Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Our intrepid commenter, noone, left a comment that got stuck in the moderation queue. Since it's moving way down the page, I'm moving it up here to continue the debunking. Not because I'm going to convince noone, of course; frankly, anyone who credulously cuts and pastes the nonsense he is using probably isn't capable of thinking logically in the first place. But it's still useful to debunk that nonsense for the benefit of others who might be reading. All he's doing is linking to videos, which are pointless. Let's actually discuss the evidence. Here's his first claim:
DARWIN´S EVOLUTION THEORY DISPROVED WITH SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!! http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bZ5amiylEMORIGIN OF BIRDS - 1
The theory of evolution, which claims that birds evolved from reptiles, is unable to explain the huge differences between these two different living classes. This is a great video but it comes from the creationist viewpoint
This video is actually quite amusing to watch. The utter bullshit begins right up front, where some ignorant git claims that no species has ever evolved through mutation and selection. This is a claim that even the staunchest young earth creationist no longer makes (indeed, their model requires speciation at staggering, mind-boggling rates in order to get, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of distinct species from two of the original "kind" on the ark 4500 years ago).
The problem with this claim about "huge differences" between reptiles and birds is that it compares the modern forms of those animals instead of the ancestral forms. The first examples of a new phyla (in this case, a class) are always virtually identical to the phyla from which it splits off. Over time, as the daughter species spreads and diversifies, the ancestral and daughter phyla become increasingly distinct due to the emergence of new traits.
Thus, looking at modern birds and comparing them to modern reptiles is absolutely meaningless. Of course there are huge differences between them, they've evolved independent of one another for more than 100 million years. All of those distinct traits didn't pop into being all at once; tens of millions of years and the splitting off of hundreds of new species. So let's compare the first birds to the theropod dinosaurs they evolved from; that is a meaningful comparison.
Not only were the first birds virtually indistinguishable from theropod dinosaurs, they were theropod dinosaurs. We now have so many species of feathered theropods identified in the fossil record that it's virtually impossible to draw a line between them and say "this is when they became birds." One need only look at the oldest example we have, Archaeopteryx, which was classified as a reptile until a specimen with preserved feathers was identified. Archy had almost all reptilian traits, such as:
1. No bill (modern birds have them, Archy did not)
2. Teeth (modern birds don't have them, Archy did; interestingly, in their embryonic stage, modern birds to have tooth buds like their ancestors, but they are reabsorbed)
3. A cerebellum in back of the mid-brain rather than on top of it (reptiles have this; in modern birds it is enlarged and moved forward)
4. The foramen magnum (the hole at the base of the skull) is more horizontal than vertical, common to reptiles but not birds
5. A bony tail with unfused vertebrae
6. A reptilian pelvic girdle
7. Free foot bones
There are many more, but the point is that the earliest birds were so indistinguishable from theropod dinosaurs that it is entirely an academic question where you draw the lines between them. Over time, as new species evolve, they become increasingly diversified, more like modern birds and less like reptiles. All of this is exactly what evolution predicts; indeed, if that was not the case evolution would be falsified. And this pattern repeats itself in every single higher level taxa.
THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION MD Oktar Babuna talks abour fossils. Life emerged on earth suddenly and in complex forms. A fossil is the remains or traces of a plant or animal that have been preserved in the Earth's crust down to the present day. Fossils collected from all over the world are our most important source of information about the species that have existed on Earth since life began. All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment.
Pure boilerplate without a single substantive argument. In fact, the fossil record is powerful evidence of evolution. Should our intrepid commenter decide to return, I will give him the same challenge I have given to dozens of creationists without ever getting a response. The only possible way to explain the fossil record is evolution. Here's the challenge:
If evolution is true, and each of these major animal groups split off from the previous one, then what would we expect? Well, we would expect that since each of these new groups split off from an already existing one, the order of appearance within those groups should be as conspicuous as the order of appearance in general. If the first amphibians split off from fish, then the first amphibians could only be slightly different than fish; if birds evolved from reptiles, then the first birds must have been very similar to reptiles; and so forth. And what does the fossil record show? Precisely that. The first amphibians to appear are the most fish-like, so much so that they retained internal gills and were still primarily aquatic. Over time, amphibians become more and more diversified and less fish-like, with later forms being successively more terrestrial and less aquatic. The first birds to appear are so reptile-like that they would be classified as theropod dinosaurs if not for the feathers. We now have multiple feathered theropod species to bridge the gap, and they all appear very early and share most of their traits with reptiles, not with modern birds. Over time, they diversified and became less reptile-like. The same can be said of the first mammals, which are so identical to the therapsid reptiles that they evolved from that where exactly you draw the line between the two groups is largely academic. And just like the other lineages, they start out with only one or two species that looks just like their presumed ancestor, then over time new branches appear that are successively less like those ancestors and more like modern mammals. This is exactly what evolution would predict. Indeed, if it wasn't that way, evolution would be falsified. If modern birds appeared all at once in the fossil record, with entirely avian skeletal structure and feathers and fully adapted for powered flight, there would be no way to link them to reptiles, and the same is true of every other major animal group. But they don't appear that way, and the order in which they do appear is precisely what evolution predicts.This is called "biostratigraphy". As you go up the geologic column, from older strata to more recent strata, the types of plants and animals that you find fossilized within them change rather dramatically, but they change in a very specific pattern. In the oldest rocks you find nothing but bacteria and the chemical traces thereof, and that continues for over 2 billion years of the earth's history. Then you find simple multi-celled organisms in the form of algal stromatolites. Then in the late Precambrian, more complex life forms begin to appear, all marine invertebrates. The pattern continues in this basic order: hemichordates --> chordates -->jawless fishes --> jawed fishes --> amphibians --> reptiles --> birds and mammals. That's a very rough overview, of course, and there is a lot of detail to be filled in. But the important fact here is that the order of appearance is exactly what one would predict if evolution is true, and within each of those major animal groups we find the same predicted order. How does anything other than evolution explain this order?
noone seems to think that cutting and pasting boilerplate rhetoric from creationist sites actually means something.
Comments
I recommend Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero. It's an excellent and very up-to-date review of the fossil evidence.
First of all, Prothero would object to the use of the classification "reptile" since it is not cladistically pure; it is a catch-all designation. Second, the non-bird "reptiles" from which birds descended (theropod dinosaurs) are all extinct; in fact all non-bird dinosaurs are extinct. So the modern "reptiles" to which you are comparing them, presumably lizards, turtles, crocodilians and snakes, have been diverging from the bird lineage for far more than 100 million years.
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | December 27, 2007 10:25 AM
Yep...
I see the same ol' claims endlessly: The "Cambrian Explosion" disproves evolution; there are no transitional fossils (not one!:); and, of course, Achaeopteryx was just a bird (have you seen the "Creation Museum's" version of Archaeopteryx...with a BEAK!!!???).
Ignorance is not only bliss, it's absolutely vital to some folks!
Posted by: FossilBob | December 27, 2007 10:27 AM
Yes, creationists do not comprehend the truly overwhelming and preposterously fast amounts of evolution they need to make their "model" work. But they don't have 4500 years. They have barely 500, maybe. See, we have archaeological records which they date "post flood", and they show human depictions of modern species. Simply put, there has been no huge amount of evolution since civilization got back on it's feet after the flood.
So, creationists must stuff all modern diversity into a few "kinds", and then massive, unbelievably huge rates of evolution for a few years at most, which then suddenly stopped for no explicable reason, but somehow ended up with much the same animals that were existing before the flood and only got burried at the top of the fossil record.
And that's not counting the ridiculous amounts of pre-flood evolution their "model" requires. If, as most YEC claim, all animals originally ate plants (there being no death before the fall), then where did the meat-eaters come from? A separate creative act unmentioned in the Bible? Or were lions built for chasing, pouncing upon, and then gorily dispatching wild bananas (which, presumably, turtles had shells to protect themselves from)? Or, perhaps, meat-eating evoloved extremely rapidly. That seems the most sensible explanation, being merely staggeringly stupid.
FossilBob: AIG used to have an article up which claimed that Archaeopteryx was almost certainly just a fake, a dinosaur that some EVILutionist had forged feathers onto. However, even if it wasn't a fake, it was quite clear that it was a bird, and had no dinosaur features at all. That these claims contradicted each other went unnoticed by AIG for years, much to our amusement.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | December 27, 2007 12:08 PM
in addition to Prothero's new book mentioned above, Chiappe's new one is specifically about the early evolution of birds, covering all the latest finds.
http://www.amazon.com/Glorified-Dinosaurs-Origin-Early-Evolution/dp/0471247235/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198779010&sr=8-1
Posted by: Foggg | December 27, 2007 1:16 PM
The thing that no creationist/IDist realizes is that any scientist who actually disproved evolution, and advanced a better theory, would then become the greatest scientist ever. Oh, bitter irony!
Posted by: Will E. | December 27, 2007 1:40 PM
Sorry about the pedantry Will, but it seems like the typical ID/creationist might read that as two distinct ways.
I'd like to add a minor clarification... that the only way to disprove evolution is to develop a better, more robust theory. One that not only explains things that evolution does, but also explains more, (or is a better descriptive model).
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 27, 2007 1:48 PM
Posted by: cserpent | December 27, 2007 2:03 PM
doctorgoo,
Actually, that's not true. A scientific theory can, in principle, be falsified and ultimately discarded without offering a better replacement. It would simply leave us in a not-too-uncommon situation where there was no explanation for observed data. Maybe what you mean is that the only way to replace evolution short of falsifying it is to come up with a different scientific theory that explains everything and more--and/or makes different predictions that are then verified in the lab.Posted by: heddle | December 27, 2007 2:15 PM
I agree with 99% of what you just said David, but I wasn't speaking generically of just any scientific theory... I was speaking specifically about the theory of evolution, which is already so very effective at explaining the data that already exists, and predicting where new information can and should be found.
So I can't see how a scientific theory as successful as this cannot be discarded without offering a better replacement first.
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 27, 2007 2:25 PM
(please pardon my double-negative in that last sentence)
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 27, 2007 2:26 PM
Ed Brayton,
Perhaps you missed this in school, but nothing "greater" can come from something "smaller." I too missed it in school, but since Grant told me about it, it has revolutionized my life. I explained the principle to my daughter the other night. She was not as pleased. Your entire post seems to miss the undeniable truth that the greater cannot come from the smaller! Now, I need to figure out how to write without using letters to create words, which will create phrases, sentences, and paragraphs...
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | December 27, 2007 2:55 PM
"Perhaps you missed this in school, but nothing "greater" can come from something "smaller.""
Science is neither propositional logic nor rationalizing. Unless one has a feel for creating and testing hypotheses one is doomed to find science mystifying.
Posted by: Les Lane | December 27, 2007 5:20 PM
nothing "greater" can come from something "smaller."
Sez who?
Posted by: Calton Bolick | December 27, 2007 7:30 PM
Joseph Grant Swank.
Posted by: Skemono | December 27, 2007 7:45 PM
Now, I need to figure out how to write without using letters to create words, which will create phrases, sentences, and paragraphs...
This part gives away the parody, but it appears Poe's Law has struck again...
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 27, 2007 7:46 PM
"[N]othing 'greater' can come from something 'smaller.'"
But then something greater cannot come from nothing that is not smaller.
But nothing, being nothing, is infinitely small or infinitely large, or else both. Or perhaps neither.
Thus, if nothing is infinitely small, then something greater can come from something smaller, namely, nothing.
But then something comes from nothing, which is absurd.
Therefore...wait -- what was the question again?
Posted by: "Q" the Enchanter | December 28, 2007 12:44 AM
Regarding the flood itself, I've long wondered where all that water could have come from and more important, where did it go?
A worldwide flood that covers all the land on earth would require more water than is currently locked up in the polar ice. So where did all that water come from and seriously, where did it go? It would still be here and we would not.
Posted by: Thomas McCay | December 28, 2007 4:51 AM
"Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of someone who wears their underwear on their head. "
--Terry Pratchett
Posted by: Wes | December 28, 2007 5:10 AM
You know, I wasn't convinced with by first 11 exclamation marks, but the 12th really put me over the top. And the all caps, that's just the icing on the cake. Who can possibly argue against such iron logic!!!!!!?????
Posted by: Dave S. | December 28, 2007 7:20 AM
In the video, the one speaker says his professor is a paleontologist who has discovered that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.
Ignore for a moment the factual falsity of this claim, and let's get back to philosophy of science. This person is claiming to have proven a negative, which is impossible because even a single disconfirming example falsifies the negative claim. The only way this claim could be true is if this paleontologist has discovered all fossils in existence.
Since most paleontologists are specialists, working with a limited set of classes in a limited set of fossil digs, that's quite a claim!
Posted by: James Hanley | December 28, 2007 11:12 AM
I thought that the explanation of "biostratigraphy" was that the Intelligent Designer was anal retentive and saved his drafts in order.
Posted by: Ex-drone | December 28, 2007 12:30 PM
Yes, a theory CAN be falsified without there being a replacement theory, but they typically aren't. A la Lakatos, (here's a philosophical prediction) if we started finding that evolution was just full of anomalies and falsified predictions, not just one or two here and there, we would tend to give it up. Still, it's predictive successes, of which we have been given such a good example here in Ed's post, would still count. We would be in a quandary as a community. Various epistemological options for 'weighing' it all out would be invoked (but I argue would remain unstated by and large), and we would have a good ol' Kuhnian tussle. But, and I think this is a way of putting Kuhn's point without adding in any silly relativism he eschewed, the options for doing such epistemological weighing don't yield any clear victors, nor does it seem like there are any looming prospects for a victor (nor do there seem to be higher level epistemological principles that seem might apparently solve the 'weighing' crisis--you can see why the relativists thought they had soemthing to munch on here.
As a matter of fact, I can't resist linking up the IDiot creationists and the idiot relativists--one way of making their respective points join up is just to say, "It's all exclamation points all the way down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
Which occurs to me, why not just call the IDists "IDiots"?
brad
Posted by: brad | December 28, 2007 1:44 PM
Hate to post twice in a row, but I say in the first line of my post, following the original suggestion, that a theory CAN be "falsified." Falsified, and whether a theory is or has been falsified, is a success term--to say I've falsified a theory is to say that I ahve successfully falsified it. We need a term that isn't a success term--and 'displaced' does the job. Whether a theory is displaced or not is what's at issue, so I should say, "Yes, a theory CAN be displaced without there being a REplacement theory around." Now the issue is appropriately empirical--whether or not a theory IS in fact regarded as false without a replacement theory (which seems tractable), versus normative--whether a theory can be falsified without a replacment theory, which seems all too obviously answered "Of course."
Posted by: brad | December 28, 2007 2:01 PM
brad wrote:
Because it's inaccurate. There are many things that can be said about Dembski, Behe, et al, but they certainly are not idiots. They're wrong, of course. They're blinded by their religious zeal and as a group they're intellectually dishonest to an astonishing degree. But stupid they're not.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 28, 2007 2:22 PM
My problem with accepting evolution to be true is the fossil record. Many creatures appear today unchanged from early fossils. Coelacanths , Crocodiles, Horseshoe crabs and Cockroaches. The fossils of insects found in rock deposits are often only fragments of body parts. Although such fragments might be easily identified as belonging to a general group or particular insect order, those that an expert could recognized again with confidence as being the same as a fossil species already described, or perhaps identical or similar to a species that still exists today, are very few.
This is not the case for most insects trapped and 'fossilized' in amber, where specimens are often beautifully preserved in their entirety, so allowing accurate identification of species. How can you account for so many of the specimens that seem unchanged after millions of years? For evolution to exist as a functioning theory scientist must address these questions.
All the insects so far discovered in amber deposits are familiar types that clearly belong to modern orders and families, and in many cases they belong to species that still exist today. These include, among the wingless insects (Apterygota), a great variety of springtails (Collembola) and bristletails (Thysanura); among the winged insects (Pterygota), many cockroaches and mantids (Dictyoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), stick-insects (Phasmida), earwigs (Dermaptera), termites (Isoptera), bugs (Hemiptera), thrips (Thysanoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), flies (Diptera) and so on - in fact, representatives of most of the insect groups recognised in our present-day classification.
In a general view, however, the insects as a whole must be looked on as very ancient inhabitants of the Earth, probably at least twice as old as the reptiles and three times as old as the mammals - perhaps nearly a thousand times as old as our own mammalian group, the hominids. In many cases, even the common and familiar insect species that we encounter nearly everyday in our homes and gardens have existed in their present form for at least 35-40 million years before mankind first appeared on Earth.
http://www.kendall-bioresearch.co.uk/fossil.htm
Posted by: noone | January 14, 2008 2:42 PM
How can you account for so many of the specimens that seem unchanged after millions of years? For evolution to exist as a functioning theory scientist must address these questions.
That's easy: nothing in the theory of evolution says that ALL creatures HAVE to change over time. If a particular species thrives within its niche, and if the niche itself doesn't change, then there is a strong possibility that at least some of that species will continue in that niche with little or no change, even if others of the same species do change and evolve into new species.
Ever notice how there are more people of various racial mixes in America than there used to be? Ever notice how, at the same time, there continue to be people of unmixed Asian, African, White, Hispanic and other extractions? How does any of this pose a problem for evolution?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 14, 2008 2:55 PM
I have finally found positive proof that evolution is real. I have no more doubts. See here:
http://www.5min.com/Video/How-Evolution-Happens-4804307
Posted by: noone | January 25, 2008 8:15 AM
At the risk of stating the obvious, noone, that video is mistitled -- it's a nice portrayal of (some of) the phases experienced by tetrapod life, but it does not portray, nor does it say anything about, how evolution actually occurred.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | January 25, 2008 10:00 AM
But this is your science. Didn't you see the monkey in the tree stand upright and become human? How about the fish growing legs? This is the evolutionary theory. Don't be embarrassed. This is good science.
Posted by: noone | January 25, 2008 6:53 PM
Holy shit, "noone" is a fucking moron.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 25, 2008 7:13 PM
But they put this on TV it must be true. Even Carl Sagan said so. Look, here are his words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV3Xa3jPxsg
Why call me a Fxxxing Moron? Your gods speak truth
Posted by: noone | January 25, 2008 7:27 PM
"Why call me a Fxxxing Moron? Your gods speak truth"
Asked, and answered. I love these kind of people.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 25, 2008 7:38 PM
noone, it is good science -- if you understand what it truly represents. (Although it is not the best possible representation, as PZ points out at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/evolution_in_5_minutes.php) It is an illustration. It is not an implication that a single organism lived for millions of years, growing legs and lungs during its lifetime. Quit being intentionally obtuse. (I know, a vain plea...)
Posted by: Squiddhartha | January 25, 2008 10:08 PM
Squidhartha
Your link is dead. Check this out!
Scientific Proof of Evolution.
This is the best scientific proof of evolution I have ever seen by professor Groening.
Posted by: noone | January 26, 2008 10:22 AM
Sorry I forgot to ad the link:
http://freedomthirst.com/2007/08/21/scientific-proof-of-evolution/
Posted by: noone | January 26, 2008 10:24 AM
The ScienceBlogs comment software included the trailing parenthesis in the HREF tag; try this link.
Also, what switch is broken in your brain that conflates "illustration" with "proof"? That's the second time you've (intentionally?) made that error.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | January 26, 2008 10:38 AM
If you accept evolution without question you will generally be safe from academic criticism. But if you push evolutionists for evidence that a creature lacking the genetic information for some major features has turned into a creature with that genetic information, they quickly run out of examples of where that new information came from. Instead, they tend to resort to sneering, irrelevant claims, verbal abuse, diversions, sarcasm, and even threats.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/philos.html
But, This is the way evolution should be taught in school by Ms Garrison explains Evolution
http://www.videosift.com/video/South-Park-Ms-Garrison-explains-Evolution
Posted by: noone | January 28, 2008 10:12 AM
Let me take a wild stab in the dark here - you're not an academic, nor do you have any familiarity whatsoever with the academic world.
Posted by: MartinM | January 28, 2008 10:23 AM
noone is clearly speaking some variant of English that's orthogonal to mine, so I will waste no further time.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | January 28, 2008 5:55 PM
Yesterday I tried to post a list of scientists who have doctorates in a variety of fields and who have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that creationism is a much better explanation for the origin of life. The post required the owner of the blogs approval and so far the list has not appeared. The list was rather extensive.
Posted by: noone | January 29, 2008 9:12 AM
If the list has not appeared, then how do you know it has "scientists who have doctorates in a variety of fields and who have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that creationism is a much better explanation for the origin of life."?
Did it look like THIS ONE?
Posted by: Dave S. | January 29, 2008 9:53 AM
noone is clearly doing nothing but repeating some of the older, long-discredited talking-points of the creationist movement -- including the "persecuted victim" mentality. Most of the leading lights of the cdesign proponentsist movement have (quietly) abandoned these "arguments" because of their obvious and embarrassing lameness. Even for a creationist, he's behind the curve. (And he hasn't even acknowledged my response to his "why are there still lower creatures?" argument. Whassamatter, boy, is "That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that, thank you" too complicated for you?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 29, 2008 10:18 AM
How can you account for so many of the specimens that seem unchanged after millions of years? For evolution to exist as a functioning theory scientist must address these questions.
That's easy: nothing in the theory of evolution says that ALL creatures HAVE to change over time.
Then which is it? Evolution happens or it doesn't?
"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapses of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were." ...................Charles Darwin
Darwin seems to disagree with you.
Posted by: noone | January 29, 2008 10:38 AM
I hear crickets chirping.
Posted by: noone | February 1, 2008 5:40 PM
That's because we've all realized that it's a waste of our time to try to educate the uneducable.
I'll just point out that you've been told countless times that even the species that seem unchanged after millions of years are not completely unchanged, but you keep harking back to this point as though nobody had said anything. Why should we repeat ourselves until we're blue in the face when you ignore what we say?
Posted by: Squiddhartha | February 1, 2008 5:54 PM
Hey Squidhead
I have made my points to you and others. Some say evolution is a fact and some say not all creatures evolve. It looks as if you want it both ways. Many creatures appear to be unchanged after millions of years ( the fossils in amber ). They have not changed into another species and they appear unchanged. Doesn't this bother you?
I quoted Darwin's own words and you ignore me. It is I who is trying to educate you.
I point to videos created by evolutionist ( that are completely outlandish ) and you try to tell me that I misunderstand them. You are the one that is blind. Go ahead and believe your religion. Because that is what it is. It requires faith.
Posted by: noone | February 2, 2008 9:18 AM
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | February 2, 2008 10:49 AM
noone wrote:
Of course not. You've just asked the equivalent of "if evolution is true why are there still monkeys". Just because a part of a population can branch off and evolve new traits doesn't mean all members of the species have to as well. In some sense, that is evolution: a divergence that may eventually result in new species.
You also seem to be forgetting that selective pressures acting on members of a species may be different in different locations. We should expect a variety of possibilities, including retention of successful traits. Further, you've already been told that a species "looking the same" for millions of years doesn't mean evolution has not occurred. Evolution occurs at the genetic level. A species could very well have evolved traits like disease resistance or metabolic changes without looking very different at all. My guess is that a genetic evaluation of "bugs in amber" would reveal those differences.
This is why it is better to think about evolution as sharing common ancestors rather than the naive "one species turning into another". Your description doesn't explain the process in any meaningful way, and detracts a great deal from it.
Posted by: Leni | February 2, 2008 12:16 PM
noone -
I quoted Darwin's own words and you ignore me.
Because, a, you didn't understand the implications of that particular Darwin quote, it doesn't actually say anything about every organism having to change. And b, even if it did, it wouldn't be the first idea that Darwin espoused that turned out to be wrong.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 3, 2008 12:06 AM
" If ignorance is bless then it is folly to be wise."
Posted by: noone | February 3, 2008 8:20 AM
We perceive that you have embraced that philosophy, noone.
Oh, permit me to rephrase in a manner more suitable for your comprehension: "I know you are, but what am I?"
Posted by: Squiddhartha | February 3, 2008 11:26 AM
I am not the only one.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/03/State/The_evolution_of_a_se.shtml
Now I expect the usual childishness from squidhead
Posted by: noone | February 4, 2008 11:54 AM
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Intelligent design costs prof his job
Regents reject tenure request without evidence, testimony
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55826
Posted by: noone | February 8, 2008 5:24 PM
Old news (and with the WorldNutDaily, the term must be applied loosely), noone: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/02/gonzalez_denied_final_appeal.php
Posted by: Squiddhartha | February 8, 2008 7:21 PM
What Happens When You Write Positive Blog Posts About ID?
by Mike Egnor
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDegnor.php
Posted by: noone | February 9, 2008 5:24 PM
Yeah, the horror. Calling ignorant nonsense like Engor's stuff just that is 'persecution'.
Posted by: Dave S. | February 9, 2008 6:12 PM
Happy birthday Charles!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1095889/evolution_explainer/
Posted by: noone | February 14, 2008 12:13 PM