Quote:

Since we're talking about gradualism passed on from one generation to the next you obviously won't get a "brand new" creature. Remember the eye examples posted above ? If the parent organism had a single light sensitive cell then the child will not suddenly have a complete eye with iris and muscle control. What is possibly however is that it will now have multiple light sensitive cells, or a protective layer above the cell.

Marco, the example above is a typical oversimplification. You say that we wont get a "brand new" creature, but thats essentially what your asking for when you talk about the types of specialized cells used for light sensitivity. A small cell such as this compared to another type of functional cell is a lot like comparing one huge factory full of complex synchronized machinery with another. Their make up, operations, and dependencies are completely different. And they are extremely complex.One cannot mutate easily into another one any easier than as a frog can mutate into an elephant. And my example is not that ridiculous if you know anything about the differences between cells.

Show me how a cell can mutate into a completely different type of cell and we will finally have a logical discussion, but stating that cells can change into different types just because they are really small and they have lots of time to do so is no science.

If cells can mutate so frequently into different types of cells then why did it take procaryotes from 2500 million years to evolve into eucaryotes? It makes no sense.

jcl had mentioned a typical evolutionary period of 100,000 between species, I dont know where he is getting this, but irregardless, apparently the first asexual reproducers were well aware of the problems that sex would bring upon the world so they took a billion years or so to evolve copulation methods. which makes no sense also because asexual reproduction is more efficient, quicker and provides a better system for species prolifigation. So natural selection is caught sleeping on the job again.

But enough about that for today, how about we talk about why a trex found a better evolutionary path to be that of the modern chicken...A tyrannasaurus rex would have been fine as the survivor of the fittest, he ate everything he saw and had no real competition, (except for king kong) but instead he evolved into a chicken?...I dont get it.

And how about the banana? What survival mechanism did the banana evolve? If natural selection weeds out the weakest species then I would think that either the banana would evolve some razor sharp spikes on its peeling or else it would become exstinct.

Ahhh Ive got it. Since most fruits propagate by being eaten and having their seeds digested onto the ground, perhaps fruit were really surviving by being eaten? That makes sense, now perhaps I know why the trex would evolve into a wimpy little chicken, because he thought that it would be best for his species to be eaten!