Sleipnir

Well you quoted me, read it.

Read the source I gave to you.

Iron sulfide = Iron + sulphur = iron (II) sulfide. ocean platelets = from the Earth geology. Hydrocarbon compounds = from chemical interactions.

The wikipedia shows it preferring the sea floor, not so much for swimming throughout the water column. An example of a 'transition' species would be the snakehead fish. They're able to: -breath in air and water. -swim and walk on land. -attack and consume aquatic and land organism (including mouse, snakes and other kinds of small animals). Also known as an invasive species in North America.

Is that even a fish?

In Darwin's 'The Origin of Species', he did say “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." However, scientific advancements since the publication of the book has build upon the concept of biological evolution. It has discredit some of Darwin's statements like the quote above and provided further insight in others. Remember that not everything that Darwin says is absolute, it is a common case for any 'father of -something-'. Example: Democritus - he was widely credited for the idea that all matters are made up of atoms and cannot be subdivided (contributed to the theory of atoms). We now know that is false since the atom is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. As for explaining the basic of co-evolution: University of California provides an example using insects and plants with explaining the basic of how co-evolution can occur between the two. http://evolution.ber...evolution.shtml Its a short explanation (1 page).

Sorry to hear about that, I understand now.

The problem is, your source has no credibility - it lacks the up-to-date basic knowledge of science. If a source cannot grasp the basic, how can it be expected to explained the detailed of the said phenomenon? Whether you are atheist or non-atheist has nothing to do with science, its the understanding concept of basic science that matters. Betsy, for symbiosis - try doing some research on co-evolution from credible-source website. Examples of co-evolutionary result: -hummingbird and ornithophilous flowers. -yucca moth and yucca plant. -angraecoid orchids and African moth. -California buckeye and their pollinators. -old world swallowtail and fringed rue. -garter snake and rough-skinned newt.

When you glorify an event that was hell-bent on slaughtering people based on their religious views, sexuality, race, etc then yes - it does in a way incite violence.

I seriously hope that was sarcasm. No you don't, big bang and evolution are entirely two separate different concepts and issues.

You don't have the slightest clue what are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, iron sulfide synthesis and ocean platelets do you?

Can someone explain to me the 'fetus tax credit'? I may be getting the wrong impression...

show a photo of yourself and your son, we'll be the judge of that.

....lol?

We do have hate laws in Canada you know.

Well said! :]

Trudeau's anti-alberta remark isn't going all that well in Quebec. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/24/justin-trudeaus-anti-alberta-remarks-arent-going-over-well-in-quebec-either/

Life and evolution: it all started with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the synthesis of iron sulfide along the deep ocean platelets boundaries 4.1 billion years ago.

You trying to insult yourself?

Knew you wouldn't seriously debate this topic.

Unfortunately for you, you won't find any reliable source that refute evolution. How about a primary literature source? Haha don't kid yourself betsy, the burden of proof is heavily on you. I have yet to see any credible issue that dispute the concept of evolution.

Not an appropriate statement to make when someone says something without knowing why, how or what the purpose of saying these things. Anyone can do that, can you prove that the authors knew what they were referring to?

They don't arrive at the 'exact' same moment, they both gradually or rapidly over time to make use of each other for beneficial purposes.

A quote from an anti-evolution website, does that not reeks of biases to you? Clearly the author of that website don't understand how evolution works.

Well we don't have 'presidents', this ain't the US.