Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64110 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you chose not to notice Subby, the above has a loud mouth evo, like you, going his hardest and obviously making a fool of himself, in light of more recent research.
TOE said that junk dna was evidence for evolution only a few years ago. I suggest the opposite should now be evidence against evolution unless evos are pretenders in their claims of using credible scientific method.
The many Darwinists who strongly pushed (and many still do) the Junk DNA claim predicted that nearly 99% of the entire human genome, the portion that was non-coding, was mostly just left-over junk DNA. They as good as predicted this based on TOE as they shoved it down creos mouths like the big mouth above.
So what now you evos? Have you got anything better than 'evovacant, woops and who cares', to offer.
No, not necessarily. There are facts that will sink one idea and yet are neutral to another. The idea of junk DNA was deadly to creationism, but really made no difference either way for evolution. In fact quite a few evolutionary biologists were bothered by the idea. That is one reason why I keep wondering why you keep getting your panties in a knot over this topic.

All that it would mean if all DNA served a present day purpose, and there is evidence that that will never be the case. Then you could say that that particular aspect of DNA has not ruled out creationism yet. Not a lot to crow about if you ask me.

So before you start to crow in victory you should be more aware of what you are crowing about.

And now on to how "junk DNA" still shows creationism to be bunk. Some of the identified genes, therefore no longer junk, used to code for features of the animals ancestors and reflect its evolutionary path. You are still ducking about genes found in chickens that are currently "turned off" that cause it to grow teeth, scales, a "dinosaur" tale, and "hands". All features of its dinosaur ancestors.

Nor have you answered the question of ERV's that were never considered to be "junk".
LOL

Europe

#64111 Dec 8, 2012
LOL:-D

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64112 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Maz, what of ERV's? Those were never counted as "junk DNA" since they were recognized very early for what they are. Do you have an explanation for them that will not leave us rolling in the aisles?
Only if you admit that I can support my view, can I be bothered fluttering onto something else based on magic.

ERVs are ghosts that evos chase with algorithmic magic. ERVS are not left over remnants of virus they are tiny functional genomic sequence that may look vaguely like a virus when resequenced based on models of assumption. Phoenix is a simulated computer model, not an actual, virus brought back from the dead.

I have posted a loudmouth that gobbled about junk dna and discredited an entire paper on the basis of junk dna despite all the gobble about some ervs being found to be functional.

So are you going to admit that I can support 1. that creos at least claimed well in advance that there would be no junk dna. 2. Evos claimed there would be junk dna and suposedly found it. 3. Evos were falsified. 4. Creos were validated 5.Of the two, creos appear to have more merit than evos on this one point re non coding dna.

The above is the support for my first point of 6 for creationism.
We can go onto No 2 or ervs, when you admit to the above paragraph.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64113 Dec 8, 2012
Maz, part of your problem is that you work with the false dichotomy that if evolution is false then creationism is true. That is not necessarily the case. There could be many other possibilities.

Another major problem for creationism is that no one on your side has the guts nor brains to make a real creationism hypothesis. The guts aren't there because they know that hypotheses are testable and they are afraid of tests, having failed all of them to date. There are no current active creationism hypotheses. And you don't have to know everything to create a working hypotheses. Darwin definitely did not know anything and evolution started, like all modern day science does, as a hypothesis. He tested his idea and found that it worked. It as been tested for the entire 150 years since it became a theory by many others and it has always been found to work.

Back to my point that I was making. Scientific evidence, by definition, is evidence that supports or counters a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since creationists are too afraid to construct a scientific hypothesis there can be no scientific evidence for creationism. Of course to be fair there is any against it either. But then no scientist considers anything real when even the followers of the idea are afraid to test it. So you cannot have found any scientific evidence that supports creation at all. No one is willing to write a working hypothesis that the evidence can weigh against.

This is not some cute game that scientists play at. Scientists are very contentious people and would be just as likely to go into denial as anyone else. What cannot be denied is when evidence fits a theory. For example all fossil evidence fits into the evolutionary paradigm. None found so far does not. Since there is not creation hypothesis you cannot make the same claim. Do you see why the creation of hypotheses and theories is so important to scientists. This method is time tested and it produces results. All of modern science, not just evolution is based upon this approach.

So if you want to be a denying luddite, go ahead. You will get laughed at. If you want to call anything as scientific evidence for, or against creationism, then you or your pals need to come up with a hypothesis ASAP.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64114 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, not necessarily. There are facts that will sink one idea and yet are neutral to another. The idea of junk DNA was deadly to creationism, but really made no difference either way for evolution. In fact quite a few evolutionary biologists were bothered by the idea. That is one reason why I keep wondering why you keep getting your panties in a knot over this topic.
All that it would mean if all DNA served a present day purpose, and there is evidence that that will never be the case. Then you could say that that particular aspect of DNA has not ruled out creationism yet. Not a lot to crow about if you ask me.
So before you start to crow in victory you should be more aware of what you are crowing about.
And now on to how "junk DNA" still shows creationism to be bunk. Some of the identified genes, therefore no longer junk, used to code for features of the animals ancestors and reflect its evolutionary path. You are still ducking about genes found in chickens that are currently "turned off" that cause it to grow teeth, scales, a "dinosaur" tale, and "hands". All features of its dinosaur ancestors.
Nor have you answered the question of ERV's that were never considered to be "junk".
I don't care about your waffle around what is turned on and off. It has function. So non functional genomic material demonstrated an evolutionary path and now functional non coding dna also demonstrates an evolutionary path. That is twoddle. You can't get any deep ancestries right and you reckon you can get these ghost ervs into some order.

Admit that I have demonstrated that creos claimed there to be no junk dna many years before it was found to have function and have been validated.

Admit that some evos have shoved junk dna down creos throats as evidence for evolution and now should suck eggs.

Admit that evos would rather hang themselves than admit to being wrong about anything.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64115 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, part of your problem is that you work with the false dichotomy that if evolution is false then creationism is true. That is not necessarily the case. There could be many other possibilities.
Another major problem for creationism is that no one on your side has the guts nor brains to make a real creationism hypothesis. The guts aren't there because they know that hypotheses are testable and they are afraid of tests, having failed all of them to date. There are no current active creationism hypotheses. And you don't have to know everything to create a working hypotheses. Darwin definitely did not know anything and evolution started, like all modern day science does, as a hypothesis. He tested his idea and found that it worked. It as been tested for the entire 150 years since it became a theory by many others and it has always been found to work.
Back to my point that I was making. Scientific evidence, by definition, is evidence that supports or counters a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since creationists are too afraid to construct a scientific hypothesis there can be no scientific evidence for creationism. Of course to be fair there is any against it either. But then no scientist considers anything real when even the followers of the idea are afraid to test it. So you cannot have found any scientific evidence that supports creation at all. No one is willing to write a working hypothesis that the evidence can weigh against.
This is not some cute game that scientists play at. Scientists are very contentious people and would be just as likely to go into denial as anyone else. What cannot be denied is when evidence fits a theory. For example all fossil evidence fits into the evolutionary paradigm. None found so far does not. Since there is not creation hypothesis you cannot make the same claim. Do you see why the creation of hypotheses and theories is so important to scientists. This method is time tested and it produces results. All of modern science, not just evolution is based upon this approach.
So if you want to be a denying luddite, go ahead. You will get laughed at. If you want to call anything as scientific evidence for, or against creationism, then you or your pals need to come up with a hypothesis ASAP.
No more of your farting Subby. I am not dealing with the theory of everything. I am backing my one point on junk dna, 1/6, and you will either suck it up or shut up.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64116 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you admit that I can support my view, can I be bothered fluttering onto something else based on magic.
ERVs are ghosts that evos chase with algorithmic magic. ERVS are not left over remnants of virus they are tiny functional genomic sequence that may look vaguely like a virus when resequenced based on models of assumption. Phoenix is a simulated computer model, not an actual, virus brought back from the dead.
I have posted a loudmouth that gobbled about junk dna and discredited an entire paper on the basis of junk dna despite all the gobble about some ervs being found to be functional.
So are you going to admit that I can support 1. that creos at least claimed well in advance that there would be no junk dna. 2. Evos claimed there would be junk dna and suposedly found it. 3. Evos were falsified. 4. Creos were validated 5.Of the two, creos appear to have more merit than evos on this one point re non coding dna.
The above is the support for my first point of 6 for creationism.
We can go onto No 2 or ervs, when you admit to the above paragraph.
No, you posted someone who brought up very good points about why you are wrong.

1. Creos may have claimed there would be no junk DNA, you did not post any papers where that was claimed. Please do so.

2. No, some may have, some didn't, and a lot depends upon the definition of junk DNA.

3. No, they weren't. Again, what is junk DNA? If one definition includes left over genes that can be artificially turned on again that give an animal characteristics of its ancestors then we have found junk DNA. At any rate we have found evidence of evolution in DNA. If it also has another use today that does not take away the use that it had in the past.

4. Definitely not the case. See above.

5. Again no. For you to "win" you would have to prove that the entire DNA has a purpose now and that it did not have a different purpose in the past. You already lost on the latter part so definitely NO.

6. Since you lost on all of the past it looks like you will continue to duck on ERV's. Too bad. It is of course another terrible loss by creationists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64117 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No more of your farting Subby. I am not dealing with the theory of everything. I am backing my one point on junk dna, 1/6, and you will either suck it up or shut up.
And you lost on that. Sorry Maz, you will have to find some other topic to rant about.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64118 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care about your waffle around what is turned on and off. It has function. So non functional genomic material demonstrated an evolutionary path and now functional non coding dna also demonstrates an evolutionary path. That is twoddle. You can't get any deep ancestries right and you reckon you can get these ghost ervs into some order.
Admit that I have demonstrated that creos claimed there to be no junk dna many years before it was found to have function and have been validated.
Admit that some evos have shoved junk dna down creos throats as evidence for evolution and now should suck eggs.
Admit that evos would rather hang themselves than admit to being wrong about anything.
No, no no, guys can't waffle, that blue waffle is an affliction that only you girls can get and we wish you would take your blue one elsewhere.

One more time, we can show that ancient genes are still in an animal. It has been tested and found true in the laboratory. You can deny as much as you want, but it is an accomplished fact.

So it does not matter if you call those ancient genes junk DNA or not. It is a losing point for your side on the junk DNA question.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64119 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you admit that I can support my view, can I be bothered fluttering onto something else based on magic.
ERVs are ghosts that evos chase with algorithmic magic. ERVS are not left over remnants of virus they are tiny functional genomic sequence that may look vaguely like a virus when resequenced based on models of assumption. Phoenix is a simulated computer model, not an actual, virus brought back from the dead.
I have posted a loudmouth that gobbled about junk dna and discredited an entire paper on the basis of junk dna despite all the gobble about some ervs being found to be functional.
So are you going to admit that I can support 1. that creos at least claimed well in advance that there would be no junk dna. 2. Evos claimed there would be junk dna and suposedly found it. 3. Evos were falsified. 4. Creos were validated 5.Of the two, creos appear to have more merit than evos on this one point re non coding dna.
The above is the support for my first point of 6 for creationism.
We can go onto No 2 or ervs, when you admit to the above paragraph.
I am supposed to believe the "expertise" of Maz and her blue waffle? I don't think so. ERV's are recognized as viruses by experts in the field virologists. Until you can find something serious, that means peer reviewed, I will stick with the experts. And of course there are many peer reviewed papers on ERV's would you like to see some, or will you take me at my word?

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#64120 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, you posted someone who brought up very good points about why you are wrong.

1. Creos may have claimed there would be no junk DNA, you did not post any papers where that was claimed. Please do so.

2. No, some may have, some didn't, and a lot depends upon the definition of junk DNA.

3. No, they weren't. Again, what is junk DNA? If one definition includes left over genes that can be artificially turned on again that give an animal characteristics of its ancestors then we have found junk DNA. At any rate we have found evidence of evolution in DNA. If it also has another use today that does not take away the use that it had in the past.

4. Definitely not the case. See above.

5. Again no. For you to "win" you would have to prove that the entire DNA has a purpose now and that it did not have a different purpose in the past. You already lost on the latter part so definitely NO.

6. Since you lost on all of the past it looks like you will continue to duck on ERV's. Too bad. It is of course another terrible loss by creationists.
Not maz but I did find this talking about junk DNA http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-05...
I hope it helps.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64121 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no no, guys can't waffle, that blue waffle is an affliction that only you girls can get and we wish you would take your blue one elsewhere.
One more time, we can show that ancient genes are still in an animal. It has been tested and found true in the laboratory. You can deny as much as you want, but it is an accomplished fact.
So it does not matter if you call those ancient genes junk DNA or not. It is a losing point for your side on the junk DNA question.
No you can't show any such thing. Prove it, and let's see what misrepresentation ensues. Junk dna is not a losing point because no dna demonsrates to a chimp or anything else.

You have lost the point on junk dna because I can provide evidence that creos were claiming there would be no junk and their claim and prediction has been validated, regardless of any dribble you want to hand wave around or hubris you offer. My point 1 is supported and unless you are now suggesting evos never mentioned junk dna you need to suck it up!

You are trying to impose your own point in place of mine. You gobbled that creos did not make claims or predictions round junk dna in advance and were WRONG.

Now you want to polywaffle on about ervs.....

How the retroviral env gene has these effects is not clear. But what is more curious is this: the retrovirus is closely related to a free-living virus called Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus, which causes lung cancer in sheep and goats, but not other species. That is not surprising in itself, but it means that the virus must have become endogenous fairly recently, otherwise it would not look so similar to its free-living counterpart. However, circumstantial evidence suggests that rodents (in the form of mice) and primates (in the form of both monkeys and humans) have also acquired endogenous retroviruses that help placenta formation, and have done so independently of what happened in sheep. Clearly, this retroviral gene fills an important niche in mammalian biology, but, on the other hand, mammals were able to reproduce perfectly well before they were first infected. That, too, is weird. Nevertheless, without the retrovirus's presence now, you might not have been born.

http://www.economist.com/node/7905388...

So on what basis do you suggest this reasoning above demonstrates ancestry? And please provide more than your opinion so I have the opportunity to bag out your links as well.

All the way back to monkeys an erv, that resulted from an infection and likely a usual drop in fitness, supposedly endogenized and continued to evolve and mutate and leave a remnant of a tiny sequence that evos suggest is supposed to show ancestry but was once thought to be a dead remnant? Rubbish!

I suggest that all these assertions are evolutionary hubris and in actual fact these areas of the genome bear little resemblance to human, chimps or other primates and straw grabbing is your evidence for ancestry or even that ervs are the result of HGT of a virus.

That this tiny remnant of sequence could be worked up to demonstrate anything is a work of magic in itself.

Now, with evidence, support your claims, please. Let's see this algorithmic magic of yours.

Another supposed infection also resulted in providing the same function independently. Rubbish!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64122 Dec 9, 2012
Maz, you ignorant twit. You do not get to debunk your claims with articles that oppose you. I never said that ERV's never have a function.
And you still have not provided any evidence of creationists making predictions of DNA all being used before "junk DNA" was discovered.
And lastly there have been cases where ancient genes were reactivated in the laboratory. It has been done and several times over.
You have lost on all of your points and made none of them.
So are you going to keep blue waffling up this site? Probably.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64123 Dec 9, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not maz but I did find this talking about junk DNA http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-05...
I hope it helps.
Oh Subby likes to hide in ignorance. Creos did indeed claim many years ago that there would be no junk dna and that is being validated. I just love to watch evos struggle and squirm.

Evos have shown that their irrefuteable evidences are no more than flavours of the month.

Thanks for the link. It is a rehash of the one I posted but may have more info, so thanks again.

From your link...

"Most of a person’s genetic risk for common diseases such as diabetes, asthma and hardening of the arteries appears to lie in the shadowy part of the human genome once disparaged as “junk DNA.”

Indeed, the vast majority of human DNA seems to be involved in maintaining individuals’ well being — a view radically at odds with what biologists have thought for the past three decades.

Those are among the key insights of a nine-year project to study the 97 percent of the human genome that’s not, strictly speaking, made up of genes."

So the majority of the genome is used in maintaining ones well being and is NOT evolutionary junk as evos proposed for over a decade. That reminds me of our knuckle walking ancestry that they had evidence on for over 150 years. Evolutionary theory is just one big surprize after another for evos!

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#64124 Dec 9, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is easy to look at some else's life or into some story and say what you would have done. However it is much more difficult to look at our own lives sometimes and not just see our problems but also to find the solution.
Nice job! The fundie two step strikes again! You avoided dealing with the subject and said that your god could not make laws that transcends time!

There is no way that a god would worry about female virginity, so much so that it would have the female murdered for not being one. Only a man, who believes that women are property would worry about female virginity.

Only man would have slaves and think that it was OK.

Only man would think that killing a slave would be OK.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64125 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you posted someone who brought up very good points about why you are wrong.
1. Creos may have claimed there would be no junk DNA, you did not post any papers where that was claimed. Please do so.
2. No, some may have, some didn't, and a lot depends upon the definition of junk DNA.
3. No, they weren't. Again, what is junk DNA? If one definition includes left over genes that can be artificially turned on again that give an animal characteristics of its ancestors then we have found junk DNA. At any rate we have found evidence of evolution in DNA. If it also has another use today that does not take away the use that it had in the past.
4. Definitely not the case. See above.
5. Again no. For you to "win" you would have to prove that the entire DNA has a purpose now and that it did not have a different purpose in the past. You already lost on the latter part so definitely NO.
6. Since you lost on all of the past it looks like you will continue to duck on ERV's. Too bad. It is of course another terrible loss by creationists.
1. I should not need to provide any more you ignorant evotard. Are you suggesting that creos did not make claims around junk dna? Moron. When did you last support anything you say with anything let alone peer reviewed research..the big evo quack....

2. Waffle and crap.

3. waffle and crap. Ask your creotard researchers what junk is. They invented the term. You evotards don't even understand your own terms now. Ha Ha.

And the rest are crap also with nothing more than the simplistic replies of a child.

Don't forget it is evo researchers that have found 80% functionality and are expecting to find 100%. Would you like to wager what is left of your credibility on that?

All I have to do is demonstate that creos made claims around junk dna and I have pegged them back to 1998. I do not have to produce peer reviewed research evotard because most intelligent evos already know that creos preached that.

I have produced evidence to support creos made these claims well in advance, and you would have to be a desperate moron to suggest otherwise as your sole defence.

Creos did not toddle off and come up with convolutions as to why God would make junk dna and role model evolutionary knee jerk science. Creos denied the existence of junk dna from its inception. If they did us eknee jerk science you would be able to find the same kind of prattle from creos as I can find from evos loudmouthing their hubris, ad nauseum.

You are a proud empty prat, trying to justify your existence on a debating forum.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64126 Dec 9, 2012
The problem with titles like "Junk DNA debunked" is that evolutionists never put great stock in the idea of junk DNA. It is a term similar to the proper use of UFO. There are millions of UFO's spotted daily. For example"

#1 "What is that?"

#2 "I don't know."

At this point in time the object is a UFO.

#1 "Oh, it's a Boeing 747."

And now it isn't. The same applies to Junk DNA.. When first found it was unknown what much of the DNA "code" did. It looked like it sat there and did nothing. Now they are finding some uses of it. Some control the body in ways that were not seen before. Some parts of it are old genes that are no longer used. They are not "junk" since they are now recognized, but they are still old and still debunk creatard nonsense.

And of course Maz is still ducking the question of ERV's. Now if the original part of much of DNA being total junk persisted the creationists would have no explanation for it. This along with all of the other countless examples of evidence that creatards have not been able to answer to would be a very large nail in the coffin of their idea that has been dead for 150 years. For some strange reason Maz takes great hope in the discovery that some of the junk may not be junk after all.

I know. Maz will keep blue waffling this site with her bullshit. This discovery does not hurt evolution in any way. If Maz could understand a lick of logic she would see why that was the case. And the case that it does not kill creationism dead is still far from being made.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#64127 Dec 9, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
All great points that should end in "we think" no matter what you think you know you maybe able to remove most uncertainty but you will never know it all. In the quest for certainty only an idiot claims to know it all and has history has shown us even the "small stuff" can change I'm positive to I'm not sure.
Ah, the god of the gaps argument. Brilliant.

No one in science has ever claimed to know it all! But believers claim that their unseen god knows it all. What does that make them?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64128 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you lost on that. Sorry Maz, you will have to find some other topic to rant about.
I can't possibly have lost because I can back what I claim and so far we are still waiting for yout osay somethjing intelligent.

1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

Collectively, the papers describe 1,640 data sets generated across 147 different cell types. Among the many important results there is one that stands out above them all: more than 80% of the human genome's components have now been assigned at least one biochemical function.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...

Everything I said above I have not only supported but also validated.

You have presented twoddle.

That generally means..I win.

It is a point you can't refute subby. Just like knucklewalking ancestry you will have to suck it up and admit these evos did not know what they were talking about, whilst creo claims over a decade old were validated.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64129 Dec 9, 2012
Maz, try to bring up one point. Make it the strongest point. Your Gish Gallops are obvious lies.

So how does this "new" discovery help cretinism or IDiocy in any way?

I will repeat that they did not find the whole genome to be functioning yet. Only that much more of it is functioning that was thought in the past. Some of those functions are old functions that hurt creationism. Dinosaur teeth, scales, tales, and claws in a chicken hurt creationism, they do not help it and those are some of the finds of what used to be "junk DNA". Do you need articles on how they found those? I will be happy to supply them.

Second, none of your cited scientific articles support your side in the least. You have only gone to them for their title or at most their abstracts. None of them put a limit on evolution. The people who wrote them did not think there was a limit on evolution.

Lastly you have failed to produce the articles that you claim exist. You have failed to show how creationists predicted a totally useful DNA before "Junk DNA" was discovered. Nor have you shown any articles that predict that all DNA would be found to have a use by creationists even after this latest discovery. Probably because they are aware of the old genes that have been found that already debunk creationism.

So that is at least three strikes and you are out.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Darwin on the rocks 4 min DanFromSmithville 175
Humans DID evolve from apes! 1 hr Daz Ma Taz 3
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 2 hr John K 3
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 6 hr Zog Has-fallen 657
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr Dogen 174,462
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 8 hr The Dude 14
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr polymath257 137,376

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE