[Ichneumon]

If the spider evolved to drink blood but at the same time couldn't get it due to it's inefficient fangs, then it would have died due to a lack of blood -- and the potential lineage would have gone with it.

That's why evolution doesn't work in the ridiculously simple-minded way you describe.

Think about it, if it couldn't get blood from any other animal, how was it to survive? How did it know about fat juicy mosquitos?

...because it evolved from a spider that lived on a more generalized insect diet (like most spiders), but eventually evolved to specialize on just the blood-laden mosquitoes it was catching along with all the other stuff, because they were a more nutritious food source.

Duh.

Those who believe in the DOGMA of evolution treat the process as an intelligent entity, able to make conscious decisions.

No, we don't, because we know how the process actuall works. But idiotic creationist pamphlets like to portray it that way, based on their own misunderstandings about how such a process could "only" work that way (via "foresight", etc.)...

It's sad because there is much to be said about the theory of evolution, but it get's clouded by the adherents of the "religion" of evolution...

There is no such "religion of evolution", but there's a lot of false propaganda said about evolutionary biology by followers of actual religions.

[Skooz]

Well, this once cool thread has now been officially flushed into the vacuous crevo toilet.

[ShadowAce]

There is no such "religion of evolution"..

Yet you can't prove your earlier statement:

...because it evolved from a spider that lived on a more generalized insect diet (like most spiders)...

Without that proof, it is a matter of faith. Don't misunderstand me--it may very well have dined on the general insect population at one point. But there is no proof of that.

[1stFreedom]

>>There is no such "religion of evolution", but there's a lot of false propaganda said about evolutionary biology by followers of actual religions.

Really? While there may not be a central diety, there is nevertheless a dogmatic *philosophy/ideology* concerning the theory of evolution.

The theory is treated as if it were infallible fact that simply cannot be questioned by rational people...

Yet in reality, it is simply a theory with many holes. Does this mean "creationists" are right? No.

>>No, we don't, because we know how the process actuall works

STOP THE TAPE! You *think* you know how the process works. This is my point, you treat the possible as actual instead of a hypothetical.

Also, if you read what you write, you give character to evolution which it does not have.