<p>Oh dear, guys please don’t revert to ad hominem attacks. That just decreases your credibility so much.</p>
<p>@ElementPQ: Exactly, some of his problems so vastly delusional that to reply comprehensively would take ages. I’ve done it before. But during the summer when I had so much free time.</p>
<p>For once you are correct, Elam! Well done, my boy!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>**** you for judging my arguments.</p>
<p>Hahaha, I was worried that it would sound too mean. But seriously, it just bugs me when people misspell these words : definitely, separate, ridiculous… uhh that’s all I could think of right now.</p>
<p>Ahem… girl xD</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all, except for the words “series of random mutations”. The vast majority of random mutations either kill or handicap the creature. Natural selection then eliminates them.</p>
<p>If we had a magic “trait machine” that dropped a new allele into the gene pool every so often that’d be great. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Mutations happen when something causes a copy error in the DNA. Unless the copy error is useful, it won’t stick. Unless it is actually a vastly unlikely set of copy errors, it won’t be useful.</p>
<p>Tell me, do you have any idea how a cleanerfish-grouper relationship could develop in stages? Groupers that let prey fish swim in and out of their mouths get less food, and don’t survive as well. Little prey fish that swim into big predator fish’s mouths…</p>
<p>Did both fish randomly develop their instincts at once?</p>
<p>For heaven’s sake, heaven, pipe down girleee.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here I am! Challenge me.</p>
<p>Logical fallacies are universally accepted to be weak. So it’s not exactly judging so to say. Although tbh I have no idea what you said.</p>
<p>And Chrome and Firefox guys. (in-built spell checkers)</p>
<p>Elem, you didn’t notice my dissing you by misspelling your name (“Elam” is what i wrote). Stay on top of this!!! How else do you expect me to pester you?!</p>
<p>BTW, meadow, did you see my answer about why I believe we have souls? It’s on page 22.</p>
<p>I noticed that. I didn’t want to say anything, because the A is pretty close to the E on the keyboard. I assumed it to be a typo rather than a misspell.</p>
<p>EDIT: Why are you dissing me? I respected you! Although I don’t share your morals, I very much respect you for following through on them. I even said that some pages back. (I think, let me check)</p>
<p>Actually the vast majority of mutations make almost no difference at all. Almost. Over thousands and thousands of generations, though, they make a difference. And with large populations over large periods of time, the probability of the occasional major advance is fair. Evolution doesn’t happen in a uniform fashion.</p>
<p>I be a teaser, not a pleaser – another reason i don’t do pre-marital sax.</p>
<p>Oooh, heavn, you are sounding so smart. Therefore, you must be correct :)!</p>
<p>SO ****ING RELIGIOUS. </p>
<p>Can we get some non-religious debate in here? Please?</p>
<p>You’re just making me laugh now, dear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now how is that anywhere near TCBH’s caliber?</p>
<p>NO BM, “we” can’t. And you can’t make us!! “Yes, we can!” is our motto around here, babes. We will not succomb to your attempt at censor, so you can feel better about your pricked conscience. Eh?!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the mutations aren’t useful individually, then there’s no reason for them to be kept. The next step is just as likely to be backwards as forwards. The chances of a new trait appearing are beyond astronomical. Then the new trait is far more likely to doom the creature than aid it. With so many tries required, we would expect WAY more fossil record, and WAY more time before the theory seems reasonable. And even then we are left with problems like the cleanerfish and lichens.</p>
<p>Lol. True, have you noticed that everyone is just ignoring you now? </p>
<p>It’s cute how you try though.</p>