[Dan Day]

"...FURTHERMORE, an examination of placentas even among different mammals shows several "stages" of sophistication, showing that gore3000's "all or nothing" belief is not only pure hogwash, but based on a fundamental ignorance of basic biology..."

Though you desparately wish it weren't so, you were indeed making the case that the deep answers of evolution could be found the hamerhead-marsupial-cow-human placenta continuum.

No, I wasn't, but thanks for missing the point so thoroughly.

Here's the point again, although it was clear enough the first time (i.e. post #378): Gore3000's claim rested on his belief that any egg-laying to placental-birth transition would have to happen in "one generation", because of his mistaken premise that nothing "in between" would be workable.

So I proved him wrong by showing several "in between" methods which provably worked just fine, because different animals actually use them. QED.

(You know, this wasn't that difficult, *and* it has been re-explained several times -- what's your excuse for still being befuddled by it?)

As I've already explained several times (do try to keep up), this line of argument holds even if Darwinian evolution happens not to be true. It would be valid even if we were arguing the possibility/impossibility of converting egg-laying to placental birth via a) Lamarckian inheritance, b) multi-generational genetic engineering, c) God trying his hand at gradualism, d) etc.

So are you clear on the concept yet, or shall I explain it in even smaller words?

An as you correctly stated, only an idiot would believe this.

And yet, you seem repeatedly drawn to such a concept...

[diode]

Bravo! That's more like it! A true full-throated display!

But of course I should not construe your identification of "workable in between methods" employed by various species as an espousal of a specific evolutionary continuum. No, that would be idiotic of me! That staw man was toppled long ago. After all, your beliefs are valid even if..."Darwinian evolution happens not to be true...and even if God [were] trying his hand at gradualism."

This is certainly a self-important statement even from one such as you. Yours is a trite assumption that the mere exisitence of an animal with particular feature of reproductive anatomy proves your point. You cannot claim that any organ system is an "in between" another unless you have already marked its position on the evolutionary continuum. But of course that was the staw man that I knocked down before, wasn't it.

Being obnoxious takes hard work, but you have made a valiant effort. Is it dawning on you that you have been checkmated, or I have used #435 before?