I was reading this very obnoxious, very deceptive anti-evolution blog and I decided to write a response. But why bother with just correcting all of the factual inaccuracies and snarkiness in the blog for the ten millionth time? I started with parody instead and emulated the author’s style:
[Edit: It’s apparently fortuitous that I copied my response into a blog since the douchebag deleted it almost instantly.]
One must ask whether it is scientific to suppose the earth goes around the sun, or whether it is some kind of cult mentality induced by drug abuse and pornography. To date there is no serious evidence that the earth does go around the sun, and this “theory” is based mainly on the Carole King song I Feel The Earth Move. A man named galileo once argued that the earth went around the sun by measuring that it moves a portion of the way around it every day. But while everyone accepts “micro” revolution of the earth, no one has ever explained how “macro” revolution could possibly work, and nobody has ever seen the earth go around the sun. But either way he never proved his “theory” that the earth went around the sun because the earth was bored and thought there was candy on the other side, or “macro” revolution.
^~~~~~~~ This is basically to heliocentrism what this blog is to biological evolution. Your blog is filled with half-truths, distortions, inaccuracies, straw men and ad hominems. You don’t even seem to know what natural selection is. Natural selection is not the claim that life evolves, it is the precise explanation of one of the driving mechanisms of how life evolves. So when creationists say (as you did above) that natural selection explains how species can produce lots of offspring, but not how they can “evolve” or change at all, it indicates that you don’t get the most simple explanation of the most basic concept in evolutionary biology. Species don’t magically produce more offspring, mutations produce tremendous amounts of genetic and physiological variations, some of which are harmful, some of which are useful, and the useful ones are passed onto future generations at greater rates and become common in the gene pool because their possessors tend to survive long enough to reproduce more of the time (in nature, most animals don’t survive that long). So just as any number will eventually be drawn in a lottery, any useful slight modification will occur. The most useful ones survive in the gene pool, the harmful ones don’t, and the species changes shape over time which is well observed. You repeat lies like that there is no evidence of speciation when four distinct types of speciation are well observed and well understood.
I have debunked this stuff so, so many times.
I will do so again if you insist. So long as I have some sense that you will actually listen.