The first debate: Did Trump do enough to woo undecided voters?

Handicapping debate performances this year has been a fool’s errand, but here goes …

If you went into Monday night’s first presidential debate supporting Donald Trump in spite of everything he’s done to turn people off, I don’t see why you’d stop supporting him now.

If you went into it supporting Hillary Clinton in spite of everything she’s done to turn people off, I don’t see why you’d stop supporting her now.

And if you went into it unsure of whom to support in spite of everything we’ve seen and heard from the two of them, I don’t see why you’d make up your mind now.

But I’ve been wrong before.

***

They both looked happy after their first debate. Did both of them really feel that way? (AP Photo / David Goldman)

They both looked happy after their first debate. Did both of them really feel that way? (AP Photo / David Goldman)

Oddly enough, the first segment of the debate went off as if it were a normal election year: The Republican talked about cutting taxes; the Democrat talked about raising taxes without saying “raise taxes.” The Republican said the Democrat didn’t know how jobs are created; the Democrat talked about “fairness.” For the first 30 minutes or so, Clinton treated Trump more or less like an equal rather than the ringleader of the “deplorables.” It didn’t work so well for her: Trump countered her every argument by painting her as a typical career politician whose rhetoric isn’t backed up by her record. Trump went after her on trade — wrongly, in my view, but his attacks on this topic have worked well for him so far in this campaign, and may well have been to his benefit Monday night.

The first sign of trouble for Trump came when moderator Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News asked about his tax returns. He arrived at something of a good answer when he wound up tying his lack of transparency to hers: “I will release my tax returns — against my lawyer’s wishes — when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release.” But when Clinton offered her own suggestions for why he has refused to release the information, including a theory that it’s because he hasn’t paid any federal taxes, his rebuttal was, “That makes me smart.”

That’s a tough line to take when you’re running as a populist who says the system is rigged against the little guy. Billionaire businessman pays less in taxes than you — not in percentage of income, the left’s usual way of making this argument, but in absolute dollars — and then says it’s because he’s “smart”? Implying you … aren’t? Does that fly with the people Trump is trying to win over? I’m not sure it does.

But the real mistake for him on the tax-returns issue is that he allowed it to distract him from an opportunity to hit Clinton for her own problems. When Holt gave Clinton a chance to respond to Trump’s offer of tax info-for-emails, she gave a pretty weak answer about having made “a mistake.” While Trump immediately pounced on it — saying it was done purposely, and pointing to deals her aides and staff struck to protect themselves from prosecution — he just as suddenly turned away from an issue that has dogged her and back to the tax-returns issue. An enormous sigh of relief must have exited Clinton HQ as he got into whether he was “underleveraged” at $650 million of debt on certain buildings he owned, or indeed whether $650 million was the right number. The single biggest liability for Clinton, and Trump turned the discussion back to his own weakness.

Later, in a discussion about race, Trump managed for the most part not to say anything overly insulting (though he did repeat his previous claim that in “our inner cities, African-Americans, Hispanics are living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.”). He went from there to disagreeing with his own party about denying guns to people on the no-fly or terror-watch lists — a deeply flawed basis for denying a constitutional right, given not only the lack of due process but the numerous people mistakenly flagged by those lists. But the real problem came when he was asked about his past claims that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

Now, if anyone is going to claim Holt was biased in his questioning, they’re likely to point to this episode. Trump recently declared himself satisfied that Obama is indeed an American, and it seems unlikely that many voters want to hear more about the topic. That said, Trump did himself no favors with his answer, in which he reiterated his claim that Clinton loyalists were responsible for starting the controversy. Discretion being the better part of valor, he’d probably have been better off pointing back to his recent statement that it was no longer an issue in his view and trying to pivot to another issue. As it was, what he said didn’t seem to go over well:

Being dragged down because of an old — and foolish — controversy is not what Trump needed.

***

All that said, I still will be mildly surprised if that first debate moves the opinion polls very much. Trump didn’t say anything outlandish that would cause undecided people to move decisively against him. Heck, he was arguably less outlandish than usual. By the standard I outlined before the debate — he can afford to come off as ill-prepared, flustered and incoherent at times, just not crazy — he probably did just well enough.

I expect people to give him at least one more shot in the second debate. And because that one will be smack-dab in the middle of the Columbus Day weekend (Sunday, Oct. 9), I wouldn’t be surprised if, barring other surprises, the polls remain tight through the third debate (Wednesday, Oct. 19).

But as I’ve mentioned: I’ve been wrong before.

Reader Comments 0

339 comments
Bruno2
Bruno2

SGT--When you poke your head back in here, I was curious to know if you previously blogged under the name "Del".  If so, great to see you again.  If not, glad to make your acquaintance.  I appreciate people of intelligence, whatever their political stripe.  Sadly, the Lib contingency here is devoid of much intelligence, though they are long on mindless insults.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

I need to follow up on a reply that I left below to SGTgrit, it concerns the practice of our government that threatens the Church with removal of their tax exempt status if they engage in any political "activities." This is Freedom of Religion in it's purest sense. And the government is denying it. Suppressing it. Exactly the things that the Constitution forbids. One of our founding principles. 


Trump has implicitly stated that he will put a stop to it.


hillary will double down on it. 

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@Starik @IReportYouWhine 

A not for profit entity such as a church should not lose their tax exempt status for merely expressing a political view. In the case of a church nobody in the congregation is forced to follow a certain political viewpoint. What about the First Amendment? It seems in this era of political correctness the First Amendment takes a hind seat.

Starik
Starik

@IReportYouWhine If you guys believe that stuff why don't you agree to pay taxes on it?  Why should thinking people subsidize your religious beliefs and practices?

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Full Definition of evolution Webster’s Dictionary

1.a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state 

Ask yourself, why would anything want to evolve into a Duck? Why are there still worms? You know, it would be one thing if there were a record of fossils and such showing this gradual improvement but the only thing we have is the factual devolvement of our society under control of the democrats.

Liberals hate God and, in all their insane splendor, wish to replace Him in your lives. Everything on this Earth was created to serve a purpose, worms aerate and add nutrients to the soil so that you can grow food from it and eat. Ducks are a ready to roast source of food, after you first blast them, of course. You were given your life, in the image of God the Father Almighty, to fill the heavens with the eternal souls of His children. By being fruitful and multiplying, remember that one? That is why democrats love homosexuals so much. That is why democrats advocate abortions so much. That’s why democrats don’t police black neighborhoods with the same zeal that they do their own neighborhoods. It is all a part of their delegitimizing of the Gift that you were given by your Creator.

There is no hope in this world except through them, or, so they say.

Good luck on judgement day, y’all.

dreema
dreema

@IReportYouWhine You do realize, don't you, that there is more to evolution and its processes (several scientific fields' worth) than can be captured in a Webster's dictionary definition. Your entire post is a classic illustration of a straw man argument. 


There are many liberal Christians. I'm sorry you con't know any of them--you might learn something.

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@IReportYouWhine 

I being a Christian will agree with you, but it's doubtful that anyone on these blogs who are not believers will listen. I'll witness to anyone with an open mind but it's unlikely that open minds are found on a political blog. I do, however, applaud your effort.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

@SGTGrit @IReportYouWhine Back in the heyday of the kookovich blog, when he was allowing comments, there was an Israelite that was posting comments on behalf of the democrats, I couldn't remember their blog name even if I wanted to. This was during the Iraq war, circa 2004, and my comments about the democrat party's treatment of Israel and their struggles against their muslim enemies brought about an admission that I had opened their eyes to the real truth. They left the blog that day and never posted another comment.

It is not about arguing with the goons and hacks for me, it is about turning their propaganda against them in a way that it just might open someone else's eyes to the truth and, of course, save their soul. Don't be afraid to bring the sinners to Christ, there is no greater duty and it is nothing you should ever be ashamed of. 

Our time is coming, Trump has implicitly stated that the government will no longer suppress the Church from professing It's beliefs. He will let us form a Wave that washes over our whole country.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@IReportYouWhine Judgment Day is every day from the perspective of Buddhist thought.  Instant Karma, baby!!

Bruno2
Bruno2

@dreema @IReportYouWhine Sorry, dreema.  Evidence for "Evolution" is sparse, particularly when you analyze the fossil record.  Species seem to appear from no where, with no intermediate species found linking one to another.

Before Hedley jumps in with his religious accusations, I'm speaking from a strictly factual POV.  The fossil record simply isn't there.

skruorangeclown
skruorangeclown

Title here should be :


DID TRUMP DO ENOUGH TO LOSE INDEPENDENT  VOTERS IN THE FIRST DEBATE??


Only the usual deplorables were "wooed" by Trump.

0.930798809417
0.930798809417

Please hire a conservative writer that can string some coherent thoughts together. Wingfield rhymes with 'wingnut,' because he does is regurgitate Republican Party politics, no matter how insulting and nonsensical.   I keep waiting for him to improve his writing skills, and it just does not happen.  Very sad.

STHornet1990
STHornet1990

@0.930798809417 I don't care for a lot of Kyle's opinions, BUT if I did not want to read them I would just stop coming here. I am guessing no one is forcing you to.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

As I keep saying, educate yourself some more, then we can talk.


I cant argue Science with someone who denies it and substitutes arguments based on "Universal Intelligence" or some other nonsense.


Sorry debate is no longer possible. You might as well ask me to prove Jesus isnt divine. 


The fact that you deny evolution and that man has evolved from lower life forms has been noted. And pretty much makes you a clown. 


Don't worry you will have plenty of company. You will fit right in with other Republicans. 

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@Hedley_Lammar 

"pretty much makes you a clown"

And I was just about to applaud you for debating without resorting to personal insults.

Bruno2
Bruno2

 @Hedley_Lammar 

"I cant argue Science with someone who denies it and substitutes arguments based on "Universal Intelligence" or some other nonsense."

I laid out the foundation of Darwinian Evolution and critiqued it from a strictly Scientific standpoint.  In return, you have offered nothing but hollow insults that aren't even based on what I said.

"Sorry debate is no longer possible. You might as well ask me to prove Jesus isnt divine."

Why do you keep referencing religion when I haven't mentioned it even once??  You need to move on from your false dichotomies.

"The fact that you deny evolution and that man has evolved from lower life forms has been noted. And pretty much makes you a clown."

I didn't deny that life forms change over time,  I denied that the agent of change usually offered up by half-wits like you, random genetic mutation, is correct.  No study has ever shown that random mutations have led to an organism adapting better to its environment.  Nor has any fossil record ever shown that one form of life "evolves" from previous life forms.  Did you even read that link I provided regarding the Cambrian Explosion??

"Don't worry you will have plenty of company. You will fit right in with other Republicans."

No doubt about it, we need a better class of Libs around here. 

Bruno2
Bruno2

Gotta run, but one last tidbit for Hedley, who keeps falling back on false dichotomies:  Just because someone rejects the Big Bang, Darwinian Evolution and Anthropogenic Global Warming on scientific grounds doesn't "prove" that they are substituting religious-based arguments instead.  Ditto for those who recognize the intelligence which permeates the Universe.

No more tidbits for Mark VV, who most likely needs a psychiatric evaluation to determine why his thinking process is so flawed.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@Bruno2 Big Bang, Darwinian Evolution and Anthropogenic Global Warming on scientific grounds doesn't "prove" that they are substituting religious-based arguments instead.  Ditto for those who recognize the intelligence which permeates the Universe.


All you are doing is changing religious based argument for one that recognizes the intelligence which permeates the Universe Same da*n thing. 


Total and complete BS. IF it helps you sleep at night go for it.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Hedley_Lammar @Bruno2 If you choose to not recognize the intelligence which permeates the Universe, then you need to do more studying.  I suggest rigorous courses on Chemistry and Physics, as I have taken.  It takes a little education to appreciate the miracle.

MarkVV
MarkVV

Bruno2 has chosen to educate us about his economic theories, and share with everybody his great revelations, such as that “If my neighbor builds a larger house than me, it doesn't make my house any smaller.” I am sure many are very thankful to him for such valuable pieces of wisdom.

Unfortunately (for him), he wrote the products of his brain as a response to my post, without addressing what I wrote about. But you cannot expect  person of such great accomplishments, which he reminds us of, to pay attention to such “details,” can you?

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV I'm sorry you're not smart to understand that wealth can be measured in two ways, either in terms of "absolute wealth" or in terms of "relative wealth".  In terms of "absolute wealth", all of us, from top to bottom, are doing waaaay better than we were 50 years ago, as any objective measure shows, e.g. average amount of living space per person, availability of cheap cars, cheap TVs, phones, etc.  In fact, the poorest people in the US today are much better off than their wealthier counterparts from 50 years ago in terms of creature comforts.

All of your arguments are based upon "relative wealth": Because CEOs and other high earners have much greater "relative wealth" in comparison to the average hourly worker, you think it's "unfair".  Which is the motivation behind my statement “If my neighbor builds a larger house than me, it doesn't make my house any smaller.” Translation: As long as I'm happy with the size of my house and my paycheck, I really don't care how much the CEO of my company earns or how large his or her house is.  If you were truly smart, you would feel the same way.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 @MarkVV You just cannot make a much more arrogant, supercilious, inhuman statement than this one from Bruno:

As long as I'm happy with the size of my house and my paycheck, I really don't care how much the CEO of my company earns or how large his or her house is.

A concept of fairness apparently is something completely alien to Bruno. What he is saying is what the French aristocrats were saying before the revolution to the peasants: Be happy with your life; you have some bread (until they did not) and your hovels, what do you care if we live in palaces and eat delicacies. (Until those peasants cut their heads off.)

Bruno makes me sick.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 @MarkVV I left out inadvertently the important part of Bruno's statement:

"If you were truly smart, you would feel the same way."

I could not care less if  thinks the way he does about his conditions, but I am sickened by his contempt for fairness felt and expressed by others. 

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV @Bruno2 If you wish to improve your lot in life, I suggest spending less time on the blog and spending more time earning money.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 @MarkVV Another stupidity from the stupid. Who thinks that anybody cares about his suggestions.

Have you found my quote about "all companies," Bruno?

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@RafeHollister Actually read the article.


Instead of the headline.


After eight years of Republican opposition, inconsistent policy demands and racialized hate against the first black president, President Barack Obama’s aides, past and present, thought Republicans had gotten what they deserved--and more, all but forfeiting the 2016 race to the woman they defeated eight years ago.

If anything they underestimated how many would respond to Trumps racist birther etc message.


But they are ramping up the get out the vote stuff in Florida. I expect Hillary to win that state. And if she does Trumps chances drop to zero. 

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Hedley_Lammar @RafeHollister Well, there are two articles listed, but to talk about the one you referenced.  Basically the whole point of the article is to point out how amazed Obama and his staff were at Trump's support.  Apparently being in the media bubble and such a narcissist Obama thought 2/3 to 3/4 of Americans actually supported his feckless policies and shared his low opinion of America's past actions.  Boy, was he and the Dems surprised.

MarkVV
MarkVV

Bruno: "The bottom line is that there are very few CEOs in our country who are making more than $1,000,000 per year,


"Across all companies, the averageCEO paywas $13.8 million per year, the average median workerpaywas about $77,800, and the average ratio ofCEO payto median workerpaywas 204. In other words, on average,CEOsearn around 204 times what his or her median worker earns.Aug 25, 2015."

https://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS531US535&ie=UTF-8&rct=j#q=ceo+salaries+vs+employees

"In 2014, CEO pay had risen to an average of $16,316,000 compared to only $53,200 for workers."

http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/

Enough to say?

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV Maybe you should read your own links, dumass.  Both of your articles referenced only the top handful of companies, not "all companies".

Same message to you as to Hedley:  Educate yourself, then maybe we can talk.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV @Bruno2 Mark--Your first link from  glassdoor.com states that "Companies are based on the S&P 500" and the list of high CEO/worker ratios only covered the top 90. Your second link from Fortune.com states that their statistics were drawn from the top 350 companies: "Average realized pay for CEOs at the top 350 firms.."   As such, I'm unsure where you came up with your "1300 companies" statement.

Also, if you read down into your second link, it states: "EPI’s report finds that CEO pay rises and falls along with the stock market—it peaked in 2000, dropped due to the financial crisis and increased during the market’s recovery. Such broad market fluctuations may not have anything to do with how well an individual CEO is performing. Instead most CEOs receive pay in in the form of stock, and so they are able to cash in at the most beneficial times.", which is exactly the point I made below.

The bottom line is that you don't know what you're talking about. There's a reason for high CEO pay right now, and it directly relates to Obama's QE.  Try connecting the dots, then we can talk.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 @MarkVV You like to "talk" a lot, Bruno, to cover your stupidities and falsehoods. You still have not shown where I wrote about "all companies," as you have claimed. 

For the point I was making in my original posts, it makes absolutely no difference how many companies are in a set, in which any such ratio of salaries exists, as long as the set is of sufficient magnitude, which 1,300 is. The fact that the system of rewards allows this to happen proves my point.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV @Bruno2 

"You still have not shown where I wrote about "all companies," as you have claimed."

Maybe you should check the direct quote you started your post off with in response to my claim that very few CEOs make more than $1 Million per year: "Across all companies...."  Are you no longer reading your own posts??

"as long as the set is of sufficient magnitude, which 1,300 is."

You still haven't explained where you came up with the 1300 figure since the links you provided used 500 companies and 350 companies respectively.

Pretty hard to debate someone who doesn't even acknowledge what he just wrote....

Bruno2
Bruno2

Looks as if Mark VV is sniping from the sidelines below without offering any actual rebuttal to my arguments.  Color me shocked.....  Maybe one day he will have the courage to explain some his life accomplishments, or lack thereof, so that we may better understand his wealth envy and general bitterness toward successful people.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 Why should I rebut your "arguments," which had nothing to do with my post?

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@Bruno2 Why is it automatically bitterness and wealth envy when one points out that Trump probably pays no taxes. Romney we know pays a very low rate. And that we dont think that is fair.



MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 Your bragging about your accomplishments has been noted. Anybody can write anything about himself/herself here. 

Bruno2
Bruno2

 Hedley: "Do you think the earth is 6,000 years old?  I need to know how far the stupidity extends first." 

Looks like Hedley is whiffing in explaining to me how Darwinian Evolution works.  As I mentioned to him below, the basic premise of "the survival of the fittest" is a tautology (a circular definition), and ultimately says nothing, since "the fittest" are defined as the ones who "survive".

The big problem with DE is in the proposed mechanism by which "adaptation" occurs.  Interestingly enough, Darwin himself understood that flaw and questioned whether his own theory would hold up with time.  The traditional "explanation" is that random genetic mutations occur, e.g. "genetic drift", and that somehow these fortuitous accidents create stronger, more adaptable organisms.  When confronted with the fact that the vast, vast majority of genetic mutations result in a weakened organism, the traditional "explanation" is that given enough time, good things happen.  Total BS, of course.

The fact remains that the adaptation we observe in vivo is not random, requiring millions of years to develop, but is rapid and is very environmentally dependent, e.g. the development of drug resistance within microbes.  As such, if the survival of a species depended on random, fortuitous genetic mutations to occur, no species could survive.  Although we are still waiting on confirmation, I believe that the mechanism of genetic change occurs via the epigenomes which direct the genetic expression in an intelligent, environmentally dependent way, which exactly matches our observations.

As stated below, although I am not religious in any way, form or fashion, I am smart enough to recognize that we live in an "intelligent" universe, one that is well-ordered.  As Einstein famously said "God doesn't play dice with the Universe".  He was speaking of the built-in probabilities assumed by Schrodinger's Equations, of course, but I think his statement applies to DE as well.

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@Bruno2

A cursory review of a wiki article says that the Schrodinger equation (singular both times) has something to do with quantum mechanics. So your tie-in at the end doesn't seem to fit. I'm inclined to think the rest is poppeycock but it's not an area of my expertise so I could be wrong. Either way, you sure are full of yourself!

Congrats - <golf clap> - on the fabulous investing year you've had. And I'll take your "the bottom line" from down below and failure to rebut the central premise of my reply as about the best I'll get from you in the way of a concession. 

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@Bruno2  As stated below, although I am not religious in any way, form or fashion, I am smart enough to recognize that we live in an "intelligent" universe, one that is well-ordered.


So you are an intelligent design guy. Everything is well ordered so there must have been a watchmaker Total BS. 


Again I have to see how far the stupidity extends. Do you believe man evolved from a simpler life form ?


I'm starting to see much of your argument is grounded in your religious beliefs. And wont hold up to scrutiny.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Eye wonder @Bruno2 "Cursory" being the operative word for most of your posts, EW.  Differently from you, I know what I'm talking about as evidenced by my ability to compose original posts.  So far, you've only been able to post links to other people's thoughts.

The link between Einstein's statement about Quantum Mechanics and my statement about Darwinian Evolution has to do with "purposefulness".  Modern Evolutionists, similarly to Schrodinger, postulate that seemingly purposeful events are simply the result of otherwise random events.  My observations of the Universe speaks otherwise.  The fancy biological term is "teleological" as pertains to Evolution, since you seem to be into fancy terms.

In case you were unaware, the human body contains somewhere around 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 separate atoms. Now, if you can explain to me how random forces can result in that many atoms working together in an intelligent fashion, then you will win the day.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Hedley_Lammar @Bruno2 If you would quit trying to put words in my mouth based upon arguments you've read elsewhere, then maybe you and I could have an intelligent discussion.  A well-ordered Universe does not imply a "Watchmaker", and I've never said as much.  That's a figment of your own imagination.

As I've stated several times now, I'm not religious and I certainly don't believe in supernatural beings, particularly anthropomorphic beings who watch us from outer space and become directly involved in our lives.  At the same time, I'm intelligent and humble enough to realize that there are still many unsolved mysteries in our lives.  In my case, I'm content to allow them to remain unsolved mysteries rather than offering up childish explanations which I know are wrong.

Try again.....


Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@Bruno2 @Hedley_Lammar A well-ordered Universe does not imply a "Watchmaker", and I've never said as much. 


Yes it does. 


At the same time, I'm intelligent and humble enough to realize that there are still many unsolved mysteries in our lives.


Pure Bullshyte. Just because there are some things we dont know doesnt mean we wont. Or that they prove intelligent design or any other such nonsense. 

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Hedley_Lammar @Bruno2 @Eye wonder "No further debate is needed."

Obviously, since you don't appear to be able to think your way out of a wet paper bag.  Why don't you try actually rebutting my arguments rather than going with the Horse Laugh Fallacy.  You might appear smarter if you did so.....

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Hedley_Lammar @Bruno2 Dude, I'm sorry to insult, but your thinking process appears to be limited by what you've read elsewhere.  Explain to me how a well-ordered Universe requires an outside agent.  It doesn't, which in fact is the argument that hard-core Big Bangers and Evolutionists rely upon.  The Latin term is ex nihilo, which means "out of nothing".  Like Mark VV, you're too dumb to even realize when I'm agreeing with you.  Matter is somehow "self-directing", which no one can explain.  Life is a miracle, which no one can explain.  Intelligent people are humble enough enough to admit that.

"Just because there are some things we dont know doesnt mean we wont."

In case you were unaware, some things are "Unknowable", which is the central premise of both Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the concept of "Incomputability" pioneered by Alan Turing.

Educate yourself, then maybe we can talk.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Hedley_Lammar @Bruno2 @Eye wonder It's an easy, but flawed question.  In case you were unaware, the development of new life forms hasn't been a smooth, unbroken continuous path.  It has been more of a "punctuated equilibrium", as evidenced by the Cambrian Explosion of new life forms an estimated 540 million tears ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

As I keep saying, educate yourself some more, then we can talk.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@Bruno2 @Eye wonder Now, if you can explain to me how random forces can result in that many atoms working together in an intelligent fashion, then you will win the day.


Holy crap.


No further debate is needed.