The Theory Of Evolution

[Muhammed Ali 3,344]

Ken Miller directly refuted the statement within of Pandas and people. By demonstrating that certain proteins do hold functions, even without the assistance of others, in an example used by Behe himself.

Miller is refuting an argument that uses a bad example. Behe's example has been scientifically demonstration to be irreducibly complex. You need to address Behe's example directly. Why don't you give the specific example that Miller uses and quote it here?

The fact that simple pieces of a major structure can be used beneficially, even without the assistance of other proteins, demonstrates that it is functional even on its own. Which is the opposite of what Behe is saying.

Behe has always denied what you just said about him. Your's is a straw man argument too. You need to really address irreducible complexity and not a misunderstanding of it.

[Muhammed Ali 3,344]

What is improbable about mutations benefiting an organism? its been recorded to have happened, and observed.

We are talking about multiple improbable mutations. Meaning that each mutation is improbable on its own and then we need many of them to happen at the same time. You are right that there are mutations which do benefit organisms but they are not really improbable ones and they do not really add much information to the genome (they may even cause a loss of functioning in certain areas of the organism) and they cannot lead to the evolution of irreducibly complex structures. An example is the mutations that bacteria undergo when they show resistance to antibiotics. The binding sites do change due to the mutation but that is not the same as the creation of an irreducibly complex feature.

With that said, Behe is in support of what i have said about the fossil succession along with ERVs and phylogenetic trees, and im ok with that. As long as he understands that we humans have evolved from more primitive beings.

I wonder what he thinks about the Cambrian explosion.

[iSilurian 100]

Miller is refuting an argument that uses a bad example. Behe's example has been scientifically demonstration to be irreducibly complex. You need to address Behe's example directly. Why don't you give the specific example that Miller uses and quote it here?

Is it? may i see the research that demonstrates that it is irreducibly complex?

Behe has always denied what you just said about him. Your's is a straw man argument too. You need to really address irreducible complexity and not a misunderstanding of it.

No he has not, in the case of, for example blood clotting. The proteins do not need to be all together in order to benefit an organism.

On this note, i watched the video lecture that he has on irreducible complexity. And basically, what he was saying was, its not that the proteins cant function independently of one another. But the proteins themselves are composed of many traits, that they themselves would need to undergo a handful of designs in order to have their final form independently of other proteins.

If that is what your idea of irreducible complexity is, thats fine by me. But when you talk about, a handful of proteins, such as those in the example of blood clotting, those proteins do not all need to be together in order to perform beneficial things for organisms.

Edited June 1, 2011 by iSilurian

[iSilurian 100]

I wonder what he thinks about the Cambrian explosion.

I would assume he knows that the organisms of the Cambrian explosion are predated by other soft bodied organisms.

[Papples 0]

Miller is refuting an argument that uses a bad example. Behe's example has been scientifically demonstration to be irreducibly complex. You need to address Behe's example directly. Why don't you give the specific example that Miller uses and quote it here?

Behe has always denied what you just said about him. Your's is a straw man argument too. You need to really address irreducible complexity and not a misunderstanding of it.

Behe has not scientifically demonstrated anything.

Irreducible complexity is just another argument from ignorance. The concept does not lead to new knowledge. On the contrary, the concept promotes giving up and just saying "God did it". You never learn anything doing that.

We are talking about multiple improbable mutations. Meaning that each mutation is improbable on its own and then we need many of them to happen at the same time. You are right that there are mutations which do benefit organisms but they are not really improbable ones and they do not really add much information to the genome (they may even cause a loss of functioning in certain areas of the organism) and they cannot lead to the evolution of irreducibly complex structures. An example is the mutations that bacteria undergo when they show resistance to antibiotics. The binding sites do change due to the mutation but that is not the same as the creation of an irreducibly complex feature.

I wonder what he thinks about the Cambrian explosion.

Improbable events happen all the time. In fact, every event in the universe is improbable. Everyone's lives is just a sequence of incredibly improbable events.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Papples

[Pascal 179]

Apologies if this has already been posted (i don't have enough time to back-read through all the pages, my exams are in a couple of days..a little procrastination is fine... to much on the other hand..) but evolution has been more or less definitely shown to take place.

A man called Richard Lenski basically took a big tub of E.Coli bacteria and portioned it out into about 12 flasks. All the E.Coli in the tub were more or less genetically identical to begin with.

(Friendly friendly, E.Coli)

Now, bacteria grow fast, very fast. They have very short life cycles compared to humans as well, they don't live years and years like we do, so you can go through a lot of generations.

This guy was extremely dedicated and did this experiment for over 20+ years ( as far as I'm aware its still going ) and after about 20 years, they were up to the 31 000th generation, imagine that in humans, 31 000 generations that is quiet a lot of time to pass down beneficial genes to your children(imagine all the Christmas presents you'd have to give out :dry:).

By this time the scientists figured out that almost every piece of dna that could of mutated would of undergone one mutation or another by then, most of these mutations were breeded out of course and kept to normal. If we did this in humans and we started growing tentacles on our heads i doubt the people with the tentacles would do a lot of breeding to pass their tentacle genes down to some poor unfortunate children :P ... im all in favour of web-shooting genes though... So even though all these mutations could of happened all the ones that weren't beneficially were done away with.

Another thing happened by this time, they noticed one of the 12 Flasks was a lot more cloudy than the rest.

What happened?

Well, they just don't dump the bacteria in flasks of water, like you and i they need food to grow. The "Growth Medium" they grow these things on contains a lot of things but its not entirely made up of "food" for the bacteria. There are other things in there that the bacteria can't make use of, one of them is a chemical called citrate.

When you send away a sample of bacteria say from a wound or something to be tested, one of the classical things used to differentiate E.Coli from other kinds of similar bacteria is that it can't grow on citrate, while a similar bacteria like Salmonella can. It's also useful to remember at this point, all the 12 flasks came from the same "tub" of bacteria so they were more or less the same to begin with. Something special happened in this particular flask though, the bacteria evolved to utilise the Citrate as a food source. This has never before been seen in any E.Coli at all, ever.

Excluding some kind of wizardry, it's pretty clear in this case that evolution did occur and it is more or less impossible to reject that fact in this particular experiment.

I'd also like to commend the man for spending 20 years washing out flasks... i do that twice a week at most and I'm already sick of it..

So, you see its near impossible to completely refute evolution in its entirety. It is also possible to integrate thiestic beliefs (Like Islam) with science, like evolution. They don't need to be in conflict;In my next post ill explain how this is so. I really do think it is a wonderful theory and everyone should at least look at it and seriously consider it rather than brush it aside in its totality because someone said it doesn't fit your beliefs. Thats fine if you dont care about the truth or whats right but if you do i think its worth a look :) . Thats all I'm saying, I'm not going to force you to believe anything but at the same time i don't think theres any need for conflict.

-kingpomba (Woo, first post)

For Further Reference:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Evolution_Experiment_with_Escherichia_Coli

PS: Not to critcise or anything iSilurian, you're doing great work here, i think you could make your intro to evolution a little more accessible perhaps..? Just a thought

(Sorry for all the pictures and the bold but i get bored really easily...)

Edited June 1, 2011 by kingpomba

[iSilurian 100]

For Further Reference:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Evolution_Experiment_with_Escherichia_Coli

PS: Not to critcise or anything iSilurian, you're doing great work here, i think you could make your intro to evolution a little more accessible perhaps..? Just a thought

(Sorry for all the pictures and the bold but i get bored really easily...)

By all means, please feel free to speak. I study geology so this isnt exactly my grounds to speak on to begin with (with the exception of maybe paleontology). If youre comfortable with the material and would be willing to make your own explanation, i would be more than happy to read it. I think its great to have multiple perspectives in more of a think tank organization for one topic.

Thanks for the addition as well. Its a nice read.

[iSilurian 100]

For Further Reference:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Evolution_Experiment_with_Escherichia_Coli

PS: Not to critcise or anything iSilurian, you're doing great work here, i think you could make your intro to evolution a little more accessible perhaps..? Just a thought

(Sorry for all the pictures and the bold but i get bored really easily...)

By all means, please feel free to speak. I study geology so this isnt exactly my grounds to speak on to begin with (with the exception of maybe paleontology). If youre comfortable with the material and would be willing to make your own explanation, i would be more than happy to read it. I think its great to have multiple perspectives in more of a think tank organization for one topic.

Thanks for the addition as well. Its a nice read.

[Pascal 179]

[Edit: I also wanted to add this illustration to the post i made above but it seems i cant edit it. Obviously i wasn't born an artist but hey if it helps to illustrate it all the better.]

Oh geology haha, i don't know what that means in your country but down here in Australia it means $ $ (6 if i counted right) .

(What kind of geology are you into if you dont mind me asking?)

I'm in the life sciences, physiology or pharmacology will probably be my major but i also have a big interest in evolutionary biology (the 1st year of my course is very general and covered pretty much sampled everything in biology under my subject "Biology" ... haha i don't know why that needed explaining but i know a bit of everything).

Another great interest of mine is religion (explains why i'm here then).

I think evolution and a lot of other scientific theories are excellent and i believe everyone should appreciate them. I once had a conversation with a someone and i asked them, "You haven't seen all the evidence for evolution or you haven't even studied it, how do you know its not true?" "No evidence i read will change my mind". Thats kind of setting it up to fail by default, i don't like that kind of thinking at all, fair enough if you look at it and disagree but dont discount it before you know what it is... Those kind of things also bring me here but just mainly interest in peoples views.

(If you guys want to know more about me theres a link in the "About Me" section of my profile)

Edited June 1, 2011 by kingpomba

[iSilurian 100]

(What kind of geology are you into if you dont mind me asking?)

Mainly environmental geology work (hydrogeology in particular), although i enjoy structural geology work as well.. Aside from that, i mainly enjoy paleontology, but the issue with paleo is its hard to get a job in it.

Edited June 1, 2011 by iSilurian

[Pascal 179]

Ah i see. In Australia we're one of the worlds largest exporters of raw minerals in the west of the country you could easily make $100 000+ AUD as a geologist, same deal with oil.

One of the things i was planning to post:

================================================================================================================

(Taken from another forum i wrote on but it applies here, still my work)

As a science student this is of particular interest to me, especially considering evolutionary biology is one of my main areas of focus(may indeed be my honours project). I've had the pleasure to study under some of the best academics in the country and it really has been an enjoyable experience.

Why did i mention that? Because science should be enjoyed by everyone.

This goes back to a very old line of thinking called the "conflict hypothesis" that religion and science always will be in conflict [1] but really they don't have to be, not at all.

In almost all scientific theories that *could possibly* be seen as in conflict with certain religions (mainly the ones who have actual gods, abrahamic and indian religions, i haven't seen taoism or other religions have much of a clash) there are really ways to integrate belief into them and still believe these wonderful ideas.

Evolution has been shown(click) more or less conclusively to happen, in at least bacteria. So, its impossible to totally discount the theory of evolution in its entirety. These kind of experiments would take far too long in humans/animals and would be very hard to design. This is both simple and elegant so i think it serves a good purpose.

So, we've established that evolution isn't totally false, where to from here?

Well, there is definitely room for god in evolution. We know things evolve and all things can be traced back to one common ancestor, quiet possibly one of the first living things ever.

However, there is no completely established and accepted idea of how that first thing came about, where that first spark of life came from. In there, if you are religious, you could say god started it all or god produced the first life, see there is room, no need for conflict :) .

One of my many theories is that one of the first living things was a kind of clay mineral that could kind of "reproduce" and pass down genetic information. As far as im aware, the quran says man was created from clay ( i could be wrong and i apologise, please correct me :) ) so that makes it all the better.[2]

Tell me what you guys think about what i wrote, I'm interest to hear.

-Origin

[1] Stenmark, Mikael. "Ways of relating science and religion." The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion. Ed. Peter Harrison. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Cambridge Collections Online. Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1017/CCOL9780521885386.015

[2] I realise you guys will need a subscription to a journal service to read all the articles on it so i took a small snippet from one of them:

In the 1970s, Paecht-Horowitz and Katchalsky carried out an experimental demonstration of this theory. They showed that a particular clay, montmorillonite, acts like a mini-reactor : it stores, concentrates and positions the adenylated amino acids between its layers and favours their polymerisation. From this point of view, the clay can be considered as a primitive enzyme. Similarly, several researchers succeeded in condensing mononucleotides or amino acids on the clay surface. The idea of a role for mineral surfaces in the origin of life has gathered a following and it has been developed parallel to work linked to the hypothesis of the prebiotic soup.

Marie-Christine Maurel, Jean-Luc Decout, Origins of life: Molecular foundations and new approaches, Tetrahedron, Volume 55, Issue 11, 12 March 1999, Pages 3141-3182, ISSN 0040-4020, DOI: 10.1016/S0040-4020(98)01168-5. (http://www.sciencedi...040402098011685)

Edited June 1, 2011 by kingpomba

[Guest Stefan]

I study geology

What do you think about this ?

http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-in-conflict

I tried to figure out what part of this story is missing, but I couldn't.

They gave the name of the lab which dated that piece of wood, but I couldn't find anything relevant on the website of that lab.

Is it simply a damn lie ?

[Pascal 179]

It's from a creationist journal, they have a vested interest in proving creationism to be true, so bias creeps in, otherwise whats the point of publishing evidence that doesn't support creationism in a creationist journal?

Also, read the sources on the bottom. They're all rather dodgy and unscientific.. one of the sources is a letter..the other is a news report... the news report could of had errors in it, its not unheard of... and the letter...well that doesnt need any explanation.

[iSilurian 100]

What do you think about this ?

http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-in-conflict

I tried to figure out what part of this story is missing, but I couldn't.

They gave the name of the lab which dated that piece of wood, but I couldn't find anything relevant on the website of that lab.

Is it simply a damn lie ?

i would say, its most likely made up.

first off, its on the website "creation.com", so already, youre dealing with non scientists who most likely believe jesus road dinosaurs. But, more specifically on the paper, they didnt really have a single source. For example...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Below the basalt were layers of claystone, siltstone, and sandstone with interbedded coal seams.2"

source ~ "Copies of the relevant geological cross-section and drill-hole data were kindly supplied by the Crinum Mine Project staff."

ok so, this isnt a source, they may as well just say within the article itself that they recieved cross sections from the mine project staff. Beyond this, i guess we will just have to accept it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This siltstone belongs to the Permian German Creek coal measures, conventionally believed to be around 255 million years old.6"

source ~ Falkner, ‘Sedimentological studies in the German Creek coal measures and their relevance to longwall mining’, New Developments in Coal Geology (A Symposium), J.W. Beetson (ed.), Coal Geology Group (Geological Society of Australia), pp. 143–148, 1993.

Theres a real source from the GSA, but goes against what the article is trying to say.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To young-earth creationists the geological context of these fossil wood fragments in the basalt lava flow clearly indicates that these represent post-Flood trees overwhelmed by a post-Flood volcanic eruption nearby, and thus both the fossil wood and the basalt are less than 4,500 years old.12"

source ~ It needs to be remembered that during the Flood and immediate post-Flood periods the earth’s stronger, but fluctuating, magnetic field affected the incoming cosmic ray influx, resulting thus in a lower radiocarbon production rate and therefore radiocarbon ‘ages’ much greater than the true ages.

And so you see, this article was made by a bunch of numskulls who believe in global floods and jesus riding dinosaurs, and have no sources for their work.

I wouldnt necessarily call them liars. The way i see it, if i told you that pink giraffes live in Antarctica, and my source was "one should remember the pink giraffe footprints in Antarctica", then i would advise you and others to not pay much attention to me. Most likely these creation people are simply uneducated loonies.

Edited June 1, 2011 by iSilurian

[Master Chief 74]

May I suggest, that you explain micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and try to explain how they link together. Speaking from experience, most people tend to confuse of these (one person that I know was trying to apply allopatric mode speciation on DNA, while another personI know had a notion that evolution is linear and we are descended from chimpanzees). I also found this website that might be helpful in explaining evolution in such a way that people who do not have a background in biology could understand http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

Edited June 6, 2011 by Master Chief

[JimJam 207]

By all means, please feel free to speak. I study geology so this isnt exactly my grounds to speak on to begin with (with the exception of maybe paleontology). If youre comfortable with the material and would be willing to make your own explanation, i would be more than happy to read it. I think its great to have multiple perspectives in more of a think tank organization for one topic.

Thanks for the addition as well. Its a nice read.

Im a student of Geology too. The fossil record is one of the strongest evidences in favor of evolution. Organisms have changed over time. Sometimes in a very subtle way, sometimes very dramatically. Without assuming evolution its very hard to explain why these changes occur with time.

Now........................ I shall copy / paste links

http://shells.tricity.wsu.edu/ArcherdShellCollection/Cephalopoda/CephalopodEvolution.html

http://www.foraminifera.eu/evolution.html

Edited June 6, 2011 by JimJam

[iSilurian 100]

Im a student of Geology too. The fossil record is one of the strongest evidences in favor of evolution. Organisms have changed over time. Sometimes in a very subtle way, sometimes very dramatically. Without assuming evolution its very hard to explain why these changes occur with time.

Now........................ I shall copy / paste links

http://shells.tricity.wsu.edu/ArcherdShellCollection/Cephalopoda/CephalopodEvolution.html

http://www.foraminifera.eu/evolution.html

These are some cool websites, thanks.

[Pascal 179]

May I suggest, that you explain micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and try to explain how they link together. Speaking from experience, most people tend to confuse of these (one person that I know was trying to apply allopatric mode speciation on DNA, while another personI know had a notion that evolution is linear and we are descended from chimpanzees). I also found this website that might be helpful in explaining evolution in such a way that people who do not have a background in biology could understand http://evolution.ber...101/index.shtml

I could do that, i'm usually pretty good at explaining these things. I might make a thread on it when my exam period ends. This section of the forum doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic though, i could spend hours upon hours editing and writing things, drawing diagrams and maybe only 3 or 4 people who don't believe in evolution would read it, which is a shame. I'm willing to put in the time if it'll pay off but otherwise i'm not so sure :). We'll see come holiday time.

[iSilurian 100]

I could do that, i'm usually pretty good at explaining these things. I might make a thread on it when my exam period ends. This section of the forum doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic though, i could spend hours upon hours editing and writing things, drawing diagrams and maybe only 3 or 4 people who don't believe in evolution would read it, which is a shame. I'm willing to put in the time if it'll pay off but otherwise i'm not so sure :). We'll see come holiday time.

an interested and related video

[iSilurian 100]

Something that was brought to my attention, (thanks king pomba).

There is a youtube person by the name of DonExodus2. He has a bachelors and PhD in Evolutionary Biology.

And, he has made a lot of videos about evolution, and the way he presents information is in a pretty simple and enjoyable way. Also in his videos he uses a lot of pictures and footage to help depict what he is describing, which makes learning about evolutionary biology much easier.

So yea, DonExodus2, check out his archives of videos.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2#p/c/0/GpNeGuuuvTY

Edited June 21, 2011 by iSilurian

[iSilurian 100]

ill just add this in, for those who are interested, and Pomba im not sure if youre familiar with it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html'>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Ask, and thou shalt reveal.

Edited June 27, 2011 by iSilurian

[iSilurian 100]

A further example of human evolution

the evolution of Northern Europeans in their ability to produce lactase.

Edited July 1, 2011 by iSilurian

[Master Chief 74]

Interesting gallery below

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/horse-evolution

[Abu Nur 3,998]

Reminds me Imam Ali (as) saying:

If you tread on the paths of your imagination and reach its extremity it will not lead you anywhere except that the Originator of the Ant is the same as He who is the Originator of the date-palm, because everything has (the same) delicacy and detail, and every living being has little difference.

Source

Edited July 3, 2011 by Zufa

[Fink 335]

What does evolution have to do with religion?

[iSilurian 100]

What does evolution have to do with religion?

Assuming were religious people, it tells us about how God has created us.

[Abu Nur 3,998]

What does evolution have to do with religion?

Have you readed Quranic ayat and Hadiths where Allah (SWT) and Ahlulbait (as) describe details of creation AND reflection of creation? It is our job to study how such God creations is developed and reflect on its development.

[Fink 335]

good answers.

dont believe the myth that evolution proves or disproves religion.

[iSilurian 100]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry

a great addition to the discussion. Convergent and divergent evolution in the form of mimicry ^^.

[Quisant 407]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry

a great addition to the discussion. Convergent and divergent evolution in the form of mimicry ^^.

I wanted to add Charles Darwin own words which were written in 1875! and make fascinating reading.

Evidence of the descent of Man.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/darwinc/index.htm

Wslm.

*

Edited July 15, 2011 by Quisant

[Pascal 179]

I'd be careful reading darwins original works. He came up with one of the most original and revolutionary ideas of science in all human history but to say the theory was complete or all the evidence was there when darwin first wrote it would be incorrect. Also, it is a very old work, people have actually found many reasons (genetics) for the things he noticed. So, it started the fire but itself is far from complete (sort of like hadith compliments and completes the quran for any Muslims reading, same kind of relationship).

This is a rather interesting recent evolutionary change in humans - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction / https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Acetaldehyde_dehydrogenase .

Water used to be full of all kinds of bacteria and other bugs that made you sick (still is in many places). Europeans tended to try ferment it and make it alcoholic to kill off the bacteria (thats why there are so many very very old breweries in europe), so europeans evolved to process alcohol better. People in the far east tended to boil their water more of the time, for tea and things, so they had less pressure to be able to break down alcohol properly. This is a relatively recent mutation as well.

Another interesting recent mutation, pointed out in the start of this thread, is resistance to HIV in africa. People are starting to evolve a resistance to HIV/AIDs, like this woman - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features

[SlaveOfAllah14 618]

There is a really learned scholar who came from Iran to here (Australia). He said that there is a hadith from Imam Jafar Sadiq that says that there were humans before Adam. He then said that the children of Adam married them.

I then told him that well what about the other ahadithes that says that the children of Adam married between themselves.

He told me that yes there are those ahadithes too. Then he said that since there were different types of people, that is why the different ahadithes were narrated to them to make it easier for them to understand or something. So he said that the better ahadith would be that there were humans before adam.

Thus this doesn't go against the theory of Evolution.

[iDevonian 376]

Just pulling this topic up for the nay sayers.

Recently ive heard comments like

"Adaptation YES

Evolution NO" ~ Roachy

and

"Evolution lacks sufficient evidence to remain conclusive."

~ Shiaben

However, based on the information on page 1, i beg to differ. I would like to see these people and more (whomever else has an issue with the theory) to come discuss it, rather than hiding from actual discussions and hiding in the thinkers discourse where conversations take 5 hours due to pending approvals.

As for the actual responses, adaptation yes, evolution no. Well, when living things mutate, their DNA brings about new properties to the organism. New DNA which sequences for new proteins. If you understand what this means, you will immediately know, this is not simply "adaptation", its more of a transformation. If DNA defines a beings morphology, and our DNA changes, then guess what? Our morphology changes. And if our physical body changes, then the ability to tranform into another being is clearly possible. And thats not just adaptation, its evolution.

And Shiaben is stating that there isnt sufficient evidence, and yet i have yet to see him respond to any of the evidences stated in this topic. Perhaps he doesnt know that they exist?

So yea, im here, come on guys, lets hear your responses...

[ShiaBen 948]

Evolution fails to explain homosexuality.

Darwin's branching tree patterns- fossil evidence shows that they appeared around the same time (in other words, they did not diverge from a common ancestor)

Dark and light moths- Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks in the wild (a common lie found in many books).

Darwin's finches- beaks don't permanently change (evolve), they can be shaped back and forth.

Can't explain the origins of human self-awareness or thought

Edited January 23, 2012 by ShiaBen

[iDevonian 376]

Evolution fails to explain homosexuality.

Darwin's branching tree patterns- fossil evidence shows that they appeared around the same time (in other words, they did not diverge from a common ancestor)

Dark and light moths- Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks in the wild (a common lie found in many books).

Darwin's finches- beaks don't permanently change (evolve), they can be shaped back and forth.

Can't explain the origins of human self-awareness or thought

what are you kidding me? So lets ignore my post and lets just ramble lol. Evolution fails to explain homosexuality. Fossil evidence shows fossils diverged at the same time...something about moths on a treestump...finches beaks change back...and self awareness. Ok.

May i have the scientific names of the moths and the finches youre referring to? It would make it easier for me to figure out what youre talking about. The homosexuality thing and the self awareness things we can save them for last. and the fossil thing, if you could elaborate on that too, id appreciate it. Lets see what you know about your own arguments.

Oh yea and berlinski doesnt deny the plausibility of common descent (that we descended from apes) so i dont know why you have a video of him. The most he does is question the fossil record, even though if you watch videos of him discussing other types of fossils, he openly admits that there are many transitional fossils. He is the last person you want to promote in this discussion.

Edited January 23, 2012 by iDevonian