Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID’s comment: [i]the mite must with develop its organ of cyanide producing chemical either very carefully in stepwise fashion, or all at once by saltation. Random mutations will not work. How does a similar organism like the bombardier beetle produce a caustic liquid without harm to itself? Again no clear answer from Darwin theory:[/i]
> http://newatlas.com/bombardier-beetle-defensive-jet/37465/
> [i]The safest way is build the chemical chamber first and then find the chemical reactions to fit in. By chance mutation, no way![/i]
> 
> This is the tenor of all your comments on these extraordinary natural wonders and various other complexities of living organisms. We have long since agreed that random mutations are not an option. The problem is the alternatives, and inevitably this brings us back to the issue of how innovation takes place. You know what’s coming next, but I’ll say it all the same because with every such post I also know what your comment is going to be. The only explanations you have offered us are: 1) Your God preprogrammed all these innovations 3.8 billion years ago; or 2) he personally dabbled them. And yet you insist that his purpose from the very beginning was to produce humans, not cyanide producing mites. I have summed up the rest of the argument in my post on “God and evolution”, so you do not need to answer twice. But flogging the dead horse of Darwinian random mutations does not remove the anomalies from the Turellian alternatives.