Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution

Ray Martinez wrote:
snip



The point at issue, Jim, was ***beneficial*** mutation.
I beg to differ, Ray - The quotation specifically stated that no
mutation changes a physical characteristic, except for a small number of
usually fatal 'genetic defects'. That is bull***.


....beneficially!

It's not a matter of opinion as to what the quotation said
specifically since it did indeed say 'beneficial.' Scroll up and see
how I emphasized said word like this "***beneficial***" in the quote,
Jim.

And Jim pointed out that you were wrong. In any case, Milton's claim was wrong.



No objective person would consider your crooked fingers beneficial.
Possibly. However, save for playing the fiddle they are not detrimental
either - and since I have reasonably good evidence that they do not
interfere with the acquisition of potential mates, I suspect the
'objective person' would consider them reproductively neutral.


Are you actually saying that your crooked fingers make you more
appealing to certain women in a sexual manner?

That depends on the women. Different strokes for different folks. What Jim is pointing out is that his feature has not caused women to reject him. As such the trait is neutral


Jim, I am literally
rolling on the floor! More power to you!

Still can't find any woman can stand to be around you, Ray?


But lets get serious here. Nobody would consider crooked fingers
beneficial.

Why not, Ray? Why can't they be beneficial?

The evolutionists refuse to be objective and sensible,
what else is new?

There is no objective reason why "crooked fingers" could not be beneficial, or more likely neutral. That's the point. Milton's claim was that no mutation could be beneficial, and the vast majority were harmful. Jim showed this was wrong.






The second mutation is
novel in my family: the second and third toes of both feet are webbed
past the last joint.
Web feet are, unfortunately, not all that uncommon, especially in
Third World countries;
Cite?

and again, nobody would consider this deformity
beneficial.
Well, me bucko, it sure as hell isn't reproductively detrimental.


But it is not beneficial (using the understood definition of said
word).

What "definition" are you using? "Beneficial" does not mean "Ray Martinez thinks it's not icky".

snip

Oddly enough, Ray, I'm generally nice enough that the women I have
courted have considered my 'deformities' rather endearing - thus,
indeed, they have no effect on my ability to find a partner.

I guess you were saying that!

Yes, showing his feature to be neutral.


Do your crooked fingers, lets say, reach into certain places that a
straight one cannot?

Why would that matter?


Just wondering. If you do not answer then I do not blame you (LOL!).

There are more things than reaching into "certian places". (and if you think "reaching" has anything to do with reproductive success, perhaps you need to take some basic biology)




Trust me,
the fact that I do not have children is a choice, not a failure.

So you can perform but you shoot blanks?!

Beats wanking off, Ray, but how would you know?

snip what Ray ignored.

DJT

.