2/8     OMG, evolution is true! what will the creationists do?
        http://www.dms100.org/worksucks
        \_ So this shows that it is possible for a simple mutation to
           change the numbers of legs in arthropods.  It does NOT show
           how simple mutations can cause:
             multicellularity,
             complex sensory organs like eyes,
             sexual reproduction,
             the cell nucleus of the eucaryotes,
             etc.
           -- sceptical of evolution
           \_ Since we can't travel back in time to see how it really
              happened we can't ever really be certain so it must be God.
           \_ Simple mutations have never accounted for true genetic
              variance. Recombination during meiosis plays a much more
              prevalent role in variations in a population. In other words
              sex is what drives evolution, not simple mutation. If you
              need a refresher course on how evolution actually works,
              take an intro course on genetics. williamc
              \_ Aren't you being a little bit presumptuous, williamc?
                 I don't need a refresher course on how evolution 'works,'
                 I simply don't have a lot of faith in it 'working.'
                 \_No, I'm not, because faith has nothing to do with how
                 biology "works". It doesn't care about your faith, it doesn't
                 even know the concept of faith.
                 \_ My friend, you are making a tacit assumption that biology,
                    and more specifically the development of complex life,
                    in fact does work according to the theory of evolution
                    which it may or may not do.  Assuming that biology 'works'
                    according to what is currently fashionable in academia
                    is silly dogmatism.
              \_ But before sexual reproduction could exist we needed some
                 very complex mutation for asexual organisms to evolve into
                 sexual organisms.  Chicken-and-egg problem.
                 \_Hardly, all sex essentially is is sharing of genetic data.
                 Before sex as we know it existed there were probably already
                                                             \_ probably?
                 things like transposons which juggle genetic data around.
                 Also, you forget that life has had billions of years to
                 develop complex chemistries to handle such things like
                                                \_ handle?
                 reproduction.
                 -williamc
                 \_ You sound a lot less certain than you did a paragraph ago,
                    williamc.  Why not admit that you simply don't know how
                    life and sexual reproduction originated?  No one really
                    knows.
                 \_ But what kind of environmental pressure would in fact
                    produce two genders?
        \_ But the creationists can still ask how was it possible that "life"
           came from random chemical reactions of clouds of atoms and
           molecules.
                \_ ask the abiogenesists.
        \_ Macroevolution still has too many holes.
           \_ So does your head, but we're not complaining.