He wasn't demonstrating your point. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I am very curious to know what in biology makes less sense in light of evolution, and why.

lol, did you even read the wiki pages? As others have noted, Sean Carroll is a pretty strong advocate for darwinian mechanisms. (In fact, he was prominently featured in a PBS NOVA show about Darwin the other day.) And from Newman's wiki page (re: his recently edited book):

"Particular attention is given to epigenetic factors, such as physical determinants and environmental parameters, that may have led to the spontaneous emergence of body plans and organ forms during a period when multicellular organisms had relatively plastic morphologies. Natural selection acting on variant genotypes is suggested to have then "locked in" these body plans."

FFS, the ignorance itt is appalling.

Define non-transitional form.

You still haven't answered why Australopithecus Afarensis is non-transitional. Dodging questions isn't helping your case.

To you...

No, it makes perfect sense.

Animals have many "bad" designs that still work. They're sub-optimal, but they exist because changing the entire system is not feasible because you'd need to change way too many things at once, which cannot happen because evolution is based on small changes.

So, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is a sub-optimal design, but you can't improve it without tearing down the whole system and starting over, therefore evolution kept the flawed (but still working) design.

I've just read it now. Occam's Razor applies. If evolution can explain something without special pleading, it's the better explanation.

When evolutionists use phrases like this I get all tingly.

First off I said that it depends on who you are talking whether or not the are against neo-darwinism. I was quoting secular scientist that were pro evo devo. And I accomplished that. So I don't see what the problem is here.

Either way, take Carroll out to the mix then, I don't care. Are you trying to say that there are not any secular scientist that believe darwinian mechanism are not the driving engine of evolution?

I am not trying to claim much at all here. I understand very little about evo devo, but I gave my general impression. I specifically asked that someone like you (who I named specifically because I have respect for your knowledge even if you don't like me) so that someone more authoritative on the subject could clear some stuff up. So please give us your impression.

You should be able to find a scientist who believes in virtually anything. That's why science doesn't work that way. iow, who would care if we can.

I'm not ignoring everyone, I'm just a little busy right now.

Dr Josh I feel your groundbreaking work into the origin of life could totally transform science. Have you set about submitting these groundbreaking and reliable points to any of the major universities?

I'm sure most of the worlds top biology departments would be more than happy to take you on from your obvious and vast knowledge of a subject matter that is still a very sketchy and non solved problem amongst nearly all of the world's scientists.

What? I never claimed anything I said was groundbreaking. I'm not coming up with anything new. I'm not going into any great depth on a poker subforum either way. I'm also not arrogantly claiming my position is science based fact- don't confuse me with Dawkins ffs.

But one thing's for sure- I'm in a slightly better position to submit papers/theories to universities than you... Have you even set foot in a biology department?

(edited out flames, watch the tone please joshino. ty to who reported this post.--aj)

Yep you demonstrate your education well.

No substance to any arguments you present, mindless abuse to people you know nothing about, endless already answered arguments that have been repackaged and debunked in religious, right wing courts (of all places lol - that's how bad ID is) numerous times, and a meme. I whish I haz Yur Edumacation.

Oh and here is a theist with more biological qualifications than any of us answering your points.

You can't possibly be very educated or ever have held a position where you would be able to submit papers if you don't realize that what you suggest is groundbreaking.

I mean, groundbreaking isn't strong enough...the entire reigning paradigm in biology basically says that you are wrong (or you say they are wrong, w/e). A more apt word would be earthshattering.

Relativity doesn't make sense to me, therefore I doubt nuclear weapons.

A theist was eventually going to be censored for 'flaming' even though he was flamed in prior posts which went unmarked. You are bias aj- and quite unbalanced in your censoring. Get fair, mod.

I'll take your lack of answer to my query to mean you have no relevant tertiary education whatsoever. I'll now ignore your uneducated, unqualified rants. I am now not surprised one little bit by your posts, and will keep it in mind at all times.

Is there anyone with any kind of relevant degree in the area on this thread? Probably not.

So every valid paper out all those submitted and published each and every year, specifically rebutting and challenging current evolutionary theory are earthshattering? Hardly. A paper must be earth shattering to be published? Hardly. Are you even familiar with the process of submitting a paper for publication? How many papers have you published TD? What are your credentials? If you could tell me that'd be great. If there is a thread where you've mentioned them, then link it by all means.

I don't mind discussing things with outspoken but clearly uneducated atheists, but just don't be arrogant about subjects that you have no business being arrogant about. No-one is going to teach you a biology degree through 2P2. Just accept that there are many things that you have no idea about- i do, and I'm more honest and open to learning as a result.

Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

What do the Barbers say? They seem to have an opinion on everything.

And to back Jib on the the number of scientists/biologists who show massive skepticism to Darwinism, or macroevolution, there are these links. Take your pick from hundreds:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequotes.html
http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_07.htm
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

PTIYPASI

LOL Discovery Institute.

Well done on ignoring my link to one of the clearest lectures possible on why ID is wrong, by one of the most eminent biologists in the world, who answers all of your points plus interest and is vastly more qualified to do so than either you or I. But I guess unless I get him to sign up to 2+2 and dismantle your nonsense in person then it will have no bearing on the tired and easily falsifiable arguments you keep spewing.

Misquotes and blanket insults aside...

I'm rather puzzled as to why you making claims about your academic background imples that I should prove my credentials.

"I could have been published, so you are a fraud with no integrity for not posting your credentials and academic publications even if you never made an claims thereof" seems like a rather poor use of logic for a man whose main argument is claiming everyone else lack education.

While the link to the actual poll results don't seem to be available, here is an article from the actual site which presents a different picture:

http://www.hcdi.net/news/PressRelease.cfm?ID=93

Good reporting discovery institute!

That's pretty sick regardless. I know Christian zealots love to become doctors (I saw some of them through living with two medstudent neighbours when I studied psych...it was actually the first time I saw/heard creationists in uni), but I would have never thought the number would be that high.

It goes to show that maybe it is about time to put the academics/science back into medical studies, before creationists go about creating tons of superstrains through negligent use of antibiotics.

I agree. The funny thing is that the poll would have made their point pretty strongly without misrepresenting it. The results instinctively still seem high to me (though that is my bias) but without further information on the poll, its difficult to evaluate how we should interpret these results.

Doctors : Scientists :: Airplane Mechanics : Aeronautical Engineers

I think it's safe to say that MAYBE 5% of MDs have an understanding of evolution comparable to someone who has taken an introductory Evolution course.