the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.

LOLKeep asking really stupid questions and you might just learn.Think.Would secreting something that could be suckled as nutrition help?

How would the production of milk evolve?

lol
slowly and over long periods of time. Remember milk is never a goal. And things that do not help the next generation live long enough to reproduce get eliminated.You are still thinking that milk is a goal. It wasn't.

In other words, you have no idea how the production of milk evolved.

What secretions other than milk are nutritious? Blood can be "secreted" in manner of speaking, but not without huge risk of infection ... and a bloody wound is a universe away from a mammary system.

Once again you are simply showing your utter ignorance. I already explained the basics to you. Lets move slowly one small step at a time.First, you understand that milk is simply not something necessary for life? There are plants that do not need milk, fish that do not need milk, e-coli that do not need milk, birds that do not need milk and all reproduce.You do understand that?

In other words, you have no idea how milk production evolved.

Too funny.You already tried that and I pointed out that you are wrong.If you want to learn then let's try small baby steps.

The thing about science is that it's all published. Anyone can research what is known about almost any scientific idea. These days you just type a phrase into google like the evolution of lactaion or the evolution of the mammary gland and then look for a good scientic source. Here's the first one I foundThe origin and evolution of lactation - PMCYou'll see that it's headed The origin and evolution of lactation and it's published in the Journal of Biology which is a great start. It's also not behind a paywall and it's not highly technical. So there you go, easy. If you read that you'll find out what we know and you'll also find out that Darwin was wrong about it.(I suspect that your creationist sources picked lactation - as well as the eye - to talk garbage about because 150 years ago Darwin mentioned them. Science moves on, discovers more and knowledge increases; dumb ideas never change it seems.)What you do is read some antique garbage on a creationist web site, half understand it and post a one-liner here looking for a reaction. You're not remotely interested in what we actually know about the evolution of lactation are you? You won't even read that paper will you? You'll just bugger off without answering and return in a month spouting more bollocks about flagella or some such, having learned nothing but feeling smug inside your ignorance.

You can lick salt off your own skin. The right balance of salt in your body confers a survival advantage.A lot of animals groom each other and eat the bugs. That's a double survival advantage: a nutritional supplement for one and a control of parasites for the other.There are even symbiotic relationships between different species.It's a pretty simple principle really. Every little bit helps. So anything a mother produces that can help her baby survive is an evolutionary advantage. A couple of mutations here and there can make a big difference.

Yeah, of course it is ... for someone with a very vivid imagination. Darwinists have to dumb-down very complex processes in order to make them seem plausible. Without this vital concession, junk science has no chance at all of surviving.And a chunk of a reptile's jaw somehow evolved into the bones of a mammal's inner ear. Pure fiction.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Well, more than a 0.005% of a mammary system.And, yes, a marginally better mammary system would indeed confer a better survival advantage.So just what the fuck are you arguing for?

Too funny and just another example of your willful ignorance Dredge. As soon as the answer to your last question is supplied you pretend there was no answer and try to change the subject.It is simply more evidence of the basic Dishonesty that is the foundation of Creationism.

Did you read my post at all? There's nothing there that requires any imagination; it's all observed fact: salt, grooming, symbiosis. It's a very simple fact that many species get nutrition from something on another organism's body. Yes, it has to be dumbed down pretty far for creationists to understand it. Science will survive with or without dumb creationists. It survived dumb flat-earthers, didn't it? There's a survival advantage to intelligence.

There is nothing more hilarious than Christians pretending to be terrorists. Faith also does it all the time. When they have no reasonable defense they pull their plastic sword and shield out of the toy box and threaten torture on everyone in their vicinity not currently agreeing with them. I call it the Fangs behind the smile.