[Asyncritus (OP)]

Have you got any idea of the meaning of the word 'ranting'? Or is it just another insult to heap? It comes from the Greek rhantizo, meaning to froth, usually at the mouth.

The frothing displeasure is all on your side. I have presented many pieces of evidence now, and any reader who revisits the earliest parts of this thread will soon see who has the more reasonable arguments.

It is a scientific procedure to examine hypotheses and theories, and to discard them if and when sufficient contrary evidence is presented, and which cannot be explained by the theory. The supporters of the theory can kid themselves that their theory is sufficient to account for the evidence - but you people, as supporters of the theory of evolution have done a pathetically dismal job.

You have produced absolutely no evidenced explanations of the origin of any of the great examples of instinct I have supplied.If you think you have successfully done so, please link me to the relevant paper or post. Start with the Swallows of Capistrano.

Since instinct is the force powering every behaviour in every living organism, then failure to account for the existence of ANY example of instinct is failure to account for all life as we know it. Evolution is therefore a failure.

Maybe it is merely your supporters' ability that is a failure. In that case, go get Dawkins or Ruse or Babinski on the site to help you fight the noble cause - if they dare to show up.

To answer your questions:

1 I do not know when the designing took place.

2 The strata as you ought to know, are NOT in strict chronological order, apart from in the textbooks. Whether you wish to describe the processes as 'heartless' or not is neither here nor there.

3 I presume nothing, besides the fact that He exists, has designed, and that we see proof of that everywhere.

4 Evolution is a dogma. More, it is a faith and is held with religious fervour as numerous authors have stated clearly. It is for this reason that people like Dawkins are forced to write things like The God Delusion. His religion is under attack, and he is responding like a high priest scenting blasphemy. Just like you are. Here are some quotes to substantiate that remark:

[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion.  This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”  Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3.

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people.  One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123.

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory.  Is it then a science or a faith?  Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.  Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi.

[The theory of evolution] "forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature." Harrison Matthews. Introduction to Origin of Species (1977 edition) p. xxii.

Choose, therefore, which faith you will espouse: and know that that is exactly what you're doing. Do not make the mistake of thinking that either you or evolution is scientific when you have made your choice.

Having worked through your post I see absolutely nothing remotely scientific presented in it - merely rantings and personal slurs. If I've missed the scientific bit of it, please point it out for me to rebut.

[_Stefan_]

You have to be joking. Your posts are ridiculous.

We know instinct is under genetic control. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/july13/flygene-071305.html

Since natural selection does actually work, it's really easy to set up plausible ways in which specific instincts evolved. We've already been through this with you with honeybees.

Behavior does not leave direct fossil evidence, but it does leave genetic and developmental evidence.

Are you still being a hypocrite? Creation has NO evidence supporting it at all, and has NO rational explanation and mechanism. All you have is wishful, magical thinking. Do you even listen to yourself speak?

To respond to your answers to our questions:

1 - Yet you still believe?

2 - Wow. Where is your evidence for that claim? All the dating methods and geological knowledge confirm the age and sequence of strata. The only exceptions I'm aware of are when geological processes invert segments of rock.

3 - That's the problem. Your entire worldview depends on the almost certainly false assumption that god exists and that "it" caused anything to happen at all. You have no evidence and no rational explanation. Give it up already.

4 - Quote mining and Argument from Authority. Is that the best you have?

Your personal beliefs, weak thinking and willful ignorance are not evidence against evolution.

Even if you proved evolution wrong, creation is no closer to explaining biology, than alchemy is to replacing chemistry, astrology is to replacing astronomy, and the babies-come-from-storks theory is to replacing sexual reproduction.

The onus is on you to present positive evidence, and rational explanation, for creation. You can't, so go away.

[BenV]

3 I presume nothing, besides the fact that He exists, has designed, and that we see proof of that everywhere.

4 Evolution is a dogma. More, it is a faith and is held with religious fervour as numerous authors have stated clearly. It is for this reason that people like Dawkins are forced to write things like The God Delusion. His religion is under attack, and he is responding like a high priest scenting blasphemy. Just like you are.

I hope you see the circularity of your arguments.  You are saying that evolution is nothing but a religion, whilst at the same time saying that religion should be given special privileges to claim whatever it likes without proof.

If evolution were a religion, remember that it would be equally as valid as yours.  I suspect you disbelieve the hindu creation myths?  They're also just as valid as yours.

However, evolution is a branch of the study of genetics, and a well-evinced theory that adequately explains the origins of species.  I'll grant you that some people defend it with am almost religious fervour, but so do football fans or boy band groupies - don't confuse the reaction with the cause.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

You have to be joking. Your posts are ridiculous.

So why aren't you laughing? You sound awfully grim!

We know instinct is under genetic control. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/july13/flygene-071305.html

Let me try, in words of one syllable or less, as it's obvious that any more than that is beyond your grasp.

I AM ASKING YOU HOW INSTINCT BEGAN. STARTED.

I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT THE MOTOR CAR, I'M ASKING ABOUT THE DRIVER. So spare me the claptrap about 'being under genetic control'. HOW DID IT GET IN THE GENES IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Since natural selection does actually work, it's really easy to set up plausible ways in which specific instincts evolved. We've already been through this with you with honeybees.

No you haven't. You produced the old mishmash of tripe, under genetic control etc etc, but not a word about how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells, like make wax, like direct its pals to the honey source with a little dance, like being able to see polarised light, like fly, like figuring out that pollen is good for it, like digesting nectar produces honey, like pollinate millions of plants which would die without them - all proof of design ingenuity, completely rubbishing evolution.

Behavior does not leave direct fossil evidence, but it does leave genetic and developmental evidence.

I'm sorry, but behaviour does leave fossil evidence everywhere. Take a bat. The earliest microchiropteran fossil has the echolocating apparatus bumps on its head.So there's fossil evidence of behaviour.

Are you still being a hypocrite? Creation has NO evidence supporting it at all, and has NO rational explanation and mechanism. All you have is wishful, magical thinking. Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Are you still being stupid? Evolution only has the dreams and wishful thinking of its supporters like you, who seem to go round with a paper bag over your heads so you can't see a fact even when it hits you in the mush.

2 - Wow. Where is your evidence for that claim? All the dating methods and geological knowledge confirm the age and sequence of strata. The only exceptions I'm aware of are when geological processes invert segments of rock.

So you are aware of some facts! Congratulations, pal. Show me one place in the entire world where the geological column is complete from top to bottom.

3 - That's the problem. Your entire worldview depends on the almost certainly false assumption that god exists and that "it" caused anything to happen at all. You have no evidence and no rational explanation. Give it up already.

I have huge amounts of design intelligence that your paper bag won't let you see. Take those bees above. Explain already how some stupid bee can do things we can't - like fly.

4 - Quote mining and Argument from Authority. Is that the best you have?

Nothing annoys me more than this ignorant bleat. Go find the quotes yourself and show how I have misquoted the authors. If you can't, then I demand that you withdraw this idiotic remark.

Your personal beliefs, weak thinking and willful ignorance are not evidence against evolution.

No, but the facts are. See the bees (above) in case you've forgotten.

The onus is on you to present positive evidence, and rational explanation, for creation. You can't, so go away.

No, you go away if you can't stand facts and the truth. That's just typical of evolutionist behaviour. Leave and stop your ranting. Or better yet, wake up to the facts and face them honestly, instead of sniping all the time.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

3 I presume nothing, besides the fact that He exists, has designed, and that we see proof of that everywhere.

4 Evolution is a dogma. More, it is a faith and is held with religious fervour as numerous authors have stated clearly. It is for this reason that people like Dawkins are forced to write things like The God Delusion. His religion is under attack, and he is responding like a high priest scenting blasphemy. Just like you are.

I hope you see the circularity of your arguments.  You are saying that evolution is nothing but a religion, whilst at the same time saying that religion should be given special privileges to claim whatever it likes without proof.

I don't follow this. Evolution is ALLEGED TO BE SCIENCE. As such, it has rules of evidence to adhere to - but it certainly doesn't do so.

Religion is not science, and does not pretend to be. In my own case, I use the facts of science to support my view of divine existence. Those facts are adequate to the task, but in no case do I argue from a religious basis. I argue TO religion from scientific facts.

If evolution were a religion, remember that it would be equally as valid as yours.  I suspect you disbelieve the hindu creation myths?  They're also just as valid as yours.

YOU CLAIM THAT EVOLUTION IS A SCIENCE. If you admit that it IS a religion, then we have no argument any more - but I suspect your cronies would crucify you comprehensively.

However, evolution is a branch of the study of genetics, and a well-evinced theory that adequately explains the origins of species.  I'll grant you that some people defend it with am almost religious fervour, but so do football fans or boy band groupies - don't confuse the reaction with the cause.

Evolution is not a branch of genetics. Genetics is used to support the theory: with marked lack of success, I may say.

Evolution has to stand or fall by the scientific evidence - otherwise it is worthless. Since there are so many facts it cannot possibly explain, then it fails on this most important criterion. When are you going to abandon it?

[MonikaS]

Here we have a typical example of a fundie:

92. "The Armour of God". When a fundie is presented with irrefutable facts that prove that he is completely mistaken about one of his opinions, he would loudly proclaim that he is putting on his "armour of God". Apparently the "armour of God" is purposeful ignorance, and the fundie is incapable of showing any difference between the "armour of God" and purposeful ignorance.

93. "Perseveration" This is the fundie version of perseverance. It's when they keep doing the same thing, over and over, even if it's not working, and appears completely idiotic to everyone else.

101-Odd Games Fundies Play by John Richards
Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.

how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells

Bees make roundish comb cells, the combs melt into the hexagonal form, because it's the most effective form. That's mere physics.

Hmmm, why do I do this... I'm pretty much sure you'll keep your fingers in your ears and continue singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you..." You're doing a fine job of making yourself look like a fool.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Congratulations on exhibiting your inability to recognise the meaning of the simple word 'fact'.

92. "The Armour of God". When a fundie is presented with irrefutable facts that prove that he is completely mistaken about one of his opinions, he would loudly proclaim that he is putting on his "armour of God". Apparently the "armour of God" is purposeful ignorance, and the fundie is incapable of showing any difference between the "armour of God" and purposeful ignorance.

Irrefutable? Facts? Where? Let's see some. Spouting insults does not qualify as either.

93. "Perseveration" This is the fundie version of perseverance. It's when they keep doing the same thing, over and over, even if it's not working, and appears completely idiotic to everyone else.

More insults. No more facts. Where are they?

Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.

You've got this all wrong. YOU can't explain any of this. Evolution can't either. Want to make a genuine effort to explain the origin of those bee facts I listed? Instead of silly remarks?

And how do you explain the fact that the earliest known bee IS A BEE - not something else?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.

So you want to substitute: We can't understand it - evolution did it!!!! What progress! What a huge forward step! What a breakthrough! An advance! We haven't a clue how it could have happened, but it is the scientific method to hide our ignorance by shouting EVOLUTION DID IT!!! And of course, the louder you shout, the more certain it becomes that EVOLUTION DID IT!!! So shout louder! You'll soon know everything!! Hurrah! 3 cheers for evolution guys!!!

how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells

Bees make roundish comb cells, the combs melt into the hexagonal form, because it's the most effective form. That's mere physics.

No, it's mere stupidity. The optimal shape for the construction of the most economical containers is the hexagon. And a lickle bee figured that all out all on her lonesome! Ain't evolution wonderful!!!!

Hmmm, why do I do this... I'm pretty much sure you'll keep your fingers in your ears and continue singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you..." You're doing a fine job of making yourself look like a fool.

Why do you do this? Just to make yourself look stupid by writing this nonsense? As the saying goes, its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubts.

[Chemistry4me]

Now, I don't know enough about biology to make a significant contribution here, but from reading previous posts on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you (Asyncritus) obviously don't believe in evolution, which is fine by me, I don't mind. But you are on a SCIENCE forum talking with people who know SCIENCE, and I think they are hardly going to accept a view based upon religion and that God created everything, after all these years of working in their field of expertise. Science and religion don't exactly go hand in hand. But has all this discussion gotten us any closer to answering the question 'how does "instinct" evolve?'?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Now, I don't know enough about biology to make a significant contribution here, but from reading previous posts on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you (Asyncritus) obviously don't believe in evolution, which is fine by me, I don't mind. But you are on a SCIENCE forum talking with people who know SCIENCE, and I think they are hardly going to accept a view based upon religion and that God created everything, after all these years of working in their field of expertise. Science and religion don't exactly go hand in hand. But has all this discussion gotten us any closer to answering the question 'how does "instinct" evolve?'?

To be truthful, it hasn't. The fact is that instinct could not have evolved.

My favourite example as you may have read in the thread is the Swallows of Capistrano, closely followed by the Golden Plovers.

The Plovers fly 2,500 miles across the ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with no stops, and no landmarks to guide them. But they do it every year.

Then, they breed in Hawaii, and BEFORE THE YOUNG ARE MATURE, the parents fly off to Alaska, LEAVING THE YOUNG BEHIND.

The young then follow, without anything to guide them - all the way to Alaska.

I see no hope for any evolutionary explanation of this phenomenon. I have never even heard of one. I personally think that God did this to have a good laugh at the atheists, who, if they have a scrap of intellectual decency in them, must be tearing their hair out in bundles when confronted by these facts, and others like them.

[MonikaS]

And how do you explain the fact that the earliest known bee IS A BEE - not something else?

Ah, you're talking about Melittosphex burmensis, quite interesting now extinct species of bees.
A quote from an article about the find: (Oregon State University)
"The specimen, at least 35-45 million years older than any other known bee fossil, has given rise to a newly-named family called Melittosphecidae – insects that share some of the features of both bees and wasps. It supports the theory that pollen-dependent bees evolved from their meat-eating predecessors, the wasps."
So, looks like it is just half-bee...
Pollen-spreading bees co-evolved with flower plants, when pollen became the protein source for those species, instead of meat protein.

So far you have failed to present any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, "because my brand of religion tells me so" does not count. You keep digging up examples, they all have been refuted by others in this thead. Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.

[MonikaS]

Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.

So you want to substitute: We can't understand it - evolution did it!!!! What progress! What a huge forward step! What a breakthrough! An advance! We haven't a clue how it could have happened, but it is the scientific method to hide our ignorance by shouting EVOLUTION DID IT!!! And of course, the louder you shout, the more certain it becomes that EVOLUTION DID IT!!! So shout louder! You'll soon know everything!! Hurrah! 3 cheers for evolution guys!!!

Nope, wrong! It's "We can't understand it - let's find out how it came to be!" Apparently you don't know how the scientific method works.

how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells

Bees make roundish comb cells, the combs melt into the hexagonal form, because it's the most effective form. That's mere physics.

No, it's mere stupidity. The optimal shape for the construction of the most economical containers is the hexagon. And a lickle bee figured that all out all on her lonesome! Ain't evolution wonderful!!!!

The bee doesn't figure it out, it doesn't need to. Small changes over time (yep, evolution) have a big impact.

[MonikaS]

My favourite example as you may have read in the thread is the Swallows of Capistrano, closely followed by the Golden Plovers.

The Plovers fly 2,500 miles across the ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with no stops, and no landmarks to guide them. But they do it every year.

Then, they breed in Hawaii, and BEFORE THE YOUNG ARE MATURE, the parents fly off to Alaska, LEAVING THE YOUNG BEHIND.

The young then follow, without anything to guide them - all the way to Alaska.

No, the Golden Plovers breed in arctic tundra, not in Hawaii. Most of the birds migrate to South America, one of the longest migration routes. Even better they do it with almost no break, having stored about 50% of their body mass in fat. Just a small percentage ends up in Hawaii.

The genetic program of most migratory birds tells them, when the day length gets shorter and the temperature drops below X° fly south. Topographical features like mountain ranges and meterological phenomena influence the route they take.
In some bird species there is learning involved as well. Some birds even have traditions, like the European stork, some fly over Gibraltar, others over Israel.

How this instinctual behaviour evolved? Well, the birds who flew north in winter didn't survive, as didn't the ones with the genetic program east or west. The ones with the program 'fly south' survived and gave the genes for that to their offspring, i.o.w. mormal natural selecting.

[yor_on]

What evidence do you see for a God here and now?

Middle East
East Europe
Asia
Global warming
Hypocrisy from EU.
Hypocrisy from UN.
USA:s war on 'terror'.
Africa's child soldiers?
Slave trade

This sudden need for creationism (like ten years old, right?
In times of crisis, like war etc, nativity seems to rise, as well as organized religion.

And the world is definitely going into a 'depression', cause of several reasons.
And isn't that always when those people with the 'simple' solutions seems to 'pop' up?

If God exist he does not do what you expect him to do.
He's no ones hired Wizard, magicking for your enjoyment or understanding.
So human definitions of what one would like to be the 'truth' seems rather inconsequent to me.
But, if he exist, doing as the bible says, knowing us all, he will watch how you treat others and your self though:)

[Chemistry4me]

You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?

Because, if it couldn't and didn't evolve, then the theory needs replacing.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

My favourite example as you may have read in the thread is the Swallows of Capistrano, closely followed by the Golden Plovers.

The Plovers fly 2,500 miles across the ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with no stops, and no landmarks to guide them. But they do it every year.

Then, they breed in Hawaii, and BEFORE THE YOUNG ARE MATURE, the parents fly off to Alaska, LEAVING THE YOUNG BEHIND.

The young then follow, without anything to guide them - all the way to Alaska.

No, the Golden Plovers breed in arctic tundra, not in Hawaii. Most of the birds migrate to South America, one of the longest migration routes. Even better they do it with almost no break, having stored about 50% of their body mass in fat. Just a small percentage ends up in Hawaii.

The genetic program of most migratory birds tells them, when the day length gets shorter and the temperature drops below X° fly south. Topographical features like mountain ranges and meterological phenomena influence the route they take.
In some bird species there is learning involved as well. Some birds even have traditions, like the European stork, some fly over Gibraltar, others over Israel.

How this instinctual behaviour evolved? Well, the birds who flew north in winter didn't survive, as didn't the ones with the genetic program east or west. The ones with the program 'fly south' survived and gave the genes for that to their offspring, i.o.w. mormal natural selecting.

Are you talking about the Lesser Golden Plover?



If you're correct, then I've got the details wrong,and I apologise for mis-reading this article:
http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2001migration/Projects/CarpenterD/

But I'm afraid you have created an even bigger problem for yourself. But you don't seem aware of it, and are happily wand waving again, thus:

"How this instinctual behaviour evolved? Well, the birds who flew north in winter didn't survive, as didn't the ones with the genetic program east or west. The ones with the program 'fly south' survived and gave the genes for that to their offspring, i.o.w. mormal natural selecting."

I am asking, and have been asking, HOW DID THE GENETIC PROGRAM GET INTO THE GENES IN THE FIRST PLACE?

It couldn't be trial and error, or they would all be quite dead. Natural selection is a non-starter in this instance.

Therefore, the program was created and implanted in the birds from the beginning.

Therefore, God did it, and evolution should be abandoned as a theory of explanation, since it is unable to begin to account for this quite major phenomenon.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

And how do you explain the fact that the earliest known bee IS A BEE - not something else?

Ah, you're talking about Melittosphex burmensis, quite interesting now extinct species of bees.
A quote from an article about the find: (Oregon State University)
"The specimen, at least 35-45 million years older than any other known bee fossil, has given rise to a newly-named family called Melittosphecidae – insects that share some of the features of both bees and wasps. It supports the theory that pollen-dependent bees evolved from their meat-eating predecessors, the wasps."

It is really quite stunning how garbage is swallowed so uncritically by allegedly intelligent people. Why don't you write to the authors of that idiotic statement and ask them to account for the following:

1 The digestive proteins/enzymes required for nectar digestion and protein digestion are totally different in every respect. You may or may not know that proteolytic enzymes function in highly acid environments, while sugar-digesting enzymes function in alkaline environments. The bees' stomachs digest nectar and produce honey. Wasps do nothing of the sort. How did such massive biochemical changes come about?

2 The hunting behaviours of wasps are entirely different and distinct from those of nectar seeking bees. How did those vastly different instincts arise and enter the genomes?

3 Wasps create paper to build their nests. Bees synthesise and use wax - which is an entirely different compound. How did the difference arise, and why?

And that's just for starters.
 

Pollen-spreading bees co-evolved with flower plants, when pollen became the protein source for those species, instead of meat protein.

Since they have not a single clue as to how flowering plants arose either, I'd keep quiet about that if I were you, before I start on the origin of the angiosperms.

So far you have failed to present any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, "because my brand of religion tells me so" does not count. You keep digging up examples, they all have been refuted by others in this thead.

Yes, and pigs fly at supersonic speeds, don't they?

Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.

Your optimism is admirable, but your ignorance of the facts is not. Evolutionary biology is a patchwork of guesswork, misstatements, hopeful fossil diggers, and worst of all, just plain prejudice.

Have you ever read Dawkins writing on the bats' echolocation system in the 'Blind Watchmaker'? If you have, you'll know exactly what I mean by misstatements, quackwork, guesswork and worse. In fact Lewontin, a famous Harvard evolutionary geneticist had this to say, and I advise you to take him seriously:

"As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.    "Billions and Billions of Demons"

I don't know how you understand the word 'counterfactual', but I don't think that 'lies' would be too far wrong.

.

[MonikaS]

Why don't you write to the authors of that idiotic statement and ask them to account for the following:

Why don't you?

 

So far you have failed to present any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, "because my brand of religion tells me so" does not count. You keep digging up examples, they all have been refuted by others in this thead.

Yes, and pigs fly at supersonic speeds, don't they?

WOW, sound scientific argument!

Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.

Your optimism is admirable, but your ignorance of the facts is not. Evolutionary biology is a patchwork of guesswork, misstatements, hopeful fossil diggers, and worst of all, just plain prejudice.

Have you ever read Dawkins writing on the bats' echolocation system in the 'Blind Watchmaker'? If you have, you'll know exactly what I mean by misstatements, quackwork, guesswork and worse. In fact Lewontin, a famous Harvard evolutionary geneticist had this to say, and I advise you to take him seriously:

"As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.    "Billions and Billions of Demons"

I don't know how you understand the word 'counterfactual', but I don't think that 'lies' would be too far wrong.

Yes, I am optimistic that the current puzzles in biology and other sciences will be solved, sooner or later.

You are aware that Lewontin does not believe in creationism? He strongly disagrees with the methods of Sagan, Dawkins and others; and with some of their theories too. Oh yes... scientists disagree about the details of a theory, but that doesn't mean that the theory as a whole is wrong, like so many creationists believe.

[RD]

MonikaS as you can probably tell, trying to reason with Asyncritus is like flogging a dead Hipparion.

Hipparion (Greek, "pony") is an extinct genus of horse.
It resembled the modern horse, but still had vestigal outer toes (in addition to its hoof). These did not touch the ground.

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

Toes which "did not touch the ground": that's not an "intelligent design".

(Vestigial features and atavisms are proof that evolution has occurred)