All this verbiage (going on 800 posts) and you have yet to indicate that abiogenesis can happen (without a start, evolution dies before it begins). You have yet to establish that creatures become other kinds of creatures. You have yet to show that similarity means common ancestry rather than common design. You have yet to indicate any transitionals except that some things might *look* alike. You have yet to establish that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages as opposed to a common design plan. You have yet to show that you have any sort of evidence beyond your refusal to see or (Shudder!) make any sort of inference at all. I'll jump in again when you say something particularly amusing, but don't expect me to keep pointing out the extreme intellectual poverty of your argument.
All this verbiage (going on 800 posts) and you have yet to indicate that abiogenesis can happen (without a start, evolution dies before it begins). You have yet to establish that creatures become other kinds of creatures. You have yet to show that similarity means common ancestry rather than common design. You have yet to indicate any transitionals except that some things might *look* alike. You have yet to establish that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages as opposed to a common design plan. << You have yet to show that you have any sort of evidence beyond your refusal to see or (Shudder!) make any sort of inference at all. >>
Thank you for admitting that the evolutionary story is "inference" and not science.
<< I'll jump in again when you say something particularly amusing, >>
(Yawn!) I've heard that from you before.
<< but don't expect me to keep pointing out the extreme intellectual poverty of your argument. >>
You haven't pointed out any intellectual poverty in anything except to verify that evolution isn't science.
I’ve been doing some research to figure out how natural selection could evolve aging. I found an article which theorizes that “aging is a non-adaptive process in which the genes that influence the rate of aging either do not affect fitness or have been selected due to beneficial effects early in life.” Another website, The International Longevity Organization (pdf) declares that “Most gerontologists believe there is no such gene (that causes aging) in most species, because a gene that promotes aging would most likely decrease reproductive fitness and therefore would be subject to negative selection.” On the website, they waive the p53 gene off as a tumor suppressing gene.
However, the Boston University website (pdf) has a very different view and suggests a genetic biological clock (telomere length, telomerase function) and various classes of aging genes, including the p53. But it doesn’t suggest how such genes might have been naturally selected.
There is also this website’s explanation for the evolution of aging and death:
Now, if you are likely to die around the age of 25 by external causes, there is little advantage in spending a lot of resources on combating the effects of aging, so that you might theoretically live for 1000 years. That is why we might expect that in the trade-off between early reproduction and long-time survival the genes would tend towards the former pole, making sure that sufficient off-spring is generated by the age of 25, rather than trying to extend the maximal age beyond 120 years (the apparent maximum for humans). And that of course ties the aging genes to reproduction, directing the explanation to resisting the effects of aging instead of what is causing it. They use a fruit fly experiment as an example where delaying reproduction causes longer life. So much for my research. I’m curious now what your position is as to how aging and death evolved by natural selection and what we should expect to see in the fossil record to substantiate it.