We have two eyes! Why?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#550 Jun 7, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
I know considerably more about chemistry than some people on this thread who think that it's all about having some kid mix compound A with compound B in case it creates gunpowder and he blows up.
Which, if true, is still irrelevant to the fact that math was not integral to chemistry.
Peru_Serv wrote:
Unfortunately, however, your claim has little to do with chemistry. First you claim that you KNOW that gene A causes resistance to toxin B. Firstly, I note that chemistry doesn't usually deal with genes.
Ah, then that explains things. Since chemistry doesn't usually deal with genes then the only logical explanation is that you are both brain-dead and body-dead, which results in the dumbosity that you come out with every day.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#551 Jun 7, 2012
Wait a minute! "Chemistry doesn't usually deal with genes?" Well duh, genes are chemistry. Thus why you learn general chemistry before you dive into genetics.

Peru_Serv, you do realize that genetic chemicals are templates, right? Templates for other complex organic compounds. The whole system is just a continual set of chemical reactions, all the processes, the entire cell, your entire body. It's chemical reactions. Electrical imposes can cause other reactions, but the act of living is mostly just one chemical reaction triggering another.

So when a specific gene is said to "cause a toxin resistance" it's because the chemical that it's a template for neutralizes that toxin, the same way an antidote does. The more cells containing that specific gene switched on, the more of that chemical gets produced, and the better the result.

If you really did understand chemistry, then genetics is not that hard to understand.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#552 Jun 7, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
Wait a minute! "Chemistry doesn't usually deal with genes?" Well duh, genes are chemistry. Thus why you learn general chemistry before you dive into genetics.
Peru_Serv, you do realize that genetic chemicals are templates, right? Templates for other complex organic compounds. The whole system is just a continual set of chemical reactions, all the processes, the entire cell, your entire body. It's chemical reactions. Electrical imposes can cause other reactions, but the act of living is mostly just one chemical reaction triggering another.
So when a specific gene is said to "cause a toxin resistance" it's because the chemical that it's a template for neutralizes that toxin, the same way an antidote does. The more cells containing that specific gene switched on, the more of that chemical gets produced, and the better the result.
If you really did understand chemistry, then genetics is not that hard to understand.
Well a lot of what is said on these forums is not hard to understand, yet somehow Peru_Serv continually manages to be able to not understand it.

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#553 Jun 12, 2012
Samurai wrote:
It's maybe because eukaryotic bodies tend to gravitate toward bilateral symmetry. But thats not an answer. If we evolved, some creature must have had one eye one day, right? But we don't know that for sure... Do we? There is no one creature that we know of that had one eye! When did eyes start to appear anyway? Some stage between bacteria and fishes? I really would like to get some answers on this.
And please, no "God Created Us This Way" answers!
Binocular vision

Level 2

Since: May 12

Lima, Peru

#554 Jun 12, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Straw man. When it doubt, lie.
<quoted text>
Genes code for proteins. Proteins are chemicals. They interact with other compounds. That's chemistry.
<quoted text>
Actually, I have given you an explanation. I'll repeat it, the gene in question codes for a specific protein which coats the cell membrane and interacts with the toxin binding it so that it does not kill the cell. The more of the protein available to bind to the toxin, the more toxin gets sequestered and rendered harmless.
<quoted text>
So, your claim is that someone did a study which showed that most studies are wrong most of the time.
Therefore, his study should be considered most likely wrong.
<quoted text>
How is it unspecified? Seriously, do I have to explain percentages to you?
100% is the sum total of all components.
We are starting with a container which holds bacteria. 50% of the bacteria in the container have gene A, 50% do not have gene A.
We add the toxin. A bunch of bacteria die - all of them the non-gene A variety.
We then measure the resulting population.
If the ratio is still 50/50 despite the fact that only the non-gene A variety has died, then natural selection is falsified.
<quoted text>
Do you have evidence that it won't move?
Are you now claiming that gravity is false?
<quoted text>
Well DUH. Your opinion isn't based on facts or logic, it's based entirely on your religious upbringing.
It would be impossible to argue you out of your position because you didn't reason your way into it.
I'm not posting this stuff to convince you. You are worthless. I'm posting this to entertain the other readers who are all laughing at you.
No, you ignorant sap, I'm not claiming that gravity is false. I'm claiming that a theory that doesn't predict HOW something will move is WORTHLESS.

Similarly a theory that simply says that the percentages will change, without indicating direction or magnitude is similarly worthless.

Nor is the article in question a study. As noted, "In the presence of bias (Table 2), one gets PPV =([1 - &#946;]R + u&#946;R)/(R + &#945; &#8722; &#946;R + u &#8722; u&#945; + u&#946;R), and PPV decreases with increasing u, unless 1 &#8722; &#946; &#8804; &#945;, i.e., 1 &#8722; &#946; &#8804; 0.05 for most situations. Thus, with increasing bias, the chances that a research finding is true diminish considerably. This is shown for different levels of power and for different pre-study odds in Figure 1." There's a word for that and it's called MATH.

Now back to your claimed scenario where it is theorized that gene A creates protein B that coats the organism rendering it resistant to toxin C and these results are later not replicated in the laboratory would, in fact, disprove natural selection. If that really were the case, then naturally selection has surely been disproved several times over. A simple Google search for "failure to replicate findings" shows 5,440 hits.

In reality a simple look at the quotes reveals that natural selection is never even called into question. The quote from the first one I saw was, "Failure to replicate findings from previous studies may be due to a lack of statistical power." As always there are numerous reasons why one study may show one thing and another study may show another including, but not limited to, bias.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Lima, Peru

#555 Jun 12, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
Wait a minute! "Chemistry doesn't usually deal with genes?" Well duh, genes are chemistry. Thus why you learn general chemistry before you dive into genetics.
Peru_Serv, you do realize that genetic chemicals are templates, right? Templates for other complex organic compounds. The whole system is just a continual set of chemical reactions, all the processes, the entire cell, your entire body. It's chemical reactions. Electrical imposes can cause other reactions, but the act of living is mostly just one chemical reaction triggering another.
So when a specific gene is said to "cause a toxin resistance" it's because the chemical that it's a template for neutralizes that toxin, the same way an antidote does. The more cells containing that specific gene switched on, the more of that chemical gets produced, and the better the result.
If you really did understand chemistry, then genetics is not that hard to understand.
From http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Ge...
Genetics (from Ancient Greek ',“genitive” and that from ',“origin”), a discipline of biology, is the science of heredity and variation in living organisms.

Therefore, as I previously said, chemistry does not normally deal with genes, rather it is a subset of biology.

But even if you want to take the "biology is a subset of chemistry" argument you need to carry it to its logical conclusion that chemistry is a subset of physics. After all, your sentence "Electrical imposes can cause other reactions" (by which I can only assume you meant impulses, but were too illiterate to spell it right) are a physical matter dealt with by the laws of physics.

I conclude with the observation that the sentence "If you really did understand chemistry, then genetics is not that hard to understand" is also malformed. When one starts a sentence with if and the past tense, grammatically one should include would in the subordinate clause; unless, of course, one is using "could" as the auxiliary verb, in which case we understand that you mean "would be able to" or "might" in which case we understand that you mean "maybe you would".

In conclusion: If you spoke and typed English clearly, others would understand you more easily. I would also like to theorize that fuzzy language patterns are a sign of underlying fuzzy thought patterns.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Lima, Peru

#556 Jun 12, 2012
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Well a lot of what is said on these forums is not hard to understand, yet somehow Peru_Serv continually manages to be able to not understand it.
I think this is more of a pathological projection of your own inadequacies rather than an objective assessment of the situation. Despite my best efforts to sift the wheat from the chaff, there is simply so much chaff here that no wheat can be found.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#557 Jun 12, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
I'm not claiming that gravity is false. I'm claiming that a theory that doesn't predict HOW something will move is WORTHLESS.
An you think that the theory of gravitation doesn't make predictions about the locations of the planets in the future?

You realize that for DECADES we've been shooting rockets from Earth to other planets, right? That if we were off by even .000001% in our estimates as to where the planet would be, we'd miss by MILES.

We're driving remote control cars on the surface of Mars. Cars that could not possibly be there our understanding of gravity were wrong.

Nice try, you ignorant hillbilly.
A simple Google search for "failure to replicate findings" shows 5,440 hits.
A simple Google search for "ignorant creationist" shows 2,800,000 hits. I guess that pretty much blows your google search out of the water.
As always there are numerous reasons why one study may show one thing and another study may show another including, but not limited to, bias.
Citing the fact that one study, which is not my proposed study, might have failed does not offer any incite whatsoever on the nature of my study.

One baseball team does not lose simply because you have evidence of 100 other baseball teams that have lost in the past.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#558 Jun 12, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you ignorant sap, I'm not claiming that gravity is false. I'm claiming that a theory that doesn't predict HOW something will move is WORTHLESS.
Similarly a theory that simply says that the percentages will change, without indicating direction or magnitude is similarly worthless.
Nor is the article in question a study. As noted, "In the presence of bias (Table 2), one gets PPV =([1 - &#946;]R + u&#946;R)/(R + &#945; &#8722; &#946;R + u &#8722; u&#945; + u&#946;R), and PPV decreases with increasing u, unless 1 &#8722; &#946; &#8804; &#945;, i.e., 1 &#8722; &#946; &#8804; 0.05 for most situations. Thus, with increasing bias, the chances that a research finding is true diminish considerably. This is shown for different levels of power and for different pre-study odds in Figure 1." There's a word for that and it's called MATH.
Now back to your claimed scenario where it is theorized that gene A creates protein B that coats the organism rendering it resistant to toxin C and these results are later not replicated in the laboratory would, in fact, disprove natural selection. If that really were the case, then naturally selection has surely been disproved several times over. A simple Google search for "failure to replicate findings" shows 5,440 hits.
In reality a simple look at the quotes reveals that natural selection is never even called into question. The quote from the first one I saw was, "Failure to replicate findings from previous studies may be due to a lack of statistical power." As always there are numerous reasons why one study may show one thing and another study may show another including, but not limited to, bias.
Paint chips are NOT a snack food.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#559 Jun 12, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
From http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Ge...
Genetics (from Ancient Greek ',“genitive” and that from ',“origin”), a discipline of biology, is the science of heredity and variation in living organisms.
Therefore, as I previously said, chemistry does not normally deal with genes, rather it is a subset of biology.
But even if you want to take the "biology is a subset of chemistry" argument you need to carry it to its logical conclusion that chemistry is a subset of physics. After all, your sentence "Electrical imposes can cause other reactions" (by which I can only assume you meant impulses, but were too illiterate to spell it right) are a physical matter dealt with by the laws of physics.
I conclude with the observation that the sentence "If you really did understand chemistry, then genetics is not that hard to understand" is also malformed. When one starts a sentence with if and the past tense, grammatically one should include would in the subordinate clause; unless, of course, one is using "could" as the auxiliary verb, in which case we understand that you mean "would be able to" or "might" in which case we understand that you mean "maybe you would".
In conclusion: If you spoke and typed English clearly, others would understand you more easily. I would also like to theorize that fuzzy language patterns are a sign of underlying fuzzy thought patterns.
All that reading and you missed this important part:
"The sequence of nucleotides in a gene is translated by cells to produce a chain of amino acids, "
Chemical templates, learn to comprehend.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#560 Jun 12, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
I think this is more of a pathological projection of your own inadequacies rather than an objective assessment of the situation. Despite my best efforts to sift the wheat from the chaff, there is simply so much chaff here that no wheat can be found.
The basic problem here is your use of the word "think". Whatever else it may be, calling what you do "thinking" is a serious misuse of that word.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#561 Jun 12, 2012
AKSamurai wrote:
I'm still convinced that one creature had only one... and I don't mean it has to be a complete eye organ as we know it. The very first formation or molecule of it, or that light skin patch. It was one! Then it divided into two, and started evolving.
God Had one NUT! he he heh!

_PrincessSusan_

“I could be Susan's sock!”

Level 8

Since: Jun 12

Lady J's Lead Acolyte

#562 Jun 13, 2012
So we can see.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Lima, Peru

#563 Jun 19, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
An you think that the theory of gravitation doesn't make predictions about the locations of the planets in the future?
You realize that for DECADES we've been shooting rockets from Earth to other planets, right? That if we were off by even .000001% in our estimates as to where the planet would be, we'd miss by MILES.
We're driving remote control cars on the surface of Mars. Cars that could not possibly be there our understanding of gravity were wrong.
Nice try, you ignorant hillbilly.
<quoted text>
A simple Google search for "ignorant creationist" shows 2,800,000 hits. I guess that pretty much blows your google search out of the water.
<quoted text>
Citing the fact that one study, which is not my proposed study, might have failed does not offer any incite whatsoever on the nature of my study.
One baseball team does not lose simply because you have evidence of 100 other baseball teams that have lost in the past.
No, my reading-comprehension challenged friend, I am not and have never claimed that the law of gravity doesn't make predictions. On the contrary there are specific formulae that can be used to determine how an object should behave in a gravitational field. If an object fails to behave as specified in the formulae (Pioneer anomoly anyone?) then we can conclude that the proposed law does not confirm to the real world.

The same cannot be said for natural selection. There is no mathematically formula that will tell you how a specified species will behave. It merely postulates that the "fittest" will win out with no specific guide as to how to determine the fittest (except after the fact). As such natural selection is, at best, a tautology. Now before you go ranting more, my vocabulary-challenged friend, I shall hasten to point out that TAUTOLOGY does not mean FALSE.

This clear difference between the law of gravity (falsifiable) and natural selection (not falsifiable) is the root of my complaint. Natural selection is not a useful theory whereas the law of gravity (while demonstrably wrong) is still close enough for government work.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#564 Jun 19, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my reading-comprehension challenged friend, I am not and have never claimed that the law of gravity doesn't make predictions. On the contrary there are specific formulae that can be used to determine how an object should behave in a gravitational field. If an object fails to behave as specified in the formulae (Pioneer anomoly anyone?) then we can conclude that the proposed law does not confirm to the real world.
The same cannot be said for natural selection. There is no mathematically formula that will tell you how a specified species will behave. It merely postulates that the "fittest" will win out with no specific guide as to how to determine the fittest (except after the fact). As such natural selection is, at best, a tautology. Now before you go ranting more, my vocabulary-challenged friend, I shall hasten to point out that TAUTOLOGY does not mean FALSE.
This clear difference between the law of gravity (falsifiable) and natural selection (not falsifiable) is the root of my complaint. Natural selection is not a useful theory whereas the law of gravity (while demonstrably wrong) is still close enough for government work.
So, your ENTIRE complaint seems to be this:

"Biologists can't calculate what mutation will occur using the (non-existent)'Law of Natural Selection'".

To which we reply, as we have dozens of times already...

Natural Selection isn't a law, it's an observe process.

Not everything in science needs to be a law. Laws are mathematical equations which work well in sciences like physics.

Just because you can't describe something mathematically doesn't mean the thing does not exist, nor does it mean that some future mathematician couldn't come up with a methodology for describing what is observed.

Case in point: rainbows.

Rainbows were observed WELL before the mechanism that creates rainbows was known.

Then the mechanism was discovered WELL before any sort of mathematics or science could effectively describe WHAT is happening or WHY it is happening.

Then WHAT was happening was described BEFORE someone came up with an equation that could make accurate predictions about what to expect from different refractory agents.

THEN and ONLY THEN were they able to put all the pieces together.

No one is claiming to make calculations with natural selection. Natural selection is merely a description of part of the evolutionary process.

It's an OBVIOUS part which is EASILY observed:

Things that die before they reproduce do not reproduce and therefore do not impact the future gene pool.

I'm sure someone can write up an equation for you.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#565 Jun 19, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
This clear difference between the law of gravity (falsifiable) and natural selection (not falsifiable) is the root of my complaint.
If you predict that a planet should be in location A, but instead it is in location B, that does not falsify gravity.

It falsifies your observation of the planet.

That's the argument you've been using for a month now, you should be familiar with it.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#566 Jun 19, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my reading-comprehension challenged friend, I am not and have never claimed that the law of gravity doesn't make predictions. On the contrary there are specific formulae that can be used to determine how an object should behave in a gravitational field. If an object fails to behave as specified in the formulae (Pioneer anomoly anyone?) then we can conclude that the proposed law does not confirm to the real world.
The same cannot be said for natural selection. There is no mathematically formula that will tell you how a specified species will behave. It merely postulates that the "fittest" will win out with no specific guide as to how to determine the fittest (except after the fact). As such natural selection is, at best, a tautology. Now before you go ranting more, my vocabulary-challenged friend, I shall hasten to point out that TAUTOLOGY does not mean FALSE.
This clear difference between the law of gravity (falsifiable) and natural selection (not falsifiable) is the root of my complaint. Natural selection is not a useful theory whereas the law of gravity (while demonstrably wrong) is still close enough for government work.
You just want to be an idiot. Go rant to yourself on a mountain top contemplating the meaning of "silent as the grave". Then you can jump...



Natural selection is based on 5 observations.

OBSERVATION #1: All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would
increase exponentially if all individuals that are born reproduced successfully.
OBSERVATION #2: Populations tend to remain stable in size, excepting seasonal fluctuations.
OBSERVATION #3: Environmental resources are limited.
INFERENCE #1: Production of more individuals than the environment can support leads to a
struggle for existence among individuals of a population, with only a fraction of offspring
surviving each generation.
OBSERVATION #4: Individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics; no two
individuals are exactly alike.
OBSERVATION #5: Much of this variation is heritable.

All of which have never been falsified , and are self explanatory.

http://people.uncw.edu/chandlerg/documents/Ev...

Level 2

Since: May 12

Peru

#567 Jun 19, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You just want to be an idiot. Go rant to yourself on a mountain top contemplating the meaning of "silent as the grave". Then you can jump...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wlq0lYB3iSMXX
Natural selection is based on 5 observations.
OBSERVATION #1: All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would
increase exponentially if all individuals that are born reproduced successfully.
OBSERVATION #2: Populations tend to remain stable in size, excepting seasonal fluctuations.
OBSERVATION #3: Environmental resources are limited.
INFERENCE #1: Production of more individuals than the environment can support leads to a
struggle for existence among individuals of a population, with only a fraction of offspring
surviving each generation.
OBSERVATION #4: Individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics; no two
individuals are exactly alike.
OBSERVATION #5: Much of this variation is heritable.
All of which have never been falsified , and are self explanatory.
http://people.uncw.edu/chandlerg/documents/Ev...
It seems like your list of observations has changed. I don't remember them being this way.

Observation #1 refuted by Panda Bear in capitivity fertility rates plus human fertility rates in Spain.
Observation #2 refuted by Polar Bear population explosion.

Additionally I can't help but note that none of the above explains natural selection at all. Merely noting that not all animals will survive does not mean that inferior animals don't end up surviving due to nothing more than dumb luck.

You also don't seem to understand the word "tautology." Simply saying that some animals will survive and breed while others will not may seem like a simple, common sense observation to you that no one can doubt. Similarly the observation "Either the sun will come out tomorrow or it won't" is obviously true. Just how USEFUL this observation is remains to be seen.

Generally scientific observations are only classified as useful if they are FALSIFIABLE. The theory that God created the world exactly as we see it may indeed be true. Scientifically, however, it's not a USEFUL theory because it makes no predictions. "Exactly as we see it" doesn't help us to predict the world tomorrow. By way of comparison the law of gravity can be used to predict where the planet Mars will be not only tomorrow but thousands of years in the future. As such we can test this prediction against the real world to see if the prediction comes true.

Natural selection as it is normally formulated in forums of this kind is similarly an uninteresting theory. Survival of the fittest where the fittest is defined as those who survive may strike you as a wonderful idea to browbeat Christians with. Nevertheless it makes no testable predictions. Accordingly it is not falsifiable. While it is true that it can be used after the fact to explain why something happened, all this really proves is that the theory fits all data sets that can be applied to it.

Every good scientific theory is a prohibition. It forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids the better it is. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#568 Jun 19, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems like your list of observations has changed. I don't remember them being this way.
Observation #1 refuted by Panda Bear in capitivity fertility rates plus human fertility rates in Spain.
Observation #2 refuted by Polar Bear population explosion.
Additionally I can't help but note that none of the above explains natural selection at all. Merely noting that not all animals will survive does not mean that inferior animals don't end up surviving due to nothing more than dumb luck.
You also don't seem to understand the word "tautology." Simply saying that some animals will survive and breed while others will not may seem like a simple, common sense observation to you that no one can doubt. Similarly the observation "Either the sun will come out tomorrow or it won't" is obviously true. Just how USEFUL this observation is remains to be seen.
Generally scientific observations are only classified as useful if they are FALSIFIABLE. The theory that God created the world exactly as we see it may indeed be true. Scientifically, however, it's not a USEFUL theory because it makes no predictions. "Exactly as we see it" doesn't help us to predict the world tomorrow. By way of comparison the law of gravity can be used to predict where the planet Mars will be not only tomorrow but thousands of years in the future. As such we can test this prediction against the real world to see if the prediction comes true.
Natural selection as it is normally formulated in forums of this kind is similarly an uninteresting theory. Survival of the fittest where the fittest is defined as those who survive may strike you as a wonderful idea to browbeat Christians with. Nevertheless it makes no testable predictions. Accordingly it is not falsifiable. While it is true that it can be used after the fact to explain why something happened, all this really proves is that the theory fits all data sets that can be applied to it.
Every good scientific theory is a prohibition. It forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids the better it is. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Observation #1 Bear

Observation #2 Bear

Observation #3 There are many bears, IDIOT!
Though environmental pressures may make survival tough on some species.

observation 3 = natural resources are limited, there isn’t enough for everyone
inference 1 = there exists a continuous struggle for existence among members of a population.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Chiclayo, Peru

#569 Jun 20, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Observation #1 Bear
Observation #2 Bear
Observation #3 There are many bears, IDIOT!
Though environmental pressures may make survival tough on some species.
observation 3 = natural resources are limited, there isn’t enough for everyone
inference 1 = there exists a continuous struggle for existence among members of a population.
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/20...
Wallabys are not bears.

Is it my imagination or did you just completely fail to respond to most of the arguments made in my last post? Shall I take that to mean that you have no good answers?

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min Parrot Slayer 58,583
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 38 min Dexter 27,463
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Dogen 159,375
News Intelligent Design Education Day 11 hr Subduction Zone 8
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 11 hr Dogen 2,044
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 hr Regolith Based Li... 219,629
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 23 Sentinel 1,758
More from around the web