Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

[wildleafblower]

This is the best website that I’ve located on the Internet as a learning tool for your basic **Evolution 101 ** which I enjoy sharing with the kids in my neighborhood.

1. An introduction to evolution
Evolution briefly defined and explained

**2. The history of life: looking at the patterns
How does evolution lead to the tree of life? **
The family tree
Understanding phylogenies
Building the tree
Homologies and analogies
Using the tree for classification
Adding time to the tree
How we know what happened when
Important events in the history of life

3. Mechanisms: the processes of evolution
How does evolution work?
Descent with modification
Mechanisms of change
Genetic variation
Mutations
The causes of mutations
Gene flow
Sex and genetic shuffling
Development
Genetic drift
Natural selection
What about fitness?
Sexual selection
Artificial selection
Adaptation
Misconceptions about natural selection
Coevolution

4. Microevolution
How does evolution work on a small scale?
Defining microevolution
Detecting microevolutionary change
Mechanisms of microevolution

5. Speciation
What are species anyway, and how do new ones evolve?
Defining a species
Defining speciation
Causes of speciation
Reproductive isolation
Evidence for speciation
Cospeciation

6. Macroevolution
How does evolution work on a grand scale?
What is macroevolution?
Patterns in macroevolution

7. The big issues
What are some of the big questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer?
The pace of evolution
Diversity in clades
Looking at complexity
Trends in evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01

Thanks UC Berkeley! Luv ya oodles
Donna it might be helpful if you would review the section on macroevolution then let us know what you do or don’t agree with along with any other topics

Thanks

 

[Verita]

Donna, I am not a scientist and in fact don’t know much about this subject. (I’ve found this thread very interesting though.) However, I have always been under the impression that Science isn’t so much about proving things as looking for answers. I always thought that Science was about taking an unanswered question and trying to figure out what the answer is. I had not thought that it depends on proof to be valid science. How many branches of Science would be discounted if the necessity for proof were added to the definition? The search for answers never ends. Many questions are never answered but simply lead to a better understanding of the question and to ask better questions in the future. Is this not science?

You condemn scientists for making guesses. Isn’t this a necessary part of science? The hypothesis or educated guess? When you are looking for answers guesses are at times necessary. Sometimes the guesses are right and sometimes they are wrong. But either way you still learn from them. And I always thought that’s what science was about: learning.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Verita:

Donna, I am not a scientist and in fact don’t know much about this subject. (I’ve found this thread very interesting though.) However, I have always been under the impression that Science isn’t so much about proving things as looking for answers.

It isn’t that I don’t see your point but if one looks at the evidence out there in the scientific world and makes assumptions based on his world view i.e. belief in evolution or not then that is philosophy not science. It is even a hilosophy if a “Creationist” does that. To be scientific it must be repeatable, “It is submitted that God’s creation insofar as it involved bringing into existence out of nothing the first animate and inanimate things, involved unrepeatable acts and so lies beyond the investigative powers of natural science.” Clement Butel WHY HUMAN EVOLUTION CAN NEVER BECOME PART OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH

It must be observable as well.

I always thought that Science was about taking an unanswered question and trying to figure out what the answer is.

Yes, through experiment. Since you have been following this thread perhaps you read the quotes of the early scientists that said that experiments were necessary.

I had not thought that it depends on proof to be valid science. How many branches of Science would be discounted if the necessity for proof were added to the definition? The search for answers never ends. Many questions are never answered but simply lead to a better understanding of the question and to ask better questions in the future. Is this not science?

But when a person does not use scientific methods but philosophical methods, one is not engaging in science but philosophy.

You condemn scientists for making guesses. Isn’t this a necessary part of science?

Maybe. Maybe a scientists says “I think that so and so may be correct. But if he stops at that he is engaging in guessing. In order for it to be science, that person must test his hypothesis (guesses).

The hypothesis or educated guess? When you are looking for answers guesses are at times necessary. Sometimes the guesses are right and sometimes they are wrong. But either way you still learn from them. And I always thought that’s what science was about: learning.

Not if it just stays at the hypothesis stage. That is guessing.

Donna

 

[wildleafblower]

Verita, “You condemn scientists for making guesses. Isn’t this a necessary part of science?”

Danielsgram (Donna), “Maybe. Maybe a scientists says “I think that so and so may be correct. But if he stops at that he is engaging in guessing. In order for it to be science, that person must test his hypothesis (guesses).”

Danielsgram (Donna) and Verita read this page from the website I provided you in msg. #61.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_04

Valuable information to be shared with everyone! No guesses needed

 

[Verita]

It isn’t that I don’t see your point but if one looks at the evidence out there in the scientific world and makes assumptions based on his world view i.e. belief in evolution or not then that is philosophy not science.

I’m trying to understand what you mean here. It seems to me that you keep trying to equate evolution with philosophy and it’s only working for you because you want it to be so. Philosophy has nothing to do with evolution. Philosophy, according to merriam webster, is the “pursuit of wisdom, a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means”. How on earth do you think this is what evolution does? And why do you insist that evolution is not observable?

There are other kinds of observation than sticking an animal in a lab and watching it evolve on the spot. Obviously, that can’t be done because evolution takes time. You do not always have to see something to know it exists. Sometimes all you need to do is observe its effects. Classic example being wind. I cannot observe the wind. Does that mean it isn’t real?

By insisting that there must be something concrete to observe or evolution isn’t really science (I believe from what you have posted that this is your belief. Correct me if I am wrong.) then you are also discounting other branches of science such as theoretical physics and astromomy. There are many things that are unobservable, things very far away or too small to see, does that mean they don’t exist?

Yes, through experiment. Since you have been following this thread perhaps you read the quotes of the early scientists that said that experiments were necessary.

I am under the impression that a great deal of experimentation has been done in evolutionary science. People here have posted information to that effect. You have not bothered countering their information in any way other than to make sweeping generalizations. You are not providing any evidence for your assumptions. By your own definitions, you are being very unscientific.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Verita:

I’m trying to understand what you mean here. It seems to me that you keep trying to equate evolution with philosophy and it’s only working for you because you want it to be so. Philosophy has nothing to do with evolution. Philosophy, according to merriam webster, is the “pursuit of wisdom, a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means”.

Hmmm, well where can we see evolution happening. That is, where can we observe it? If we can’t observe it then the conclusions of the evolutionists are philosophical and not scientific.

How on earth do you think this is what evolution does? And why do you insist that evolution is not observable?

Tell me where I can go to observe evolution happening.

There are other kinds of observation than sticking an animal in a lab and watching it evolve on the spot. Obviously, that can’t be done because evolution takes time. You do not always have to see something to know it exists. Sometimes all you need to do is observe its effects.

Certainly, that is why Antony Flew who was an atheist for years became a deist.
Classic example being wind. I cannot observe the wind. Does that mean it isn’t real?
One can feel the wind. That is a type of observation.

By insisting that there must be something concrete to observe or evolution isn’t really science
Those aren’t my rules those of agreed upon rules of science.
then you are also discounting other branches of science such as theoretical physics and astromomy. There are many things that are unobservable, things very far away or too small to see, does that mean they don’t exist?

Whenever something is in its theoretical state it isn’t proven scientifically. I could probably give several examples if I were a scientist. That’s a my theory unproven by investigation (experimentation, meaning actually learning science). Astronomy got it wrong lately something about the “planet” Pluto.

I am under the impression that a great deal of experimentation has been done in evolutionary science. People here have posted information to that effect.

How does one do experiments on evolution?

You have not bothered countering their information in any way other than to make sweeping generalizations. You are not providing any evidence for your assumptions. By your own definitions, you are being very unscientific.

Actually, I posted quotes from scientists explaining that for something to be scientific it must be repeatable etc. I don’t see that as “sweeping generalizations”.
Donna

 

[steveandersen]

Hi Verita:
Hmmm, well where can we see evolution happening. That is, where can we observe it?

Go to the link of observed instances of speciation list in Post #34.
I’m not sure what more you could ask for.

Or better still ask your doctor why we get different flu vaccines each year or why there is anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

If we can’t observe it then the conclusions of the evolutionists are philosophical and not scientific.

It is based on observations in anatomy, micro-biology, genetics, geology et al.

Tell me where I can go to observe evolution happening.

Several of us have posted links and explanations several times. You just keep asking for more without addressing what has been provided. What in particular about the information provided do you find unsatisfactory? What is your alternate explanation for the data?

Certainly, that is why Antony Flew who was an atheist for years became a deist.

I don’t know the man. Why would data for or against evolution affect one’s religious faith?

If Mr. Flew’s faith (or lack of it) were grounded merely in biology I would not take that as a ringing endorsement of Deism.

There are many people (myself included) who have no problem squaring evolution and God.

Classic example being wind. I cannot observe the wind. Does that mean it isn’t real?
One can feel the wind. That is a type of observation.

And one can compare anatomy and genetics. One can see the effects of environmental pressures and changes on populations (both currently and in the historical record).
Those are observations too.

Whenever something is in its theoretical state it isn’t proven scientifically.

Nothing is proven scientifically. Just any old idea doesn’t qualify as a theory. To become a theory a model must be consistent with the preponderance of the evidence (i.e. the observations)
If you can provide an explanation for the world as we see it that fits the observable data better than evolution then you’d be up for a Nobel Prize.

I could probably give several examples if I were a scientist.

Ah…but you’re not. But you are confident that you are somehow more correct than the tens of thousands of scientists who have spent their lives studying and researching to pronounce evolution “unsubstantiated” and not scientific.

That’s a my theory unproven by investigation (experimentation, meaning actually learning science).

if there has been no research then there is no theory just a hypothesis.

Astronomy got it wrong lately something about the “planet” Pluto.

Donna, in all charity, please seek out a textbook. There is nothing “wrong” about Pluto. It is still where we thought it was. It has the same mass and period etc. The question was just one of nomenclature. The term “planet” is completely arbitrary and manmade one. Deciding to refine the definition is hardly being wrong.

How does one do experiments on evolution?

As detailed in previous posts there are the predictive experiments such as the ones indicated with the ant and whale. Also, the observe instances of speciation linked above described several field and laboratory tests.

Or, if you have less time, you can put things in a petri dish and play with their environment.
Back about 25 years ago Omni magazine (back in the early years when it was still good and before all that paranormal nonsense) used to sell these kits for high school science teachers. It was basically evolution in a box. It came with some microorganism that the kids would basically torture. I forget all the details off the top of my head but it was quite elegant with a control and everything.

Actually, I posted quotes from scientists explaining that for something to be scientific it must be repeatable etc. I don’t see that as “sweeping generalizations”.
Donna

Well sure there is repeatability in experiments.
If a scientist dates something using tree rings or stratigraphy then other scientists should be able to repeat that. If a scientist identifies a bone or a segment of genetic material based on known related structures and markers then other scientists must be able to confirm. If a relationship between species is suggested then the data must be presented and others must be able to repeat.

Do you think these guys are sitting in their ivory towers spouting what ever comes to mind? Science is a competitive business. Evolution is the basis for all modern biology and has dramatic impacts on healthcare, pharmaceutics, and food production. There is a lot of money at stake for anyone who could come up with a better model.

 

[danielsgram]

Steve:
Before I reply to your latest post would you define species for me?
Donna

 

[hecd2]

Like I said all you can do is ridicule him[Giertych]. You cannot disprove him.

I ridicule him, because he is ridiculous. He hasn’t said anything of substance to be ‘disproved’. You have posted a creationists’ report of a creationist conference (a fringe report about fringe matters). Go here to see what real scientists, including the director of Giertych’s own institution, think about Giertych’s ideas - these utter condemnations of his grotesque crankery were published in the world’s most prestigious science journal.

Alec
evoltionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

“It is submitted that God’s creation insofar as it involved bringing into existence out of nothing the first animate and inanimate things, involved unrepeatable acts and so lies beyond the investigative powers of natural science.” Clement Butel WHY HUMAN EVOLUTION CAN NEVER BECOME PART OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH

Who on earth gives two pins for the opinion of Clement Butel? He is a gross creationist and has exactly the same authority when it comes to defining the boundaries of science as you do - that is precisely none. He and you will be completely ignored on this topic by those who matter - professional scientists working in the field.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[danielsgram]

I ridicule him, because he is ridiculous.

Sigh. None of those people deal with what the good Professor write/says against evolution they just go ballistic with ad hominems. One or two said that the “supposed” footprints of a human with the dinosaur prints are just other dinos. But anyone can say anything. Where is the proof? You are parroting others whose veracity you cannot know. I chose a Catholic scientist over atheists.

Donna

 

[PhilVaz]

Donna << Sungenis is not a scientist. What antievolution SCIENTIST does your work or rather the work of talk origins SPECIFICALLY debunk? I would like specific quotes from a scientist with specific quotes proving that scientist wrong. >>

I said Sungenis was using the ICR material. If you aren’t gonna read the links, I’ll copy/paste here:

Sungenis: “neutrinos from cosmic radiation disturb the decay process”

My Response: They do not. Morris, Slusher, and Rybka (creationists from the 1970s and 80s) were all answered by Dalrymple on this 20 years ago. From Dalrymple, “How Old is the Earth? A Reply to Scientific Creationism” Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Volume 1, Part 3, edited by Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites, April 30, 1984, pages 66-131

“[Henry] Morris [1974] also suggests that neutrinos might change decay rates, citing a column by Jueneman (72) in ‘Industrial Research.’ The subtitle of Jueneman’s columns, which appear regularly, is, appropriately, ‘Scientific Speculation.’ He speculates that neutrinos released in a supernova explosion might have ‘reset’ all the radiometric clocks. Jueneman describes a highly speculative hypothesis that would account for radioactive decay by interaction with neutrinos rather than by spontaneous decay, and he notes that an event that temporarily increased the neutrino flux might ‘reset’ the clocks. Jueneman, however, does not propose that decay rates would be changed, nor does he state how the clocks would be reset; in addition, there is no evidence to support his speculation.” (Dalrymple [1984], page 89)

“Slusher (117) and Rybka (110) also propose that neutrinos can change decay rates, citing an hypothesis by Dudley (40) that decay is triggered by neutrinos in a ‘neutrino sea’ and that changes in the neutrino flux might affect decay rates. This argument has been refuted by Brush (20), who points out that Dudley’s hypothesis not only requires rejection of both relativity and quantum mechanics, two of the most spectacularly successful theories in modern science, but is disproved by recent experiments. Dudley himself rejects the conclusions drawn from his hypothesis by Slusher (117) and Rybka (110), noting that the observed changes in decay rates are insufficient to change the age of the Earth by more than a few percent (Dudley, personal communication, 1981, quoted in 20, p. 51). Thus, even if Slusher and Rybka were correct – which they are not – the measured age of the Earth would still exceed 4 billion years.” (Dalrymple [1984], page 89)

Summary: The “neutrinos released in a supernova” hypothesis was in a column called “scientific speculation.” The hypothesis was highly speculative, the author does not say decay rates would change, nor how the radiometric clocks would be reset, and he provides no evidence in support. The argument by Dudley was refuted by Brush who points out both relativity and quantum mechanics must be rejected if his hypothesis were true. Dudley rejects the young-earth conclusions drawn by the creationists noting that the age of the earth would only be effected by a few percent. The earth would still be older than 4 billion years. So much for the “neutrinos” speculation.

There, happy? Morris, Slusher, Rybka, creationists from the ICR.

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

None of those people deal with what the good Professor write/says against evolution they just go ballistic with ad hominems. One or two said that the “supposed” footprints of a human with the dinosaur prints are just other dinos. But anyone can say anything. Where is the proof? You are parroting others whose veracity you cannot know. I chose a Catholic scientist over atheists.
Donna

Look, there are cranks in every field of science. You can either read up on the science and understand why certain things are settled matters and why people like Giertych are cranks; or you can choose to latch on to the fringe because they massage your personal religious belief regardless of whether what they say makes sense at all. Your approach is to refuse to learn any science at all, so that you can make your choice from a position of profound ignorance. You will not take the effort to find out why the idea of the Texas footprints being human is utterly discredited in case it threatens your faith. However, for every Giertych, there are thousands of Catholic scientists who will tell you that the footprints are not human and that the idea that humans and dinosaurs lived together is baloney.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Donna has featured heavily in this thread. She has posted hundreds of words that **she **must feel call the biological theory of evolution into question. **She **must feel that, because no reasonably intelligent person reading this thread would.

Let’s examine the substance of what she has to say. That’s easy, because she has very little, almost nothing, to say, in spite of her multiple posts. She has posted precisely **one **argument and it goes like this:

• Some individuals who were involved in the vague stirrings of the scientific method pre 1400 claimed that science is restricted to what can be demonstrated through experimentation in the laboratory
• The science on which evolution is based is not experimental
• Therefore evolution is not based on science but faith.
  Well, this argument depends on a mediaeval definition of science and is therefore readily refuted. If you subscribe to this argument you would have to:
• Believe that, or show that, there has been no advances in the philosophy of science (ie the definition of science) for 600 years and people who had practically no modern scientific knowledge were privileged to define the boundaries of science for all time; and
• Accept that geology, palaeontology, astro-physics, cosmology, ecology, etc lie outside the realm of science - a grotesque and untenable conclusion.
  Other than the easily refuted argument of ‘the definition of science’, Donna has nothing at all to offer. She is abjectly ignorant about every branch of science, she completely ignores, hoping that it will recede by itself, all specific evidence that supports the fact of common descent, and she bases her entire argument on the refuted definition of science and on hand-waving claims.

I should like to see her be specific and precise about just one thing, but she won’t. She is yet to address a single facet of the evidence. For example, with regard to transitional tetrapods, she said this:

I have already looked up several of those. In all due respect, evolutionists interpret the evidence that you are putting forward differently from an evolutionist. The antievolutionists IMHO are much more convincing

and I replied:

'Oh really? In what way precisely do you consider this evidence to be ‘unconvincing’? You do see that this, like all your arguments, is so much hand-waving fluff? In what way is the transition from polydactyly or the co-option of the stapes unconvincing? Do try very hard to be precise.

We are still waiting.

It is impossible to have an adult discussion with Donna because her mode of argument is to ignore all evidence (multiple examples of speciation, specific examples of the fish/tetrapod transition, examples of the dinosaur/bird transition and others in this thread alone) and just repeat her discredited claims over and over again. It’s like trying to discuss something profound with a toddler. I am sure that that is clear to everyone reading this thread. And now, I have far better things to do than to ‘discuss’ science with someone who doesn’t know any and who is determined not learn any.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

*It is impossible to have an adult discussion with Donna because her mode of argument is to ignore all evidence (multiple examples of speciation, specific examples of the fish/tetrapod transition, examples of the dinosaur/bird transition and others in this thread alone) and just repeat her discredited claims over and over again. It’s like trying to discuss something profound with a toddler. I am sure that that is clear to everyone reading this thread. And now, I have far better things to do than to ‘discuss’ science with someone who doesn’t know any and who is determined not learn any.

Alec*

I expect Donna’s faith will survive your hit-and-run insults.

Merry Christmas anyway.*

 

[R_McGeddon]

*It is impossible to have an adult discussion with Donna because her mode of argument is to ignore all evidence (multiple examples of speciation, specific examples of the fish/tetrapod transition, examples of the dinosaur/bird transition and others in this thread alone) and just repeat her discredited claims over and over again. It’s like trying to discuss something profound with a toddler. I am sure that that is clear to everyone reading this thread. And now, I have far better things to do than to ‘discuss’ science with someone who doesn’t know any and who is determined not learn any.

Alec*

I expect Donna’s faith will survive your hit-and-run insults.

Merry Christmas anyway.*

The strength of her faith is not the issue, it’s the height of her ignorance that is.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Gilbert Keith:

I’m a fan of Chesterton too.

I expect Donna’s faith will survive your hit-and-run insults.

It is not only surviving but I’m having fun. I’ll let you in on a little secret, just between you and me. No one else will read this, right? I have spent the last several months reading up on evolution vs. antievolution. I have never believed in evolution but there was a reason that I decided to look into the issue. I asked some evolutionists to point me to what they believe is the most compelling evidence for evolution. I chose a good number of what they offered and began to research it. I found absolutely nothing that cannot be interpreted differently by anti-evolution scientists. When I present the evidence for the other side of the argument to evolutionists they invariably reply with ridicule and other types of ad hominem. Another thing that the evolutionists do in some forums is to state something that they consider to be “fact” but have absolutely nothing to back up their assertions. I have decided to do some of that too to see what their reaction would be. It bugs them. I did back up my assertion that there must be experiments to be considered science rather than philosophy because I thought that that needed to be stated and proven.

I have no intention of chasing after more “evidence” for evolution that is not backed up by experiment. They claim to be scientific and yet they cannot offer any experiments. I have been accused of being ignorant just because I refuse to read the philosophy that they offer. I knew that I would be ridiculed if I pointed out that their emperor had no clothes. That it isn’t science unless it can be shown to be true by experiment. Phil is getting his information from talk origins. He c/pd part of an article about two philosophical worldviews. There was not a shred of scientific evidence backed up by experiment in the page.

Donna

 

[Verita]

I did back up my assertion that there must be experiments to be considered science rather than philosophy because I thought that that needed to be stated and proven.

No one here is denying that experimentation is necessary for science. You don’t need to “back up” that assertion because everyone agrees with it. What you need to back up is your further assertion that there is no experimentation done in the field of evolution.

I have no intention of chasing after more “evidence” for evolution that is not backed up by experiment. They claim to be scientific and yet they cannot offer any experiments.

I’m sorry if I sound rude, but are you blind? Many people here have discussed various forms of experimentation that are carried out in the field of evolution. They certainly can’t recreate the experiments for you on a message board, but they have presented evidence that experimentation is done and you have ignored it. You have merely closed your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and continued to shout, “There is no experimentation in evolution!” dispite the effort people here have taken to show you otherwise.

When I present the evidence for the other side of the argument to evolutionists they invariably reply with ridicule and other types of ad hominem.

You haven’t presented any evidence at all. Where is your evidence? And all of the supporters of evolution in this thread tried their hardest to have an intelligent dialogue with you. You failed miserably to live up to their example. And if in the end they fell prey to ridicule and ad hominem, well, they’re only human and you have been incredibly slippery and frustrating.

Your “fun” seems to consist of coming onto a forum to merely bait people for your amusement without any intention whatever of actually entering into a reasonable discussion. And unfortunately, you don’t seem to realize that you haven’t won. I don’t know a single intellectually honest person who would come away from this thread in support of your “arguments”. I certainly haven’t.

 

[R_McGeddon]

It is not only surviving but I’m having fun. I’ll let you in on a little secret, just between you and me. No one else will read this, right? I have spent the last several months reading up on evolution vs. antievolution. I have never believed in evolution but there was a reason that I decided to look into the issue. I asked some evolutionists to point me to what they believe is the most compelling evidence for evolution. I chose a good number of what they offered and began to research it. I found absolutely nothing that cannot be interpreted differently by anti-evolution scientists. When I present the evidence for the other side of the argument to evolutionists they invariably reply with ridicule and other types of ad hominem. Another thing that the evolutionists do in some forums is to state something that they consider to be “fact” but have absolutely nothing to back up their assertions. I have decided to do some of that too to see what their reaction would be. It bugs them. I did back up my assertion that there must be experiments to be considered science rather than philosophy because I thought that that needed to be stated and proven.

I have no intention of chasing after more “evidence” for evolution that is not backed up by experiment. They claim to be scientific and yet they cannot offer any experiments. I have been accused of being ignorant just because I refuse to read the philosophy that they offer. I knew that I would be ridiculed if I pointed out that their emperor had no clothes. That it isn’t science unless it can be shown to be true by experiment. Phil is getting his information from talk origins. He c/pd part of an article about two philosophical worldviews. There was not a shred of scientific evidence backed up by experiment in the page.

Donna

I’m rather more interested in why you want proof for evolution, but not for God.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi there Verita:

I’m sorry if I sound rude, but are you blind? Many people here have discussed various forms of experimentation that are carried out in the field of evolution.

I don’t consider that rude. I have chosen not to chase rabbit trails. I have been there and done that. I don’t have time to look at the pages upon pages upon pages to hunt for the experiments. I tell you what, if you will post just one experiment that shows lets say fish to amphibian or something on that order, I will check it out. But I don’t have time to check out hundreds. Please, no “one primrose, to another kind of primrose” even Professor Giertych has done work in this sort of field and he is on the forefront of antievolution.

Donna