explains why more species in one broad group, or clade, of grasses evolved a more efficient means of photosynthesis than species in another clade did.


So here we're talking about ghosts - the mystical, imaginary cladistical tree of classification of evolutionary progress that only exists in some fertile minds, not in real life.

But, that aside, ther eal question one should be asking is
How did photosynthesis "evolve" in the first place?

The whole process is extremely complicated and the steps required cannot be separated. It either works as a whole or it does not work at all. There is currently no way to explain how the extreme control required at the quantum-molecular level could have developed by random purely physical/biological processes.

At that nanoscale level, chemical and physical constraints are so high that the only way for things to come to such a complex arrangement is by purposeful outside intervention. If you disagree, supply supporting contrary evidence.

If you don't have a cooking clue how things work, just about everything seems to be so confusingly complicated that you have to invoke mystical interventions to get things to make sense to you.
Luckily it's curable, that is IF you are willing to make the effort.

kevinrtrs:
So here we're talking about ghosts - the mystical, imaginary ...


This was verrry funny, or is it ironic?

kevinrtrs:
So here we're talking about ghosts - the mystical, imaginary ...


This was verrry funny, or is it ironic?


I've been saying that kevin's a creationist parody for quite some time. I've seen countless comments by him that have backhanded sorts of phrases like that. Some of kevin's prior gems-

http://phys.org/n...tan.html

Do you realize that you are appealing to a completely unknown and unobserved entity whilst dismissing a far more reasonable and totally plausible explanation?


http://phys.org/n...ife.html

One needs to be on the lookout for such sleight of hand in these "journeys into the past" which are more story-telling than real science.


This was verrry funny, or is it ironic?

Ojorf this is actually very common in religious zealots like Kevin. Quite a few of his posts criticize evolution with religious terms like "leap of faith".

They honestly don't see the irony. It's rank intentional, unconscious hypocrisy.

Creationists shouldn't comment on science. It is hilarious and the criticism that happens when fundamentalists meets facts deconverts religious en masse.

Of course, only a total imbecile would take a scientific result as somehow handwavingly supporting the opposite claim.

Here phylogenies are the observations that eventually led people to reject creationism in favor for what works. It is the observation that you look somewhat alike your parents but not exactly so. Absent exact clones we are all related by lineage family trees.

Creationists parody themselves. The real parody is that the moderators allow antiscientists on science sites, whether they draw traffic by trolling or not.

It is immoral by both these parties.

Fully understandable on account of creationists as religious standards starts with genocides, torture, slavery, misogyny et cetera in the religious texts. A few lies and misdirections is nothing in comparison, and they are always forgiven how malodorous they are.

Not so understandable for the a priori upright secular sites.

@kevin - creationists shouldn't use computers. Computers are tools created by scientists and engineers using the same scientific method that discovered how evolution works.

So stop using a computer to criticize evolution, or you are being a hypocrite.