Mischief Maker wrote:

laudablepuss wrote:

Yes, mentioning areas where our knowledge is shaky makes me a creationist.

Yes, making boldfaced assertions about an subject you have a limited understanding of, without taking the time or effort to see if these "unanswerable" questions of yours have already been covered in detail, is just the kind of argument a creationist makes. And just like a creationist, one dumbass sentence from you takes two pages to properly refute. AND, Just as a creationist has a religious interest in not admitting they're wrong, and will at best skim the conterarguments for any flaws to nit pick, you've got your ego riding on this argument and come back with supposedly withering retorts like, "Aha! The introduction to that paper may have described mutagenic genes and transposons in bacteria, but the experiment itself in this paper dealt with Eukaryotes! I win!" or even better, "No! My genes care about me! I know this just because!"

The really irritating thing about this argument is that on one hand, science always places the burden of proof upon itself and scientists are obligated to provide an answer to every critique given on their work. On the other hand, you and the creationists are harping on questions that have already been answered, that you could find the answers to if you took the time to do a little research yourself. I've already covered the evolutionary advantage of genetic diversity of offspring and several mechanisms to expedite diversity, AND tracked down a paper someone posted for the public that covers these topics in more detail, and you're STILL harping on how genetic diversity is not an evolutionarily favored trait... just because. Jesus, if this thread continues on its current path, Ill have to type out an entire biology textbook before you begrudgingly admit you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. THAT's what's so irritating about you and the creationists, claiming the intellectual high ground without doing any of the legwork.