Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

When you pretend that the only evidence for the evolution is "a few cases of a bacteria staying a bacteria", whom do you hope to deceive by telling this ridiculous lie? If you want to know what honest and rational people think, we'll let you know. One necessary (though not sufficient) criterion for being honest and rational is to not tell dumb lies about what "all of the things that [evolutionists claim] as evidence for evolution" consist of in front of an audience consisting mainly of evolutionists: because it is not honest to lie, and not rational to lie when you are certain to be caught.---P.S: "Bacteria" is a plural. Have you taken some sort of oath to be wrong about everything?

But there are organisms which have blood and nerves but not bones. I need bones, but then I'm not a basal chordate.As the skeletal system developed, what was once optional became essential. Take the skull, for example. First chordates with no skulls. Then skulls developed apparently as a form of armor, originally as a set of independent plates of dermal bone --- a defense mechanism that assisted survival but was not anatomically essential. To us, it having a skull is essential. I don't know exactly what would happen to us if we didn't have skulls, but for one thing we wouldn't have jaws and so couldn't eat --- unlike basal chordates, which could eat without jaws.An analogy: if you took away electricity now, it would wreck our civilization, we'd all starve within weeks (except the Amish, I guess). But there was civilization before electricity; and then there was a time when it was useful but not essential to Western civilization; and now we're in a situation where we couldn't get by without it, as it has taken on a role which is not merely useful but essential to our way of life.It's a very loose analogy, but hopefully you see the point.

The mechanism which causes mutations is called "mutation".I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

When we have evidence that something has happened, the burden of proof is very much on the person who claims that it can't have happened. Because in the light of the evidence that is an extraordinary claim.If your only argument to back up your claim is personal incredulity, then you are hardly meeting the burden of proof.

What are you pretending that I am lying about, and whom do you hope to deceive by so doing?

And we can't. That explains why creationists are unable to agree with one another, or even with themselves, whether certain fossils are to be considered ape or human. There are no lines in nature. That's why they can't find them even though it's their job to pretend that they exist.

You mean something like this? Show your working. Actually "everything" does not change in "thousands of years".For example, the laws of optics stay the same, so more acute vision remains more acute vision.The laws of hydrodynamics stay the same, so a more streamlined form remains a more streamlined form.The laws of aerodynamics stay the same, so a better wing remains a better wing.The laws of thermodynamics stay the same, so better insulation remains better insulation.But apart from the laws of nature, the fossil record shows that many things do stay much the same for long periods of time. This is, of course, not true: there are many lines of evidence besides genetics for evolution. How do you think Darwin thought of it in the first place. You mean, apart from all the evidence? If by this you mean that we can't show you directly the sorts of changes that the fossil record tells us take a million years, then the fact that we can't would actually be a prediction of the theory, would it not? No. Do creationists also lose by way of forfeit when they say that they can't show us God making new organisms poof into existence by magic? You mean tangible things like fossils and genes and morphology and embryology and biogeography and stuff like that?Do let us know if you ever see God doing magic.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, I disagree. Because this has damn-all to do with thermodynamics.

Since the essence of creationist argument is to willfully misunderstand very simple issues, it is futile to try to explain anything to a creationist by analogy, because this just gives him greater scope for creative misunderstanding, as he can now misunderstand not only the thing you were trying to explain in the first place but also the relationship between metaphier and metaphrand --- no matter how obvious this relationship actually is.

If you don't know what natural selection is, I suggest that you find out.We'll wait for you.

Show me the observable evidence of a dog cremating the world in six ways.

No, just tell us who designed the antenna.

Who designed the antenna?

Who designed the antenna?

By simulating a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design.For example, you can simulate the weather, which is void of intelligence, using the intelligent mind of a computer programmer to create the simulation of the weather on a computer which was intelligently designed.---Who designed the antenna?