>I wonder how many seminars those flowers went to to decide what colors they should all use.

Thats not what evolution/natural selection says.

Take a program for example, that can loop through combinations and create every animal concievable. Even a cat-dog. Now imagine you could plot these animals an sort of... an animal space. Where two species of flies are close to each other in the space, but a fly and an elephant are not. Now imagine you ran this program to start cranking out animals. We are several hundred million years along this program, but animals that the program have are not in existence. Why is that? Because if there is an animal that can survive much better than a cat-dog can, the cat-dog will eventually leave no direct decendents. Also imagine millions of types of flowers. Bright beautiful ones, and brown ugly ones. Depending on the conditions, only certains flowers will be pollinated. The flowers you see today are the ones that have been the most successful.

They didn't "try" to evolve, or move along any specific "evolution path", they just did, and the ones that worked still exist.

>If you look carefully many of these features require intelligence. Intelligence far beyond that of the flower. Not only that you presume outside influence.

Intelligence? I wouldn't say that. Some simple rules can create very intelligent and complex structures. Check out cellular automata. ITs not that difficult.

>So.. Demonstrate for me one inter-species bit of evidence. That is, (in so many words) show me a cat-dog.

Mules. But in any case just because they don't exist in the wild doesn't mean anything other than the fact that either they have not achieved that mutation, or that they would have except an animal with the requirements of a cat and a dog would be competeing head on with not just cats, not just dog, but both and whatever cats and dogs compete with. The chances of such an ineffecient beast surviving are very slim.

>There is absolutely no inter-species evidence whatsoever.

Sure there is. Look at an orangatan. They share alot between humans and monkeys. Or a mule.

>Sure, lots of guesses and so forth but how is it that a worm has a more complex DNA structure than man. Are worms more evolved? <g>

The complexity of DNA really doesn't prove points in this context; especially when a worm relies on DNA to do everything for it in order for the worm to survive, where we only rely on DNA to build us, and let our special cereberal cortex's do the heavy stuff. Because of our brain, we can get by with alot less specific intrusction in our genes. You are only proving genetics to have a stronger case in this instance.

>>Then you haven't been there :-)
>Well, yes, I have.
>Let me just say that there's a huge difference between happiness and joy. <s>

Whatever. If you think you're better and happier than everyone else, thats cool. I just think you're delusional.

>No, but if you cannot define truth how then can you ever know something is true?

Good question. I don't know. But whats your point? Does that somehow lead to the fact that there is a God? I don't see how it does. I think you're just changing the subject, like I said you would.