quote:
In other words, you accused evolution of not being aware of something that is actually one of its defining characteristics.
Nonsense. I was merely pointing out that in a situation where it will serve to give the illusion that a creationist doesn't know what he's talking about, there are individuals who will happily "forget" even the most fundamental and obvious scientific facts.
If I thought evolutionists didn't know this, I would expect it to go over their heads. It didn't because they do know it (when they choose to remember).
quote:
Those like you and Lyston who have no idea what evolution actually says can convince others equally ignorant that evolution has some flaw and then cast ridicule at the strawman you've built.
Strawman? Anyone can see for themselves. Pretending hermaphrodites are easier to evolve doesn't answer the question of how they'd evolve. Explaining WHY evolution would desire to evolve a thing says nothing about HOW it would do so. And meaningless obfuscation is meaningless obfuscation.
Now if anyone can provide a straightforward, direct answer to HOW sexual reproduction could evolve I'd be curious to see it.
Oh, almost left one out: listing different reproductive designs doesn't explain how they could evolve either. It actually means there are that many more creatures evolutionism needs to give account for. Darwin himself said it's required to account for everything, but anyone demanding that it actually do so is routinely accused of "arguing from incredulity".
quote:
Lyston's problems with mutations are mistaken because his understanding of evolution is fatally flawed beyond belief, as apparently is your own.
Your mistake lack of faith for lack of understanding.
Lyston is correct: sexual reproduction has to begin as a mutation or group of mutations in an individual. There's no other way to get the ball rolling. This mutation has to be passed on.
I said:
quote:
I've always thought the funnier part that even if male and female arise in the same place, species, and time; there's an overwhelmingly good chance they wouldn't understand their new roles. You know, with nothing hardwired into the circuits yet they'd still be out of luck.
Perhaps this is what you mean by "strawman"? Well, even if hermaphrodites arose first, they'd need to be hardwired to reproduce after their fashion.
How is "evolution did it" in any way superior to "God did it"? At least God knows what He's doing. Evolution only knows what it's doing when it suits an evolutionist argument, like the one above. Any time evolutionists answer a HOW question with a WHY answer, they attribute motive to their god.
™ Version 4.2
