How To Define "Evolution"?

[PoliticalChic]

Hey PC, have you found that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian yet?

I found a lying sack of offal.....that would be you.



A more honest appraisal follows.

Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.

From "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism"
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip

This is another case of creationist charlatans who critique science matters they are wholly unprepared for.

Critiques of Phillip Johnson


Yep. Another Disco'tute crank

Encyclopedia of American Loons: 194: Phillip Johnson

You're a dope.

None of you has been able to indicate that precursors needed as proof, exist.


But...what the heck.....far it be from I to condemn someone for believing in faith.

Go and sin no more.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The post is another of your lies...as you admitted earlier that the precursor fossils of Cambrian organisms don't exist.


Lies mean that your position is indefensible.

Isn't that true?

Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.

Precambrian Fossils

The problem is that while there was abundant sea life it was largely soft bodied which does not fossilize as readily as hard substances like bones. The need to for hard bones was an evolutionary development that occurred because the Cambrian environment was better suited to creatures that evolved boney structures than it was to those that remained soft bodied. This is fully within the guidelines of Darwin's Evolutionary model.

Attempting to claim that evolution is wrong simply because we weren't around to document every single step of the process is foolish. You are wasting your time trying to disprove evolution. You are better off sticking to myths and fables and questioning the origin of life since that it is still not fully resolved scientifically.

Why must so very many of you be helped with reading and/or comprehension of what you read????

Wasn't the title of the thread a hint, at the very least???



I try to be precise in my language, and this invests the meaning.

Read again, more carefully:
3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.


The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....

....do not exist.

It is as though, like Topsy, these organism simply came to be, fully formed.
(Hey...are you literate enough to get the Topsy reference?)

Now....if you understand the meaning this time, you would probably like to change this:
"Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.."

Not.


Once you and the coterie come to admit that....we can proceed to explaining same.
Although...the Johnson post, #97, might help....

Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.

Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?

 

[orogenicman]

The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....

....do not exist.

You do not know that they don't exist. So to say that they don't is merely promoting a lie. By definition, they must exist. That they have yet to be identified is not evidence that they don't exist. It is only evidence that they haven't been identified yet. You are grasping at straws, Miss princess/chic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What, exactly, is a scientific fact? Are they different from non scientific facts like the fact that cows eat grass? What makes you think that no one has ever challenged it using science?

No one has ever challenged that cows eat grass? I wonder why?

Creationists would if the Bible told them otherwise.

Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do?

I was beginning to think you were a complete moron, at least you know your limits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.

Precambrian Fossils

The problem is that while there was abundant sea life it was largely soft bodied which does not fossilize as readily as hard substances like bones. The need to for hard bones was an evolutionary development that occurred because the Cambrian environment was better suited to creatures that evolved boney structures than it was to those that remained soft bodied. This is fully within the guidelines of Darwin's Evolutionary model.

Attempting to claim that evolution is wrong simply because we weren't around to document every single step of the process is foolish. You are wasting your time trying to disprove evolution. You are better off sticking to myths and fables and questioning the origin of life since that it is still not fully resolved scientifically.

Why must so very many of you be helped with reading and/or comprehension of what you read????

Wasn't the title of the thread a hint, at the very least???



I try to be precise in my language, and this invests the meaning.

Read again, more carefully:
3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.


The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....

....do not exist.

It is as though, like Topsy, these organism simply came to be, fully formed.
(Hey...are you literate enough to get the Topsy reference?)

Now....if you understand the meaning this time, you would probably like to change this:
"Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.."

Not.


Once you and the coterie come to admit that....we can proceed to explaining same.
Although...the Johnson post, #97, might help....

Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.

Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?

I expect someone who claims that evolution is guided to not understand what precursor means, what's your excuse?

 

[orogenicman]

No one has ever challenged that cows eat grass? I wonder why?

Creationists would if the Bible told them otherwise.

Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do?

I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator. It's pointless, and I have better things to do.

Oh, by the way -

More fossils

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....

....do not exist.

You do not know that they don't exist. So to say that they don't is merely promoting a lie. By definition, they must exist. That they have yet to be identified is not evidence that they don't exist. It is only evidence that they haven't been identified yet. You are grasping at straws, Miss princess/chic.

There is nothing that tells me they must exist. Fossils are actually relatively rare, and there is no definition anywhere that requires fossils for everything that ever lived to exist. I find it extremely strange that a person who has claimed to be the author of a paper about fossils not to know that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Creationists would if the Bible told them otherwise.

Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do?

I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator. It's pointless, and I have better things to do.

Oh, by the way -

More fossils

Good for you. If you find enough pictures of fossils you might be able to convince yourself they exist.

 

[orogenicman]

The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....

....do not exist.

You do not know that they don't exist. So to say that they don't is merely promoting a lie. By definition, they must exist. That they have yet to be identified is not evidence that they don't exist. It is only evidence that they haven't been identified yet. You are grasping at straws, Miss princess/chic.

There is nothing that tells me they must exist. Fossils are actually relatively rare, and there is no definition anywhere that requires fossils for everything that ever lived to exist. I find it extremely strange that a person who has claimed to be the author of a paper about fossils not to know that.

No, there is no law or principle of physics that requires that the ancestors of trilobites were ever fossilized. They could well have been soft bodied animals that didn't fossilize. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not these ancestral forms ever existed at all. Considering that the notion that Cambrian trilobites simply poofed into existence is not an option, it is fair and reasonable to assume that Cambrian trilobites had ancestors. Unless one wants to pretend that they were the only species out of all the species found to date that didn't, in which case - damn.

 

[orogenicman]

Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do?

I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator. It's pointless, and I have better things to do.

Oh, by the way -

More fossils

Good for you. If you find enough pictures of fossils you might be able to convince yourself they exist.

Are you claiming that fossils don't exist, that it is all a big paleontological conspiracy conjured up by the devil? Because, if that is your argument, damn, dude.

 

[Hollie]

I found a lying sack of offal.....that would be you.



A more honest appraisal follows.

Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.

From "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism"
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip

This is another case of creationist charlatans who critique science matters they are wholly unprepared for.

Critiques of Phillip Johnson


Yep. Another Disco'tute crank

Encyclopedia of American Loons: 194: Phillip Johnson

You're a dope.

None of you has been able to indicate that precursors needed as proof, exist.


But...what the heck.....far it be from I to condemn someone for believing in faith.

Go and sin no more.

I note that with consistency, the most effective way to confront your ignorance is to present you with the facts.

Your usual response is to stutter and mumble some supposed insult but honestly, your sweaty, chest-heaving tirades are comedy gold.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.

Precambrian Fossils

The problem is that while there was abundant sea life it was largely soft bodied which does not fossilize as readily as hard substances like bones. The need to for hard bones was an evolutionary development that occurred because the Cambrian environment was better suited to creatures that evolved boney structures than it was to those that remained soft bodied. This is fully within the guidelines of Darwin's Evolutionary model.

Attempting to claim that evolution is wrong simply because we weren't around to document every single step of the process is foolish. You are wasting your time trying to disprove evolution. You are better off sticking to myths and fables and questioning the origin of life since that it is still not fully resolved scientifically.

Why must so very many of you be helped with reading and/or comprehension of what you read????

Wasn't the title of the thread a hint, at the very least???



I try to be precise in my language, and this invests the meaning.

Read again, more carefully:
3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.


The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....

....do not exist.

It is as though, like Topsy, these organism simply came to be, fully formed.
(Hey...are you literate enough to get the Topsy reference?)

Now....if you understand the meaning this time, you would probably like to change this:
"Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.."

Not.


Once you and the coterie come to admit that....we can proceed to explaining same.
Although...the Johnson post, #97, might help....

Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.

Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?

Fine.

Show the fossils in question.

Go ahead......after than you can spin straw into gold, Rumpelstiltskin.


BTW....look at the dope who posted after you.....he admits that none have been found...but says 'you don't know they don't exist.'


Imagine religious folk using that argument for the existence of God.
You'd accept that?


Didn't think so.


Seems neither science nor logic are your strong points....
Stick to your first job, modeling socks on the radio.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Creationists would if the Bible told them otherwise.

Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do?

I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator. It's pointless, and I have better things to do.

Oh, by the way -

More fossils

But not the ones in question...

...So why would you provide 'em?


Oh...right...'cause you're a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is another case of creationist charlatans who critique science matters they are wholly unprepared for.

Critiques of Phillip Johnson


Yep. Another Disco'tute crank

Encyclopedia of American Loons: 194: Phillip Johnson

You're a dope.

None of you has been able to indicate that precursors needed as proof, exist.


But...what the heck.....far it be from I to condemn someone for believing in faith.

Go and sin no more.

I note that with consistency, the most effective way to confront your ignorance is to present you with the facts.

Your usual response is to stutter and mumble some supposed insult but honestly, your sweaty, chest-heaving tirades are comedy gold.

So.....no fossils of the major species of the Cambrian Explosion?


Just obfuscation? Just one of your usual 'stutter and mumble's'?


But....since you said "stutter and mumble'.....remember this:
This was your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!

Talk about 'stutter and mumble'!!!


I so look forward to your appearance.
If you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you.


Any truth to the story that P.T Barnum sent a congratulatory note when you were born?

 

[Hollie]

You're a dope.

None of you has been able to indicate that precursors needed as proof, exist.


But...what the heck.....far it be from I to condemn someone for believing in faith.

Go and sin no more.

I note that with consistency, the most effective way to confront your ignorance is to present you with the facts.

Your usual response is to stutter and mumble some supposed insult but honestly, your sweaty, chest-heaving tirades are comedy gold.

So.....no fossils of the major species of the Cambrian Explosion?


Just obfuscation? Just one of your usual 'stutter and mumble's'?


But....since you said "stutter and mumble'.....remember this:
This was your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!

Talk about 'stutter and mumble'!!!


I so look forward to your appearance.
If you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you.


Any truth to the story that P.T Barnum sent a congratulatory note when you were born?

That was quite an effort to side step your inability to address the salient points.

Why do you think Philip Johnson, a non-scientist with no academic credentials in the biological sciences, is qualified to provide any authoritative data on evolutionary biology?

 

[orogenicman]

PC, I will tell you exactly what I told quantum brain fart:

"No, there is no law or principle of physics that requires that the ancestors of trilobites were ever fossilized. They could well have been soft bodied animals that didn't fossilize (or the conditions for fossilization was not right). It could also be that they were fossilized, but we just haven't found the right fossil beds yet. That is a common occurrence in paleontology. But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not these ancestral forms ever existed at all. Considering that the notion that Cambrian trilobites simply poofed into existence is not an viable option, it is fair and reasonable to assume that Cambrian trilobites had ancestors. Unless one wants to pretend that they were the only species out of all the species found to date that didn't, in which case - damn."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why must so very many of you be helped with reading and/or comprehension of what you read????

Wasn't the title of the thread a hint, at the very least???



I try to be precise in my language, and this invests the meaning.

Read again, more carefully:
3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.


The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....

....do not exist.

It is as though, like Topsy, these organism simply came to be, fully formed.
(Hey...are you literate enough to get the Topsy reference?)

Now....if you understand the meaning this time, you would probably like to change this:
"Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.."

Not.


Once you and the coterie come to admit that....we can proceed to explaining same.
Although...the Johnson post, #97, might help....

Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.

Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?

Fine.

Show the fossils in question.

Go ahead......after than you can spin straw into gold, Rumpelstiltskin.


BTW....look at the dope who posted after you.....he admits that none have been found...but says 'you don't know they don't exist.'


Imagine religious folk using that argument for the existence of God.
You'd accept that?


Didn't think so.


Seems neither science nor logic are your strong points....
Stick to your first job, modeling socks on the radio.

Stromatolites are about 3+ billion years old.

Without their terraforming the planet you would not be here to make your adorable little posts.

Then there are the cyanobacteria fossils that date back about 3.5 billion years.

Perhaps your day job in a call center is making you cranky. Have you considered a career change to something with more prospects like fast food?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do not know that they don't exist. So to say that they don't is merely promoting a lie. By definition, they must exist. That they have yet to be identified is not evidence that they don't exist. It is only evidence that they haven't been identified yet. You are grasping at straws, Miss princess/chic.

There is nothing that tells me they must exist. Fossils are actually relatively rare, and there is no definition anywhere that requires fossils for everything that ever lived to exist. I find it extremely strange that a person who has claimed to be the author of a paper about fossils not to know that.

No, there is no law or principle of physics that requires that the ancestors of trilobites were ever fossilized. They could well have been soft bodied animals that didn't fossilize. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not these ancestral forms ever existed at all. Considering that the notion that Cambrian trilobites simply poofed into existence is not an option, it is fair and reasonable to assume that Cambrian trilobites had ancestors. Unless one wants to pretend that they were the only species out of all the species found to date that didn't, in which case - damn.

Then why did you say that, by definition, the fossils have to exist?

As far as I know no one in this thread has said that they just poofed into existence. The major problem with the pre Cambrian explosion vis a vis Darwinian evolution is it doesn't fit in with the cone of increasing diversity one would expect if all life on Earth evolved from a single progenitor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator. It's pointless, and I have better things to do.

Oh, by the way -

More fossils

Good for you. If you find enough pictures of fossils you might be able to convince yourself they exist.

Are you claiming that fossils don't exist, that it is all a big paleontological conspiracy conjured up by the devil? Because, if that is your argument, damn, dude.

Did you read my post?

If you find enough pictures of fossils you might be able to convince yourself they exist.

You are not Sheldon, stop pretending you don't know what sarcasm is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.

Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?

Fine.

Show the fossils in question.

Go ahead......after than you can spin straw into gold, Rumpelstiltskin.


BTW....look at the dope who posted after you.....he admits that none have been found...but says 'you don't know they don't exist.'


Imagine religious folk using that argument for the existence of God.
You'd accept that?


Didn't think so.


Seems neither science nor logic are your strong points....
Stick to your first job, modeling socks on the radio.

Stromatolites are about 3+ billion years old.

Without their terraforming the planet you would not be here to make your adorable little posts.

Then there are the cyanobacteria fossils that date back about 3.5 billion years.

Perhaps your day job in a call center is making you cranky. Have you considered a career change to something with more prospects like fast food?

Those self-improvement CD’s you’ve been listening to? ….not workin’

This is like arguing with a three year old.


What you need to produce is the transitional fossils leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.


Not organisms related to bacteria.


Whew...