It was more of a retort to lurker actually, who for some reason appeared to pour scorn on the very notion that the radioactive substances we are exposed to and eat on a regular basis somehow would not affect our DNA. Yes, we do consume them; that's the basis of carbon dating in all living things.

You regularly eat radioactive substances? :confused:

Dude.... dude. Stop fronting. I set out to prove that people who don't believe in evolution have a poor grasp on evolution, and I've succeeded (based on case study) wildly. Not only do you not really know what evolution is, but your biology is pretty weak, and while we're at it you might want to work on your statistics as well.

And 'debating through links' is not what kinkymagic's doing. No, don't argue with me. This is not what you hope it is. Educate yourself and for christ's sake son. You tell me you only used 'background radiation' as an example and then you don't shut up about radiation causing wrinkles and cancer. Jesus christ, this isn't a debate, it's a slaughter fagdance man desperately hiding his willful ignorance.

Additional Spam:
I didn't say that. I mean, unless you're DarkLink2135's dupe, I really wasn't talking about that or about you.

This is an excellent book that I highly recommend to all who have participated in this thread: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-S...7193138&sr=8-1

The Author, Francis Collins, was the head of the Human Genome Project which mapped our entire genetic code -- one of the premier scientists of our day. He's also a christian and evolutionist. Although the focus of the book isn't "Proving" evolution, he does put forth many of the examples we use that shows all or most of the evidence we've collected thus far certainly suggest evolution actually happened. As we learn more and more about DNA evolutionary theory becomes even more interesting, and this man is on the forefront of that research.

As for the argument about the addition of genetic material: It appears that gene duplication is one mechanism that has allowed increasing complexity in organisms. Take, for instance, the human coagulation pathway. Here is a basic diagram:
http://dpalm.med.uth.tmc.edu/faculty...js/pathway.gif

The early intelligent design proponents argued that this pathway was so complex that it could not have evolved without a designer. However, imagine an organism with a low-pressure circulatory system -- of which there are many in nature. It would require a much simpler coagulation cascade, perhaps consisting of only one protein. Then, through the course of replicating cells, the gene coding for that single protein duplicates -- once again, this happens commonly and can be observed.

Now with two copies of the same gene, one of these copies is free to mutate at will (because the good copy will still perform the same function). After many copies, duplications, and mutations, you would find an organism that generates a wide variety of different, but related, proteins all functioning in a very similar capacity. And this is exactly what we find in the human coagulation cascade -- this would represent a gain in genetic material, a positive mutation, an explanation of how a complex system like this could evolve, and also fits amazingly well with what we know about the development of the vertebrate circulatory system.

Case in point, you've been WRONG about damn near everything you have posted, including wrinkles. I am sorry you have to hide your own ignorance and inability to read behind pathetic flaming, though.

For some reason you have been absolutely convinced that YOU know the answers to life, the universe, and everything, while the world's brightest minds don't know those answers for sure. That's a pretty arrogant stance to take.

If you don't agree with me, fine, but stop acting as though the entire evolutionary theory were proven fact.

Do you think what constitute "science" is simply a matter of opinion?

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Look, all I'm saying is that there are known-knowns, known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns-- Things we don't even know that we don't know.

-Samuel L. "Bad Mother Fucker" Jackson

Duo Maxwell: I thought that was Donald Rumsfeld.

I don't think you understood what I meant when I said you were cruisin' for a bruisin', DK. Drop the fucking links shit. Linking a source is a staple of the Codex, and if you have a problem with that, then argue the source, not the use of it.

no.

Although you're right here. I misthought; aging in general is caused by the gradual breakdown of cells, which cellular mutation is a part of. It wasn't just wrinkles and wrinkles aren't caused merely by cell breakdown.

Fuck your Hitchhiker's reference, nerd.

Here's this: I am convinced that you don't understand evolution properly. The world's brightest minds are also convinced of that (I asked them). Hey!

Evolution as you understand the question is proven, son. You can't use the debates of professionals in the topic about extremely specific parts of evolutionary theory to say the jury's out on it.

At least creationists have faith and religion to explain themselves. You're worse, you're intellectually lazy.

I don't know where the hell you got your education, but they need to be shut down, fast.

I think my posts speak for themselves. It's pretty ironic, you calling me "intellectually lazy."

People like you are impossible. Although funny to laugh at. But ultimately impossible. You are so absolutely convinced you have the answer because you want one so bad. For some reason you are completely unable to live with any doubt in your mind, so you viciously attack anyone who disagrees with you. Funny and pathetic at the same time. Insanely predictable too. You are probably going to write another word-by-word flamefest and then whine about me trying to psychoanalyze you. But you know what? It doesn't even take that much. You are just that transparent. You have to resort to using petty, ridiculous, unrelated flames to make any point, and you just get madder when it miserably fails.

I posted what I believed and why, you started nipping away at tiny little statements I made, very few of which had anything to do with the evolutionary theory, and then threw a fit when you couldn't even attack them correctly. The only resort you have left is to act like you are 100% correct, and pretty soon here you are probably going to sink even lower and resort to some sort of threat because of your position on these boards.

Evolution as a whole is still a theory. It has NOT been proven, and it is unlikely that it will ever be so in the near future. Not because it is right or wrong, but because of the evidence required to do so. Acting like anything else is true is either extreme arrogance or extreme stupidity. I'm not sure what catagory you fall into.

Good day.

PS: Macroevolution isn't an "extremely specific" part of the evolutionary theory. It's a rather large part. Unless of course you are going to use the whole "I don't understand anything" rhetoric.

Additional Spam:
That's strange, you using this line on me, because as I recall, kinky was the one posting the professional papers of extremely specific parts of evolutionary theory, and you were the one defending them. Nevermind that these papers didn't even say the jury was out on it...

PROOF:

Wow.

I relent then. The Simpsons supercedes all :D .

That's enough dicking around with semantics for this thread.