the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.

JonF writes: All those can be and have been tested by observing the traces they have left behind. Especially common descent (including the ancestry of humans) , tested both by fossil progression and, independently, genetics.

No, this is not true. Like any Darwinist, you are very dazed and confused - like a drunk who has just been hit by a bus. Only by consuming huge doses of assumptions, speculation and a chemical intoxicant can the dots of common descent be joined. But this is not science, just story-telling.

As an antidote to the brainwashing you've received, repeat this mantra one thousand times per day: "common descent is indecent".

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

ringo writes: Eyewitness evidence is the worst there is. There is far more physical evidence for transitionals than there is for Napoleon.

Oh dear, that's two bad ideas in a row from you.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

dwise1 writes: Are you really that stupid? Besides the fact that your wording shows a complete ignorance of evolution (ie, we inherit our mammary system from ancestors who evolved it long before primates let alone humans), you overlook the very simple and obvious fact that human males do possess a mammary system! It doesn't develop during puberty because our hormones are not right for it, but it's there and it will develop if you mess around with our hormones (just how do you think that transsexuals are able to grow breasts?). And some men do develop breast cancer.

Deary, deary me ... a mammary system is one that produces milk, so males don't have a mammary system.

Btw, how do you know so much about transvexuates or whatever they're called? No, don't tell me; I don't want to know ...

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

jar writes: There is no theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms anyway so that is simply another indication of ignorance. The fact that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms is not a theory but a conclusionbased on all of the evidence ever found.

It is called the general theory of evolution and has been around for thousands of years old. Darwinism is an attempt to explain its mechanism. You evidently can't tell the difference between science and superstitious folklore.

If I was your science teacher at school I would have told you to get out of my class and study knitting instead.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

That's not a test, but evidence.

Reading the Geologic Column is potentially more scientific than reading tea-leaves. There's lots of room there to spin some fairy tales, nevertheless.

dwise1 writes: And actually we're talking about the ancestors of modern fish, not modern fish themselves. Only willfully ignorant creationists would ever try to claim that modern fish are completely identical to ancient fish.

A modern fish heart is different to that of an ancient fish? How do you know that? Oh wait ... let me guess ... you applied the first Law of Darwinism - baseless assumption and rank speculation?

And your attempt to move the goal posts is duly noted. You still need to address your claim regarding reptilian hearts.

I made a mistake about reptiles having a two-pot heart - but this was only due to gross ignorance.

Incidentally, your story about crocodiles having between three and four chambers in their hearts was a bit much to swallow. And btw, crocs aren't green, like in cartoons.

Dredge writes: If I was your science teacher at school I would have told you to get out of my class and study knitting instead.

Fortunately I was educated in a Christian school with science teachers that understood that evolution is a fact, that the ONLY explanation for the life we see today and in the past is the Theory of Evolution, that life on earth began with single celled organisms was a conclusion based on the overwhelming evidence and I learned knitting from my mother when I was five or six.

But the topic is not your fantasies but rather the fact that reproduction on earth falsifies the Bible's assertion that there are only two sexes, man and woman or male and female as well as offers conclusive proof that in reality gender is not something fixed but rather pretty variable. Females can become males and there are even critters that are neither male or female as well as many examples where the living thing is both male and female.

Once again, reality shows that the Bible is simply factually wrong.

Dredge writes: Oh dear, that's two bad ideas in a row from you.

If all you can say is, "Nuh uh," you don't have much credibility. Tell us why they're bad ideas.

Dredge writes: I don't want to know ...

That's your theme song, isn't it? My dad used to say about people like you, "He learned nothing and forgot nothing."

... "He learned nothing and forgot nothing."

Isn't it "He knew nothing, learned nothing, and forgot nothing"?

He started out with nothing and he's still go most of it left.

Deary, deary me ... a mammary system is one that produces milk, so males don't have a mammary system.

Oh really now. So if a human isn't producing milk, then he/she does not have a mammary system? How very interesting!

For the vast majority of her life, every single female human is not producing milk. So female humans do not have mammary systems? How very interesting! So how can you account for the vast fortune amassed by Playboy?

All humans possess the genes for the mammary system, males and females both. During gestation, all humans grow the tissue for the mammary system, males and females both. During puberty (of which of course you are ignorant), hormones cause the mammary tissues of females to develop into secondary sex traits, but not the mammary tissues of the males. But it isn't until after having given birth that those mammary tissues get the hormones needed for actual lactation.

Dredge, that is all basic biology. Very basic biology. Of which you are abysmally ignorant.

So then, Dredge, why are you so abysmally ignorant of those things that most normals know? Because your false religion demands that you remain ignorant. Because your false religion's greatest fear is knowledge. Because the only way that your false religion can keep you imprisoned is through ignorance.

And OBTW, your religion is not necessarily Christianity itself. Rather, Christian doctrine would identify your religion as Satanic, since it has you worshipping the Prince of Lies. But then that's your problem, not mine.

Btw, how do you know so much about transvexuates or whatever they're called? No, don't tell me; I don't want to know ...

They are called "transsexuals". It is common knowledge. For example, the tenets of Christianity are common knowledge, so I do not need to be a Christian in order to point out how you and other creationists violate Christian doctrine on a regular basis.

Or to quote George Takei (from his appearance on "The Big Bang Theory"), "I read!"

One does not need to be an actual transsexual to know what a transsexual is. One does not need to be an actual female to know what a female is. Are you trying to imply that in order to know about females you need to be female yourself?

But your desperate resorting to a form of argumentum ad hominem ("attacking the person") tells me that you have nothing, so you are trying to bluff. You are trying to attack my own sexual identity in order to draw attention away from your lack of any argument whatsoever. Well fuck you so very much, you unspeakable asshole ... I'm divorced!

I guess it's confession time. I just now passed retirement age and I've signed onto the local Oster LifeLongLearning Institute (OLLI) program, though with limited access because I'm still working. With no previous background (the only cards I ever played with had 80 columns and you never wanted them to be shuffled), I've been learning about poker. One of the things about poker is the other players' tells. Your tell there is to go full blown bullshit. Which you have done.

What hopefully starman will learn about reality is that sex is really pretty complex.

Many fish change from one sex to another including Clown fish, Moray Eels & Wrasses. Other sea critters are Hermaphrodites with both male and female features. Some are both sexes at the same time, others have both traits and switch between being male or female. At least one species even self fertilizes.

In other critters sex is determined by environmental conditions such as temperatures in the nest.

Then there are also critters that are neither male or female and as a species have three distinct genders.

dwise1 writes: So if a human isn't producing milk, then he/she does not have a mammary system? How very interesting!

A mammary system is one that is capable of producing milk. Therefore a male human doesn't have a mammary system.

One does not need to be an actual transsexual to know what a transsexual is. One does not need to be an actual female to know what a female is. Are you trying to imply that in order to know about females you need to be female you But your desperate resorting to a form of argumentum ad hominem ("attacking the person") tells me that you have nothing, so you are trying to bluff. You are trying to attack my own sexual identity in order to draw attention away from your lack of any argument whatsoever. Well fuck you so very much, you unspeakable asshole ... I'm divorced!

It is evident from these comments that you have made an unreasonable extrapolation and thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion - the same faulty process that leads people to believe that bugs can evolve into humans.

Your tell there is to go full blown bullshit. Which you have done.

Your words are like rocks hurled at my fragile, egg-shell mind.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.