Protozoans Against Intelligent Design

|

The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology has just published a very nice paper showing how the details of protist evolution "dispel the myths of intelligent design." Generally, protists are "unicellular eukaryotes that either exist as independent cells, or if they occur in colonies, do not show differentiation into tissues." Think amoebae or foraminifera.

Foraminifera

Biologists Mark Farmer and Andrea Habura address various ID claims and show how the evolution of protists disprove them. The first such claim is that the Cambrian explosion 545 million years ago cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution—it was too fast. Farmer and Habura point out that protistan evolution had begun well before then and provided the genomic diversity from which multicellular organisms arose.

The second claim is that no one has ever seen the development of a new species—that is, a new species that becomes genetically isolated from its parent species. Again turning to protists, Farmer and Habura cite the example of just such a speciation event in which amoebae became symbiotically dependent upon infecting bacteria. If the symbotically dependent amoebae subsequently tried to interbreed with the parent stock, the parent stock died of the bacterial infection. Thus the two became genetically isolated.

Amoeba

Thirdly, IDers also argue that the fossil record does not show transitional species, therefore there is no evidence of one species evolving into another. Farmer and Habura explain that the exquisitely detailed fossil record of protists does exhibit just such intermediate forms.

Fourthly, the two biologists deal with the claim that nature exhibits biochemical changes that simply are too impossibly complex to occur without a designer. They specifically refute ID proponent Michael Behe's argument that the malaria parasite's resistance to chloroquine is too complex to have arisen through natural selection. 

Farmer and Habura conclude:

A detailed understanding of protistan biology, therefore, offers scientists and lay persons alike the ability to address current attacks on evolutionary theory, and to refute the claims of ID creationists who insist on invoking supernatural explanations to account for observable phenomena.

Go here to read their excellent article. I also cannot pass up the opportunity to suggest clicking on the youtube mash up of my talk "Attack of the Super Intelligent Purple Space Squid Creators" which I delivered during a debate with IDers from the Discovery Institute.

Via Tree of Life blog.

Advertisement

NEXT: "Bitterly Divided Court" Carelessly "Sweeps Aside" 100 Years of "Important Precedents." Bastards.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The second claim is that no one has ever seen the development of a new species — that is, a new species that becomes genetically isolated from its parent species. Again turning to protists, Farmer and Habura cite the example of just such a speciation event in which amoebae became symbiotically dependent upon infecting bacteria. If the symbotically dependent amoebae tried to interbreed with the parent stock, the parent stock died of the bacterial infection. Thus the two became genetically isolated”

    But is “genetic isolation” the same thing as speciation? That doesn’t seem particularly obvious to me. Suppose I get infect with HIV (some horrific STD that kills anyone I have sex with before gestation), but have some genetic mutation that renders me and a few other people in the world immune. I couldn’t breed with other humans because my nasty STD would kill them before the child could be born. But am I and others who are immune really a different species at that point? I would say that we are still human, we just have a disease that prevents us from breeding with most other humans.

    1. Give it a few generations. The good thing about protists is that generations succeed one another really fast.

      1. If so, lets see the paper on that. As you state it though Ron, it doesn’t strike me as an obvious case of speciation.

        1. John: You could read the paper by Farmer and Habura to which I link.

          1. Another great example of evolution at the microbial level is the experiment carried out by Richard Lenski with E. coli generations. Dr. Lenski has been breeding successive generations of E. coli from one starting batch since 1988. After approximately 31,500 generations, some of the microbes evolved in such a way as to process citrate (which is normally toxic to E. coli (which is a property by which E. coli is sometimes defined))

            An abstract is available through the National Academy of Sciences here

            1. I reelly don’t see it. Suppose I have a child, and they are lactose-intolerant. Does that make them a different speicies? I’ll wait for you to link a paper.

              1. Umm… lactose-intolerance does not cause genetic isolation. There is no sexual isolation there. You clearly don’t understand the concept, and are just stubbornly supporting your own beliefs.

              2. John: I’ll answer your question politely. There’s a few different definitions of species, the most common of which says that a species is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring. The reason there’s a few different definitions is because, due evolution, the lines between such “groups” are very often blurred.

                If two groups become genetically isolated enough that the members of each group usually cannot reproduce with each other, then they are then considered separate species. This happens often–usually due to geological isolation or other physical isolation factors.

                A lactose-intolerant child would have no problem interbreeding with other humans. One genetic mutation is not nearly enough to produce genetic isolation. It takes many, and over time.

              3. Speciation is just a way to classify phenomenon humans will never fully understand, but they’ll never stop trying. It’s all perspective. You can see these natural processes as evolution if that’s what fits your perspective. I see it as mere cause and effect – consequences of non-sentient actions.

                I was once told a type of bird (or something) became a separate species (genetic isolation) when the plumage didn’t attract mates of its cousin’s type. In that case, it wasn’t that the two types of the same bird became physically incompatible for reproduction. Instead, they became unattractive to each other because of different adaptations to different habitats. It’s the natural version of fashion.

            2. BTW, speciation has very recently been observed in animals.

              http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20141.abstract

              Very cool paper.

            3. Jonn, you big goof. Lactose-intolerance doesn’t mean you can’t breed with another human. And HIV doesn’t result in that either. In fact, you said it yourself, a baby did result anyway.

              Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

              And btw, science and religion can, do, and probably should co-exist. If for no other reason than science also needs (OK, should have) codes of conduct or ethics. There are many ways to develop ethics, but I argue that religion is one of them.

              b’hatzlacha, Jonn. I wish you the best.

              1. Jonn I’m sorry, the HIV comment was not yours.

                Nothing like a stupid mistake to undermine one’s argument. I’ll just go away now. Dang! And I was having such fun.


                Planet’s devastated
                Mankind’s on its knees
                A saviour comes from out the skies
                In answer to their pleas

                Through boiling clouds of thunder
                Blasting bolts of steel
                Evils going under deadly wheels

                He is the Painkiller
                This is the Painkiller

                From the Law firm of Tipton, Halford, and Downing

    2. But in your HIV analogy you don’t require HIV to survive. If your survival were dependent on HIV, then you and your fellow select few humans would be forced to break off from the rest of humanity and breed only with each other. Given enough time and enough changes, your descendants would eventually be a distinct species.

    3. @John
      Luckily for the world of science we do not define species based on the whims or beliefs of people such as yourself. It really doesn’t matter if you consider someone who has developed genetically-acquired immunity to a life-threatening STD as still human or not. The question becomes, is it a separately evolving lineage from an isolated gene pool. Which, if it is carrying genes that make it immune to this disease then that lineage would be a new species that can only breed with others carrying the immunity.

      Of course that is all hypothetical and therefore moot anyway. The REAL issue is has it happened before in the past, and these protists researchers have indeed identified this occurrence.

      Thanks for your 2cents John!

    4. you’re a troll aren’t you, john?

    5. Good point John.

    6. I think you would be correct – you are not a new species at that point. However, if you and the other folks with the STD can only breed with each other, then eventually natural variation (i.e. random mutations) will start cropping up in your offspring. The point at which your offspring have so many mutations that breeding with other “regular” humans is impossible (i.e. too much divergence in your genome has occurred), then you have a new species. Keep in mind – a species isn’t a group of individuals that can’t breed with others for reasons of disease, geographic separation, preference etc., rather a species is a group of individuals that can’t breed with anyone else because their genomes are incompatible with others and they don’t produce viable offspring – this is more a demarcation point where genetic changes in the new population can’t migrate into the other population through interbreeding anymore, so variations in genomes make the two populations more different over time. Don’t confuse “can’t have sex” with “offspring aren’t genetically incompatible”. Speciation is about divergence due to genetic differences – interbreeding is an opposing force that homogenizes populations (or at least spreads the genes around).

    7. Your immunity is not the same as a symbiotic relationship. The HIV virus would have to be ‘benefiting you’ as opposed to ‘not harming you’. You would have to be reliant on the virus (and the virus upon you) in order to experience an analogous scenario to the protist speciation above.

      With immunity: Yes, you would not be able to breed with those that do not carry the same immunity. However, you would not be experiencing genetic isolation or speciation. You would be experiencing a mutation that creates a social isolation, not a genetic isolation.

      With a symbiotic relationship: You are now genetically different because you require a different internal/biological environment to breed/survive/thrive. You are now a new species. You are genetically isolated because your existence is contingent on viral DNA that is deadly to your ancestors.

  2. Doesn’t matter.
    You all live in a simulation anyway.

    1. I figure we’re like underneath fifty layers of simulations, with each layer above thinking it’s “reality.”

      1. Delete “like.”

        1. I read it before you said to delete “like”, which means I had to read it in Spicoli voice.

          1. Most excellent, dude.

            1. Oh, I see. I was channeling my inner Keanu. And I so hate people who think The Matrix came before Plato’s Cave.

              1. Plato’s Cave? Is that where Luke hacks off Vader’s face, but it’s totally a dream?

                1. Like I’ve said elsewhere, the cornerstone of Western culture is Star Wars.

                  1. Or, perhaps better stated, all of western philosophy is but a footnote to Star Wars.

                    1. PL,
                      Avatar is the New Testament.

                    2. Now I’m confused. I thought Avatar was the New Pocahontas?

                    3. No, no, its the new Ferngully.

                    4. No, it’s the new Dune. 😀

                2. Lots of people get off there. I think it’s in New York.

                3. No, it’s where he defeats the Rancor, DUH! How is it not obvious that Jabba IS Plato? These are modern day parables people! Also, Chewbacca drank hemlock.

  3. Yes, but protozoans are well-known to be agents of the devil. You can tell by the unnatural way they reproduce.

    1. That may be true, but this is just more proof that the Intelligent Designer is more intelligent than the scientists who deny Him 😉

  4. The debil can quote scripture science to suit his porpoises

    1. Great quote, Bill, but that’s Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, not any form of religious text. Seems almost a little disingenuous to use a quote without citing the place it appeared first, representing it as if it was from some biblical source.

      1. uh oh, my mistake, didn’t see the sarcastic crossout of scripture to be replaced with science, so my bad on that one. Darn you, lack of delete/edit button! But if you replace scripture with a non-religious word, the whole point of having an analogy makes no sense. Why on earth would the devil, a character from scripture, quote science? While it may fit your ‘porpoises’, your metaphor falls apart there.

    2. Also, what on earth does that have to do with the article in question? The scientists are saying Protozoans prove evolution, not that passages from Scripture prove evolution… Double fail on that one, I’m afraid.

  5. “Thirdly, IDers also argue that the fossil record does not show transitional species, therefore there is no evidence of one species evolving into another. Farmer and Habura explain that the exquisitely detailed fossil record of protists does exhibit just such intermediate forms.”

    That, if valid, certainly explains that link in the evolutionary chain. But it doesn’t explain all of the other links. Just because it happened with protists doesn’t necessarily mean that it happened everywhere else. It is certainly evidence and a really interesting find. But I don’t see how it settles the issue.

    1. Oh my God of the gaps…

      1. You don’t even know what that means. Furhter, it is not logically consistent to say that “X happened here therefore it must have happened everywhere else”. That is not a valid statement. X could have happened is valid. But saying that it must and proves that it happened elsewhere is just bad logic. I am sorry it is like that. If you don’t like it, go live in a different universe with different rules of logic.

        1. John: With due respect, please do click on the link to my purple space squid debate talk.

          1. I read recently where someone found the Dark Matter someplace in the Hubble Constant recently. Anybody else see that?

            1. that was in 1998…you’re a little slow catching this one, I’m afraid.

          2. Give up, Ron. I have given John numerous reading assignments over the years, from academic tomes to more layman-friendly tracts.

            He has yet to read or understand a single one of them.

            Just ignore him.

          3. Don’t feel bad Ron, I listened to your purple space squid talk. It was thoroughly entertaining AND brilliant. I wish I had thought about some of those arguments when I was attending a philosophy seminar about ID. Excellent job.

        2. What happened to my goalposts? They were here a minute ago…

          1. Curse you goal posts. Stop moving!!!!

        3. okay, i’ll use logic on you, prove there is not an invisible pink elephant floating behind you head right now

        4. The burden of proof if on you. We have found evidence that this IS true. Now you go out and prove that it’s not.

        5. @John,
          I think the point is that any absolute claims that “species transitions cannot have happened” or “species transitions did not happen” have an[other?] instance of refuting counter-evidence. (Generally, one counter-example is sufficient to disprove such an absolute assertion.)

          That said, such is clearly not the same as asserting that one case of species transitions having occurred implies that all species must have undergone such transitions. The work here, AFAIK, only refutes assertions that such cannot have occurred.

  6. This will not convince determined ID proponents any more than photos of Earth from space convince flat-earthers.

    1. That’s because they’re hiding the photos of all the turtles…

      1. I was wondering what happened to that old band that old people like. They were erased!

    2. Ever pointed out to a liberal the well-documented and inconveniently persistent differences in average IQ between races? It’s like arguing with a creationist that goes to 11.

      1. To which the sociologists reply “yes, but your statement assumes that IQ is an objective measure of intelligence.” Check your premises.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I….._and_views

        1. To which I reply, read your own fucking sources:

          In response to the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association’s Board of Scientific Affairs established a task force in 1995 to write a consensus statement on the state of intelligence research which could be used by all sides as a basis for discussion. The full text of the report is available through several websites.[31][126]

          In this paper the representatives of the association regret that IQ-related works are frequently written with a view to their political consequences: “research findings were often assessed not so much on their merits or their scientific standing as on their supposed political implications”.

          The task force concluded that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They found that individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics and that both genes and environment, in complex interplay, are essential to the development of intellectual competence.

          They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction. The task force suggests that explanations based on social status and cultural differences are possible, and that environmental factors have raised mean test scores in many populations. Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.

          The APA journal that published the statement, American Psychologist, subsequently published eleven critical responses in January 1997, several of them arguing that the report failed to examine adequately the evidence for partly-genetic explanations.

          1. “The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction. The task force suggests that explanations based on social status and cultural differences are possible, and that environmental factors have raised mean test scores in many populations. Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.”

            The strongest correlation to adult IQ has been found in number of words heard spoken by the ages of 3-5, racist. See the work surrounding the Harlem Children’s Zone, racist.

          2. Nobody cares, dipshit. Go watch FoxNews and hurry and and die, already.

            1. What intrigues me is the need to attach an IQ level to a race (or either sex). I’ve read there is a difference, I’ve read there isn’t. But say for a moment that there is a difference, just as there is certainly a difference between male and female aptitudes for sport. Correlations in a group have limited usefulness when judging individuals. Men may tend to be physically stronger than women, but it would be fairly easy to find a woman who is stronger than a man. Then there’s application: a normal woman who trains will beat a normal couch-potato man. Likewise, a child who has access to a good education and applies itself, will probably end up cleverer than a child of slightly higher IQ who doesn’t receive a good education or who doesn’t apply itself. And most people are of mixed descent anyway. So my first question would be – how useful is it to attach probable IQ to groups?
              Specific cases of IQ seem to make it of dubious value itself – how does James Woods have a higher IQ than Einstein?
              My second question would be – does it do harm? We all know it does. In ‘Irrationality’ by Stuart Sutherland, he discusses a study which showed that the same exam papers received lower marks when bearing a woman’s name, than when bearing a man’s. (pg 21.) So if low IQ was firmly attached to, for example, Irish people, it is likely that the same exam paper would do worse when written by an O’Reilly.
              So, if you have a set of contested facts which are of no use but can cause harm, why pursue them? I’m asking really, not rhetorically.

      2. shhhh, not in public. In public you are supposed to “believe” we are all the same. The only differences between races are things like skin, hair and eye color, average height, build, and relative resistance or immunity from various ailments. But, on the subject of natural intelligence or brain function, we are absolutely exactly the same and it is racist to suggest otherwise or to even have the discussion.

        (Don’t tell anyone, but I think Asians are superior. Especially the womenses)

  7. It’s a sad state of affairs that good scientists have to spend their time disproving the theories of kooks. It would be like car manufacturers repeatedly proving that cars run on gasoline, not unicorns.

    1. Oh piss off. This is good scientific work. And work that needs to be done. EVen assuming that evolution is absolutely true, it is still good science and worth knowing exactly how it works and further refining and expanding our understanding of it. To say otherwise and scream “settled science” is to slip into the relm of religion.

      1. Yes, the more science the better.

        But surely the evidence disproving ID is overwhelming already. You may want to claim that the sky god chose to create life through evolution (and was, as such, more of a prime mover than a constant tinkerer) but the theory of evolution is obviously, generally, true.

      2. This does look like valuable research, in general. But a significant part of the work seems to consist of attacking nonsense. It’s a waste of time, resources, and what could otherwise be more interesting science.

        It would be like going on an expedition to the north pole in search of how magnetic anomalies disprove the existence of Santa Claus.

        1. But a significant part of the work seems to consist of attacking nonsense.

          If the nonsense didn’t exist to be disproved, the work would still be done because it still has value as parts of the whole picture.

          So it’s not really a waste of time. It just gets the bonus value of disproving wonky BS as well.

          Win/Win

          1. But if they didn’t have to disprove nonsense, they would be able to do even more with this work, being free to focus on other scientific issues.

    2. It would be like car manufacturers repeatedly proving that cars run on gasoline, not unicorns.

      Nooooooo… my whole world is falling apart!

    3. Virgin cars still run on unicorns.

      1. So, Virgin Airlines runs on Pegasi?

        1. Now you’re getting it!

      2. (disclaimer: I had to look up the plural of pegasus)

        1. you would’ve looked silly if you used pegasuses

          1. Are their freak human breeders called Pegasusors?

        2. That’s retarded. It’s winged horses, Pegasus is the name of ONE winged horse. Learn some mythology, jerks.

          1. Only in the original Greek myth. Once that myth became well known in English the name became a generic term referring to all winged horses.

            Insisting that something isn’t so doesn’t make you right.

    4. It’s not a waste of time if it fills in gaps in established theory, or refines established theory.

      Not all science needs to be revolutionary.

    5. What about cars that run on hot girl farts? I could pull up to Taco Bell, order a couple double bean burritos and feed them to a hot girl. Then hook up the fartcatcher to her sweet bunghoney and power my car for miles and miles!

  8. Farmer and Habura explain that the exquisitely detailed fossil record of protists does exhibit just such intermediate forms.

    I have one quibble about this. As the “speciation” example above shows, a lot of differences are non-morphological which the fossil record cannot capture.

    And also one big question: Why is the fossil record of eukaryotes so much better than anything else? The vertebrate record, for example, is woefully sparse, and nearly all from bone.

    1. Brandybuck: A huge part of the the difference is that fossilizing trillions of unicellular organisms will more likely preserve transitional forms.

      1. So you are just a denier here too? I think I see where you are coming from. Why do you hide your horns?

    2. The vertebrate record is sparse because Old Nick got tired of faking and burying all the bones to tempt us all into believing in evolution. He went on a bender with Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim instead.

      Best,

      Lazy Jack

      BTW, Rebutting ID theology is a waste of time. Making the factual observations accessible to the layman and part of popular culture would be better suited to the task of widespread education. The problem in this discussion is that the scientific community is too smug and self righteous, ironically, and therefore has such a high opinion of itself it cannot communicate effectively. The whole “we do not suffer fools gladly” attitude should go, or else the factual observations and relevant conclusions about the nature of our world and universe will continue to be impenetrable by us lay people. Just a thought.

      http://www.thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com

    3. It’s really, really, really, REALLY hard to become a fossil.

      Extremely hard.

      1. So why so many good eukaryote fossils? As the vast majority of them have no hard tissues, why do they have such a complete record?

        p.s. No, I am not a “denier”, whatever the fuck that means, I just want to know. You’re still allowed to ask questions in biology class, right? Right?

        1. I’d imagine that it’s because there are several orders of magnitude more of the critters. Some may even enjoy living in conditions conducive to fossilization, in a way that more complex life forms really aren’t.

        2. it’s because there are trillions more eukaryotes to be fossilized, so naturally, there will be more of them fossilized

  9. Counterpoint: The Bible tells us that the earth is only 6000 years old. Your move, science-believers.

    1. [citation needed]

    2. The Red Shift

    3. To be fair, I believe that 6,000 years bit isn’t actually in the Bible, but was the view adopted by some biblical scholars.

      1. +1

      2. It isn’t in The Book of Stuff Made Up by People Who Hate Religion?

        1. You write “…People Who Hate Religion” like it’s… pejorative. Weird.

      3. Err, but the bible does go generation by generation explaining this and that at least to the house of David, no? It even gives the preposterous ages to which some of the earliest characters were supposed to live. Hello Methuselah. It certainly does not include 4.5 billion years of data.

        1. If I were running a Christian church at any time in history, including today, I’d just tear out the Old Testament and go with the new one. Would greatly improve things, I think (no offense to those who use the old one and eschew the new one, of course).

          1. Why do you hate the Jews?

            1. Hey, I preemptively said no offense, and it was a hypothetical, anyway. I don’t run any churches. Not yet, anyway.

              1. The Wholly Church of the Sacrament of Pro Libertate has a nice ring to it.

          2. Hey screw you, the Torah is awesome. I don’t see any flaming-sword-carrying-angels of destruction or epic heroes in Jesus’s New and Improved Book of Ideas That I Stole From the Jews.

            1. How could He steal it from them? He were one. And He didn’t write any of it anyway.

              1. Revelations, my favorite rantings of a fever-addled Roman subject.

  10. This will not convince determined ID proponents any more than photos of Earth from space convince flat-earthers.

    It’s not supposed to. There’s no scientific reason to “dispel the myths of intelligent design,” either.

    I can’t load the page, so I don’t know what it’s really about, but a paper that claims to do that isn’t aiming its claim at either creationists or scientists.

    It’s for you.

    TEAM BLUE SCIENCE!

  11. John – your own ‘not good enough’ argument suggests that you don’t support intelligent design. You say these scientific findings do not adequately support evolution. Fine, but by the same logic, since I.D. has no supporting research whatsoever, can we take it that you are logically more dismissive of I.D.?

    1. I think it is safe to say that the human race has no absolute scientific understanding of its origins and purpose on earth. And I doubt that is going to change anytime soon.

      And the idea of an intelligently created universe goes beyond just evolution. It goes to the existence of the laws of nature itself. We know a few things.

      1. The universe hasn’t always existed.
      2. It came into existence from a singular point how many billion years ago.
      3. It came into existence (or developed shortly after its beginning) with a set of physical laws and constants that are consistent with life as we know it.
      4. There is no physical law or reason requiring these laws and constants to be as they are. That is to say there is reason why this universe or other universe don’t have different laws and constants that are completely incomparable with intelligent life.

      Yet, here we are.

      1. “1. The universe hasn’t always existed.”

        How do we know this?

        1. I think that part is in the Bible 😉

      2. I do not accept 1 & 2. I am a Big Bang denier. Read Tom Van Flander’s work. He has some convincing evidence and logical a priori predictions proven true that bolster his argument. His book was well written and engaging for a physics book.

        Space, the Final Frontier!

        1. The universe “begins” in a singularity, meaning that some hypothetical researcher running a MODEL can theoretically locate it, but if anybody inside the universe (that is to say everybody and everything) tried to travel backwards in time toward the beginning, they could never arrive.

          In other words, if you live inside the universe, it has no beginning. If you live outside the universe (which is illogical and therefore meaningless), you can pinpoint its beginning.

      3. Similarly, a hole in the ground somehow magically conforms exactly to the puddle of water inside it.

        1. Don’t you dare paraphrase Douglas Adams ever again.

          1. I was reading Douglas Adams before you were literate son.

      4. 3. It came into existence (or developed shortly after its beginning) with a set of physical laws and constants that are consistent with life as we know it.

        Which, interestingly, is actually weak evidence against intelligent design. It is unsurprising to find life in a life friendly environment. It is far, far more surprising to find life in a life unfriendly environment. The latter would scream for something beyond just nature, the former does not.

        Really, try a bayesian approach on how to evaluate evidence and its impact on thoeries/hypotheses.

      5. but there is an infinite number of universes, so in some of them, these laws don’t exist

  12. Long ago, no one understood gravity.
    Long ago, no one understood the true nature of the solar system
    Long ago, no one understood E=MC2
    Long ago, no one understood what caused desease.

    Is it really that fantastic (or stupid)to assert that at the present moment, there is an unkown force (not a bearded man in the clouds but an unknown force) that impacts design’s/evolution’s direction?

    1. Don’t tell God what he can do.

      1. I don’t mind

      2. huh?

    2. Yes, it’s fantastic to believe that something with enough intelligence to direct evolution would do so in such a pointless and inefficient way. But that could be another layer to his cleverness. He’s amazingly managed to direct the history of life in precisely the way it would have happened without any direction whatsoever. Man, that’s one smart retarded blind monkey.

      1. I was thinking along the lines of gravity not some “He”, which is why a wrote “(not a bearded man in the clouds but an unknown force)”.

        Go learn to fucking read you idiot.

        1. What’s the difference? Besides the beard, I mean.

        2. There is no gravity. Only “Intelligent Falling”. Matter is attracted to other matter because God is pushing it together.

      2. Ever play The Sims?

  13. Oh my God of the gaps…

    I don’t even know if “God of the gaps” explains it anymore. It’s more like a weird form of solipsism: “If I personally cannot grasp an intellectual concept, then surely nobody can! So it must be that God did it.”

    To make a personal example: I don’t truly, in my gut, “get” chemistry. Oxygen is required for fire to exist, and once oxygen is present hydrogen is one of the most flammable gases out there, yet put oxygen and hydrogen together in the right proportion and you have water, which not ONLY does not burn but in sufficient quantities ensures nothing else can burn either. I don’t fully grasp how this works; I just have some vague idea it has to do with electrons from different atoms hooking up and changing their chemical properties somehow.

    I remember first wondering about this when I was around seven. But even as a small child with a child’s natural self-centeredness, I never thought the answer to my lack of understanding was “Oh, God wants to make sure people can put out fires if they have to, so he decided two fiery substances come together to form the opposite of fire.”

    1. “I don’t even know if “God of the gaps” explains it anymore. It’s more like a weird form of solipsism: “If I personally cannot grasp an intellectual concept, then surely nobody can! So it must be that God did it.”

      That is not what it means at all. If you are going to smugly dismiss an argument, at least understand what it means. What it means is that there are laws and conditions of the universe that defy physical or scientific explanation. They just are. And more importantly, they just are in a way that is compatible with intelligent life. This despite the fact that there is no reason why they can’t be different than what they are.

      1. But then if they were different then there wouldn’t be any intelligent life to worry about them in the first place. 🙂

        1. I don’t know why John asserts that some other physical laws couldn’t support intelligent life. Maybe they could, maybe they do. Maybe they don’t.

          The intelligent life just wouldn’t be us.

        2. “And more importantly, they just are in a way that is compatible with intelligent life. This despite the fact that there is no reason why they can’t be different than what they are.”

          Really, if the rules were different, life would simply have evolved differently, rather than not at all. You’re confusing cause and effect in pretty much every argument you’ve made so far, which seems to be a staple of ID arguments.

          After all, the environment was not always as it is now. As it changed, creatures adapted to the environment as it was either died out, or adapted (see evolved) where they were able through mutations that “stuck”. We just happen to be adapted to the current environment, and since it’s in a constant state of flux, I wonder whether we’ll be able to stick around once it changes significantly from what we’ve been used to these past howevermany years?

      2. Looking at the universe as a whole, you cannot but conclude that it is extremely hostile to life, intelligent or otherwise.

        The rules of chemistry do happen to be so that emergent complexity is possible, and this makes life possible. The universe wouldn’t exist without this feature anyway.

        1. The rules of chemistry do happen to be so that emergent complexity is possible, and this makes life possible. The universe wouldn’t exist without this feature anyway.

          I have it from a good source that the Universe could not function without government.

          1. please cite this source

      3. And you completely missed the point. Before Einstein came along nobody knew what created the field of mutual attraction called gravity. It was known to exist – Sir Isaac Newton even made some equations and measurements about it.

        DNA was known about long before anyone knew what it did. And people knew about genetics and how heritage passed on different traits before DNA was known about.

        In other words, you say “we can’t explain X,Y and Z therefore it is proof of God”. Such a claim totally ignores the fact that just because something is not explainable *NOW* doesn’t mean it won’t be explainable in the *FUTURE*.

        Or are you going to try and claim that there is a limit to what can be discovered about how the universe works ?

    2. Jennifer,

      When you put them together you get electricity (see manned space fuel cells) and water if you are really careful. Otherwise you get Hydrogen Peroxide (and electricity).

      The fast way to get water from Hydrogen and Oxygen is to burn them. The fire goes out when you run out of Oxygen.

      1. And as for water quenching fire:

        The water molecules collide with the fuel/fire particles, absorbing their kinetic energy (AKA heat). The water turns to steam and carries the heat away.

        Eventually enough heat is carried away that the fuel is below ignition temperature, and the self-sustaining chain reaction we know as fire is no longer possible without a external source of heat (match, lighter, sun through a magnifier, etc).

        1. Water can also smother the fire, removing the Oxygen source from the fuel. Like paper covers rock?

          1. Fire is the work of Stan!

            1. Er, Satan, not Stan.

              1. I think he goes by that one too.

    3. I HAVE seen water burn. Just takes the right conditions

  14. The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology has just published a very nice paper showing how the details of protist evolution “dispel the myths of intelligent design.”

    You don’t need to prove the myth of intelligent-design. The whole concept begs the question:

    “Oh, lookie here! This certainly looks designed!”

    “Uh, compared to what?”

    Just because something looks designed, it does not mean it is designed. If you assume a certain protozoa has features that look designed, it would mean that you *KNOW* other things you are comparing it with are NOT designed [not suspect, not assume, but KNOW] – how can you *KNOW* such a thing?

    If EVERYTHING in the Universe was designed, then you could not notice the difference at all, and if nothing was designed, then looking for a difference would be futile. Intelligent-design is, unfortunately, not very intelligent.

    1. For about the millionth time, people, read Personal Knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy by Michael Polanyi ( a close friend of Friedrich Hayek). He devotes an entire chapter to “on knowing”.

      The book:

      http://www.amazon.com/Personal…..amp;sr=8-2

      Polanyi and Hayek:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

      1. In his 1951 collection of essays, The Logic of Liberty, Polanyi noted that scientists cooperate with each other in a way similar to the way in which agents coordinate themselves within a free market. Without central direction, consumers determine the value of products: buyers validate products by seeking to purchase them. Scientists validate the best theories by confirming and endorsing them as true.

        1. The legal community is a dedicated community committed to the pursuit of justice. He argued that because ends such as truth and justice transcend our ability to wholly articulate them, a free society which seeks to give specialist communities the freedom to pursue these ends is desirable. Scientists, like entrepreneurs, require the freedom to pursue discoveries and react to the claims made by their peers. He urged societies to allow scientists to pursue truth for its own sake:

          1. And apparently he had no understanding of human nature or how lawyers and scientists are just a careerist and nasty as anyone.

            1. He actually does address that.

              1. Ok, fun’s over – what was the relevance of all of this? You replied to my post, and now I am getting migraine . . .

      2. Re: Enough About Palin,

        And the relevance is . . .

        1. He devotes an entire chapter to “on knowing”. You were dicussing “knowing”

          1. Re: EAP,

            And . . . what? So he discusses knowing . . . and?

  15. Just wondering – is it any more fantastic to assert that with more than 4 billion years to accomplish it, life has evolved to where we are today? Is it less fantastic to believe that than some ‘unknown force’, when we have real evidence of the former?

    Just askin’

    1. Re: Sammyo,

      Just wondering – is it any more fantastic to assert that with more than 4 billion years to accomplish it, life has evolved to where we are today?

      No more fantastic than with 2000 years through rational decisions and exchanges [of ideas], computers have evolved to what they are today – they’re all HERE (species and computers), aren’t they?

    2. No, because the mechanisms underlying the 8 billion years of change are understood and can be experimentally proven.

  16. “two fiery substances come together to form the opposite of fire.”

    I am reminded of my courtship, marriage and divorce.

  17. Speaking of evolution, I’m reading Lee Smolin’s The Trouble with Physics (in between reading through all of the Poirot books), and he mentioned an interesting theory that suggests that fermions and bosons (and other things, I suppose) may actually change in character over time. Possibly through a form of evolution comparable to the biological one. Whoa.

    1. There are a lot of Whoas out there. We just don’t live in a mechanical universe. Nature doesn’t have gears and reveal herself in ways we can understand.

      1. Well, sure. I don’t expect we’ll ever achieve anything remotely close to perfect understanding of the universe. But we know a lot and can know a whole lot more.

        1. We can describe it and predict it. But, ceased to be able to “understand it” in the ordinary sense of the term, a long time ago.

          1. Stop projecting your own ignorance onto the scientific community.

            1. Actually, John makes a valid statement from an epistemological standpoint.

    2. The Trouble with Physics is so freaking good that it got me interested in physics again a decade after I dropped out of grad school.

      1. I am having a similar reaction. I’m in the part where he says how cool string theory is. Of course, he keeps foreshadowing how he’s going to take it to pieces.

        Wish he’d write more. For common folk, I mean.

  18. By the way, origins and purposes are one thing, mechanisms for change another. I think the science is pretty firm on evolution, with details still under review.

    Creationists are screwed, anyway, so long as they cling to Young Earth precepts. That’s complete nonsense from any number of scientific perspectives, not just the evolutionary biology one.

    1. I don’t think anyone seriously clings to the “young earth” precepts. There seems to be this false dichotomy between being a scientific atheist and believing the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

      1. I disagree. It’s a long story, but my oldest son went to a Baptist school for a year. They were definitely teaching Young Earth theory as well as Creationism.

        When he first started, his science teacher asked the class to identify their views on evolution. They had a number of options, and my son opted for “theistic evolutionist.” Which means what it sounds like–he believes in God but also accepts evolution as established science. You’d think that’ve been okay with the teacher, but no, she told him, “That’s nice, but I hope you’ll keep an open mind.”

        I don’t push hard on matters of religion, but the one thing I didn’t allow to go unchallenged were the church school’s attacks on established science.

      2. John: You might enjoy my award winning columns on my stint at “Creation Summer Camp” held at Liberty University. Young earthers all the way.

      3. Where do you live? Young earthers are everywhere…. I find that a huge percentage of people I meet are at least ignorant of science if not hostile to it. Most believe in the sky god and think little about evolution.

        1. There’s the Creation Museum right up the road from Louisville. Those people are dead serious.

          1. Really, I think distaste for the idea of the universe being billions of years old (at least) and for being descended from lower orders of animal life is at the core of Creationism. More so than even religion, because, after all, you can be a hardcore theist and accept an ancient universe, evolution, string theory, what have you. Well, maybe not string theory.

            1. True, Pro Lib. I think a lot of ID proponents are amateur philosophers with an interest in metaphysics. But I feel some of them are bad at or ignorant of philosophy *and* science and that doesn’t help their case and also probably peeves those with higher scholarly acumen.
              People have come to some functioning syncretic conclusions, so theism and modern evolutionary science need not be at odds.

            2. So true. My father would tell me often before he died that “I didn’t come from no damn monkey”, which meant to him and many others like him that evolution was bunk just because of that thought. That is at the heart of ID imo.

  19. Nothing in 21st century biology makes sense without including evolution.

    I’m so tired of this argument, I’ve given up. IDers, have a ball wallowing in your own willful ignorance. Teach your home schooled child any old bullshit you wish, I’m done trying to convince you.

  20. That is not what [God of the gaps] means at all. If you are going to smugly dismiss an argument, at least understand what it means. What it means is that there are laws and conditions of the universe that defy physical or scientific explanation.

    Before the discovery of nuclear energy, the sun was considered proof of God’s existence: whatever flammable substance the sun is made of, it would’ve burned out in only a few hundred years. But the sun is still burning, so it MUST be God doing it! Until scientists discovered nuclear physics and could come up with a purely naturalistic explanation for how the sun could still be shining after all this time. So I stand by what I said before: “I don’t or can’t understand this, so it must be that God is responsible.”

    1. anecdotal at best.

    2. Calculations of the Sun being fueled by coal proved long before that that it was something else besides a normal combustible.

      1. And before the discovery of nuclear energy, many people insisted that “something else” was the shining light of God’s love. Can’t explain it? God did it. Or maybe a wizard did it.

      2. Are you positing some sort of super coal?

        1. Yes. I will call it Hydrogen. Now to file for the patent, copyright, trade mark and pretend there was no prior art 😉

    3. You totally miss the point Jennifer. There is no explaining why something like the gravitational constant is the value that it is. It just is. It doesn’t have to be that value. Physicists have made careers doing mathematical models of alternative universes that have all sorts of different constants and laws from our own. It is not as if some day we will develop some understanding of why the constants are what they are. We won’t. They just are.

      1. The conditions of our universe may not be the same in other universes. That we have not experienced those other universes does not mean that they do not exist. There may well be a “John” in one of those other universes making the same claim as you in this one ignorant that each of you think that some higher power chose each of those variables independently.

        More than one higher power? The same one in different universes making different decisions about conditions? Or could it be that when universes are formed — possibly out of other universes — they do so with the rules of the former or maybe new rules of their own….. Or perhaps they recover from a previous collapse with the same or new conditions intact. No need for a god to do such.

      2. We won’t. They just are.

        Well, until we understand multiverse physics. Then, yeah, we’ll have a good picture of exactly how our universe formed out of a sea of dimension, and how the values of constants assumed their quantities in the process.

        Will it happen tomorrow? 10 Years? Nah. It might take a couple thousand years.

        In Summary: Yes, we will.

        1. It doesn’t make any difference, wylie, you’re not grasping John’s argument. Even if you learn more and understand a multiverse, there will be some underlying law(s) that governs that multiverse (for instance, there will be a law explaining how one universe branches off from another). At that point, your in the same trap as before. How do you explain where THOSE laws came from? And if you do, there will be laws that explain those laws, which will need to be explained. Repeat ad infinum.

          At some point, it becomes clear that LAWFULLNESS ITSELF is necessarily unexplainable using the scientific method.

          Ergo, God of the gaps.

      3. I find your lack of curiousity disturbing.

      4. John, while you are correct that many of these constants seem to be ‘just ideal’ for us to be around and engage in these debates, the fundamental(ist) difference between you and science seems to be a willingness to simply accept that God did it, rather than the application of a, heh, guiding intellect to the problem of actually figuring out why these constants hold, and not others.

        The scientific opinion is exactly NOT, “They just are”.

  21. Science isn’t ruling out God. It’s just explaining what we can perceive. I’ve never understood why this has to be a conflict.

    1. I blame the joos. 😉

    2. It rules out a religious god, because a religious god would be personally intervening in the world, frequently suspending/interfering with causal laws. If everything about the world can be understood as the operation of causal laws, then the concept of a religious/personal god doesn’t give us any purchase on our understanding of the world.

      1. Ok, so a personal god is out. How about an awesome god? He doesn’t have to suspend the law of gravity to be awesome, right?

        1. And remember, my god is the awesomest God

      2. “It rules out a religious god, because a religious god would be personally intervening in the world”

        Like in Haiti.

      3. It doesn’t nothing of the sort. If God intervened in the rules of the universe, there is nothing to say he would leave any trace for us to find. All we can find is the laws that we can observe. I don’t see how we would ever find evidence of God breaking those laws at some point in the past or even now. If God is performing a miracle right now somewhere on earth and breaking all the laws of physics, the laws of physics still apply to me sitting here.

        But we have no evidence of miricles you say? Well, we have thousands of years of testimony about such. And since a miracle, by its very definition, bends the rules of nature, we will never have “scientific proof” of such because, not being God, such experiences and events cannot be recreated.

        1. But we have no evidence of miricles you say? Well, we have thousands of years of testimony about such.

          Do you believe Europeans of the early Renaissance era were under supernatural assault by witches who made pacts with Satan? We have lots of testimony saying they were.

          1. I would tell you that it is unlikely, but since I wasn’t there, I really don’t know. And neither do you. All I, or anyone can say for certain, is that such experiences are beyond and inconsistent with my observations and experiences in the universe. Are they unlikely to be true? Certainly. Can I say with logical certitude that they are untrue? No.

              1. I’m telling you guys, give up. Talking to John will only make you nauseous from the dizzying ignorance.

          2. They were confusing that with the Moors, or Moops, or something. Understandable mistake, really.

        2. If God intervened in the rules of the universe, there is nothing to say he would leave any trace for us to find. All we can find is the laws that we can observe.

          So there can never be persuasive evidence of a supernatural intervention… that’s fair. That’s what Hume argued. But if there can never be evidence for X, then it seems we can never be justified in asserting the truth of X. For instance, if the divine resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead can never be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, then it wouldn’t be rational to believe that it happened.

          1. Why is it rational to believe only those things for which we have empirical evidence? Certainly, it is rational to disbelieve those things for which we have proof of non-existence. But, I don’t see why it is by definition irrational to believe in things for which there is no proof either way.

            1. Re: John,

              But, I don’t see why it is by definition irrational to believe in things for which there is no proof either way.

              It’s not irrational, just pointless.

              1. Pointless as opposed to what? Smelling your own farts? Amazes me how angry and bitter atheists are. I would really hate to be one. And I feel bad for those who are.

                1. I am not angry, nor bitter. In fact I am full of cheer and love and hope. And I fear not a hell and know that I must live this life to the fullest. I take great joy in learning all that can be learned and dismissing as false things for which there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary….

                  All that, and quite a bit more, and Sundays free to do with as I please.

                  I find, in general, that people of faith suffer much greater ills than Atheists do — if not solely from their preoccupations with slights against their sky god.

                2. Re: John,

                  Pointless as opposed to what? Smelling your own farts?

                  Well, I am a little rusty when it comes to the old tradition of smelling your own farts, but I can certainly smell mine – however, it is not something I actively seek to do.

                  Amazes me how angry and bitter atheists are. I would really hate to be one. And I feel bad for those who are.

                  Man, the atheists that live next to you must be the worst fuddy duddies there can be! I would certainly feel that way.

                  Instead, I am quite easy going and nonchalant – I just don’t believe, that’s all.

                3. John, it is completely irrational to state that something is true when there is no proof that it is true, just as it is irrational to say that something is false when there is no proof of falsehood. This is the agnostic position.

              2. I don’t see why it is by definition irrational to believe in things for which there is no proof either way.

                Proposition: “When George W. Bush was president he regularly amused himself by murdering hookers the Secret Service brought to the White House.” There is absolutely no evidence he did such a thing — but since you can’t prove a negative, there’s no evidence he did not, either. So I take it you would NOT consider a person irrational for believing Bush went on an eight-year hooker-killing rampage?

                1. Wow, really? Wait till I tell the Times about this one!

                  1. I’m not saying he did, and I’m not saying he didn’t. I’m just saying there’s no proof either way, so by John’s calculations it is not irrational to believe that George W. Bush spent eight years amusing himself by murdering hookers and transients Secret Servicemen brought to the White House for that specific purpose.

                    1. And did he then masturbate over the corpses and scream out his daughters’ names at the moment of orgasm? There’s no proof either way, so it would not be irrational to believe that yes, in fact, he did. Oooh, naughty naughty president.

                    2. Slow down, slow down! I’m taking notes. Man, a Pulitzer for sure. And I’m not even a journalist!

                    3. Is John the secret gay lover of Barack Obama, or is he NOT the secret gay lover of Barack Obama? There’s no proof either way; ergo, it would not be irrational for anyone to believe that yes, John is Barack Obama’s secret gay lover. And John is the “bottom” partner.

                    4. Ugh. Maybe I’m not the person to report this story.

                    5. Whether you report it or not is immaterial, dear; the point is it would NOT be irrational for you to believe it. As John said, it’s not irrational to believe things for which there is no proof either way.

                    6. You’re not talking about truth at this point, you’re talking about having a reason for your behavior. Because there is little evidence that GWB killed hookers, you will not think/act as if he did. It’s a cost/benefit analysis.

                      That’s fine, but this line of thinking runs into Pascal’s Wager.

                    7. Bear in mind, KPres: I don’t believe Bush killed any hookers or transients in the White House, and I would say “Anyone who DOES believe Bush killed hookers, despite the complete absence of evidence for this, is irrational.”

                      But John apparently does not agree that such people are “irrational”; as he said, “I don’t see why it is by definition irrational to believe in things for which there is no proof either way.”

                      So I would, in fact, like to know if John would consider belief in Bush’s hooker-murder spree to be irrational. There is no proof either way.

            2. READ POLANYI PEOPLE. One of the things he discusses is Tacit Knowledge.

              1. I don’t know why Jennifer continues to cover up the Bush-murdered-hookers story. They must’ve gotten to her. They who, er, get to people.

    3. Right On! I agree with you. And reason for why it is a conflict? Because that is human nature I guess…

  22. God actually created the universe and Earth, but he did it in such a way that we are meant to believe that evolution got us to where we are. ID is actually completely off because it is impossible to find cracks in god’s creation…because god is omnipotent. So any claimed cracks in evolution are actually attacks on ID and god itself.

    1. That is pretty good. But that piece of sophistry does make a good point; science no matter how well done, will never rule out existence of God.

      1. Of course not; it’s impossible to prove a negative.

        1. Atheist that I am, I have no beef with John’s statement.

          1. I’m not qualified to navigate the Reply To This indentations.

          2. “Atheist that I am, I have no beef with John’s statement.”

            Then you’re not an Athiest, you’re Agnostic.

            1. I am an atheist by belief, as in I believe that there is no God. As a scientist, however, I must concede that I am agnostic.

              1. I’m with Heller on this one- belief and conceptual thought are two very different animals, though one may indeed influence the other.

                A good analogous explanation would be to associate belief with subconscious perception, and thought with the conscious.
                Consciously I have to be open minded to any plausible concept, but my subconscious forms and reforms individual rationalisations every time it receives information, even if said information contradicts my conscious mind’s notions of plausibility.

                As the definition of atheism is based upon belief as opposed to thought- I am an atheist.. but with agnostic ideas.

              2. Just a quick comment, this always bugs me. I am aware of the corruption in common usage, but being agnostic means that you believe a god is unknowable. It makes no claims on the status of your belief in a god. There are many agnostics who believe in a god’s existence. Rather, the term I believe you’re looking for would be weak atheist or negative atheist.

            2. Of course I’m an atheist, I’m just not an arrogant one. I take the position that deities do not exist, but recognize that proving or disproving a metaphysical god may be impossible.

      2. I am an atheist the same way I’m an a-unicornist.

        1. Then what is your explanation for the existence of the universe? It seems to e that saying “it is just here” is no more a rational or a scientific explanation than saying “God created it”.

          1. Re: John,

            Then what is your explanation for the existence of the universe?

            It was given to me as a birthday present!

          2. “Then what is your explanation for the existence of the universe? It seems to e that saying “it is just here” is no more a rational or a scientific explanation than saying “God created it”.

            I don’t think atheists are saying “it is just there” as opposed to “god created it”. I think we’re saying “we’re trying to figure it out” as opposed to “god created it”.

          3. There are a great number of scientific explanations of how the Universe might have come into being and no religious ones that do so with any science to lend them credence.

            I am in the camp that time is an illusion of perception and that all temporal states that we perceive “exist” in a higher dimension. And that this universe is but one of many. This universe is consistent due to the logical conclusion of quantum mechanics: that change is made consistent by the “final observer” and that temporal observations flow in both directions.

            The laws are what they are because they have to be for this universe to hold. But that is not to say the same for other universes.

            This is all based on theory, of course. You would call it faith, but faith alone would never have opened the human mind to the possibility of these things being the true nature of our reality. I’ll call it scientific theory.

          4. John: We’re doing biology today; maybe we’ll do cosmology tomorrow. So we’re not talking about the origin of the universe right now, only about the Origin of Species.

          5. “Then what is your explanation for the existence of the universe?”

            I don’t know. I think that’s the right answer. I don’t even have a belief about the origins of the universe… maybe if you too became comfortable with your ignorance, you’d have a more reasonable philosophy.

          6. “Then what is your explanation for the existence of the universe? It seems to e that saying “it is just here” is no more a rational or a scientific explanation than saying “God created it”.”

            Blind chance, John, is currently the only scientific explanation we possess. A supernatural explanation cannot be scientific. It is unfalsifiable, untestable, and baseless. I hope you read the paper I sent you for the answers to these questions.

            1. Also, there is nothing wrong with the idea that the matter and energy within the universe has always existed.

              1. @ Heller: Are you one of my personalities on the loose again?

                Once again I agree with Heller:
                The question which I have posed (unanswered, I might add) when asked by theists as to how I think the universe was created is quite simply- why does it have to have a beginning?

                It seems somewhat (unintentionally, perhaps) hypocritical to me that a theist can readily accept the infinite nature of a divine presence- of which there is only conceptual evidence- and yet they cannot grasp the concept of an infinite universe, one which is both tangible and perceptible.

                At the end of the day I wouldn’t dismiss the theory of a single point of universal creation- though I believe otherwise. Equally I would expect people not to dismiss any theories to the contrary.

          7. I don’t know. Can I give you my theory on the Whedonverse instead?

          8. As far as I can tell, John, you’re the only one here who’s pushing the “it is just here” line.

            Everyone else is trying to make the point that one of the things that science is about is finding exactly the kinds of explanations you complain are missing.

          9. Then what is your explanation for the existence of the universe?

            John, a better question is: What is your explanation for the existence of God?

        2. Unicorns must exist. I saw a photo of Obama riding one.

          1. I’m pretty sure that was missionary. Maybe there are two photos?

            1. No, he was riding it from behind. Not missionary position, but he was on top.

          2. I was going to use that joke, but I was very late to the party.

            1. It’s never too late for a unicorn party!

      3. But there is no proof for God’s existence either, so it cannot be considered a rational explanation.

      4. “science no matter how well done, will never rule out existence of God.”

        Wow. Totally didn’t know this was what science was supposed to do.

  23. To say otherwise and scream “settled science” is to slip into the relm of religion.

    Ummmm…

  24. Given that the Discovery Institute tends to have difficulty finding actual scientists to debate against, because scientists realize it is simply a PR quest for legitimacy, perhaps they should consider asking our Protozoan-Americans if they’d like to debate.

  25. “If the symbotically dependent amoebae subsequently tried to interbreed with the parent stock, the parent stock died of the bacterial infection.”

    But they can breed. Using the term “interbreed” is biased language.

    1. I was given to understand that amoebae reproduce by means of mitosis and cytokinesis – ie., asexually. In other words, they do not breed with each other.

  26. I read through this entire thread. Well, I just knew about it instantly by listening to all of your thoughts. I digress (not really). I am disappointed none of you ungrateful bastards discussed the irony of my designing a world for you to burn up with your thirst for Al Qaeda oil!

    1. So, we’re actually just all one big game of Age of Empires? :-O

  27. The link to the original article from the Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology seems to be broken. Here is the actual link to the abstract which has links to the freely downloadable full text:

    http://www3.interscience.wiley…..0/abstract

    Just an FYI.

  28. Brandybuck|1.21.10 @ 2:38PM|#
    Farmer and Habura explain that the exquisitely detailed fossil record of protists does exhibit just such intermediate forms.
    I have one quibble about this. As the “speciation” example above shows, a lot of differences are non-morphological which the fossil record cannot capture.

    And also one big question: Why is the fossil record of eukaryotes so much better than anything else? The vertebrate record, for example, is woefully sparse, and nearly all from bone.

    You realize that vertebrates ARE eukaryotes, right? All organisms except “bacteria” and “archaeans” are eukaryotes: animals, plants, fungi, algae, protozoa. Bacteria and archaeans are prokaryotes.

    1. I think she meant “protista”.

  29. John|1.21.10 @ 2:24PM|#
    .
    .
    .
    But is “genetic isolation” the same thing as speciation?

    Obviously the answer to your question is yes, or they wouldn’t point to it as evidence. Understand?

    see: Biological Species Concept

  30. John, I have emailed you an essay about the fallacies of the fine tuning argument within ID a while ago. I hope you enjoy it.

  31. John 1.21.10 @ 2:24pm “Suppose I get infect with HIV (some horrific STD that kills anyone I have sex with before gestation), but have some genetic mutation that renders me and a few other people in the world immune.”

    CCR5-Delta 32 Genetic Mutation: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..234239.htm

  32. The largest problem I have with all Religious arguments involving Evolution is simply that they declare we must believe in the fact that God did this or that. Why not God could have done this or that? I would be happy to leave it at that. Don’t tell me that God had to have guided evolution and I’ll be happy to leave you believing that he might have.

  33. @John

    I think you can acknowledge that humans by nature are fallible. This being said have you now thought about the fact that the words of others are then wrong or misguided. Not to as well mention that the bible has 40+ authors so you can’t say that all of them had the right idea.

    It just makes you question what you truly believe in and if you cannot accept that fact, that man is fallible then you truly are living in a blind world.

  34. @John

    I think you can acknowledge that humans by nature are fallible. This being said have you now thought about the fact that the words of others are then wrong or misguided. Not to as well mention that the bible has 40+ authors so you can’t say that all of them had the right idea.

    It just makes you question what you truly believe in and if you cannot accept that fact, that man is fallible then you truly are living in a blind world.

  35. There are plenty of folks who would agree an assertion that “Evolution is one of the creative hands of God.” And the more scientific facts we are shown about the evolution of life and the universe, facts which we eagerly embrace, the more we are also in awe of the infinitely creative side of nature.

    The proponents of “Intelligent Design” as some kind of scientific theory who are making a mockery only of themselves. However, atheists who handily disprove the ignorant tenets of ID’ers are not simultaneously disproving the existence of God.

    For example, I am gratified to hear that God is creating new species today. I had assumed all along that He was likely doing this. I never assumed God was dead or asleep, as ID’ers paradoxically seem to.

  36. ID is not science it is faith, therefore it cannot be either proven or disproven with science. Even given that evolution happened, and even if scientists discover how to replicate evolution and begin turning reptiles into birds, it is still possible that the origin of life came about through the desires of a conscious entity or entities.

    Whoever wrote this article is severely lacking in critical thinking skills. Its people like this that give ammo to all the wackjob creationists who believe the Earth was created in six days.

    Does any intelligent person care that you disproved the six-day creationist theory? Whoop dee doo, that’s almost as big a deal as confirming that Newton’s law of gravitation works.

    This article is about refuting creationism, not Intelligent Design.

    Granted, there are creationists who hide behind the ID label but there are some questions science cannot answer. If science could answer everything, our scientific society wouldn’t be pouring toxins into the environment unlike any traditional society. There has to be a way that science can embrace both those who choose to believe that there is no consciousness higher than humans and those who do believe in such an entity. Those who claim science has disproved such theories are the ones most responsible for the resistance science has often met. You’re not going to convince people that evolution shows there is no sort of higher intelligence out there. And yes, that is what most so-called “freethinkers” are claiming. If you don’t want that perception, you need to define your terms better.

  37. Perhaps I’m missing the context of the paper’s “dispel the myths of intelligent design” statement, but…

    Question:
    Is there some distinction between
    (1) dispelling/disproving Intelligent Design, and
    (2) dispelling/disproving claims made about Evolutionary Theory by some supporters of Intelligent Design?

    The work done here would seem to imply some accomplishment toward the second, but it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that that also achieves the first (which would seem a much more difficult task).

    Disclaimer: This is not to make any statements about Evolutionary Theory or Intelligent Design themselves, but just about what this specific (and very interesting) scientific work actually implies/achieves in this context.

  38. 1. Science may or may not be able to explain everything. So far it has an impeccable track record.
    2. Science currently doesn’t explain everything. That is why scientists can still find employment.
    3. One of the things that science does incontrovertibly, from many angles, explain is speciation. Evolution is a fact as solid as gravitation.
    4. There may well be valid, true, scientific theories and explanations that are beyond human comprehension. If Ray Kurzweil is right computers will be cranking them out a few short years from now. That will not make computers Gods. Or maybe it will, depending on who wrote your dictionary.

  39. In this article the term “intelligent design” is confused with “creationist”.

    Creationists deny evolution.

    Intelligent design believers merely believe that there is some willful force that is responsible for the observable processes.

    As biology continues to dig an atheist hole for itself – systematically silencing any dissent from the “consensus” – quantum physics comes closer and closer to the determination of a willful mind behind the very structure of the universe, and that it is this willful force that keeps matter (which constantly flits in and out of existence) in an apparently cohesive state.

    This web site calls itself “reason”.

    Unfortunately, starting out anything by describing anything as “very nice” is not, in fact, reason, but mere opinion. The article’s author is clearly in cohoots with the maintainers of the “consensus” – who apparently are on a “jihad” against any contra-atheist belief.

    Maybe this web site should be called “opinion.com”… or “jihad-against-anyone-who-believes-something-different-than-‘us’.com”.

    I find this to be elitist, closed-minded noninquisitive nonsense.

    Not a believer in a divine personality necessarily, but I’m not apt to reject the possibility based on a white swan.

  40. 5. Evolution does not fall into that category. Anybody can understand it if they want to.

  41. @Protozoan

    While, yes, science has an “impeccible” track record, every major scientific discovery has come at the expense of the well-entrenched consensus.

    Unfortunately, the consensus has become so well-funded and so well-entrenched that science is no better off today than it was with the Catholic Church in Galileo’s time.

    It is no longer about breakthroughs and inquisitiveness. It is merely about keeping the grant money flowing in by preserving the conventional wisdom.

    Scientists, for all of their use of deductive reasoning and empirical analysis, for some reason are great deniers of any possibility of moral hazard – an a priori truth that is blantantly obvious to anyone of intelligence observing the community from the outside.

  42. This does not disprove ID. To me, it simply means that God hates protozoans.

  43. John has made a clear point that this research may have little impact on the beliefs of believers.

    Allow me to take this opportunity to interject the views of another, underrepresented religion– Buddhism. It goes something like this:

    If you wish to free yourself from the sufferings of birth and death you have endured since time without beginning and to attain without fail unsurpassed enlightenment in this lifetime, you must perceive the mystic truth that is originally inherent in all living beings.
    http://www.sgilibrary.org/view…..amp;q=time without beginning

    While Buddhist theory does suggest that a universe may be created and destroyed, I don’t completely agree with this.

    Some comments above have touched on my “Finite Transmutative Universe” theory. This is in opposition to the Big Bang theory, which I don’t consider to be true, but it is still a valid theory.

    The basic idea, is that there is only one universe. I don’t think there can be more than one universe. For, if we were able to detect a different presence of what we call our universe, since we could perceive it, it would not be outside of our universe and as such our universe simply expands instead of ending.

    The perceived expansion of our universe may be offset by invisible forces (black holes). This is the crux of my theory. I’m an amateur cosmologist, but any enlightenment on this possibility will be considered.

    Sorry for the digression, but the theory has evolved as a result of my exposure to this Buddhist concept– How can time without beginning be reconciled?

    It seems as some previous posters may agree that time depends on life for its perception (of time). Can we find truth in the reverse relationship? Does the existence of time depend on the perception of life? It sure could be.

    So, if time and life are interdependent and inseparable, if time is without beginning, wouldn’t that also suggest that life is without beginning, also? That life itself is eternal? Evolving?

    Thank you for considering this. I find it frustrating when Christians act like they’re religion is the only one with ideas. I wholeheartedly push for the presentation of this Buddhist view of creation in opposition to Intelligent Design. It is certainly a mistake to consider ID a scientifically worthy conversation.

  44. Impeccable. Actually, I intended to say “impressive.”

  45. Is it just me, or does the title of this article indirectly claim that a discovery DISPROVES something??? The point of science is to study observable phenomenon, right? To “disprove” the “myth of intelligent design” is taking on quite more than this article can chew, and the arrogance of it all puts a bad taste in my mouth. I would never pick out an article about a divinity and say it disproves science. Science and intelligent design can’t refute each other if they’re in a total different spectrum- they seem to coexist quite nicely, really. Every time I look at this title, in all of it’s arrogant glory, I throw up in my mouth a little.

    Have to say, I’ve throughly enjoyed reading through the comments, though. [Minus, perhaps, Jennifer’s unnecessarily crude comparison of unsubstantial rumors about a political figure somehow being likened to a feasible (I think more than BELIEVABLE) idea of intelligent design.

    As stated by others before me in this discussion board, we can’t be arrogant enough to have all the answers on our own. I don’t know everything. Nor do I claim to. Furthermore, I don’t harbor bitter feelings towards those who disagree with me. I admire those with an open mind. I try to have an open mind- throughout history, humanity has struggled with this. I think it’s humanity’s downfall. But I digress..

    I just have to make one plea on behalf of my fellow believers….
    “I find it frustrating when Christians act like they’re religion is the only one with ideas.”
    I know what you’re saying. I am a Christian (I believe there is one God and Jesus was God in human form… I don’t love religion. I love what I believe I’ve found to be the truth.), and I hate the arrogance of so many religious persons who call themselves “Christian”, as much as anyone- probably MORE! (Note: I don’t hate the person. I hate the action. There’s a huge difference- and although it’s probably obvious, I don’t want my words to be misconstrued.) But, I fail to understand why, although we all understand it to be ignorant to make a generalization about an entire race, nationality, sex, political party, etc. it seems to be generally acceptable to make distasteful claims about all followers of Jesus..? Say what you may about about the ideas, but I think it pertinent to be wary of issuing statements towards an entirety of people. Are there self-seeking, hypocritcal jerks who call themselves “Christian”? ABSOLUTELY! But saying Christians all “think they’re religion is the only one with ideas” is a negative generalization that isn’t even PC, as much as logical. I’m not aiming to fight with wikiBuddha, just to plead with the common man about these typical and hurtful generalizations.

    Thirdly- Read much?
    I’ve noticed a lot of you sending articles to John in order to try to persuade him to realize his foolish error and finally agree with you. If I’m not mistaken-if a Christian did this, he or she would quickly be termed an insufferable, ignorant “Bible banger”… interesting. There’s a lot of literature out there regarding the evidence of intelligent design- but I won’t try to get into here. I’ve read your science articles with an open mind (key words- OPEN MIND), I challenge you to study literature outside your realm with one as well. (my bias would obviously recommend the Bible and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis for a start, but that’s not to say that wikiBuddha doesn’t have some good literature to recommend, as well 🙂

    1. Minus, perhaps, Jennifer’s unnecessarily crude comparison of unsubstantial rumors about a political figure

      One has to make allowances for Jennifer; at times the woman has all the refinement of a cuspidor and the soul of a cracked chamber pot.

  46. Why can’t intelligent design and evolution exist together in the same framework? All the matter and energy in the universe had to come from somewhere. And as experiments have confirmed, life simply does not arise from non life. It is impossible. If that’s not proof enough of a Creator, I don’t know what is.

  47. its unfortunate most people don’t understand how the world around them operates, and when an explanation is given, they come up with asinine, super complex reasons why that can’t be. The simplest explanation is usually the right one, and evolution explains how life on earth changes. It isn’t as complicated as you what to make it.

  48. I saw an issue referred to in a couple of posts that I want to address. Speciation is based on generations not on time. Protists and bacteria are exceptionally good subjects because of their rapid reproduction. It is a mistake to see ID as anything other than the attempt to “sciencify” religion. It is political, pure and simple. A way to sneak religious instruction into schools. Trying to disprove ID is a waste of time. It cannot be done because it is “self evident.” Which means that it is based on belief, not on hypothesis and testing. Ergo not science.

  49. Well, both sides have strong arguments, and for us, people who are not scientists, scientists for both sides will be able to prove their opinions. My opinion is that there was some kind of creation, it is hard for me to believe in evolution.

  50. Physicists are searching for the “creator”; they call it the Higgs boson. Evolution came later. To say evolution is not intelligent or lacks design is to deny recent discoveries of microbiology and astrophysics. Before you reject ID entirely, read the 40 books on psychology, biology and physics in the bibliographies of my e-book at http://www.suprarational.org If we were to completely dismiss that which we didn’t understand, progress in science and technology would come to a halt. It is the mysteries of life that drive researchers onward.

  51. Isn’t research supposed to be Agnostic? It seems like they’re conducting their experiments with the basis of trying to disprove something supernatural. This approach whether Atheist or religious skews research data.

  52. if some science person read the bible as a different kind of book — like a science book — would adam work better if spelled atom — if we are only existing to complete the evalutionry process — how in fact can we be dying — this was fun to see — we are happy about it its fucking great — and there you have it –THANK YOU — PIXIE AN DUDE BY THE WAY WHY WOULD DUDE NEED TO HAVE A NAME

  53. do you really think facts are going to sway these people in the slightest

  54. ARE THERE — ONE — OK I DO NOT KNOW IF I EVER TOLD YOU GUYS ABOUT MY PERSONAL FACE TO FACE UP CLOSE AN PERSONAL DEALINGS WITH DUDE SO I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THAT — THIS IS GOING TO BE A PRETTY BIG BLOG SO I WILL NOT DETAIL EVERY THING — THE FIRST TIME I ACTUALLY SAW DUDE IT WAS IN THE SKY BIG LIKE THE MOON — FIRST THE SUN WAS DOING SOME REALLY DIFFERENT — STUFF — THE SUN TURNED INTO A CORNACOPIA — THAT TURNED INTO DUDE — THESE WERE ALL BIG LIKE LOOKING AT THE MOON — I WAS NOT ALONE OTHERS SAW THIS AND IT SCARED THEM — ANOTHER TIME BOTH OF US IN HUMANFORM FACE TO FACE WAS INCREDIBLE — I WAS ALLOWED TO KNEEL AT HIS FEET AND PUT MY HEAD ON HIS LEG — I FELT TOTALLY READY — BUT FOR ANYTHING TO OCCUR AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS NOT ALLOWED THERE WAS TREMENDOUS INTERFERENCE — WHEN I RECEIVE THINGS FROM DUDE I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO SO WHICH IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT SOMETHING ELSE — I THINK THERE IS ALOT MORE TO ACCEPTANCE THAN WE HAVE REALIZED — UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS A THING YOU HAVE NOT REALIZED THEN YOU HAVE NOT — NOT THAT THE THING IS NOT THERE TO BE REALIZED — OK YOU GUYS ARE DOING EXCELLENT WORK EVERYTHING IS EXACTLY WHERE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE — EVERYTHING IS BEING EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOULD BE BEING — UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT TRANSPIRES BETWEEN ME AND COMMUNICATION THAT IS OTHER — IS I GET VIEWS OF WHAT EVER PRESENTS ITSELF — FROM THERE I HAVE TO TRY TO INTERPRET THAT WHICH I AM VIEWING — IT IS AS THOUGH EVERY THING IS RANDOM OR NOT ASSEMBLED — YOU KNOW LIKE IN SCATTERED PIECES IN ALL KINDS OF PLACES AND AREAS — TIMES AND SO FORTH — THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I AM TRYING TO GET TO YOU GUYS — AS A RESULT SOMETIMES I TOTALLY MISSINTURPRET AND OTHER THINGS — SO THIS IS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DEALING WITH FROM ME AN DUDE — WHAT KEEPS THINGS CORRECT IS THAT A SAFETY WAS CREATED THAT STATES I CANNOT SCREW SHIT UP ON PURPOSE OR ON ACCIDENT AND NOTHING IS MY FAULT — DUDE DOES MY STUFF FOR ME CAUSE I KNOW I CAN NOT DO MUCH BUT I AM DAMN GOOD AT STUFF I CAN DO — WE ARE LEAVING THINGS BEHIND US — ALL THE INCORRECT STUFF — WE ARE BEING GIVEN WHAT DUDE GAVE — AWHILE BACK WHICH IS — A TINY PART OF HIS MIND WHICH HAS BEEN WAITING FOR ITS CROWN TO BE FORMED AS IT IT ACTUALLY IS TO BE SEATED IN THE CROWN — BASICALLY THATS WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON — WE WENT FROM EXISTENSE TO LIFE YESTERDAY — NOW MOST OF YOU THINK THAT WE ARE SOMEHOW SUPPOSE TO TRANSFORM INTO SOMETHING ELSE — BUT THIS IS INCORRECT — SO STOP WAITING FOR STUFF THATS NEVER GOING TO BE AND LETS GET ON WITH WHAT WE HAVE — WE ARE FUCKING MIRACLES AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME WHEN ANYONE OF US DID NOT HAVE WHAT EVER WE NEEDED TO DO WHAT WE NEEDED — WE JUST DID NOT KNOW A COUPLE OF THINGS — OK MY SPACESHIP TOTALLY BROKE AND I JUST GOT IT UP AND RUNNING SO SINCE I STARTED THIS ITS BEEN A FEW DAYS — SO I AM TRYING TO GET BACK ON TRACK OR SOME WHERE IN THE VICINITY — SO ALITTLE OF THAT AN A LITTLE OF THIS AND THERE YOU HAVE IT — NOW IN MY DAY TO DAY LET ME SAY THIS — HI JANICE GOOD WORK — TO CHERIE I SAY THANKS FOR YOUR TIME BUT THERE IS SOME THING YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THAT IS THAT THE THINGS I DEAL WITH ARE TOTALLY FOR YOU GUYS — I WILL NOT BENIFIT AT ALL — WHAT ELSE YOU ARE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT — IS THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO BE KNOWING WHAT I AM TRYING TO TELL YOU — NOW ALSO I DEAL WITH EVERYTHING I SAY I DO — NOW THAT PART IN YOU THAT SEES THAT I DEAL WITH SHIT THAT IS IS IS — FACT TRUTH LIVE — IS SAVING YOUR ASS — MARTY IF YOU GET IN TOUCH WITH US WE CAN TOTALLY HELP YOU WITH SOME STUFF — BRONCO YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY BEEN SPANKED WHAT EVER THAT SAYS TO YOU WILL BE WHAT THAT WAS MEANT — JOE YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH YOUR STUFF BUT BE AWARE IF MY STUFF DOES NOT GO NOTHING ELSE IS EVER GOING TO WORK — THE THING YOU HAVE TO SAY TO ALL THIS FUCK IT — IF IT WORKS WHO MUCH GIVES A SHIT — IS THAT OR IS THAT NOT CORRECT — NOW THIS SHIT IS ALOT FUNNIER BUT NO ONE EVER GETS THAT FAR AHEAD — YOU GUYS GET MIRED DOWN IN A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT AN YOU GET SO IN IT IN A MINUTE THATS ALL YOUR DOING IS SHUFFLING BULLSHIT AROUND — NOW I DO NOT KNOW ANOTHER WAY TO LET YOU KNOW SOME THING VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU GUYS TO KNOW SO HEAR GOES I WILL SEE YOU ON THE FLIP SIDE — YOU ARE ALL BASICALLY DEALING WITH A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT — NOW HOW ALL THAT WORKS IS IF IT FEELS GOOD IF ITS FUNNY IF ITS VERY SIMPLE LIKE A TURNUP TO GET THATS IT — PRETTY MUCH I DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE WORDS THAT GO TO IT — OK IF WE GOT NO WHERE JUST NOW I WILL TRY SOMETHING ELSE — BUT I WILL BE STRETCHING SOME SHIT BUT THERE YOU HAVE IT — OH DUSTY I GUESS THE DAY YOU TELL COREY YOUR HUSBAND MY SON — THE DAY YOU SAY HONEY I WANT YOU TO SEE SOMETHING YOUR MOM WROTE — I GUESS THAT DAY WILL BE THE DAY YOU WILL SEE WHAT YOU ARE IN SEARCH OF AN SINCE IN YOUR SITUATION YOU ARE THE ALPHA FEMALE YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUS IF YOU DO NOT CONSIDER YOUR SELF AS ESSENTIAL TO SOME SCHEME OF THING YOU ARE IN GRAVE ERROR — AND YOU NEED TO STOP ALL THE COMMUNICATION COMING INTO YOUR HEAD SAVE THAT FROM DUDE THE GUY THAT THOUGHT UP TREES — NOW HOW TO KNOW IS IF YOUR CRYING RIGHT NOW — ISNT IT GOOD TO KNOW THAT NO ONE DOESNT GO EVERY BODY MAKES IT OR NO ONE DOES BUT ONE OF THE FIRST SAFTEYS WAS IF EVERYONE IS INCORRECT AND I AM CORRECT I GET THEM ALL INCLUDING JESUS THE DEVIL DUDE EVERYONE — SO FAR I GOT EVERY BODY — LISTEN TO WHAT I TELL YOU ALL RIGHT NOW YOU ARE BEINGHUMAN YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THEN THAT YOU ARE MIRACLES YOU ARE PART OF THE ONLY EVER FAMILY HUMANS BEING — YOU HAVE AN INHERTIAGE OF LIFE ELECTING TO GO THROUGH EVALUTION TO DEAL WITH WHAT EVER AND SO MUCH STUFF — YOU ARE IN A VERY WONDERFUL PLACE — COME ON LETS SEE WHATS REALLY GOING ON — OK LETS JUST PRETEND HOW EVER YOU WANT TO DO IT DOES NOT MATTER LONG AS YOU DO — I SUPPOSE THE BEST WAY TO MAKE SURE A PERSON NEVER KNOWS SOMETHING — WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE TO DO MAKE SURE NOT ONE PERSON EVER SAW OR HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT — YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT NO TO PEOPLE SEE A THING THE SAME WAY — I DO NOT KNOW MYSELF BUT I FIND IT VERY INTERESTING THAT — THAT IS THE WAY IT IS — THE GOOD THING ABOUT THAT IS I SEE EVERY THING LIKE THAT AND I SEE EVERY THING THAT WAY ALSO — IF ANY ONE IS KEEPING TRACK EVERYTHING I SEE EVERY WAY I SEE IT IS LIKE THAT AND THAT ALSO — OK I DO NOT KNOW IF WE ARE BABBLING IT DOESNT FEEL LIKE IT — AND THERE YOU HAVE IT —
    THANK YOU WITH ALOT OF LOVE

    PIXIE AN DUDE

    BY THE WAY WE WOULD LOVE TO CONNECT WITH TWITTER SO WHAT EVER AUTHORITY NEEDS TO HAPPEN DO IT SO THIS CAN HAPPEN AS WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO GET IT DONE THANKS OH TINKERBELL — BIG SIS CAGODDESS CARROLL VINCENT THANK YOU AND GOOD WORK KEEP IT UP — YOUR GOOD TO GO AS YOU KNOW — I REALIZE YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF FACEBOOK BUT NO ONE EVER SAID IT COULDNT BE FUN ISNT THAT GREAT — LOVE YA — OH JON JD DAVIS MY WONDERFUL SON THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS FIXING MY SPACESHIP — ARE YOU THE PRES. AT SUNMICROSYSTEMS — I LOVE YA MOM

  55. HEY THANKS ALOT PIXIE AN DUDE

  56. Intelligent Design. A concept that involves no intelligence or any detail of design. Yes, we should replace evolution with ID.

  57. I just stumbled upon this doing some free-time googling! Very interesting, good read!

  58. looks great. thanks for the article

  59. Wow! That’s awesome! I’ve never heard of the Cambrian explosion. Thanks for sharing additional background 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.