Warlock:
Honestly, just because a fish's tail grows, or shrinks, or a ram's set of horns gets larger, or smaller, THAT proves evolution?
Those are examples of evolution. A change in the distribution of inherited traits in a population over time.
And to top it all off, you have the explanation as to why these things happen?
Yes. Of course we do. That's what Darwin gave us. Random changes that confer a survival advantage are likely to survive and spread. Those that confer a disadvantage are likely to die out. Given the nature of biological reproduction, this effect is cumulative.
As I have said before, show me a monkey evolving into a man. You might get my full attention. Show me a man evolving into some other species, not a man growing an additional toe, or losing one.
It's this sort of staggering level of ignorance that probably makes it pointless even trying to discuss this subject with you. Nobody would expect to see such a thing. If I could show you a monkey evolving into a man, that would not be evolution as understood by any biologist. You might as well ask me to show you someone who speaks English suddenly starting to speak French, and if I can't do it, dismiss the notion that the English and French languages descended from a common precursor. (Of course, for all I know, you think both languages began in Babel anyway.)
A virus mutates and you all piss in your pants because it proves evolution?
Again, a virus mutating is an example of evolution. The fact that mutations in viruses tend to counter attempts to wipe out those viruses lends strong support to Darwin's theory.
Take a REAL LOOK around you and see how complex things are, and it's all by chance? It all evolved?
Those are the two opposite explanations, evolution or chance. They are not at all the same thing. You are the one who is promoting a theory of chance, the idea that an intelligence just somehow happened to exist. Darwinian evolution is not about chance at all. The initial mutations are random certainly (although they don't need to be) but the strength of evolution is that the selection is not random. It is the complete antithesis of randomness.
Well, I guess London 'just evolved' also.
Of course. You think someone designed London? What the hell is wrong with you? In actual fact, complex systems like cities provide a reasonable analogy for evolution. Almost everything is tried but only the good bits survive, and the bits that survive tend to be copied. The history of the city can be seen in what would be poor design decisions, roads too narrow for cars, for example, or small buildings in expensive locations. I don't expect you to get any of this; you've resisted all attempts in the past. But what I do hope is that you will at least acknowledge that your ignorance and incredulity is not equivalent - and certainly not superior - to knowledge and understanding. It's fine for you to say "I don't understand this and can't even imagine how it would happen" but it's not fine for you to claim that your lack of understanding and imagination means that those who can grasp the concept are somehow the stupid ones.
