Quote:

What are you trying to say?
There are definately retarded birds, and they have a very small chance of survival, it's not only obvious, it's observable too. Syndroms, similar to the Syndrom of Down, appear amongst animals too.
Your so caught up in your own thoughts here, that you seem to have missed a lot of points I made.



No. You missed the point I made. Let's assume that somehow mutations can 'write' more intelligence. If it does happen as quickly as these crows needed to adapt to stop lights and all of that, then we should constantly be finding birds that are deleterious.

Since most mutations would be deleterious this is what we should find. Instead, its a very rare occurance to even find negative mutations. These birds just had the capacity to learn. It had nothing to do with evolution.

Quote:

It's not like a mutation affecting a toe's growth suddenly makes the brain's development go nuts!



This has nothing to do with what I said. I don't even get where you're getting this from. Furthermore, what does it have to do with anything that anyone has said so far. Please, point out to me where I said a toe mutation would cause birds to lose intelligence.

Quote:

hat capacity can change too because of mutations, I already adressed this when replying to Dan's questions earlier. Behavior and physical evolution are only indirectly linked.



Nope. There's a direct link. If I sprout legs, but I don't know how to use them, the data won't become dominant. If I learn how to use legs, but haven't sprouted any, then the data won't become dominant. They both have to happen randomly and at the same time.

Quote:

Laughing away my argument of the animal losing genetic data might be tempting for you, we all know that and feel very sorry for you too.



Wow, man. You are so twisted backwards you wouldn't know logic if it stuck a knife down your eye socket.

I'll quote Kent Hovind, because he makes a great point about what you're trying to say here. On the topic of losing organs as proof of evolution:

"Yes kids, we're losing all these things, that's how we got 'em."

Do you see the problem. If I lose my arms, and my hair, and my legs, and my eyes, and my ears, and my nose, what have I evolved into? That's devolution (yes, it does exist), and you're using that to explain how this worm could have evolved. That's why I'm laughing. And now I'm laughing harder.

Quote:

We all know creatures doesn't simply *poof* appear, they need to be born first



But I'm assuming that you believe in the spontaneous generation of life.

Quote:

but I'm confident the most rational explanation would be the one I've stated before.



Yes! That is the most rational explanation! But its not evolution, that's why its so funny. In order to explain how it could have evolved, you gave an example of the opposite of evolution.

Quote:

The only thing observable, are the repeating patterns. That says exactly nothing about it's purpose, at least at the moment. Only the fact that there have been patterns found in junk dna, might suggest it's more than just junk.



You yourself referenced a quote giving an instance where its useful. Are you honestly this blind? They say it aids in transcription, an absolutely essential process of our genetic material has (just one of its many purposes). It has a role. I'm not going to keep arguing this point. Pattern or no pattern doesn't matter.

Quote:

Yes, so you say that baby birds never ever see the nests they grow up in to start with? Oww wait, you must be one of those people who believe there first were eggs.



They don't see the nest get built. That's the point. They would need to see how its done. Just because I see skyscrapers while I drive past them doesn't mean I have any idea how to build one.

But, I'll concede the point because it really doesn't matter if birds learn it or not.

Quote:

If there's a sufficient amount of intelligence, there's no 100% need for it to evolve in order to make physical new acquired features possible to use.



Yeah, actually the limb needs to grow the nerves, the muscles, the skeletal structure, and those nerves need to link back to its central nervous system, which then needs to know how to operate the limb. There's a direct link. If I added a third arm onto your shoulder, even if it was complete, your brain wouldn't know how to use it because its not built to use it.

Quote:

There are tons of experiments done which do indicate for example worms rely heavily on trial and error behavior, otherwise they would not make the same stupid mistakes over and over again, seemingly random.



I'm saying that not all behavior is learned. Some is, some isn't.

Does that make you uncomfortable or something? I don't get what your objection to this is.

Quote:

By the way, let's say a nose is there, fully functional and physically already evolved to a simple 'can smell something' body part, but there's no reaction on the impulses it gives, the nose might be neutral or not negative to a species survival. What if because of mutations the animal did become sensitive to what the nose smells?



How would the nose get built, little by little, if it has no apparent function? It would never take over in the gene pool. Now, the behavior has the same problem. How would it take over if it has no purpose? The ONLY way this works is if both mutations happen at the same time (little by little which compounds on the problem). Maybe once, or maybe even five times (although that's being generous). But I don't see how you could possibly tell me this could happen millions of times in the history of the earth? You can never laugh at anything I believe again, because that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Besides, mutations can't write new information, so the nose wouldn't even appear, nor would the ability use it.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."