Looking for all the missing links

[selfinflikted]

Ah, no, I didn't read that.

I'm not familiar with the "Poe" term. I presume it's a false flag account.

Try Wiki. The term was coined by one of our very own

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Ah I see. There are some cases where I've followed up a rather silly posting seriously. But, I'd rather make the error of assuming that someone is serious when they're not, than vice-versa.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ah I see. There are some cases where I've followed up a rather silly posting seriously. But, I'd rather make the error of assuming that someone is serious when they're not, than vice-versa.

Indeed. But, you must admit, it is extremely difficult to tell sometimes.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Indeed. But, you must admit, it is extremely difficult to tell sometimes.

Definitely agreed.

 

[Metal Minister]

Forget evolution, we have evidence of death long before humans - evolution is irrelevant here.
The evidence contradicts the bible - so one of them MUST be wrong.
**********
Yes, the ever changing THEORY of evolution is wrong.
**********
i won't check your links, I will beieve you (cos a Christian would never lie, right?).
**********
Much like an evolutionist would never falsify information to suit his agenda? ( Earnst Haekel)
**********
So, a question mark has been raised over bird evolution due to new evidence. What to do?
Shall we throw away the baby with the bathwater?
This is how science works, a theory must explain all the facts.
**********
I agree, and so far evolution explains almost none.
**********
If it doesn't, then the theory needs to be modified or replaced.
As new facts are uncovered, the theory will be checked again and again.
**********
And yet as we watch this theory change and comforts time and again as scientists try to stuff evidence into a preconceived notion, we're supposed to simply accept it as 100% fact.
**********
Personally, I wouldn't get too excited.
I would wait and see what happens.
**********
Of course you're not excited...it will be interesting to see what kind of mental and logical gymnastics evolutionists will use to stuff this new info into their poor theory.
**********
Irony - a beautiful word.
I wouldn't defend a theory - I would rather know the truth.


Oh dear.
When you have something intelligent to say, please let me know.
This rubbish isn't worth reading, let alone replying to.

**********
And yet you did which is telling. More likely it hits a nerve you'd rather not have aggravated. Evolution is a dying religion as more and more evidence begins to mount that evolutionists can't account for in their theory.

 

[Metal Minister]

Gee, heres an interesting point...all the evolutionists have taken to personal attacks and ignoring posts...color me shocked...

 

[Guy1]

Evolution is a dying religion as more and more evidence begins to mount that evolutionists can't account for in their theory.

There is no evidence the theory can't account for. Get over it already.

 

[Metal Minister]

Really? How about the latest on the fact that birds may well pre-date dinosaurs? How about the limiting factors in the genetic code of all animals? Sure a theory can be amorphous but that doesn't mean its right. Being that evolution is a THEORY , why is creation, or intelligent design not as valid? Both have proof to their being correct or plausible, so why is this naturalistic view the only viable option? If science truly wants to find the truth, it does not limit itself as to where that truth might come from...

 

[Split Rock]

Evolution is a dying religion as more and more evidence begins to mount that evolutionists can't account for in their theory.

Calling evolution a religion only demeans your own. If there is so much mounting evidence against evolution, then I invite you to write a manuscript on the subject, get it peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature and then collect your Nobel prize. Yes... I am serious.

Gee, heres an interesting point...all the evolutionists have taken to personal attacks and ignoring posts...color me shocked...

So now you are reduced to playing the "I am being persecuted" card? Color me shocked (not).

Speaking of ignoring posts (which I have not done in your case) You have ignored my repeated question on the bearing of false witness by your creationist sources. I am disappointed but not surprised. My experience with most creationists here is that they don't care if they are being lied to, as long as the lie supports their beliefs. I did perhaps hope for a little bit more from an Ordained Minister.

 

[Split Rock]

Really? How about the latest on the fact that birds may well pre-date dinosaurs?

That is a minority opinion, and I believe it only refers to certain theropods. This is because of the fact that birds and theropods are so similar. Thus, some creataceous theropods may be better described as flightless birds. However, as I said, this is a minority opinion at this time. More evidence will tell (that's how science works).

How about the limiting factors in the genetic code of all animals?

Not sure what you are referring to here.

Sure a theory can be amorphous but that doesn't mean its right. Being that evolution is a THEORY , why is creation, or intelligent design not as valid?

Because creation/I.D. does not make any testable predictions. It does not restrain itself to natural explanations and is not falsifiable. Thus it is not a scientific theory.

Both have proof to their being correct or plausible, so why is this naturalistic view the only viable option?

I know of no "proof" as to ID/creation being correct. In any case, in science only natural explanations are valid.

If science truly wants to find the truth, it does not limit itself as to where that truth might come from...

Science is a specific means of determining the truth, when it comes to the natural world. It also happens to be the only one that works.

 

[Guy1]

Really? How about the latest on the fact that birds may well pre-date dinosaurs?

Maybe it's a mistake? Maybe our current understanding of the lineage is flawed? In either case adjustments are made in the face of new evidence.

How about the limiting factors in the genetic code of all animals?

I've yet to hear of something so ludicrous. If you can find me a paper with a mechanism strictly preventing any and all mutations after certain criteria are met, I'd love to read it.

Sure a theory can be amorphous but that doesn't mean its right.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Being that evolution is a THEORY

Finally, you say something accurate.

why is creation, or intelligent design not as valid?

Because they're both worthless even as hypothesis. They would never survive the process to becoming theory.

Both have proof to their being correct or plausible,

They do not.

so why is this naturalistic view the only viable option?

Because it is. Unless you have a paper detailing those (shoddy) hypotheses you love so much.

If science truly wants to find the truth, it does not limit itself as to where that truth might come from...

It limits itself to what is actually found, as oposed to what the people that do it want to think.

 

[Metal Minister]

Calling evolution a religion only demeans your own. If there is so much mounting evidence against evolution, then I invite you to write a manuscript on the subject, get it peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature and then collect your Nobel prize. Yes... I am serious.
**********
First and foremost, evidence has been piled up here and elsewhere yet it goes largely ignored. Similarly any piece placed for peer review that does not fit the evolution mold is routinely rejected without even being considered.
Secondly, how does pointing out that evolution is a religion demeaning to Christianity?
**********

So now you are reduced to playing the "I am being persecuted" card? Color me shocked (not).
**********
Who said I was being persecuted? I simply pointed out that instead of discussing the topics evolutionists have given in to name calling and ignoring responses to their drivel.
**********
Speaking of ignoring posts (which I have not done in your case) You have ignored my repeated question on the bearing of false witness by your creationist sources. I am disappointed but not surprised. My experience with most creationists here is that they don't care if they are being lied to, as long as the lie supports their beliefs. I did perhaps hope for a little bit more from an Ordained Minister.

**********
And here we go again...because i do not agree with you I am a liar. You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that refutes creation or the information I have posted. I will admit to my own ignorance of punctuated equilibria as I was going based on an original understanding of the theory. It's still a deviation from the gradualistic view, and therefore refutes the argument most evolutionists use of the multiple creation views. It still is laughable as a concept, and still relies on the thought that it happened so fast there is no evidence, which admits they have no evidence for their theory. Has it ever occurred to you, on all the times that new information has come out going against evolution, why it is that people cling to it so tenaciously? Look at the recent find of a supposed ancient bird that pre-dates the dinosaurs. Evolutionists still say it proves that feathers evolved from scales, yet the idea never occurs to them that perhaps the feather didn't evolve from a scale at all! That is where the science truly lies. Not in assumptions, bit in facts, testing, and challenging theories. Evolutionists refuse to do this unless they are trying to push another form of evolution.

 

[Metal Minister]

Maybe it's a mistake? Maybe our current understanding of the lineage is flawed? In either case adjustments are made in the face of new evidence.




I've yet to hear of something so ludicrous. If you can find me a paper with a mechanism strictly preventing any and all mutations after certain criteria are met, I'd love to read it.



I'm not sure what you're saying here.




Finally, you say something accurate.



Because they're both worthless even as hypothesis. They would never survive the process to becoming theory.




They do not.



Because it is. Unless you have a paper detailing those (shoddy) hypotheses you love so much.



It limits itself to what is actually found, as oposed to what the people that do it want to think.

Maybe it's a mistake? Maybe our current understanding of the lineage is flawed? In either case adjustments are made in the face of new evidence.
**********
Herein lies my point entirely. We are expected to swallow evolution hook line and winked when even scientists don't know if its correct or what mistakes are involved.
**********

I've yet to hear of something so ludicrous. If you can find me a paper with a mechanism strictly preventing any and all mutations after certain criteria are met, I'd love to read it.
**********
Ah, so because you haven't heard of it its ludicrous? Ready, can cockroaches ever evolve to be immune to a sledgehammer? No? Then that is a limit in their genes. Can a pig ever grow to the size of a whale? No? Then that is a limit in there genes. Mutations occur without a doubt, but are always harmful, and always a scrambling of existing gene code. It does not create new information.
**********

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
**********
I'm saying that just because you can contort information doesn't make it correct. In other words because of some incredible feat of mentalvgymnastics, doesn't make information fit a preconceived notion.
*********
Finally, you say something accurate.
**********
So you agree that evolution is a theory, so then why is of preached as fact?
**********
Because they're both worthless even as hypothesis. They would never survive the process to becoming theory.
**********
In your opinion, again based on what facts? And FYI, they are both theories.
***********
They do not.
**********
Oh yes, the almighty evolutionist speaks! In your opinion they do not, yet even scientists admit they have merit and proof.
**********
Because it is. Unless you have a paper detailing those (shoddy) hypotheses you love so much.
**********
There's a closed case nail in the coffin fact if ever I heard one...because it is? As I've said before most of these proofs are ignored and not even allowed to be peer reviewed.
**********
It limits itself to what is actually found, as oposed to what the people that do it want to think.
**********
Ok, then show me where they found the macro-molecule all life originated from. Or even easier, show me where they found the millions and millions of missing links it would take for evolution to take place. Here's a little rid bit for you, because evolutionists believe in billions of years for their theory, then the only plausible theory they could use to account for that time is the big bang. According to this, the earth had to be a hot molten mass. However, radio polonium halos (halos[dot]com) refute this claim. Yet evolutionists refuse to accept them even though they've covered the criteria of being published and peer reviewed. Why? Because it goes against the sacred evolutionary theory! If evolutionists were truly after the truth, they would be willing to admit they're theory is flawed instead of looking for ways to cram contradictory information into their theory!

 

[Split Rock]

First and foremost, evidence has been piled up here and elsewhere yet it goes largely ignored. Similarly any piece placed for peer review that does not fit the evolution mold is routinely rejected without even being considered.
Secondly, how does pointing out that evolution is a religion demeaning to Christianity?

What evidence is being ignored? Why do you guys keep citing evidence evolutionary biologists are uncovering as evidence that is being "ignored?" Would you know about any of this evidence if it wasn't being published by scientists????

Who said I was being persecuted? I simply pointed out that instead of discussing the topics evolutionists have given in to name calling and ignoring responses to their drivel.

LOL! Wow! So you are being insulted by people who are ignoring responses to their drivel? What did Jesus say about hypocrisy? In any case, I have not been doing either, so why are you lumping me in with this description? But hold on to the thought of the persecution card, because here it comes!
**********

And here we go again...because i do not agree with you I am a liar.

BINGO!!! When did I claim YOU were a liar??? I said your sources were lying to you. I specifically described the lies. I asked if that was OK with you.. You still haven't answered that question... is it OK with you?

You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that refutes creation or the information I have posted. I will admit to my own ignorance of punctuated equilibria as I was going based on an original understanding of the theory. It's still a deviation from the gradualistic view, and therefore refutes the argument most evolutionists use of the multiple creation views. It still is laughable as a concept, and still relies on the thought that it happened so fast there is no evidence, which admits they have no evidence for their theory. Has it ever occurred to you, on all the times that new information has come out going against evolution, why it is that people cling to it so tenaciously? Look at the recent find of a supposed ancient bird that pre-dates the dinosaurs. Evolutionists still say it proves that feathers evolved from scales, yet the idea never occurs to them that perhaps the feather didn't evolve from a scale at all! That is where the science truly lies. Not in assumptions, bit in facts, testing, and challenging theories. Evolutionists refuse to do this unless they are trying to push another form of evolution.

You ignorance concerning P.E. was supplied by the creationist sources that are repeatedly lying to you. They have supplied you with a steady diet of misinformation, caricatures, and outright falsehoods that would make Satan himself proud... yet you are oh so very reluctant to condemn them. WHY?

 

[createdtoworship]

"Used to" means in my case that I attended seminary many years ago.

As to "ahh that answers all of my questions", yes, education can explain differences in knowledge.




No. There are multiple literal interpretations of Genesis. Only some of them assume the tradition of 24hour days. Many other literal interpretations assume longer periods. One of those various interpretations includes the Day-Age idea.

Of course, even if someone assumes that the Genesis text is ambiguous and multiple interpretations apply, the evidence from Creation indicates that God's Creation is very old, billions of years. God didn't leave us wondering.

the day age theory is not taking genesis literally. "a day is as a thousand years" was not inspired scripture till thousands of years later.

 

[Guy1]

Herein lies my point entirely. We are expected to swallow evolution hook line and winked when even scientists don't know if its correct or what mistakes are involved.

Common descent is settled basically. It's evidenced so well that we'll sooner overturn gravity (I'm not exaggerating).

Ready, can cockroaches ever evolve to be immune to a sledgehammer?

They can, but with such harsh pressures they'll most likely go extinct before it happens.

Can a pig ever grow to the size of a whale?

With enough time and pressure.

Mutations occur without a doubt, but are always harmful, and always a scrambling of existing gene code. It does not create new information.

Well scrambled information IS new information. But I get what you mean, MORE information. We have instances of duplication errors where genes are cloned a few times too many.

I'm saying that just because you can contort information doesn't make it correct. In other words because of some incredible feat of mentalvgymnastics, doesn't make information fit a preconceived notion.

In this case we adapt a notion to fit the information. That's science (Seeing how it works?).

So you agree that evolution is a theory, so then why is of preached as fact?

You make an excellent point! Let's stop shoveling this lie physicists call the "Theory of gravity" down people's throats and teach them about the invisible red squirrels that jump on their heads to keep them tethered to the ground!

In your opinion, again based on what facts?

The fact that you have no evidence to support these hypotheses.

And FYI, they are both theories.

Yours are badly made hypotheses.

Oh yes, the almighty evolutionist speaks! In your opinion they do not, yet even scientists admit they have merit and proof.

No scientists do (If you name Michael Behe I and many others will laugh at you)

There's a closed case nail in the coffin fact if ever I heard one...because it is? As I've said before most of these proofs are ignored and not even allowed to be peer reviewed.

Woah woah woah. Proofs are for math. We're talking about evidence here.

Ok, then show me where they found the macro-molecule all life originated from.

It would have deteriorated long ago my friend. Besides, would it even change your mind? Methinks you're just looking for excuses.

Or even easier, show me where they found the millions and millions of missing links it would take for evolution to take place.

We have hundreds upon thousands. You'll have to settle for that until we find more.

Here's a little rid bit for you, because evolutionists believe in billions of years for their theory,

Radiometric dating suggests this, yes.

then the only plausible theory they could use to account for that time is the big bang.

A theory we can't conclusively prove (Math speak here) until we can formulate the Theory of Everything.

According to this, the earth had to be a hot molten mass. However, radio polonium halos (halos[dot]com) refute this claim.

There are many, far more qualified, folks here who can assure you that's been debunked (In some cases by them personally). I'm not really a fan of radiometric dating so i'll leave it to them.

If evolutionists were truly after the truth, they would be willing to admit they're theory is flawed instead of looking for ways to cram contradictory information into their theory!

Nobody says any theory is perfect. The problem arises when people like you decide that they know better than the people who spend their entire lives crawling over broken glass trying to search for the truth, trying to unlock the secrets of the universe. There is no contradictory information, there are no significant gaps, and no cows don't give birth to anything other than a slightly different cow.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is a minority opinion, and I believe it only refers to certain theropods. This is because of the fact that birds and theropods are so similar. Thus, some creataceous theropods may be better described as flightless birds. However, as I said, this is a minority opinion at this time. More evidence will tell (that's how science works).

so you think when they found a 120million year old bird, they were lying?

A Primitive Enantiornithine Bird and the Origin of Feathers

 

[Metal Minister]

Common descent is settled basically. It's evidenced so well that we'll sooner overturn gravity (I'm not exaggerating).
**********
Wow...where to begin on this one...common descent is not settled basically or otherwise. Can you even begin to prove this statement?
**********
They can, but with such harsh pressures they'll most likely go extinct before it happens.
**********
Um, no they can't...it isn't possible simply for the laws of physics...
*********
With enough time and pressure.
*********
Again, no they can't. Just like insects can only grow so large or they would crush themselves, so to with a pig.
*********
Well scrambled information IS new information. But I get what you mean, MORE information. We have instances of duplication errors where genes are cloned a few times too many.
**********
I assume you mean polyploidy? This is still only a doubling of existing information, again nothing new.
**********

In this case we adapt a notion to fit the information. That's science (Seeing how it works?).
**********
No, science is that you make a hypothesis, test it and see if it works. When it doesn't you scrap it and try a new hypothesis. Evolution defies this method.
**********

You make an excellent point! Let's stop shoveling this lie physicists call the "Theory of gravity" down people's throats and teach them about the invisible red squirrels that jump on their heads to keep them tethered to the ground!
**********
You can believe this tripe, but gravity isn't a theory because its evidences are plentiful, and it can be tested and falsified. Evolution cannot.

Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith,

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers /developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics /invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)

Duane T. Gish (biochemist)

John Grebe (chemist)

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist)

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy /developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology /developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist)

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics /invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology /discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control /developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology /developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale /developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology
**********

It would have deteriorated long ago my friend. Besides, would it even change your mind? Methinks you're just looking for excuses.
**********
Ah, the ever present god of evolutionists, time. It gives them the out they always require. There's no evidence because it deteriorated over time, we don't see things happening because it takes too long...
**********
We have hundreds upon thousands. You'll have to settle for that until we find more.


Radiometric dating suggests this, yes.
**********
Radiometric dating wouldn't be possible if not for the faulty geometric time scale. Carbon dating is no good unless the earth's atmosphere were in equilibrium with carbon 14. It isn't, and according to the man who invented it it should've happened within 30,000 years of earth's existence.
**********

A theory we can't conclusively prove (Math speak here) until we can formulate the Theory of Everything.
**********

THANK YOU! So can we quit saying evolution is fact when its still only a theory?
**********
There are many, far more qualified, folks here who can assure you that's been debunked (In some cases by them personally). I'm not really a fan of radiometric dating so i'll leavle it to them.

Nobody says any theory is perfect. The problem arises when people like you decide that they know better than the people who spend their entire lives crawling over broken glass trying to search for the truth, trying to unlock the secrets of the universe. There is no contradictory information, there are no significant gaps, and no cows don't give birth to anything other than a slightly different cow.

**********
Wow, I certainly wish you'd say this to those in the scientific community who push this theory as fact. You in fact just contradicted yourself stating that evolution is truth but a theory can't answer anything.

"But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution... The sorts of variations which can contribute to Darwinian evolution, however, involve things like bone structure or body plan. There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution." - Jonathan Wells, Molecular Biologist

How macroevolution progressed in the past cannot be determined from the study of microevolutionary processes." -Harold R. Booher, PhD, Origins, Icons and Illusions

Macroevolutionary theories are not reducible (at least at the present state of knowledge) to microevolution... macroevolution is an autonomous field of study that must develop and test its own theories." -Francisco Ayala (Professor of Genetics), Reduction in Biology

 

[Metal Minister]

www(dot)dyeager(dot)org/blog/2008/04/probability-evolution(dot)html

 

[Guy1]

Wow, I certainly wish you'd say this to those in the scientific community who push this theory as fact. You in fact just contradicted yourself stating that evolution is truth but a theory can't answer anything.

I see where the problem lies. You don't know what a scientific theory is. Here's the definition so you'll better understand what I mean:

A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2]

"But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution... The sorts of variations which can contribute to Darwinian evolution, however, involve things like bone structure or body plan. There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution." - Jonathan Wells, Molecular Biologist

Are you really quoting a career author/AIDS denialist?

"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken."-Jonathan Wells, author, ID proponent, AIDS denialist.

How macroevolution progressed in the past cannot be determined from the study of microevolutionary processes." -Harold R. Booher, PhD, Origins, Icons and Illusions

PHD in what? Why should I listen to a guy who's credentials I can't even check?

Macroevolutionary theories are not reducible (at least at the present state of knowledge) to microevolution... macroevolution is an autonomous field of study that must develop and test its own theories." -Francisco Ayala (Professor of Genetics), Reduction in Biology

On Francisco Ayala: "He is also a critic of creationism and intelligent design theories, claiming that they are not only pseudoscience, but also mistaken from theological point of view. He suggests that the theory of evolution resolves the problem of evil, thus being a kind of theodicy.[10]"




You made a mistake with the quoting system. If you could just fix that so I can respond to the rest? Thanks