Faith writes:
The bug that has a complex rotating part has no known genetic relationship to another bug that has some but not all of the elements of that rotating part, nor that one to another with a few of those elements and so on, but just their existence convinces some that the insect with the rotating part evolved rather than being designed.
Gosh, could you be any less specific?
Bugs all belong to the insect order Hemiptera, is that what you are talking about? There are approximately 80,000 described species of True Bugs (Hemiptera), but the several million other insect species of insects are NOT bugs.
Which species of "bug" are you talking about?
And what rotating part are you talking about?
And can you document that there is "no known genetic relationship to another 'bug' that has some elements of the rotating part?"
And what is the rotating part that you are talking about?
I can rotate my arm in a manner that an object in my hand will move in a complete circle and so can every other primate. In fact, tens of thousands of other animals can rotate their limbs in a manner that that allows the end of the limb to travel in a circle or rotate. There are all sorts of different mechanisms that allow this movement in different organisms, so are you saying that is evidence of design and that they cannot be the results of evolution?
What is it that makes the rotating part of your hypothetical "bug" more complex than any other rotating parts?
This is a science forum. Posting vague bullshit about "bugs and rotating parts" does not add support to your argument.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
™ Version 4.2
