Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[PEPCIS]

The two Genesis accounts of Creation differ slightly but noticeably.

I think I’m beginning to understand you, SHW. Could you please share with us the “two creation accounts”. I find that hypothesis fascinating.

 

[rossum]

Well, I think that’s a bit creative on your part (no pun intended). I don’t believe that God has “life” that can be taken from Him. That God is the “living God” is just a euphemism for His existence, as opposed to those other so-called DEAD gods made of stone and wood.

So, you have no explanation for the origin of life. Science has part of an explanation. I know which one I am going with.

[SIGN]For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. . . (Ex.20:11)[/SIGN]

That is a description of one living thing making other living things. I have no problem with living things making other living things, we see it all the time. You have not answered my question about how the first living thing originated.

Why is that so hard to accept? You are Catholic, correct?

At the top of each of my posts you will see the name “rossum”. Click on my name and you will get a drop-down menu. Select “View Public Profile” from that menu. If you read my profile you will see that I am Buddhist, not Catholic.

You have GREAT faith, but not in the Bible.

Correct, I prefer the Tripitaka.

Would that be the explanation that I asked for and you couldn’t give?

What part of “we are still working on it” do you have a problem with?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Shannon/Kolmogorov information is not a term which conforms to the nomenclature of biology, but one that deals strictly with communication.

If you do not like Shannon or Kolmogorov information then please state how you would measure information?

Here is some DNA:

        1 atggttaggt tatttcgacg taatttgata gatttgccaa ttagttattc tcttaattat
       61 tattgaagta ggggatttgt gctttctgtt tttatgatta tacaaatatt aactggtatg
      121 gtattgtctt ttttatatgt tgcagattat ctgtgtagtt tttttacagt tatgagattg
      181 tcaaaagatt ctttttttac ttgatgcctg cggtattggc atatgatagg tgttaaagtg
      241 ttgtttggtt tattttttgt tcatatggct cgtgctttgt attattcaag ttataaaaag
      301 aagggtgtat gaaatgtagg gtttgtttta tatttattag ttatgggtga ggcttttact
      361 ggatatatat tgccttggca tcaaatgtca tattgggctg ctactgtttt aacatctata
      421 gttgatagat tgcctatttt tggtaatgtt gtttataagt atgtagttgg tggattttct
      481 gtgtcaggta taactttgat tcgtgtgtta tctgtgcata tttgtttggg ttttgttatt
      541 ttagggttaa tggttattca tatgttttat ttacataaga gtggtagaag taaaccttta
      601 ttttcgttta actatttaag ggatgtaatt tattttcatt cttattttac ggttaaggat
      661 tttgtgttgt ttatgatagt tgctatgttt gtagtttttt gattatttgt aagacctgat
      721 gctttagttg atatagaggc gtatttagag gctgattcgt tgagtactcc tgtatcaatt
      781 aagcctgagt gatatttttt atcattttat gctattttac gttgtatagg gtctaagatt
      841 ggtggtttgg tgttgattgt agcgttttta ttttttttgt gagtacctac taatagtggt
      901 tcgagtgtat ataatgtatg gcgtcaggtt aaattttggt tgattgtaag tttatttttt
      961 tctttaattt atttaggtgg ttgtcatcca gaatatcctt atctttttat atgtcagtta
     1021 tttagtgtaa gcatggttat gcttatgttt ctctttaaga tttattaa

Source: mitochondrial cytb gene for cytochrome b, complete cdsTaenia saginata

You are using information in your argument. How much information is there in that DNA, and how did you calculate it?

rossum

 

[Leela]

Thanks for your opinion. My opinion is that it is a valid theory, and that it SHOULD be taught exclusively.

Exclusively? As in design should be taught in science class and not evolution?

The only way that ANY person could make such a claim is if they had complete knowledge in the universe. Otherwise, yours is a belief. Welcome to faith.

I haven’t made any claim other than that I don’t believe in gods. I haven’t claimed that gods don’t exist, though I doubt that they do. I certainly don’t have to accept anything on faith to be unconvinced by the evidence for gods.

Hmmmm. Back in post 379 when Eduardo challenged you similarly, you stated that it wasn’t necessary to provide proofs, because (paraphrase here) everyone believed in evolution. You claimed: “There is much data consistent with Darwinian evolution that validates the theory.” In other words, you don’t feel the need to have to answer Eduardo’s challenge.

Maybe the feeling’s mutual.

That is not at all what I argued to Eduardo. My point was that proof is never the issue. Scientists can never view hypotheses as being proven. They can only be disproven.

Best,
Leela

 

[grannymh]

.

Correct. Evolution can increase both Shannon information and Kolmogorov information in genomes. I have not seen creationists propose any alternative numerical measure of the amount of information in a genome.

From the point of view of information the process of random mutation and natural selection can be viewed as a way to copy information from the environment into genomes, hence increasing the amount of information in the genomes. Information such as “white things are difficult to see in snow” is copied into the genomes of animals living in snowy environments so they have white fur.

rossum

Thanks again Rossum, for adding to my collection of your “answers to granny” posts. You and other patient posters are a blessing to me. I did bookmark reggieM’s article

This post started me thinking about my son’s advice to turn on my headlights in the daytime because white cars are difficult to see against snow banks. In the case of snow, adaption for survival is physical for polar bears and intellectual for granny. The point is that since I’ve started my quest for understanding of evolutionary theory, I’ve come across interesting relationships and have changed some of my original ideas kind of like adapting to new information.

At the moment I am working on a way to fit a literal Adam & Eve into the evolutionary theory. I’m very comfortable with their evolution. What an amazing process! Yet, there is a need to see them as parents of the human race. I am not a creationist. Maybe I’m a creative evolutionist. (double meaning intended) There are many approaches. However, the I’m right, you’re wrong or the he said/she said approaches are eliminated.

Real numbers, numerical measurements, translating percentages into actual amounts, comparisons, logic, objective and subjective thinking are my favorite ways of evaluating. Therefore, I’m very interested in your statement about Shannon information and Kolmogorov information in genomes. Your adaptation for survival example would give the value of the information. A numerical measure of how many kinds of adaptation techniques would up the odds of survival, for example the ability of a polar bear to withstand extreme cold. Those sweet Easter bunnies with the white fur would not last way up north. Actually, they would probably be dinner.

Whatever info or links and especially ideas you can provide will be appreciated.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[SHW]

I think I’m beginning to understand you, SHW. Could you please share with us the “two creation accounts”. I find that hypothesis fascinating.

Hi PEPCIS,

Instead of typing it all here, I will give you the link to a page which has both accounts:

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.htmlskepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Also, according to Genesis, light was made on two different days!

Genesis 1:1-5 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Genesis 1:14-18 “14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”

Perhaps He needed to create the first light in order to see what He was doing so that He could create the second light? Notice He created light on both the first and fourth days?

I am glad that you are finally beginning to understand me. Such a relief.

Pax,
SHW

 

[oriel16]

.

At the moment I am working on a way to fit a literal Adam & Eve into the evolutionary theory. I’m very comfortable with their evolution. What an amazing process! Yet, there is a need to see them as parents of the human race. I am not a creationist. Maybe I’m a creative evolutionist. (double meaning intended) There are many approaches. However, the I’m right, you’re wrong or the he said/she said approaches are eliminated.

ct.

I am afraid not grannymh,that would be an enormous disservice to the Hebrew author(s) who certainly protected the Spiritual message within the creation narrative of Genesis thereby protecting the narrative necessity from overshadowing the heart of their message and love of God.I have shown you how genuine Christians have looked on the fall of Adam in respect to the Life of Jesus and now you would find grounds for a hybrid approach that is not within the great traditions of Christian science.Even the evolutionary geologists before the empirical ‘cause’ placed the emergence of humanity on a very old planetary framework in a gentle mood such as the geologist Rev William Buckland -

“I would . . . be unwilling to press the theory of relation to the human race, so far as to contend that all the great geological phenomena we have been considering were conducted solely and exclusively with a view to the benefit of man. We may rather count the advantages he derives from them as incidental and residuary consequences; which, although they may not have formed the exclusive object of creation, were all foreseen and comprehended in the plans of the Great Architect of that Globe, which, in his appointed time, was destined to become the scene of human habitation.” Buckland

Among other things,I understand the genealogical structure of Genesis from the creation of Adam to the first drop of rain of the flood which protects the great Hebrew work from the crude handling it has received and especially within the last few hundred years just as the Johanine author after Jesus protected His work.

Real numbers, numerical measurements, translating percentages into actual amounts, comparisons, logic, objective and subjective thinking are my favorite ways of evaluating. Therefore, I’m very interested in your statement about Shannon information and Kolmogorov information in genomes. Your adaptation for survival example would give the value of the information. A numerical measure of how many kinds of adaptation techniques would up the odds of survival, for example the ability of a polar bear to withstand extreme cold. Those sweet Easter bunnies with the white fur would not last way up north. Actually, they would probably be dinner.

Whatever info or links and especially ideas you can provide will be appreciated.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

The national supremacy idea behind the ‘cause’ for biological evolution is something which is shocking and constitutes a genuine ideological battle and may I remind you that even though some ideologies look harmless,the specific one you are commenting on had real consequences back 60 years ago.Maybe the picture of the young girl (her name was Christina) who went to the gas chamber and never experienced life should remind you what it actually is that you are so merrily commenting on -

youtube.com/watch?v=DCbuqXZ0Gfo

If you can’t enjoy creation then you may as well look at the casual consequences of Darwin’s ‘cause’ and where it leads.

 

[rossum]

Real numbers, numerical measurements, translating percentages into actual amounts, comparisons, logic, objective and subjective thinking are my favorite ways of evaluating. Therefore, I’m very interested in your statement about Shannon information and Kolmogorov information in genomes.

I do not know how much mathematics you can cope with. Start with the Wikipedia articles on Shannon Information, called “Entropy (information theory)”, and Kolmogorov Information, called “Kolmogorov complexity”. Also of relevance to evolutionary information theory is Fisher Inrormation.

There has been a recent paper on this subject: Frank 2009 - “Natural selection maximizes Fisher information”. (PDF) This will give you some idea of where current research is.

Whatever info or links and especially ideas you can provide will be appreciated.

Wikipedia is a good start, though you need to follow the links at the end of the Wikipedia articles as well. This part of biology very quickly gets into mathematics so I am reluctant to give you too much. My background is in theoretical physics and computing so I am much more used to mathematics than most people. I have recently been reading up on Pell’s equation - for fun!

One reasonably simple idea is compound interest. Even a very small reproductive advantage can grow over the generations and spread though the population. Take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. Say your white rabbit has a 1% better chance of not being eaten. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population. This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population. The variant has its advantage because it has better information about the environment coded into its genome; perhaps it is better able to smell polar bears, or its fur is a better match for the exact shade of the local snow. An information advantage is translated into a reproductive advantage which in turn spreads itelf through the population. Over time information about the local environment is copied into the genomes of the rabbits (and polar bears) living in that environment.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Hi PEPCIS,

Instead of typing it all here, I will give you the link to a page which has both accounts:

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.htmlskepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Also, according to Genesis, light was made on two different days!

Genesis 1:1-5 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Genesis 1:14-18 “14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”

Perhaps He needed to create the first light in order to see what He was doing so that He could create the second light? Notice He created light on both the first and fourth days?

I am glad that you are finally beginning to understand me. Such a relief.

Pax,
SHW

No - Light waves an exist without the sun. Light could have been created long before the sun.

The two creation accounts are complementary. One speaks of the universe, the second focuses on man.

 

[buffalo]

I do not know how much mathematics you can cope with. Start with the Wikipedia articles on Shannon Information, called “Entropy (information theory)”, and Kolmogorov Information, called “Kolmogorov complexity”. Also of relevance to evolutionary information theory is Fisher Inrormation.

There has been a recent paper on this subject: Frank 2009 - “Natural selection maximizes Fisher information”. (PDF) This will give you some idea of where current research is.

Wikipedia is a good start, though you need to follow the links at the end of the Wikipedia articles as well. This part of biology very quickly gets into mathematics so I am reluctant to give you too much. My background is in theoretical physics and computing so I am much more used to mathematics than most people. I have recently been reading up on Pell’s equation - for fun!

One reasonably simple idea is compound interest. Even a very small reproductive advantage can grow over the generations and spread though the population. Take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. Say your white rabbit has a 1% better chance of not being eaten. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population. This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population. The variant has its advantage because it has better information about the environment coded into its genome; perhaps it is better able to smell polar bears, or its fur is a better match for the exact shade of the local snow. An information advantage is translated into a reproductive advantage which in turn spreads itelf through the population. Over time information about the local environment is copied into the genomes of the rabbits (and polar bears) living in that environment.

rossum

It is useful to remember that copying mistakes are repaired and even some where some information is lost the copy is very very close to the original.

 

[GreenLantern]

It’s a good thing that, as a Catholic, I believe that truth is not determined by democracy.

 

[buffalo]

It’s a good thing that, as a Catholic, I believe that truth is not determined by democracy.

I am with you there.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ah, yes… we often hear that toe is just as proven and valid as the theory of gravity.

Actually, nothing in science is ever “proven.” Science is inductive, and relies on evidence, not deductive proofs. But evolutionary theory is stronger than gravitational theory. We know why evolution works.

As you admit, we still aren’t sure why gravity works.

 

[grannymh]

I am afraid not grannymh,that would be an enormous disservice to the Hebrew author(s) who certainly protected the Spiritual message within the creation narrative of Genesis thereby protecting the narrative necessity from overshadowing the heart of their message and love of God.I have shown you how genuine Christians have looked on the fall of Adam in respect to the Life of Jesus and now you would find grounds for a hybrid approach that is not within the great traditions of Christian science.Even the evolutionary geologists before the empirical ‘cause’ placed the emergence of humanity on a very old planetary framework in a gentle mood such as the geologist Rev William Buckland -

Dear Oriel16,

I’m glad to see you in this discussion. Definitely a hybrid approach would damage the integrity of both God’s creation Adam & Eve and science as an approach to knowledge. Regardless of how Adam & Eve came to be, either by a special individual direct creation or by creation which developed (or evolved) over time to the point that God breathed in a soul and Adam was man-- the point is that Adam represents all the generations which would descend from him. This is key in uniting all human beings in their ultimate destiny which is union with God.

There is an important connection between Adam and Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ represents all humanity, past. present, and future. In His honorable position as true God and true man, Jesus Christ reconciles God and humanity. Some scholars see Jesus Christ as the “new Adam” Who is perfectly obedient to God. *John 3: 16-17 "*For God so loved the world…’ connects right back to Genesis 1:31 “God looked at everything He had made [including Adam and Eve] and He found it very good.”

As far as the integrity of science, I do not mean to offend anyone, but this integrity can be compromised by someone’s personal agenda. This integrity can also be compromised when discoveries are reported too early because of a “publish or perish” environment.

It will take some creative thinking and lots of humility to see just how faith and science are really partner disciplines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCbuqXZ0Gfo

youtube.com/watch?v=DCbuqXZ0Gfohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCbuqXZ0Gfo

Unfortunately, the sound stuff was not hooked up to my new computer which makes it difficult to understand youtube, etc.

A few years back, I saw a very good documentary on eugenics in Germany. Somebody needs to correct my memory… It seems to me that there was also some information on eugenics in the U.S. I’m not sure if this was with some kind of cult. Regardless, World War II was caused by a variety of “evil” factors. I am well aware of the suffering. We still had relatives in Germany.

I hope you will understand that I have to limit the scope of my current research to one specific point. It is not that I am unknowing or unsympathetic, it is that I am unable.

Blessings,
granny

All humanity belongs to God.

 

[SHW]

No - Light waves an exist without the sun. Light could have been created long before the sun.

The two creation accounts are complementary. One speaks of the universe, the second focuses on man.

Hi buffalo,

Please show me where there is light in the universe that does not emit from some star? However, we do know that God is Light and that He “lights” up heaven for eternity.

1 John 1:5 “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.”

Revelation 21:23 “The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.”

Revelation 22:5 “There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.”

Per the two creation accounts: I was merely showing that the two literal Genesis creation accounts differ. I was not making any theological comparisons. Thank you for yours though.

Pax,
SHW

 

[redneck22]

Hi PEPCIS,

Instead of typing it all here, I will give you the link to a page which has both accounts:

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.htmlskepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Also, according to Genesis, light was made on two different days!

Genesis 1:1-5 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Genesis 1:14-18 “14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”

Perhaps He needed to create the first light in order to see what He was doing so that He could create the second light? Notice He created light on both the first and fourth days?

I am glad that you are finally beginning to understand me. Such a relief.

Pax,
SHW

I’m always dissappointed when Catholics need to lead people to ATHEIST web sites that ridicule the Bible for interpretation of the Bible. Light was created on day 1 “owr” and the bearers of light on day 4 “ma’owr”. There is no contradiction.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Shannon/Kolmogorov information is not a term which conforms to the nomenclature of biology, but one that deals strictly with communication.

If you do not like Shannon or Kolmogorov information then please state how you would measure information?

The problem here is that you don’t have a means to measure that information, much less understand what information means. As I pointed out in my last post, information is not simply an accumulation of data points.

rossum:

You are using information in your argument. How much information is there in that DNA, and how did you calculate it?

I didn’t calculate anything. I’m saying that DNA is information. That much is a fact which I understand that all evolutionists agree with.

I also showed that insertion of data is not a means of aggregating information. As Werner Gitt stated: "It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through materialistic means].

The difficulty that evolutionists have in dealing with the subject of information is explaining how it came to be without the infusion of intelligence that is required to create that information. On top of that, they have no means of quantifying it.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Thanks for your opinion. My opinion is that it is a valid theory, and that it SHOULD be taught exclusively.

Exclusively? As in design should be taught in science class and not evolution?

Yes. That’s my opinion.

I don’t believe in any gods, PEPSIS. It you’d like to try to convince me that I actually do, then please start a different thread and I’ll join you there.

PEPCIS:

The only way that ANY person could make such a claim is if they had complete knowledge in the universe. Otherwise, yours is a belief. Welcome to faith.

Leela:

I haven’t made any claim other than that I don’t believe in gods. I haven’t claimed that gods don’t exist, though I doubt that they do. I certainly don’t have to accept anything on faith to be unconvinced by the evidence for gods.

No, you already accept on faith that there are no gods/higher beings. That’s a faith statement in itself, because it relies on incomplete information.

Leela:

That is not at all what I argued to Eduardo. My point was that proof is never the issue. Scientists can never view hypotheses as being proven. They can only be disproven.

Very well. You should back off of ID then, because it can never be proven. It could only be disproven.

 

[PEPCIS]

Hi PEPCIS,

Instead of typing it all here, I will give you the link to a page which has both accounts:

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Also, according to Genesis, light was made on two different days!

Perhaps He needed to create the first light in order to see what He was doing so that He could create the second light? Notice He created light on both the first and fourth days?

I am glad that you are finally beginning to understand me. Such a relief.

Well, I was being a bit facetious with you.

I’m not sure why you adhere to an atheistic website’s rendition of what the Bible teaches?? But I have been able to reconcile those verses nicely, without stretching them out of context. It is only the Literalist who has such a difficult time in understanding what is being said, because they take the Bible literally.

 

[PEPCIS]

One reasonably simple idea is compound interest.

The understanding of evolutionary mathematics is coupled with the understanding that inherent in any “forward” movement in evolution (such that you are defining “forward” as being an increase in information), that there are costs associated with such “forward” movements. These costs are problematic to any evolutionary scenario, and require a significant trend of beneficial mutations.

In all actuality, in humans alone, deleterious mutation rates are on the order of 1.6 per individual per generation (Eyre-Walker & Keightley, High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids, Nature 397, 344 - 347 (1999)). Your “compound interest” story is nothing more than a fairy tale for grownups.

rossum:

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population.

As I said, a fairy tale. The fact is that we nowhere see any such favorable conditions for evolution. Evolutionists make the best children’s books for adults.