Thanks for the link
Hey, thanks a lot for taking the time to find all these great links. I definitely benefit from it.
Brian,I have to put my regular two cents in when there is an evolution post. Intelligent design is not supported by any major scientific organization, it was slammed in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, and has no scientific support, yet Behe continues writing books about his "ideas". Funny that as a scientist he doesn't go to the lab to get data to support his view, but just writes non-peer reviewed books.
Mark,Good to hear from you. Your two cents are welcome, as always.Can evolution be questioned, then?
Science is by far the field that has the most rigorous internal questioning. But the questioning comes in the form of opposing data that doesn’t fit the current standing hypothesis. The questioning can’t just be “empty”, like the ID field. I would encourage readers to take a look at the Dover trial transcript. It is really pretty interesting. You get both a science lesson and see how the court system works. It’s a two for one deal. Also you have some of the big hitters on both sides of the debate having by law to tell the truth, so there is less spin than one would find in a debate or non-peer reviewed publication.
So I gather from your answer that you would say that, yes, we can question evolution. Is that what you mean?
Mark Said "Behe continues writing books about his "ideas". Funny that as a scientist he doesn't go to the lab to get data to support his view, but just writes non-peer reviewed books."Mark, There is no problem here unless you have a religious bent toward scientific naturalist dogma. You are merely choosing an "authority" who have an "adgenda" that involves a hunger and thrill for the money, praise, and self-annointing that Christians are to shun. Christians have a hunger for "truth". With this in mind; who makes the more trustable authority?Semmelwies was shut down by peers till after his death and many died as a result. The haughty, selfserving, mindnumbing ignorant, dogma of the professional medical association's official opinion of what Semmelwies said existed, they "couldn't see".The peer pool you are holding up as "trustable" has had quite a few "professionals" caught in tampering, lying, and being flat-out wrong. They not only lie, they will change their "truth" as soon as a better sounding "truth" comes along, therefore, they are merely acting as a "rumor mill".
Brian,Do people question gravitational theory by saying things don’t fall to the ground? No, they try to investigate why thing are gravitationally attracted to each other (Higgs boson). Do people question germ theory by saying some diseases are not caused by microbes? No, they investigate how these microbes cause diseases. Do people question evolutionary theory by saying life doesn’t have a common ancestor? No, they investigate how species, protein complexes, DNA sequences, etc. evolved. There are many lively debates and research being done on the details of evolution, but virtually no scientist debates that evolution happens. Like other theories science has moved on from saying whether evolution happens or not to investigate how it happens. INAM,As a scientist, I don’t believe in something because of some “adgenda” or the money (scientist are known to be underpaid). Science works with the natural not the natural, there is no other way. I think what you are getting at is a discussion on worldviews and that’s a different discussion. Regarding your comment about Semmelwies, the medical association did change their mind when presented with more data right? (look up Pasteur’s work). The scientific community when it works is self correcting. Sure it may take awhile to figure things out. But in the end, scientists try to put the best ideas forward which are based on data. The scientific community wouldn’t survive and have made so much progress if it ignored the data. You live in a modern world thanks to scientist. Happy Birthday Darwin.
Mark,Again, and as always, thanks for taking the time to interact.I concur wholeheartedly that there are good ways to question something and bad ways to question something. My question, specifically, was if we can question evolution at all.So would you say that evolution can be questioned within the proper parameters, such as, trying to determine where evolution stops and starts, based on accepted mechanisms and the current data?
Brian,My point with the previous comment was yes evolution is and can be questioned all the time. How did birds evolve? What is the genetic mechanism of speciation? Do heat shock proteins play a role in jumps in evolution? There are thousands upon thousands of questions regarding evolution. Do scientist question whether evolution happened? Not really. As I tried to make the analogy in the previous post. The same reason why physicist don’t question that objects fall toward the earth, and microbiologist don’t questions that some microbes cause diseases. It is because of the mountain of data that indicates and “proves” the theory to hold true. Now if a scientist today drops an apple and it flies up into the air, yes, scientist will have to re-examine and question the fundamental theory of gravity. The same with evolution; if a scientist presents data that goes against evolutionary theory (when fully investigated), scientist will have to examine the fundamental theory of evolution. The fact is there is no data to date that can overturn the theory of evolution. The odd cases here and there that “perplex” and “baffle” scientist, when fully investigated fall into the theory and strengthen it. So could there be data that would overturn the theory? Theoretically yes, but it is extremely extremely unlikely. As likely as an apple falling up from a tree.
Ok.So I am curious as to why you think that Behe is wrong in writing his book as an investigation of the limits of evolution... he does not deny evolution in the observed sense (change over time, etc.). His premise is simply to examine the evidence to determine what the 'edge' of evolution is... how far the theory actually goes.
This discussion seems to be focused on "evolution" when I was under the impression that Behe is more concerned with the origin of life, which I understand to be different from evolution. As far as I can tell, Behe doesn't have a problem with "single celled to man" evolution (I think he states this in the intro of "darwins black box), but instead has problems with some specific cases (related to the origin of life) where evolution doesn't offer a satisfactory explanation; namely, some of the complex systems found within the cell. So, is it possible to seriously question this area of "science" where there have been no claims of "proof" that life evolved from non-life, etc.? Obviously, scientists believe it was naturalistic, but is questioning this aspect the same as questioning gravity? Remember, we are talking about the origin of life here, not Darwinian evolution.
Mike-e,I don't know all of Behe's personal views. However, I do know that the point of this particular book "The Edge of Evolution" is simply looking at the data and determining what we can actually know from it, rather than extrapolate. The origin of life would be an unwarranted extrapolation and a big assumption - not coming from evidence. I would think this is largely a naturalistic "must be such" story, and, as you say, nothing like gravity.I think it is fair to say that Behe sheds good light on the fact that Darwinian theory has been pushed far, far beyond what the evidence actually proves to be the case.
Brian,I haven’t read Behe’s new book, but from the reviews I’ve seen it seems that he still doesn’t understand basic concepts of evolution. It would be ok for someone to question evolution, if they actually understood the subject. I don’t understand how someone who used to study the biochemistry could be so off. I don’t know if it is because he has stopped actually doing research, or that he’s found his financial niche, or what, but he is very far from being an evolution expert. I know it sounds like I’m frustrated with the man, but it’s the same frustration you probably feel toward people like Dawkins who spout out things against religions with much knowledge on the subject.I disagree that evolutionary theory has been pushed too far. In science, one is always pushing the theory forward. One makes a prediction regarding the theory or another hypothesis, and then test it out. And the more one finds out, the more questions arise which need to be investigated more. Mike-e,Your right Behe tends to focus on things close to the origin of life. But many of his well known examples (clotting factors and flagella) are latter adaptations and in the realm of evolution. I still don’t know what Behe really believes. Sometimes he says he believes in evolution and other times he doesn’t. When he’s with the Discovery Inst he is even more anti-evolution, but when he’s talking to scientists he accepts some evolution. His ideas are not well defined, and his irreducible complexity mantra is an ever moving target.Well that's enough distractions for the moment, I gotta get back to the books. Take care Brian and Mike-e.
Mark,Thanks again for your thoughts. I always appreciate your conversations and irenic interaction.
Mark, can you tell us what the BEST evidence is for macro evolution?
Perhaps this is appropriate for the comments on this post:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-id-going-mainstream-in-the-popular-culture/
And even Bill Dembski has posted on this one. He says:One of the journals where Bob Marks and I are getting our pro-ID information-theory papers published focuses on information technology.Yes, ID has a natural home in the engineering sciences. Engineering is about designing things so that they work. Evolutionary biology is about imagining how things might work.
Manawatu,I'm showing my biase here, but for me the best evidence for macro evolution is the molecular evidence. Here is a great link to find out more. Let me know if you have any questions.
Manawatu,That’s great that Dembski and Marks can publish! The reason why they haven’t published in evolution journals is that they still don’t understand how basic evolution works. Sure one can come up with probabilities of things coming together randomly, but there are huge fields of study that they are ignoring when trying to apply their calculations to real life. They don’t figure in reproduction rates, allele frequency, heat shock proteins, gene duplications, protein and nucleic acid interactions, etc. So yes, their calculations have found a home in engineering journals, and that’s probably where they should stay if they don’t include other life variables.
Mark,I suppose you have read the response to your link (29+ evidences...)?http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
Mark,When I read these sorts of comments (all too frequently from your side), I realize that I am arguing with someone who has not bothered to understand the other side."The reason why they haven’t published in evolution journals is that they still don’t understand how basic evolution works."Sorry, but you just lost all credibility.
Manawatu,Yes I have. And I suppose you have read the response to your link? :)http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
Manawatu,Please don’t say I have not “bothered to understand the other side”. As a Ph.D. biologist/biochemist and growing up as a Christian, I have spent ~20 years in this never ending debate. I have seen almost all of creationism and ID’s arguments. Please show me specifically where they have shown that they actually understand how evolution works. I would love to read it. On a practical side, if the ID camp actually understands evolution theory, and they think it is wrong, why is the research so lacking? There should be tons of material to work with. The few ID research papers I have read have all not even really supported ID. For instance they just show the probability of a protein folding in a particular structure in vitro. But as you know in the real world evolution doesn’t rely on proteins folding by themselves.I hope you just don’t ignore what I say because I lost all credibility in your mind. I hope what I say and the links I provide can help you.
Hello Mark,How are you doing? Hopefully this comment finds you doing well.For me, I think the term "evolution" is used in various was to mean various things depending on the person presenting the data. It can have a fairly broad meaning, in my view.So, when you say, "they still don’t understand how basic evolution works," when referring to Behe, Dembski, and Marks, my question is- What exactly do you mean by "basic evolution?" Or, in other words, what exactly don't they understand?Many thanks
Chad, great to hear from you!For me the term evolution refers to the field of study. So in that sense it is very broad. Similar to molecular biology or quantum physics.Looking back, the phrase I used “basic evolution” was a poor choice of words. (As you’ll find out more about me, English is probably my worst subject). When I said “basic evolution” I meant what one would find in a higher college level textbook, what one would consider basic building blocks in which almost all evolution biologist would agree with and work from. So in that sense, basic in the field. However, to the general public “basic” was an extremely poor choice of words. Sorry for the confusion.
Hello Mark,Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate you taking the time to interact. Admittedly, I struggle with your claim that Dembski and Behe don't understand basic, higher college level biology. Behe:He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He got his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health.Dembski:He was awarded an S.M. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992–1993. He was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996.(Both taken from Wikipedia; not my favorite source, but will suffice for this!:-)It seems hard to believe, in my view, that these two guys could accomplish all of this and not understand evolution as presented in a higher level college textbook. Does there education mean I agree with everything they teach? No. Does it mean that they are absolutely correct with all their claims? No, and I would never assert as much. I guess it just seems difficult to believe that they could somehow accomplish all of this while not understanding basic, higher college level biology. I hope that makes sense.Mark, I don't want to argue; I'm just sharing! You are a scientist and I am not. Please know that I understand that! :-)God Bless You
Mark,I appreciate the graciousness of your responses. But please realize that for some of us on the other side, we are continually told that ID is not science, ID=creationism, evolution is fact, Fact, FACT, evolution is as certain as Einstein's relativity, ID scientists haven't published anything in scientific journals, (all of which are highly debatable, if not demonstrably false) and so on.Thus your dismissive comment about Behe and Dembski at least sounds like another out-of-hand dismissal by someone whose mind is made up.What COULD convince one such as yourself Mark the molecules-to-man evolution is not how we got here?
Chad,I love the discussion we’re having, and don’t consider it arguing. It’s good to challenge ones beliefs. Even mine (gasp!). I don’t doubt that Behe and Dembski are very knowledgeable in their current fields of study. The problem with science is that if one is not engaged in a field one can very quickly not be current with the basics. I’m as guilty of this too. Even after ~5 years of getting my degree, I would be very rusty in what the current techniques and prevailing hypothesis are in the field I once concidere myself an expert in.The problem with Behe and Dembski is that they don’t do research in evolutionary biology, yet go public in the general media and debase the theory. The last time Behe published an article regarding evolution, there was a rebuttal in the same journal that said, “It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic.” I’ve never read anything as scathing as this in a research journal.The other problem, which I believe I talked about before, is that ID is unfalsifiable. All data through the lens of ID can be said, “Well the Designer just designed it that way.” To many this would automatically disqualify it as science.
Manawatu,There are tons of things that could convince me that cell-to-man evolution is not how we got here (I changed it to “cell-to-man”, because abiogenesis has too many unknowns to be confident in “molecule-to-man”, but the data does point that way.) For time sake, I’ll just point you to the talkorigin link above. For each evidence provided they explain what would have easily falsified the theory. If you need me to go into more details on a specific let me know. I’d be glad to help. The unfortunate thing for any new theory is that it has to be a better theory than evolution, and I believe the probability of that happening is very low. Let me ask you a question. How do you explain the fossil record? How do you explain the molecule data?
Hello Mark,Thank you for your thoughts. I have heard other scientists talk about the very same thing you are regarding "being rusty" in other fields. This really helps to know where you are coming from.One thing I don't understand regarding your statement: "ID is unfalsifiable."Let's take Behe argument for irreducible complexity; if this theory is unscientific because it is untestable, how could scientists such as Ken Miller, Coyne (who recently wrote a very harsh assessment of ID in Forbes), or Dolittle claim to have tested it and shown it to be false? I guess my question is, how can a hypothesis be both untestable and testable?Also, take Stephen Meyer's hypothesis that biological information cannot be produced by unguided natural processes. I believe that Ken Miller claims that evidence supporting the "RNA world" scenario for lifes origin disproves Meyer's hypothesis. Of course, Meyer disagrees, but Miller bases his assessment of Meyer's hypothesis on evidence, which to me, seems to indicate that Miller at least believes that Meyer's hypothesis is testable. In my mind, there seems to be a contradiction here. When one says "ID is unscientific, but then tests it scientifically, it seems they are saying, "ID isn't science because it isn't testable; but we have tested it and it's been proven false."Thoughts?Thanks Mark
Chad,Excellent questions! Hopefully I can explain it better here.It is true that Miller can test an ID hypothesis such as RNA self assembly and show that biology can produce unguided information. This then falsifies this particular ID hypothesis. But then what happens is that the ID hypothesis moves back and says that the Designer designed RNA that way. This “moving the goal post” is what I mean by ID is unfalsifiable. One can always come back with, “Well the designer just designed it that way”. There is no testing what the designer would have done because His ways are unknowable. But the specific claims (bacteria flagella, clotting factors, etc.) can be tested and proven false, but the general ID hypothesis can’t be proven false because it can constantly change (the Designer just made it that way). Another way to put it, when ID puts out a scientific claim (information theory, irreducibly complex mechanism, etc.) it can be tested, however the general “moving goal post” hypothesis, “The Designer (God) just made it that way” is unfalsifiable and is unscientific. I hope I didn’t ramble too much here. Am I making sense?
Mark wrote:"But then what happens is that the ID hypothesis moves back and says that the Designer designed RNA that way. This “moving the goal post” is what I mean by ID is unfalsifiable. One can always come back with, “Well the designer just designed it that way”."But don't we have exactly the same issue with the evolutionism? The fossil record fails to support gradual change. We haven't the faintest idea how life began. And all the proof that biologists claim to have seems improbable when the argument is framed as an information problem.As I understand it, a way to disprove macro evolution would be to "find a rabbit in the Cambrian".Yet as philosophers have pointed out, all that would happen if this were indeed discovered would be that they would invent an auxiliary hypothesis rather than reject the theory.Basically, evolutionism appears to be unfalsifiable, thus I repeat my question: what would it take for you to change your mind Mark? Why does the problem of the origin of the first life not change your mind?
Mark,You are making sense. I understand what you are saying. Some in the ID camp are guilty of simply saying, “Oh well, God did it, that settles it.” However, I think Dembski’s explanatory filter guards against this to some extent.Moreover, I believe your objection can work both ways. Meaning, an evolutionist, when faced with a difficulty with the theory, can simply say, “Well, we know evolution is true, so it MUST have evolved that way” or “evolution HAD to have done it.” So, in this sense, it could also be said that evolution is untestable. Just as IDers can be guilty of the “god of gaps,” I have seen some evolutionists that have been guilty of “evolution of gaps.” Admittedly, this is usually naturalistic evolutionists. To me, the debate between ID/evolution is not a debate over evidence. Everyone is looking at the same evidence. I see it more of a debate over philosophical pre-suppositions. In my understanding, science is a search for causes. There are two types: 1) intelligent 2) natural or non-intelligent. If the examiner of the evidence rules out intelligence prior to his investigation (Mark, I am NOT saying you are doing this), he or she will never come to the conclusion that intelligence was involved. I just believe that intelligence should be a live option.Thank you for he thoughts Mark!
Manawatu and Chad,The difference is between the general theory and the details. There is the general theory (common decent with modification) but the details of how specific modifications occur is where the research is being done. For example with the general theory we know that there must be a transitional species between terrestrial mammals and whales. How that actually looks like (how many branches, how many different modifications, when did they occur, how did they occur, etc.) will take time to figure out. This is where the debates and research occur. This is where hypothesis come and go and are being refined. However the general theory, although falsifiable, has stood the test of time. However if a dinosaur is found in the belly of a whale (or visa versa) this would affect not just the details of evolution, but THE general theory of evolution. Drastic changes to how we understand evolution would have to be done. This contrast with ID where the general hypothesis, “there is a designer” is unfalsifiable. Also when the details of the hypothesis are proven wrong (bacterial flagella, clotting factors, etc.) the way in which the hypothesis is modified is that in retracts and says that, “no this is now irreducibly complex”. This tactic is a typical “god of the gap” approach. When more data comes in the “theory” looses explanatory power, where a good theory gets stronger the more data that comes in.Manawatu, I answered your question regarding what would it take for me to change my mind. Check out the link with what would falsify the general theory of evolution. Some other things not mentioned that would make me rethink evolution (and science as a whole): If humans could be traced back to an Adam and Eve. Or if the star light that I see is not caused by a star billions of light years away. Or that the earth is only 4,000 years old. Or if different languages could be traced back to the time of the tower of Babel. Manawatu, the origin of first life is a HUGE problem, and I don’t know whether we’ll ever figure out exactly how it happened. I do think there are advances to understanding how it could have happened, but I think actual evidence of how first life arose might be extremely hard to come by. Does this uncertainty of how first life came about lead to rejecting evolution? Absolutely not, the same reason why the uncertainty of the specific details of whale evolution doesn’t cause me to reject the theory. The issue is that there is not a better theory. You say the designer did it, and I say prove it.Chad, I wish I could spend more time in understanding some of Dembski’s mathematics. I must say that I get lost in the numbers. However, more skilled mathmaticians have critic his work, and I’m more inclined to believe these critics at the moment. Chad, science deals with the natural by nature, because it can’t study the supernatural. Intelligent causes aren’t off the table. Whole scientific fields are devoted in studying things caused by intelligent causes: anthropology, CSI, art history, archeology, etc. You’re right the underlying reason why intelligent causes aren’t looked at in biology is because we don’t believe it to be a cause. The reason why we don’t believe is because there hasn’t been any evidence to the contrary and isn’t very likely. However, if there is evidence, evolutionary biology would be able to join other scientific fields in investigating intelligent causes. Oh, how I wish there was scientific evidence for a designer, but wishing it doesn’t make it true.
Hi Mark,You may like to read this link and the linked PDF:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-deprived-whackaloon-creationist-writings-from-down-under/DaveScot who posted the link is an agnostic and quite anti creationism, exp. the young earth variety, yet his 'tongue-in-cheek' comments make an interesting point.I have read most of the PDF, but you are the guy trained in biology so will certainly understand more of it than I did.I don't think creationists are going to be won-over to the other side until the other side offers sufficient answers to the problems this guy talks about in his article. Moreover, if he is to be believed, the other side's job is becoming MUCH harder to maintain -- because of evidence.Btw, I believe it was ID that recently drove Anthony Flew away from a life-long belief in atheism.
Mark wrote:"For example with the general theory we know that there must be a transitional species between terrestrial mammals and whales. How that actually looks like (how many branches, how many different modifications, when did they occur, how did they occur, etc.) will take time to figure out. ... However the general theory, although falsifiable, has stood the test of time."But Mark, this is exactly the point. There SHOULD be numerous (millions) of transitional fossils between "terrestrial mammals and whales". So where are they? Stephen J. Gould said (from memory): "...the absence of transitional forms is the biggest secret in paleontology..."(For fun, see also this snippet: http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/dna-unraveled-darwinism-or-intelligent-design/)Mark wrote:"Some other things not mentioned that would make me rethink evolution (and science as a whole): If humans could be traced back to an Adam and Eve. Or if the star light that I see is not caused by a star billions of light years away. Or that the earth is only 4,000 years old. Or if different languages could be traced back to the time of the tower of Babel."But Mark, most of these hypotheses seem to me at least to be at least plausible.1. Adam and Eve: heard of the "Eve Theory"? Seems fairly close to the Biblical account.2. Starlight: See what atheist and ID critic Lawrence Krauss wrote in this snippet: http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/is-science-up-for-grabs/3. 4000 years: What about dinosaur bones containing soft tissue? http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/dinosaur-bones-containing-soft-tissue/And I could recount a recent story from a geologist PhD friend who was speaking to a world expert in geology. The expert conceded the data could be better explained by a young earth, "but of course nobody believes that".(I'm not a YEC btw; I remain undecided on this issue as I think there is much more science to be done still).4. Tower of Babel? Has this been disproven? Not that I am aware of.
Mark wrote:"...the origin of first life is a HUGE problem, and I don’t know whether we’ll ever figure out exactly how it happened..."and "You’re right the underlying reason why intelligent causes aren’t looked at in biology is because we don’t believe it to be a cause. The reason why we don’t believe is because there hasn’t been any evidence..."I think these two statements say a lot Mark. You appear to be prepared to take evolutionism on faith, in the face of seemingly impossible odds such as the origin of life. And we have not even touched on the beginning and fine tuning of the universe.Imo, physicists conceded 60 years ago to the theistic overtones seen in nature. Imo, Darwinism will also concede in time thru brave individuals like William Dembski who are tackling the problems in mathematical form. Wow, I am getting excited just thinking about it :-) !!!
Manawatu,I wish I could keep going back and forth with you, but it appears that I’m not making any progress with you. I’ll just make a couple of comments and then I’ll have to call it quits for now.I have nothing nice to say about the Alex Williams article you linked to, so I’ll say nothing.I don’t know what brought Anthony Flew from atheism, and I don’t really know if that matters. Just because some philosopher believes some non-scientific idea, doesn’t make it true.Your comment about wanting millions of transitional fossils is a common statement. Fossils are hard to come by, and finding specific transitional fossils is even harder. They are typically found in specific locations in specific strata. But when paleontologist hit the right place they often start finding more. When scientist find a transitional fossil, have they just made 2 more gaps that now need to be filled? A never ending need to prove to anti-evolutionist that transitional species exist?I don’t think you understand the Eve Theory. Starlight article has no relevance to my point. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones doesn’t disprove the age of the earth, it just shows that scientist don’t fully understand fossilization. A geologist saying that a young earth better fits the data??? Come on. My comment on the Tower of Babel was to reference all the data regarding the history of languages that shows that they evolved to the language we have today and weren’t created at a single point at Babel.Take a look at why the Catholic Church holds to a theistic evolution viewpoint.Take care Manawatu, and be careful that you don’t tie your pseudoscience too closely to your religious beliefs, because you just might lead someone like myself to unbelief.
My last post on this too Mark:Your paragraph 1: Neither of us is making any progress. We are both entrenched.Your paragraph 3: You are question-begging re Anthony Flew. Perhaps he has a point?Your paragraph 4 re fossils: So you believe BY FAITH that the evolutionary story holds true, irrespective of whether the fossils exist or not. Ok...Your paragraph 5: Here is the "Eve Theory". What don't I understand?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_EveDino bones -- again you are question begging. You are assuming what you are trying to prove -- BY FAITH.The geologist apparently DID say this to my friend, however you like to dismiss it. He has a PhD is this area and would not lie about it. Your comment only shows your bias.Babel -- I would love to see more that a FAITH STATEMENT to support your claim.Your paragraph 6: Catholic church? Why would you appeal to that as an authority?Bye-for-now Mark, and all the best 2U!
New comments are not allowed.