent privately through the admins of this site. No infringement on copy rights, etc. Could you send me the original source of the quote you provided?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

No, it isn't. The theory of evolution involves the mechanisms involved in how life changed from the first forms of life (forms of prokaryotes) to the variety of life we see around us today. Mechanisms being the operating word.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

ringo, creationists are trained to think that the term vestigial is a synonym for the word 'useless'.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.