Darwin's evolution theory?

[A. believer]

Well that clears that up, thanks.

That doesn't, but what followed ought to have.

Evolution doesn't say one way or the other whether God exists. All it does is try explain how life has developed over the years. Just because it doesn't specifically allow for God doesn't mean it denies God. In fact, it has nothing to do with God at all. You say it presupposes no God, which is attributing to it something that it actually says nothing about. It's like saying it presupposes that Dunkel didn't have anything to do with it. It doesn't say "there is no God", but it also doesn't say "there is a God". It only concerns itself with we can see in the natural world. ID does not do this. ID starts with the assumption that there is a God or some other "higher being" or "higher intelligence" or whatever you want to call it. You can't test for it, you can't observe it, you can't do anything except say "it's there".

The Deists' God may be compatible with evolution, but a personal, Creator God is ruled out. Evolution absolutely does have theological ramifications. It says something about the kind of God that can and cannot exist. It claims to be "neutral" about God, but it cannot be. The very concept of neutrality is, in fact, a fallacy.

You're attributing something to me that you can't back up. I'm not defending the validity of evolution. I don't now which of the many theories are correct. All I'm saying is that these scientific theories are doing the best that they can with the information that they have. They look at the world and say "this is the best idea we can come up with". They don't come across something they can't explain, throw their hands up and say, "God made it that way".

I didn't say that you were defending evolution. You are, though, defending the fallacy that evolution is (or even can be) theologically/philosophically neutral.

Calling science a "faith" is an old, old way to attack it. Trying to show that science is no better because, hey, it's just "faith" in a different God. Showing that it is simply a way of rebelling against God or some other nonsense. Yes, science has to make assumptions and has to work within a framework, but the difference is that if those assumptions are proven wrong or the framework is proven unworkable, science can create new ones. Religion can't...if you're proven wrong about some pseudo-scientific explanation for Intelligent Design or Creationism, you go back to your original assumptions and try finding different evidence. The framework never changes, despite any setbacks it might suffer.

The evolutionary framework never changes, despite any setbacks it might (and repeatedly does) suffer. There is no "proof" of (macro) evolution whatsoever. Only a paradigmatic framework with which to work.

SETI is not a theory. It expressely states that it is, duh, a Search for Extra Terrestial Intelligence. And, no, ID is not about testing supernatural beings, because, being supernatural, they can't be tested, can they? At least not with the natural tools that we have. ID is about assuming that there is something supernatural out there and going from there. It is a positive assumption, not an assumption by omission, which would be a more accurate description of evolution.

But what SETI is looking for is non-random signals which would, for them, indicate intelligent life. The existence of intelligent life outside of Earth would then become a theory. Intelligent Design is based on the same assumption. Evidence of intelligence in the design of various species (which already exists) leads to the theory of intelligent design. ID theorists aren't like SETI scientists looking for signs of intelligence. The signs are already there.

Yeah, that's why I've been mentioning them both. But they are both based on religious principles. Educate yourself...the ID movement grew out of the Creationist movement when some of them figured they'd be taken more seriously if they espoused their beliefs in more "scientific" trappings.

And, no, I don't buy into any propogana...secular or religious. Obviously you do. That's fine, I'm not here to judge

Yes of course, I keep forgetting. You're just being "neutral."

 

[dunkel]

That doesn't, but what followed ought to have.

The Deists' God may be compatible with evolution, but a personal, Creator God is ruled out. Evolution absolutely does have theological ramifications. It says something about the kind of God that can and cannot exist. It claims to be "neutral" about God, but it cannot be. The very concept of neutrality is, in fact, a fallacy.

That's something I've said before, I believe. Nothing can be 100% neutral, because, try as we might, people always have bias. That is not in question.

And yes, certain theories might have ramifications beyond what their original intent was. I don't disagree. But the theory itself says nothing of the sort. It puts no limits on what God can or can't do or whether or not a certain type of God can or can't exist. Maybe you can look at a theory and make assumptions about what it might mean if the theory is true, but the theory itself says no such thing.

didn't say that you were defending evolution. You are, though, defending the fallacy that evolution is (or even can be) theologically/philosophically neutral.

Evolution doesn't say anything about God, period. It just doesn't. Doesn't say he's there, that he's not there...just doesn't say anything at all. You can use a thoery to prove or disprove whatever you like, but the fact is that it says what it says and it doesn't say anything else.

The evolutionary framework never changes, despite any setbacks it might (and repeatedly does) suffer. There is no "proof" of (macro) evolution whatsoever. Only a paradigmatic framework with which to work.

If you mean that science goes back to the drawing boards and comes up with another theory that still doesn't include God, then you're right. If you mean science has never hit a dead end and had to come up with an new approach, you are wrong.

But what SETI is looking for is non-random signals which would, for them, indicate intelligent life. The existence of intelligent life outside of Earth would then become a theory. Intelligent Design is based on the same assumption. Evidence of intelligence in the design of various species (which already exists) leads to the theory of intelligent design. ID theorists aren't like SETI scientists looking for signs of intelligence. The signs are already there.

I still don't know what SETI has to do with anything. It's just saying "let's see what's out there". ID is saying "we know what's out there, now let's find proof".

On one of those pages I googled and listed a few posts back, there was a cartoon that I think is pretty good. It had a pair of men labelled "evolutionists" and one was saying to the other "here is the evidence, go make your conclusion". Next to them was a pair of men labelled "creationists" and one was saying to the other, while handing him a Bible, "here is your conclusion, so find some evidence." Maybe I don't have the exact words right, but that was the basic idea. I don't guess I can make the point any clearer than that cartoon did.

Yes of course, I keep forgetting. You're just being "neutral."

lol, I didn't say that, either. I may not believe that science has all the answers about where we came from just yet, but I am pretty sure that it will eventually be explained without the need to resort to Creationism or Intelligent Design. As I've said in another thread, just because science has not yet been able to figure out one particular issue doesn't mean we should throw up our hand and say "well, I guess God just made it that way".

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

COAL & OIL (Section 2 of 27)



[font=Arial,Helvetica]The existence of fossil fuels defies evolutionary theory, a primary evidence that there was a Great Flood[/font]

Have you ever sat around a campfire in the woods? In the Western US many forests are at least one or two thousand years old, some are much older. Individual trees die and begin to decay but the forest lives on. After putting out the campfire did you have to worry about the soil below catching on fire? If not, then where did all of the world’s coal and oil come from? Decaying vegetation adds minerals to topsoil. When you dig down a couple feet (about half a meter) you’ll see part way down a marked change. The topsoil, that nearest the surface, the live soil actively transforms death into renewed life supporting material.

Ask any diehard evolutionist who adamantly insists that there was not a global flood: "Where did coal and oil come from?, by what process were they created?" They have no logical answer. Yet oil and coal power our modern world. Buried at all sedimentary depths - they exist indeed.

When a drilling rig first strikes oil it often gushes up, still under intense pressure from deep below. Entire forests and jungles of life were crushed directly from life into preserved complex carbon energy. We refine it a little to extract fuel, fertilizer, and plastics, then move on to the next deposit without giving it much thought. Discrete pockets of preserved former life, separated by wide layers of muck and rock. Then nothing grew there for millions of years?, then "bam" a burst of stored life, then nothing for millions more years, then another concentrated coal or oil pocket. A million years is a long time. Where you live can you imagine that nothing grew there for one million or more years? Please consider the fossil record itself (as it really, actually exists) when pondering our ancient origins.

Modern evolutionary theory simply cannot explain why all this coal and oil is down there, sometimes at 10,000 feet or more. Folks, that depth is 2 miles (about 3km) straight down. 2 miles thick of various layers of sediment on top of a concentrated layer of crushed, preserved plant-derived carbon, and often with occasional volcanic layers interspersed in between. Peat forms in swamps containing low oxygen or almost antiseptic conditions. The partially decomposed material builds up below and hosts the penetrating roots of successive plant life above. In the theory of evolution as believed today, peat buildup and then slow burial afterwards allows for the subsequent time and pressure to slowly make coal. Peat is partially decomposed and shows damage from massive root penetration. But coal, when scientifically incinerated to determine its BTU rating or when looked at under a microscope - isn’t and doesn’t, i.e. peat and coal are not 2 different stages of the same process. Again ... please consider the real fossil record (not artist's conceptions) when pondering our ancient history. http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evollawa.txt There's a Law Against Evolution--It's Called the Second Law of Thermodynamics! ..................

Can Evolution Produce an Eye? can evilution produce an Eye ? no

 

[Donkeytron]

COAL & OIL (Section 2 of 27)



[font=Arial,Helvetica]The existence of fossil fuels defies evolutionary theory, a primary evidence that there was a Great Flood[/font]

Have you ever sat around a campfire in the woods? In the Western US many forests are at least one or two thousand years old, some are much older. Individual trees die and begin to decay but the forest lives on. After putting out the campfire did you have to worry about the soil below catching on fire? If not, then where did all of the world’s coal and oil come from? Decaying vegetation adds minerals to topsoil. When you dig down a couple feet (about half a meter) you’ll see part way down a marked change. The topsoil, that nearest the surface, the live soil actively transforms death into renewed life supporting material.

Ask any diehard evolutionist who adamantly insists that there was not a global flood: "Where did coal and oil come from?, by what process were they created?" They have no logical answer. Yet oil and coal power our modern world. Buried at all sedimentary depths - they exist indeed.

When a drilling rig first strikes oil it often gushes up, still under intense pressure from deep below. Entire forests and jungles of life were crushed directly from life into preserved complex carbon energy. We refine it a little to extract fuel, fertilizer, and plastics, then move on to the next deposit without giving it much thought. Discrete pockets of preserved former life, separated by wide layers of muck and rock. Then nothing grew there for millions of years?, then "bam" a burst of stored life, then nothing for millions more years, then another concentrated coal or oil pocket. A million years is a long time. Where you live can you imagine that nothing grew there for one million or more years? Please consider the fossil record itself (as it really, actually exists) when pondering our ancient origins.

Modern evolutionary theory simply cannot explain why all this coal and oil is down there, sometimes at 10,000 feet or more. Folks, that depth is 2 miles (about 3km) straight down. 2 miles thick of various layers of sediment on top of a concentrated layer of crushed, preserved plant-derived carbon, and often with occasional volcanic layers interspersed in between. Peat forms in swamps containing low oxygen or almost antiseptic conditions. The partially decomposed material builds up below and hosts the penetrating roots of successive plant life above. In the theory of evolution as believed today, peat buildup and then slow burial afterwards allows for the subsequent time and pressure to slowly make coal. Peat is partially decomposed and shows damage from massive root penetration. But coal, when scientifically incinerated to determine its BTU rating or when looked at under a microscope - isn’t and doesn’t, i.e. peat and coal are not 2 different stages of the same process. Again ... please consider the real fossil record (not artist's conceptions) when pondering our ancient history. http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm

My browser won't load the page. Probably just as well. Any website that identifies an extant group as "diehard evolutionists" is too stupid to contemplate.

 

[WAB]

Of course the second law of thermodynamics requires that things wind down...not up!
WAB

 

[Donkeytron]

Of course the second law of thermodynamics requires that things wind down...not up!
WAB

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

Arguments creationists say other creationists shouldn't use because they make YEC's look bad.

 

[A. believer]

That's something I've said before, I believe. Nothing can be 100% neutral, because, try as we might, people always have bias. That is not in question.

And yes, certain theories might have ramifications beyond what their original intent was. I don't disagree. But the theory itself says nothing of the sort. It puts no limits on what God can or can't do or whether or not a certain type of God can or can't exist. Maybe you can look at a theory and make assumptions about what it might mean if the theory is true, but the theory itself says no such thing.

Evolution doesn't say anything about God, period. It just doesn't. Doesn't say he's there, that he's not there...just doesn't say anything at all. You can use a thoery to prove or disprove whatever you like, but the fact is that it says what it says and it doesn't say anything else.

I'll quote again, the 1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers which summarizes the theory of evolution,

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.






​

This definition is incompatible with a personal Creator God, and it's based upon assumptions rather than evidence.

If you mean that science goes back to the drawing boards and comes up with another theory that still doesn't include God, then you're right. If you mean science has never hit a dead end and had to come up with an new approach, you are wrong.

Either life is the product of a personal God who had an end in mind or life is the product of impersonal forces. These are mutually exclusive notions. Evolution assumes the former. Intelligent Design challenges this assumption and claims that it's contrary to the evidence. And ID theorists are not all Christians. Some are even religiously agnostic.

I still don't know what SETI has to do with anything. It's just saying "let's see what's out there". ID is saying "we know what's out there, now let's find proof".

You have it precisely backwards. Evolution presumes randomness, while ID concludes design.

On one of those pages I googled and listed a few posts back, there was a cartoon that I think is pretty good. It had a pair of men labelled "evolutionists" and one was saying to the other "here is the evidence, go make your conclusion". Next to them was a pair of men labelled "creationists" and one was saying to the other, while handing him a Bible, "here is your conclusion, so find some evidence." Maybe I don't have the exact words right, but that was the basic idea. I don't guess I can make the point any clearer than that cartoon did.

You may think the cartoon is "pretty good," but it reflects a false view of evolutionary theory and it doesn't even talk about ID theory. Intelligent Design is not Creationism, despite what its detractors would have you believe.

lol, I didn't say that, either. I may not believe that science has all the answers about where we came from just yet, but I am pretty sure that it will eventually be explained without the need to resort to Creationism or Intelligent Design. As I've said in another thread, just because science has not yet been able to figure out one particular issue doesn't mean we should throw up our hand and say "well, I guess God just made it that way".

Odd that you profess faith in two mutually exclusive ideas. That we're the product of a personal God and that we're the product of impersonal forces.

What Science Standards State I urge you to read this.

Personally, I'm quite up front in stating that Holy Scripture is my epistemological starting point. I'm not an "Intelligent Design theorist," but an unashamed, epistemologically self-aware Christian who is not afraid to defend the view that God's self-revelation in Scripture is the only coherent epistemology. Like the honest and consistent evolutionist, I admit my presuppositions up front. Christian epistemology, however, is not the same as the epistemology of Intelligent Design theory.

 

[A. believer]

Just today, I saw a cogent response to ID critics by William Dembski along similar lines as my SETI example, only with a little different twist.
Intelligent Design in Reverse. Does this help?

​

 

[dunkel]

I'll quote again, the 1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers which summarizes the theory of evolution,

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.​

Ok...so evolution is a natural process...which does indeed rule out any supernatural influences. Why? BECAUSE SUPERNATURAL INFLUENCES CANNOT BE MEASURED IN ANY WAY. Science can only deal with things that can be measured. Therefore, ANY scientific theory is going to exclude supernatural influences. This doesn't rule out the possibility that there these supernatural influences occured, just that they cannot be tested for, so you can't include them in the theory. As I said, when you can come up with a way to test, quantify, or observe God, let your local university know and I'm sure someone will run some tests.
​

This definition is incompatible with a personal Creator God, and it's based upon assumptions rather than evidence.

I got news for ya...everything in this world is based on assumptions. Even when you have hard evidence in your hand, you have to make assumptions about it. Even Creationism and even ID.

And maybe your idea of a personal creator is ruled out, but I don't need God to have created Adam out of dust for me to believe in him.

Either life is the product of a personal God who had an end in mind or life is the product of impersonal forces. These are mutually exclusive notions. Evolution assumes the former. Intelligent Design challenges this assumption and claims that it's contrary to the evidence. And ID theorists are not all Christians. Some are even religiously agnostic.

They are not mutually exclusive. God created the universe to operate based on certain principles. These are the laws of nature that we deal with every day. He very well could have put those laws together with something in mind, but I see no reason whatsoever that it would have been necessary for him to personally manipulate things once they got started. If he is as smart as we like to give him credit, his creations wouldn't need that kind of tweaking, would they? He can, obviously, deal with us on a personal level, but I don't see why he had to manually change DNA or weather patterns to get the world to look like it does...he set up the rules by which DNA and the weather operate...isn't that good enough?

By definition, ID proponents must have some sort of religious leanings, whether it's Christian or whatever else. Unless they think the "intelligent designer" is an alien or something.

You have it precisely backwards. Evolution presumes randomness, while ID concludes design.

lol, that's a good one. Yes, evolution starts with the idea that what we see all around us got this way through natural processes. This is, as I've said several times now, because science cannot measure any other influences. Let me say it again: science cannot measure any other influences. Therefore, when science tackles a problem, IT ONLY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT NATURAL INFLUENCES. As I pointed out in another thread, it is this approach that has landed people on the moon, has wiped out various diseases over the years, has built the better mousetrap, etc. Why trust science to do all of those things, but oh, if they try to explain, using the same methods, where we all came from, all of a sudden they are anti-God or anti-religion or anti-whatever you want to accuse them of?

Now, the idea that ID logically concludes design is an interesting one. I'm not sure I buy the idea that some scientists got together, looked at all the evidence and said "dang, someone must have designed all this, because there's no way it happened naturally". Would I buy that some Christian-minded scientists had Creation in mind and used their resources to develop a theory compatible with their beliefs? Yes, that would make more sense to me. Of course, that would mean that the creators of the ID theory started with an assumption, that God was somehow involved, which is something you seem to say is not true, so I don't know.

Another way to look at your statement "ID concludes design" would be to agree and point out that this is the same way all Creation myths came about. The ancient Hebrews looked at everything they saw around them and "concluded" that God created it in 6 days. Just like cultures all over the world looked around them and "concluded" that their particular diety must have created it all in their own peculiar way.

You may think the cartoon is "pretty good," but it reflects a false view of evolutionary theory and it doesn't even talk about ID theory. Intelligent Design is not Creationism, despite what its detractors would have you believe.

How does it reflect a false view of evolutionary theory? When people started thinking outside of the religious box, science started looking for answers. They saw fossils, different species, etc, and tried to figure out how they got there. Some were pretty silly, such as LeMarck's inherited trait theories. In a sense, yes, they started with an assumption, that Genesis does not give an accurate account of how the world came to be. But it was a negative assumption, rather than a positive assumption. It was an assumption that wiped the slate clean for them to refill it, not an assumption that had the beginning of an equation for which they had to make the rest of their work compatible. The assumptions, the starting point for evolutionary theory, freed science to look at everything and to come up with entirely new theories. The assumptions that even ID starts with are limiting, by contrast. ID assumptions limit possible answers while evolutionary assumptions allow for unlimited answers, so long as they are testable, observable, and quantifiable.

Odd that you profess faith in two mutually exclusive ideas. That we're the product of a personal God and that we're the product of impersonal forces.

Maybe odd from your limited point of view. I believe in a personal God, but this belief doesn't require him to personally tweak my DNA so I turn out the way I'm supposed to. He knew what he was doing when he set the ball rolling; everything behaves the way it should...there was no need for him to go back and cover up shoddy work or put things back on the right track.

What Science Standards State

I urge you to read this.

Personally, I'm quite up front in stating that Holy Scripture is my epistemological starting point. I'm not an "Intelligent Design theorist," but an unashamed, epistemologically self-aware Christian who is not afraid to defend the view that God's self-revelation in Scripture is the only coherent epistemology. Like the honest and consistent evolutionist, I admit my presuppositions up front. Christian epistemology, however, is not the same as the epistemology of Intelligent Design theory.

If nothing else, ID has Christian roots. You didn't see ID cooked up by Muslims, Jews, Hindus, whoever. It wasn't until literal Creationism became untenable as a serious explanation of where we came from that ID showed up on the scene. You can put a tux on a Chimpanzee, but it's still just an ape...just like you can put scientific trappings on Creationism and call it ID, but at its core, it's still basically Creationism. And, honestly, I'm not saying ID is not possible...just that it can't be objectively tested, as, by definition, supernatural influences cannot be tested through natural means.

Out of curiosity, do you believe Genesis to be myth or fact?

 

[A. believer]

Ok...so evolution is a natural process...which does indeed rule out any supernatural influences. Why? BECAUSE SUPERNATURAL INFLUENCES CANNOT BE MEASURED IN ANY WAY. Science can only deal with things that can be measured. Therefore, ANY scientific theory is going to exclude supernatural influences. This doesn't rule out the possibility that there these supernatural influences occured, just that they cannot be tested for, so you can't include them in the theory. As I said, when you can come up with a way to test, quantify, or observe God, let your local university know and I'm sure someone will run some tests.

Did you even read my links? The issue is whether life was designed or whether it "just happened." Let me ask you this. If SETI scientists detected radio waves from outer space that formed a sophisticated pattern, would they by justified in concluding that they were the product of intelligent beings or would that be an inherently unscientific conclusion? Would they be bound by principles of scientific integrity to determine that these waves were random and purposeless?

 

[dunkel]

Did you even read my links? The issue is whether life was designed or whether it "just happened." Let me ask you this. If SETI scientists detected radio waves from outer space that formed a sophisticated pattern, would they by justified in concluding that they were the product of intelligent beings or would that be an inherently unscientific conclusion? Would they be bound by principles of scientific integrity to determine that these waves were random and purposeless?

They have found signals that did not seem to be random. Their statements to these signals were always something along the lines of "We need to do some more research, it is premature to think that this might be intelligent life, we will let you know what we find out." IIRC, they have found quasars or some other kind of pulsating star. No, they didn't just automatically say "Ah, the search is over, we found intelligent life" like ID seems to want to do.

A better SETI analogy might be if they said from the very beginning "Intelligent life is out there. We know this because an early pioneer in the field of extraterrestial research was abducted by them and wrote a book about it. We are setting out to prove his account of aliens is true." Then they would proceed to look at research done by other, objective, scientists and either say "faulty research procedures" if it didn't agree with the aims of SETI or say "no, this is really proof for our own theories" if they were able to twist it around to do so.

When you start with a conclusion that cannot be conclusivly proven or disproven, you cannot pretend to be objective. No matter what, you first premise has to be true, no matter what evidence you might find. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored, thrown out, or considered to be somehow faulty. This is not science. At least, it's not objective science. It's, as I've said, religious tenants wrapped in scientific trappings, nothing more.

Now let me ask you something, since I answered your question. What is the "proof" of ID? That life is simply too complex to have formed randomly? I know what Creationists say, but I want to know what you have to say about proof of ID. And you never answered my question about Genesis being myth or fact. Obviously, as an ID proponent, I would suspect that you would say Genesis is myth...am I right?

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

[url]http://www.lifeandtruth.com/evolution.htm[/url] The Truth About Evolution:EVOLUTION DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

 

[coolstylinstud]

Evolutionists VS. God

You knwo what I am gonna have to go with the creator of everything for this

Seriously though I dont care how he created us I just knwo its not evolution because the bible says nothign abotu evolution and I do know he just said it and it was there but other than that I dont really care how we got here today

 

[dunkel]

Evolutionists VS. God

You knwo what I am gonna have to go with the creator of everything for this

Seriously though I dont care how he created us I just knwo its not evolution because the bible says nothign abotu evolution and I do know he just said it and it was there but other than that I dont really care how we got here today

Does the Bible say anything about gravity? Other planets? Penicillin? Automobiles? Nuclear power plants? All of these things, and more, were brought to us or explained by science. Should we throw all of these things out, as well?

 

[coolstylinstud]

Does the Bible say anything about gravity? Other planets? Penicillin? Automobiles? Nuclear power plants? All of these things, and more, were brought to us or explained by science. Should we throw all of these things out, as well?

No the bible doesnt say anything about those things which means we have to figure those things out by ourselves if the bible says anything against it then the bibles right if it doesny say anything about it then we have to look for oursleves

 

[Donkeytron]

No the bible doesnt say anything about those things which means we have to figure those things out by ourselves if the bible says anything against it then the bibles right if it doesny say anything about it then we have to look for oursleves

Bible says Pi = 3.

 

[f U z ! o N]

http://www.lifeandtruth.com/evolution.htmhttp://www.lifeandtruth.com/evolution.htm The Truth About Evolution:EVOLUTION DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

ROFL just ROFL

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

[url]http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/eig.htm[/url] 'Ye shall be as gods, evolving into godhood -all is god=evilution

 

[f U z ! o N]

Deep_MindQuest quit posting so much stupid information. you don't understand evolution and that is obvious.