Wow! Now that I have proven evolution to be false, we have a new theory! The theory of coevolution! It just comes to show how the requirements of the situation keep creating new and more wonderful and more intricate theories (or should I call it balderdash?).
Back it up Vade, let's see the proof for coevolution! And remember, since evolution (and I guess coevolution too), is supposed to be a science, you need to back it up with facts, details, describe the process, show the observations and the evidence for it. And no, "God did not do it" is proof of nothing.
Gee, maybe you should publish -- there might be a Nobel Prize in it. No wait, you claim you've "proven evolution to be false" when arguing with what can only be considered evolution's third string and then you only claim victory only after twisting words, obfuscating facts and flat-out lying. The lurkers on these threads know the score. They've seen you in action and know your posting history.
You know in your heart of hearts that faced with the big boys of evolution -- the biologists who've spent their lives studying the subject -- you'd have your tail-end handed to you on a platter. That is why you'll never publish in a peer-reviewed journal; that's why no creationist will publish in a peer-reviewed journal. You'd be crushed and the scientific community wouldn't even break a sweat. The creationist community really is a bunch of cowards unwilling to put their "theory" to the test because they already know the outcome, even if they won't admit it to themselves. Every biologist, or for that matter any scientist, who puts his pet theory up for peer review has more testicular fortitude in his little finger than you ever will.
Evolution as put forth by Darwin was already coevolution. Darwin had never heard of a point mutation. More on what the real model says in 680 to Aquinasfan. (I mention you in there on something you haven't answered yet.) Nobody has seriously proposed a model in which all changes necessary for a new function must be done serially, with one fully complete and fixed in the population.
OK, that's actually a pretty good decription of "Haldane's Dilemma." Haldane, a sober enough scientist, made a bad model of how things work back in the fifties, realized it would evolve very, very slowly, and asked, "Where did I go wrong?" Creationists like Walter Remine and medved have been pretending ever since that nobody knows. Many changes happen in parallel in a diverse population. From A Page on the Wistar Symposia:
The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. We know perfectly well of 12 changes which exist in the human population at the present time. There are probably many more which we haven't detected, because they have such slight physiological effects...[so] there [may be] 20 different amino acid sequences in human hemoglobins in the world population at present, all being processed simultaneously [Note: if he sounds a little vague, it was 1966, although you'd probably still have to guess. -- VR]...Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability, present simultaneously. To deal with them as sequential steps is going to give you estimates that are wildly out." (pp. 95-6)So many creationist arguments are against strawmen that not only don't reflect current thinking, they don't reflect the view of sober science ever. That stuff Aquinasfan posts which is just the Duane Gish parody of punk-eek. "One day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird! But where was there another bird for it to mate with?"
Yours reflect the actual theory of evolution with similar accuracy, although you do seem to make up a few of your own strawmen. Points for creativity, anyway!