Replies

I want my child to learn the science of evolution. So don't try to fill his head with your religious nonsense and superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

Superstitious mumbo-jumbo is believing an eco system that would have mammals breathing in oxygen and giving off carbon dixoide, while the plant life pulls in carbon dixoide and gives off oxygen just happening by chance.

That's not the science of evolution, but the science of chance. People have a right to differing opinions without ill mannered louts, whose mothers forgot to teach them manners, demeaning and disparaging what they have to say.

"..but the science of chance"

You and all of us are undeniably a product of chance. IDers have a particular dislike for randomness, because they wish to think that everything is directed by some supra-natural entity (they actually mean the usual God, but pretend to accept other god-like types). Exactly how stars and planets coalesce from a circulating cloud of matter is an on-going area of investigation, but it is clear that accidents resulted in some chunks becoming large enough to perturb the system and thus accumulated at the expense of smaller chunks. This is pretty close to a random series of events.

The dislike for randomness is curious. In fact, every individual is a product of at least quasi-random events. Who we meet and have children with. And from basic facts of sexual reproduction itself, every ovum has a slightly different DNA arising from meiosis, and likewise every sperm. Granted that some parts of the divided-in-two chromosomes carry genetic information from the parent, but it is random which ones happen to combine. There is increasing evidence for a degree of randomness as to the chemical environment in the womb, which appears to have influence on the degrees of femaleness and maleness in the offspring. There is, thus, a large number of random events that are part of the heritage of every individual. (Unless, of course, one takes the view that each egg and sperm were individually directed by God. Nobody in biology would accept this, but as a matter of faith, it is unprovable.) Over the long course of history, there has been quasi-randomness as to which individuals get wiped out by natural disasters, from impacting asteroids to which succumb to disease. Chance has always played a role in life and always will.

Science is knowing that the first phytoplanktons that actually created oxygen led to the largest die-off in the history of the planet as they pumped their lethal, toxic, noxious waste into the atmosphere. The creatures that were left were adapted to use oxygen. Over time, the phytoplanktons became plants, the remaining organisms founded the animal kingdom.

The real fact is, 98.5% of all life on earth died during that period. Your comparison is actually one of the strongest proofs *for* the "Survival of the Fittest" brand of Evolution, and *against* Intelligent Design, unless you believe the "Designer" decided to wipe out ninety-nine of every one hundred creatures he/she/it/FSM designed.