Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Peer review controversy[edit]
Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]
The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]
Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:
According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.
There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists.
How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.
And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.
As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists.
How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.
And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.
You're an idiot.
what stupid here is your repetitive and meaningless insistence that you have any points to present...Peer review controversy[edit]
Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]
The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]
Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of WisconsinMadison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:
According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.
what stupid here is your repetitive and meaningless insistence that you have any points to present...Peer review controversy[edit]
Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]
The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]
Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of WisconsinMadison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:
According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.
As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."
If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists.
How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.
And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.
You're an idiot.
Compelling, insightful and well-composed... by the standards of your usual contribution.
As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists.
How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.
And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.
Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.
There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
The blatant foolishness of your post shows you know nothing about the book. Just like the Douchebags at Panda's Thumb, you would be so arrogant to critique a book you've never read. You are living proof of the mass brainwashing that has so twisted your conscience you believe can just assimilate knowledge through the air without actually having to read anything. Pathetic.
there is the nothing to argue, since "darwin's doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the cambrian explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
the blatant foolishness of your post shows you know nothing about the book. Just like the douchebags at panda's thumb, you would be so arrogant to critique a book you've never read. You are living proof of the mass brainwashing that has so twisted your conscience you believe can just assimilate knowledge through the air without actually having to read anything. Pathetic.
i know of the summary you posted about the book, and if that is any indication about what is in the book, then i do know something about the book, so you are incorrect. Was not the point of posting a synopsis of the book, to give us some idea of what's in it? Yet, when i comment on the synopsis, all of a sudden, i know nothing about what's in the book? So, i gather then, that the synopsis of the book, contains no information about what is in the book. Interesting. That's a really shitty synopsis then. Why don't you enlighten us as to what is actually in the book? Oh, that's right, it was contained in the synopsis you posted, which i validly attacked for what it is: Anti-science rhetoric devoid of logic, reason, or evidence. This book is then, likewise, bullshit. Have fun reading your bullshit. i'll stick to the facts, thank you.
the blatant foolishness of your post shows you know nothing about the book. Just like the douchebags at panda's thumb, you would be so arrogant to critique a book you've never read. You are living proof of the mass brainwashing that has so twisted your conscience you believe can just assimilate knowledge through the air without actually having to read anything. Pathetic.
i know of the summary you posted about the book, and if that is any indication about what is in the book, then i do know something about the book, so you are incorrect. Was not the point of posting a synopsis of the book, to give us some idea of what's in it? Yet, when i comment on the synopsis, all of a sudden, i know nothing about what's in the book? So, i gather then, that the synopsis of the book, contains no information about what is in the book. Interesting. That's a really shitty synopsis then. Why don't you enlighten us as to what is actually in the book? Oh, that's right, it was contained in the synopsis you posted, which i validly attacked for what it is: Anti-science rhetoric devoid of logic, reason, or evidence. This book is then, likewise, bullshit. Have fun reading your bullshit. i'll stick to the facts, thank you.
rotflmao
he has none....I'm curious about your scientific credentials. Are you actually qualified to make the determination that Darwinism is a dead idea because you can read the original papers yourself, or can you only get the general idea of what is going on from second and third hand accounts, many of which are agenda driven?
This isn't an attack, but I don't understand how people who have never taken a single class beyond Biology 101 are really able to discuss the technical merits of Evolutionary Theory in any meaningful way. Scientists spend a decade in school studying their subjects is being judged by people whose only exposure is the internet and popular science books from Borders.
Through parts one and two of Darwin's Doubt and not a single religious reference. It is basically a review of all the data from scientific research and discovery and an expose' of the lies and exaggerations of the atheist community. What becomes blatantly obvious in reading this book is how the real scientist doing the research and producing the data, make no such claims for the body of evidence regarding Darwinism, but it is the atheist community that exaggerates the data and blatantly lies about the results to promote their materialist, statist religion.
After reading this book, I am convinced Darwinism is dead, and a new scientific theory, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, needs to take its place. There is simply not enough evidence to continue to believe that natural selection acting on random mutations is responsible for the numerous body plans that suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.
Meyer not only goes into the overwhelming lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record of different Cambrian strata, he explores the massive amount of genetic evidence mounting against Neo Darwinism. He sums it up best when he gives the illustration of marbles in a large barrel. As you begin to draw red, yellow and blue marbles from the barrel, you might believe you just haven't drawn enough out to find the other colors. But as you continue to draw them out for days, and red, yellow and blue are the only ones turning up, you are left with the gnawing feeling that maybe the burnt orange, violet, and green hues, that is, the endless plethora of intermediate colors resulting from primary colors mixing, aren't being drawn because they simply do not exist. At some point, you are left with just the evidence, and any hope for finding the elusive transitional forms of the Cambrian period evaporates. It is then you must come up with a new theory or look like a complete fool.
We find overwhelming evidence that the tree of life, is in fact, upside down in the Cambrian strata, and Darwin, and all the fools clinging to his pathetic theory, need to quit being influenced by their religion and confront the evidence head on.
Through parts one and two of Darwin's Doubt and not a single religious reference. It is basically a review of all the data from scientific research and discovery and an expose' of the lies and exaggerations of the atheist community. What becomes blatantly obvious in reading this book is how the real scientist doing the research and producing the data, make no such claims for the body of evidence regarding Darwinism, but it is the atheist community that exaggerates the data and blatantly lies about the results to promote their materialist, statist religion.
After reading this book, I am convinced Darwinism is dead, and a new scientific theory, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, needs to take its place. There is simply not enough evidence to continue to believe that natural selection acting on random mutations is responsible for the numerous body plans that suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.
Meyer not only goes into the overwhelming lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record of different Cambrian strata, he explores the massive amount of genetic evidence mounting against Neo Darwinism. He sums it up best when he gives the illustration of marbles in a large barrel. As you begin to draw red, yellow and blue marbles from the barrel, you might believe you just haven't drawn enough out to find the other colors. But as you continue to draw them out for days, and red, yellow and blue are the only ones turning up, you are left with the gnawing feeling that maybe the burnt orange, violet, and green hues, that is, the endless plethora of intermediate colors resulting from primary colors mixing, aren't being drawn because they simply do not exist. At some point, you are left with just the evidence, and any hope for finding the elusive transitional forms of the Cambrian period evaporates. It is then you must come up with a new theory or look like a complete fool.
We find overwhelming evidence that the tree of life, is in fact, upside down in the Cambrian strata, and Darwin, and all the fools clinging to his pathetic theory, need to quit being influenced by their religion and confront the evidence head on.
Stupid analogy. REALLY stupid. Are we to believe that you and Meyer see the earth then as no more complex than a barrel full of marbles?
The earth has gone through many violent physical changes as the life forms have struggled to survive. Seas have risen.. Much of the evidense has been washed away or buried deep in the earth. Much if not almost all of the animal life that died was eaten including bones. Fragile life such as humanoid would have been easy prey to almost every kind of hungry predator or scavenger. Another factor is that humans do not bred as frequently or with as much survival success for the offspring as most other animals.
Someday far into the future long after the christians and muslims have destroyed mankind an inteligent being will find a skull and pick it up and shake it. There will be a strange sound coming from within it. Upon further examination the future being will discover marbles within the christian's head. AHHH! the being will excaim! That explains everything!
The author below has captured the entirety of the Christian fundie ID'iot argunent. The bolded parts (my addition), is the delineation.
Doubting Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt' : The New Yorker
Weve been here before. The intelligent-design movement was born more than two decades ago, in the wreckage of creation science, and the idea is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank where Meyer works. The scientific arguments have changed over the years, but intelligent design is probably best understood as the central element of a cunning legal argument. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible, so the engineers of intelligent design improved the disguise: a theory that made room for the Bible without any explicit mention of the book. Advocates were thus able to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. Their agenda was dealt a serious setback in 2005, when a federal judge declared that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.
Scientific readers will likely find that Darwins Doubt has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of yearsfar more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.
It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Pandas Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the fields key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of Darwins Doubt that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyers, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian Explosion is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once, Matzke writes.
Meyer goes on to build a grander, more bizarre argument that draws from the intelligent-design well. The genetic machinery of life, he writes, is incapable of grand leaps forward, meaning that any dramatic biological innovation must be the work of the intelligent designer. Yet scientific literature contains many well-documented counterexamples to Meyers argument, and the mechanisms by which lifes machinery can change quickly are well known. Whole genes can be duplicated, for example, and the copy can evolve new functions.
Most absurd of all is the books stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by todays scienceand there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannotthen we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.
since the book is speculative fiction and not based on research or evidence or the lack of it ,the author can say anything he wishes.Through parts one and two of Darwin's Doubt and not a single religious reference. It is basically a review of all the data from scientific research and discovery and an expose' of the lies and exaggerations of the atheist community. What becomes blatantly obvious in reading this book is how the real scientist doing the research and producing the data, make no such claims for the body of evidence regarding Darwinism, but it is the atheist community that exaggerates the data and blatantly lies about the results to promote their materialist, statist religion.
After reading this book, I am convinced Darwinism is dead, and a new scientific theory, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, needs to take its place. There is simply not enough evidence to continue to believe that natural selection acting on random mutations is responsible for the numerous body plans that suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.
Meyer not only goes into the overwhelming lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record of different Cambrian strata, he explores the massive amount of genetic evidence mounting against Neo Darwinism. He sums it up best when he gives the illustration of marbles in a large barrel. As you begin to draw red, yellow and blue marbles from the barrel, you might believe you just haven't drawn enough out to find the other colors. But as you continue to draw them out for days, and red, yellow and blue are the only ones turning up, you are left with the gnawing feeling that maybe the burnt orange, violet, and green hues, that is, the endless plethora of intermediate colors resulting from primary colors mixing, aren't being drawn because they simply do not exist. At some point, you are left with just the evidence, and any hope for finding the elusive transitional forms of the Cambrian period evaporates. It is then you must come up with a new theory or look like a complete fool.
We find overwhelming evidence that the tree of life, is in fact, upside down in the Cambrian strata, and Darwin, and all the fools clinging to his pathetic theory, need to quit being influenced by their religion and confront the evidence head on.
Stupid analogy. REALLY stupid. Are we to believe that you and Meyer see the earth then as no more complex than a barrel full of marbles?
The earth has gone through many violent physical changes as the life forms have struggled to survive. Seas have risen.. Much of the evidense has been washed away or buried deep in the earth. Much if not almost all of the animal life that died was eaten including bones. Fragile life such as humanoid would have been easy prey to almost every kind of hungry predator or scavenger. Another factor is that humans do not bred as frequently or with as much survival success for the offspring as most other animals.
Someday far into the future long after the christians and muslims have destroyed mankind an inteligent being will find a skull and pick it up and shake it. There will be a strange sound coming from within it. Upon further examination the future being will discover marbles within the christian's head. AHHH! the being will excaim! That explains everything!
Stupid response. Really stupid. His analogy was referring to the fossil record, specifically the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian strata. Your lack of reading comprehension gets the best of you again. The specific Phyla fossils are plentiful, the "inbetweeners" or rainbow of intermediate colors as referred to in the analogy, are no where to be found in the Cambrian strata. And yes, your arguments above were examined in the book and just as easily quickly and easily refuted. You might want to read it.
