Intelligent Design (ID) is a concept proposed by some who are unable to accept evolution. They assume that (1) life, with its nearly infinite variety, is far too complicated to be the result of a series of chance events; (2) that only an intelligent being could have created life and (3) that, since evolution does not answer every question about the genesis and progression of life, a totally different scenario should be considered. Although they imagine that the time between the origin of the universe and the present is only several thousand years, so far they have not proposed that we dump the other findings of physics and cosmology just because these disciplines have not answered every question about the universe. 

In fact, life is even more complex than it appears to be. In addition to the innumerable obvious differences among life forms, there is a seeming infinity of tiny but crucial characteristics, so obscure that many of them have only recently been discovered. [For example: the epigenome, thousands of chemical tags distributed along the DNA strands that react to signals external to the cell and turn individual genes on or off.] However, there is a gradual but simple process that would automatically result in a system having all of life’s variety and complexity. That process is 3,500,000,000 years of accumulating adaptations (i.e. those “chance events” which were not harmful) to varied and changing environments, along ever more numerous diverging lines, each adaptation a potential origin for another line (species) or, for simpler organisms in the distant past, a potential origin of a more inclusive group, such as genius, family, etc.

A system composed of interacting parts, each of which is essential for the system’s functioning, is said to be irreducibly complex. Without any of these essential parts, the system is useless. ID advocates claim that, since most organisms contain many such systems, these organisms/systems cannot have come into being [evolved] piecemeal. However, the fact that such systems cannot function without all of their necessary parts is no reason to believe that those parts did not develop concurrently from simpler parts of simpler systems. This happens in animals and plants as they mature from fertilized eggs or seeds into mature individuals; it also happens as species develop. Supporting evidence (ignored by ID advocates) is obvious and plentiful. 

ID (actually ersatz Creationism) is nothing but willful ignorance and defective reasoning in support of childish fantasy. It is based on those three (above) assumptions and on the tsunami of delusional evidence and junk science (such as irreducible complexity) produced to back it up.

All of the observed evidence supports evolution. Evolution is not only a principle of biology, it is absolutely the fundamental purpose of life, which is to survive by adapting to different and inconstant environments, i.e. by evolving.

ID proponents point to the “order of the universe” as evidence for a creator. Order? Black holes; exploding stars; dead and dying stars; cosmic rays; colliding meteors, comets, planets and galaxies; dark matter; dark energy; the paradoxes of quantum mechanics! Most of gravity‘s effects are orderly but, except for these, there is no more order in the universe than there is in a house fire. 

They also argue that the earth is so perfectly attuned to our needs that it must have been created with humans in mind. Perfectly attuned? Myriad horrible diseases (infectious as well as DNA errors like cancers, autoimmune and hereditary); plagues and pestilence; parasites and mosquitoes; lethal poverty; famines; “acts of God” such as hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods, earthquakes, landslides! For a large percentage of humanity life is "a cesspool of misery and suffering." 

Another of the obscure characteristics of life mentioned above is found in chromosomes, those incredibly long, slender molecules that carry the DNA instructions for replication of all living things. Excepting the simplest organisms, for most of their length (over 97% in primates) these molecules contain no instructions at all. Much of this non-coding DNA has packing or regulatory functions. Between genes there are large sections of repetitive sequences (small sequences of nucleotides repeated thousands of times) that may have no purpose and, within genes, there are smaller unused sections called introns that are probably obsolete code. 

More than 99 percent of the species that have inhabited Earth could not adapt, that is evolve, and are extinct. Furthermore, the paleontological record is replete with evidence that every existing species has been modified over time. Many of them contain, in their skeletons or their DNA, vestiges of structures that were needed by their ancestors but are useless in the current version. For example: the human appendix, the shark-like gill slits and the tail that appear in the early stages of the human embryo, legs and pelvic girdle in whales, fossil snakes with leg and hip bones have been found, pythons and boas also have vestigial thigh bones. A complete list would be very long.

        Is this design?         Where is the intelligence?

          Reality is that which, 

          when you don't believe it, 

          doesn't go away.

          -- Peter Viereck & Philip Dick

          When only one source is accepted

          and everything else ignored,

          the magnitude of the stupidity

           is proportional to the depth of study.

          -- GB

Tags: DNA, adaptations, chance, complexity, creationism, environments, epigenome, events, evolution, genome, More…irreducible, non-coding

Views: 671

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Click here

Yes, Michael. I clicked there and found statements like this one:

"Nobody has ever soldered transistors and resistors together randomly and produced a color TV set."

You're a deeply confused and ignorant man, Michael. You're not only ignorant, but wilfully ignorant, in that I've explained quite clearly, how and why evolution is not a random process. This concept is simple and easy to understand.

You're refusing to become informed by this and positing rebuttals to a model of evolution (as totally random) that does not exist outside of your delusions.

I also notice you still have answered not a single question. Not one. This is because you have no actual understanding of what you're talking about. Your posts are unclear and diversionary by intention. They have no genuine explanatory value. You're a pretender.

As a working engineer I resent any generalizations about engineers subscribing to the idiocy of ID.

"Nobody has ever soldered transistors and resistors together randomly and produced a color TV set."

Incorrect. If you randomly apply a mix of components enough times, you will get a combination that is a TV. Basic probability. Remember that TV set like so many technological advancements is based on "accidental discovery". Semiconductors were discovered. Hell, my bass amplifier is accidentally an AM radio, I get Cuban radio on it when the ionosphere is conductive.

 

http://www.computerhistory.org/semiconductor/timeline/1833-first.html

You are poor debater, you cannot use,  a shallow knowledge base and insults to leverage your arguments, Also your audience is not so gullible as to take your quote out of context without clicking on the site.  Like a parrot your arkward attempts to mock are revealing a profound lack of underlying apparent intelligence though I hope for your sake that's not the case. I deliberately did not want qualify your unlearned question "what is transphylum evolution with a response." menial inferrence should give you that answer, LOL.

You are poor debater

One doesn't have to be a very good debater to kick your ass, Michael.

, you cannot use,  a shallow knowledge base

On what credible basis do you claim this?

I ask you question after question, seeking specific follow-up knowledge on subject matter which you claim to possess (regarding quantum mind, the "infinite" structures necessary for life, the made-up citations of subject matter experts, this so-called "trans-phylum evolution", etc). You won't answer even the simplest questions about any of it, which strongly suggests you're a fraud.

Meanwhile, after you demonstrated your ignorance of how evolution works, I posted a specific explanation of how natural selection, together with gene mutation (and hybridization) is the non-random mechanism of evolution. You completely ignore that and keep posting rebuttals which are based on the utterly false claim that evolution is random.

So on exactly what subject is my knowledge "shallow" and yours deep? Where have you demonstrated this even once, at any point in our conversation? Be specific.

and insults

Don't be silly, Micheal. I haven't insulted you. It's just humiliating to you when I state the facts that demonstrate your ignorance, incompetence and fraud.

to leverage your arguments,

I haven't made an argument. You're attempting to make an argument that evolution is not a credible scientific theory (and you're failing quite miserably).

Also your audience is not so gullible as to take your quote out of context without clicking on the site.  

I included the link in the quote because I wanted them to click on the site. This is not misleading. The author, with his quote-- "Nobody has ever soldered transistors and resistors together randomly and produced a color TV set."-- is spreading the same misinformation that you are: that evolution is random.

That you posted that article demonstrates exactly the same point I made earlier: you're wilfully ignoring that evolution is not random. You are arguing against a fabricated model of evolution.

Like a parrot your arkward attempts to mock are revealing a profound lack of underlying apparent intelligence though I hope for your sake that's not the case.

Now that, Michael? That's a personal insult; an ad hom attack.

I deliberately did not want qualify your unlearned question "what is transphylum evolution with a response." menial inferrence should give you that answer, LOL.

Absolutely, Micheal. I did a search for the term "transphylum evolution" in the NYU university library database and in the New York Library databases (in all subjects, locations and audiences). It returns zero results as a conjoined phrase; it is used in no scholarly works in any subjects on record, anywhere.

Menial inference has given me the answer: you're a fraud. *Laughing*

Oh the brutish shallow debator is now threatening me with bodily harm. Yes, I do think that you do descend from Neanderthals. Well before you beat me with your club or slobber all over me, OK uncle, I start giving you what you want but here is a preamble, I will give you the rest later:

Evolution is premised upon the basic propositions of mutation of organisms and environmental natural selection of those mutated organisms for enhanced survival and/or propagation.

Mutations can only be one of three possibilities in terms of natural selection: beneficial, detrimental, or benign.

There is a possibility that a benign mutation could become beneficial at a later time. However, it is an equal probability that it could become detrimental, as well. Consequently, a benign mutation must also ultimately be classed as either beneficial or detrimental.

The premise of natural selection must also be classed as a non-static, probabilistic mechanism, e.g., ice ages come and go, earthquakes disrupt local micro-environments, volcanoes erupt, etc. Consequently, there is a finite probability that a potentially beneficial mutation in one set of environmental natural selection conditions might occur when environmental natural selection pressures dictate that it is detrimental, or a best, benign. Since the geological record indicates the occurrence of environmental disruptions on frequent basis (in relative terms), the probabilities of a change in natural selection pressures must be rated as high. As a result the probability of a favorable mutation remaining favorable becomes even smaller.

The rate of mutation in organisms is "one mutation per locus per 10^5 to 10^6 gametes"(Campbell, 1990, p. 445). This rate must be multiplied by the probability that the mutation is beneficial (vice detrimental or benign) in terms of the natural selection environment at the time of its occurrence. This number, in turn, must be multiplied by the probability that the natural selection environment remains favorable for a long enough period of time for the “favorable” mutation to become established in a large enough population segment to ensure its adequate propagation to enough succeeding generations. Additionally, that probability must be multiplied by the probability that natural selection environment remained favorable even after a species-wide mutation is established.

Of course, the above probabilities are for a single favorable mutation to occur and become species-wide. One must now address the probability that a favorably mutated species undergoes a second favorable mutation and that the second mutation becomes species-wide and so forth until enough favorable mutations have accumulated to result in a completely new species.

Even, given the number of genes and number of alleles per gene in a typical organism, the number of zeroes after the decimal required for probabilities to combine to produce a new species is a number staggeringly small (astronomically small is not an adequate description). Even using the argument of “geological time,” i.e., millions of years for an event to occur, does not drive the probability to a point where more than a few (at best) new species could appear even under the most generous of assumptions.

In summary, evolution driven solely by mutation and natural selection appears to be an extremely implausible (mathematically speaking) explanation of the number different species observable. If mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain the probability of observing the current number of known species, then the theory of evolution must be judged as an inadequate explanation.

Oh the brutish shallow debator is now threatening me with bodily harm. 

I cannot really tell if you are joking or not here or not. As a moderator, I will state that threats will not be tolerated on this site if found or reported; however, I do believe he was being figurative as if to say you can be very easily defeated in debate even without applying much in the way of skill.

Do not think that that there is an established cohesive view for the orgin of Phyla, particulary during the Cambrian explosion.
You can't rest your world view on Darwin even though Darwin was thinking out of the box. However we are untettered to think outside of Darwins box.

 

CAMBRIAN FOSSILS AND SYSTEMATICS

In 1979, the Systematics Association published an important volume summarising the fossil evidence for the origins of various major invertebrate groups (House, 1979). It is notable for its juxtaposition of two papers, one Whittington's summary of the phanerozoic fossil record of arthropods (Whittington, 1979; Fig. 1 herein), and the other Jefferies' version of Hennig's views on fossils and systematics (Jefferies, 1979; Fig. 2 herein). These papers stand at opposite ends of the spectrum of the attempts to discover the true relevance of fossils to phylogenetic studies. Whittington's groundbreaking studies of the Burgess Shale led him to conclude that previous attempts to place Cambrian taxa in extant groupings did not fairly reflect their provocative morphology. This insight was quite correct but, under the influence of Sidney Manton (e.g., Manton, 1977) and her strongly polyphyletic views of the origin of the arthropods, Whittington concluded from this that the various arthropods in the Cambrian represented lineages as separate as the modern groups are (chelicerates, insects etc). This view merely reflected the general Zeitgeist of the time, and the problems that systematists had had in trying to assign fossils to systematic positions. The net effect was that, although fossils were generally thought of as providing the answer to the origins of major groups, in practice they tended to shed very little light on them. The sense of unease engendered by this tension between expectation and delivered results culminated in the famous paper by Colin Patterson (1981)—himself a palaeontologist—when he launched a devastating effect on conventional wisdom about the importance of fossils. If fossils were going to contribute to discussions about phylogeny in a serious way, a considerable rethink on how they were dealt with was clearly required. It is a matter of some irony therefore, that a key for this rethink was provided in the same volume on invertebrate origins. Jefferies published here his critical paper that effectively introduced Hennig's views on the systematisation of fossils to the English-speaking world, with some important modifications of his own. In particular, he laid out clearly the fact that as a general feature, extinct organisms always fall outside a systematics established on extant forms (Fig. 2). Of course, this exclusion is a hierarchical one. A fossil can, for example, lie with in the grouping of extant echinoderms. However, its position within the echinoderms will at a certain level never be fully reflected by extant systematics—the only type then available. Whilst this seems surprising, the reason is clear. Extant monophyletic groupings are always morphologically distinct from their extant sister-group, and that distinctness is brought about by subsequent extinction of the lineages (plus its offshoots) that led to each of them, away from their last common ancestor. As random extinctions through time slowly remove lineages, the most basal taxon of a clade will sometimes be the victim, thus widening the path-length between the surviving most basal members of extant sister clades (Fig. 3). The bases of clades are therefore eroded by extinction, and, as only living members of the clade can rediversify, this is a permanent loss. These extinct basal taxa will not possess all of the apomorphies that define the basal node of the surviving clade. It should be noted that this process will occur whether or not basal members of clades are particularly prone to extinction or not; there does not have to be anything “special” about basal taxa. One further aspect about these now extinct basal taxa is that they would have accumulated their own autapomorphies not possessed by the extant taxa. As a result, these basal fossil taxa are bound to differ from the extant clades: they will not be diagnosable as members of those clades; and they will show a confusing mixture of some but not all features of those clades, together with a set of features absent from them. It should be noted that this characteristic mix has been repeatedly noted in Cambrian fossils. For example, Hughes (1975) said of the Cambrian arthropod Burgessia: “what is apparent from this restudy is that Burgessia did possess a mixture of characters …many of which are to be found in modern arthropods of various groups” (Hughes, 1975, p. 434).

Fig. 1. Whittington's diagram of the Phanerozoic diversity of the arthropods, extending Manton's views of arthropod polyphyly to the fossil record. Bold lines represent the known record: dense stipple represents marine habitat, light stipple, terrestrial. From Whittington (1979)

Fig. 2. Jefferies' diagram introducing the “stem” and “crown” group concepts, modified after Hennig, to the English-speaking world, from the same volume as Figure 1. From Jefferies (1979)

Fig. 3. The growth of a stem group. Random extinctions within a group will sometimes remove its most basal member, thus enlarging the phylogenetic distance between it and its closest living relative. As diversification can only take place within surviving lineages, this loss is a permanent one, leading to the sometimes great distinctions between high-level extant groups such as the phyla

Whilst the apparent oddness of Cambrian fossils is no different in kind from that of any other fossils, it was brought to prominence in two different ways. First, the spectacular preservation of the various Cambrian exceptionally-preserved biotas such as the Burgess Shale (Whittington, 1985) and, more recently, Chengjiang (e.g., Hou and Bergström, 1997), Sirius Passet (Conway Morris, 1998) and Orsten biotas (e.g., Walossek, 1993), revealed a great array of unusual taxa, almost unparalled in the subsequent fossil record. Second, these taxa did seem to fall outside conventional taxonomic levels at a greater depth in the taxonomic hierarchy than later fossils tend to. For example, ammonites can be assigned, not just to the Mollusca, but also to the cephalopods, and indeed, are close relatives to the Coleoidea. Many of the Cambrian taxa, conversely, are not even encompassed by the phylum level. Given the hypothesis that the base of an extant phylum will be eroded through time, it is clear that the older a fossil is, the more likely it is to fall outside the phylum-level of classification (i.e., classification at a very broad level). The pattern demonstrated by the Cambrian fauna (early taxa being problematic at high levels in a taxonomic hierarchy) therefore seems to be explicable by recourse to the stem-/crown-group division, rather than to any particular evolutionary mechanism. It is unfortunate, however, that this conceptual framework has been very slow in gaining acceptance, perhaps because of the vigorous espousal of what might be called the “classical view” by Gould (1989). This work did more than any others, perhaps, in promulgating the view that the patterns demonstrated by Cambrian fossils implied rapid appearance of many high-level taxa without precedents; perhaps implying unusual evolutionary mechanisms as a result. Nevertheless, in the last few years, several studies have been published that have made attempts to assign problematic Cambrian taxa to a stem-group placement of an appropriate phylum or group of phyla. These include arthropods (Budd, 1996); protostomes (Conway Morris and Peel, 1995; Conway Morris, 1998; see discussion in Runnegar, 1996); echinoderms (Mooi et al., 1994); cycloneuralians (Budd, 2001a); deuterostomes (Shu et al., 2001) and brachiopods (Williams and Holmer, 2002). The reception of many or all of these attempts has been mixed, and they stand at different stages of maturity. Nevertheless, it seems likely, as these efforts continue, that our view of the phylogenetic pattern of the Cambrian explosion will change dramatically in the next few years.

 

When Micheal makes the claim that "Mutations can only be one of three possibilities in terms of natural selection: beneficial, detrimental, or benign. ", he completely ignores mutations that can be classified as both beneficial and detrimental.

 for example, consider the genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia (SCA). SCA greatly reduces life expectancy to around 40 years.

However,SCA provides a natural resistance to malaria and in malaria prone regions increases the life expectancy of malaria infected children well past puberty, where they more likely to parent children with SCA.

  The important point is that the mutation must enhance the ability of the individual to reproduce within a specific environment. The actual adverse conditions of the environment acts as the selector, not some intelligent agent.

Michael: You are poor debater

Gallup: One doesn't have to be a very good debater to kick your ass, Michael.

Michael: Oh the brutish shallow debator is now threatening me with bodily harm. Yes, I do think that you do descend from Neanderthals. Well before you beat me with your club or slobber all over me,

kris feenstra: I cannot really tell if you are joking or not here or not. As a moderator, I will state that threats will not be tolerated on this site if found or reported; however, I do believe he was being figurative as if to say you can be very easily defeated in debate even without applying much in the way of skill.

I'm leaning toward joking-- that's pronounced "phony outrage"-- since the mutual references to the subject of debate, leading up to and actually in the exchange, are rather obvious.

Apparently, we're expected to believe Michael credibly thinks I'm threatening physical violence. This, with 650 miles, our ambiguous nicknames, and the anonymous nature of TA between us.

Credible claim or not, joking or not; brutish, shallow, descended from Neanderthals, and slobbering. These are personal attacks. 

Reported.

Really, Michael? Plagiarism, word for word, unsourced, no quotes, after you called me a parrot?

I'm posting a reply below (to Lucky Dog's post on Free Republic in 2006) because I had already typed a response before I discovered what you did. I called you a fraud, and a fraud you are.

I'm not here to engage other people in cut-and-paste debates with you as the uncomprehending intermediary. Lucky Dog doesn't understand evolution any more than you do, but at least he speaks for himself and he cites his sources of information.

Evolution is premised upon the basic propositions of mutation of organisms and environmental natural selection of those mutated organisms for enhanced survival and/or propagation.

No, it isn't. No more than evolution is random.

Evolution in biology is descent with modification in each generation. Natural selection acting on genetic variation. That is evolution.

Lucky Dog is reducing genetic variation to mutation only, as if this is the only mechanism. It isn't. There's also gene flow between reproductively isolated populations, the luck of genetic drift and reproduction differential, and hybridization.

The premise of natural selection must also be classed as a non-static, probabilistic mechanism, e.g., ice ages come and go, earthquakes disrupt local micro-environments, volcanoes erupt, etc. Consequently, there is a finite probability that a potentially beneficial mutation in one set of environmental natural selection conditions might occur when environmental natural selection pressures dictate that it is detrimental, or a best, benign. Since the geological record indicates the occurrence of environmental disruptions on frequent basis (in relative terms), the probabilities of a change in natural selection pressures must be rated as high. As a result the probability of a favorable mutation remaining favorable becomes even smaller.

I mentioned at the outset of our conversation that pseudo-scientific crackpots often take refuge in obscurantism. That paragraph above-- written to be abstruse and vague-- means virtually nothing.

The intended takeaways seem to be; (1) with that business about the geological record and the examples of volcanoes and ice ages, that these are the mechanisms of natural selection, and (2) that such changes happen so often that any survival advantage attained is not likely to be permanent.

Setting aside for a moment the faulty premise of evolution as entirely mutation-driven, both of the claims above regarding natural selection are still faulty.

Events in the environment do not have to be geological to apply selection pressure. They can be anything from meteorological, to famine, to pesticide applications, to forest fires, to overfishing, to the toxicity of the water, to the eyesight of predators (coevolution), and all sorts of things that are not geological events. Second, the selection event only needs to occur ONCE. The advantage does not have to be great or even favorable on a long-term basis (though it may be). It only needs to allow the survivor to reproduce and pass the gene (or more of the genes in more offspring) along to the next generation. That's it. Nobody ever said survival of a gene or species had to be permanent.

For instance, selection pressure in the form of a pesticide acting on a population of insects may kill off 99 in 100 of the population. But the 1% that survives passes on the gene which carries the resistance to the pesticide. They reproduce, the gassed population resumes its previous size, and now most of them are resistant. Click the link to MSU above and note that at least 500 species worldwide have evolved pesticide resistances independently of each other. It's taken just 60 years. Evolution isn't real?

Even if they're never gassed again, most of the breeding population now has a gene for resistance to poison engineered specifically to kill them, and all of them got the gene from a single selection event, when it conferred an advantage just once: not dying. That won't appear in the geological record and most of the species is going to carry that gene for a very long time whether it confers an advantage or not.

In summary, evolution driven solely by mutation and natural selection appears to be an extremely implausible (mathematically speaking) explanation of the number different species observable.

Evolution is not "driven solely by mutation and natural selection". Lucky Dog, like you, is rebutting a model of evolution that does not exist except in his delusions.

Your premise is now faulty four times over, initially in claiming evolution is random, and now compounded by omitting any form of gene variation except for mutation, discounting natural selection outside of geological events and assuming that survival advantages must be continuous. That is a creationist's caricature of evolution which drastically reduces the number and frequency of driving events and mischaracterizes their importance and nature.

To debate or just intelligently discuss evolution-- a scientific theory backed by 154 years of empirical evidence-- one needs to at least be literate in some of the underlying concepts. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you not only don't understand these concepts, but are resistant to my repeated attempts to explain them. To go a step beyond that and disprove evolution takes a level of expertise you clearly do not have. And you're certainly not going to fake your way through that on my time.

This "debate" is over. You lose, Michael.

Assuming this was meant to explain the meaning of "transphylum evolution"-- conjoined words which didn't exist until you conjured them here-- the term doesn't appear in the article.

Do not think that that there is an established cohesive view for the orgin of Phyla, particulary during the Cambrian explosion.

I don't know what that means. If you're suggesting I said there's an established, cohesive view for the origin of phyla, I wrote absolutely nothing of the kind anywhere in this thread.

As far as disproving evolution goes, a cohesive view of the Cambrian is not required to support evolution as a scientific theory, nor would ignorance of the Cambrian dislodge it.

Besides this, the paper-- which features a citation from Richard Dawkins-- does not support your claim. The paper concludes: "Phyla do not appear in a sudden jumble... Rather, the impression rather is of a rapid, but nevertheless resolvable and orderly appearance[.]" (See below for the full conclusion with emphasis added in bold.)

This does not say anything about lack of cohesion regarding the Cambrian; it says yet again you still have no idea what you're talking about.

We're done, Michael.

-------------------------------
CONCLUSIONS

"The combination of important refinements in the treatment of the systematics of Cambrian fossils, and in our understanding of Cambrian stratigraphy is leading to a more precise view of the Cambrian explosion. Phyla do not appear in a sudden jumble, implying an appearance in the fossil record induced by some external influence (e.g., a rise in atmospheric oxygen levels) that allowed a standing diversity already present to be manifested in the record. Rather, the impression rather is of a rapid, but nevertheless resolvable and orderly appearance[.] Revisions to the Cambrian time-scale allow a moderately long period of time, some tens of millions of years, between the first likely bilaterian trace fossils, and the general appearance of crown-group members of the phyla. [...] For palaeontologists, this conclusion is of considerable importance insofar as the Cambrian record should in theory record the actual stages of assembly of body plans (sensu Budd and Jensen, 2000), rather than being forever silent on the topic. If so, then fossils may have a much greater role in the future than presently in constraining the routes that assembly of the phyla took place through, and thus act as a restraint on the ways in which development has also evolved throughout these critical periods of animal evolution." (source)

Bottom Line, this technology is from a realm for above us. not happenstance and mutation. 

You've been watching Ancient Aliens.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Torture Works

Started by Unseen in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Ed 5 minutes ago. 30 Replies

Blog Posts

I am tired

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 12:09am 2 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service