Evolutionists, Too Afraid To Lead By Example

-
Evolutionists are a cowardly lot. They love to run their mouths about ID saying that it doesn't have any positive evidence nor is it scientific. But when push comes to shove they cannot produce any positive evidence nor a testable hypothesis for their position!

What they say is it doesn't matter, ID should stand on its own. That is just more yellow-belly coward shit.

The reason we ask for positive evidence and a testable hypothesis for their position is so we know what they will accept and cannot keep retreating and flailing away. However it is obvious that they are chicken-shit cowards- losers of life and acientifically illiterate.

The sad part is they attack ID for attacking their position- not realizing that it is mandated to eliminate their position before attempting to infer design- but then they turn around and attack ID with their ignorance. That's right ignorance as the way to refute the design inference is to step up and actually produce positive evidence along with a testable hypothesis for their position!

What happens with that is morons like Kevin R. McCarthy of Round rock Texas saying his position is the cowardly position of "evolution"- McCarthy still thinks that ID is anti-evolution in the face of the overwhelming facts it is not.

Methodological Naturalism- A Failed Philosophy- "is a Necessity of Performing Science"?????

-
Some limpdick that goes by "Ritchie" sez:

ASSUMING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM IS A NECESSITY OF PERFORMING SCIENCE!!! EVERY THEORY IN EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCE ASSUMES IT!!!

Methodological naturalism is a failed philosophy- and it fails the regress test as natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.

Huge failure, right off the bat.

Also limiting scientific inquiry and starting with a conclusion (question-begging) is another huge science-fail. A clsed science is a useless science and a science ruled by methodological naturalism is a closed science.

Closed science for the closed-minded...

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks- Proof-reading and Error-correction

-
Back to the positive evidence for Intelligent Design:

It isn't so much that cells cannot live without proofreading and error-correction, rather it is that proof-reading and error correction are evidence for Intelligent Design for the simple reason is that it takes knowledge to proofread and knowledge to correct any errors.

In order to proofread you have to know what you are reading and in order to correct any errors you first have to identify, ie know, the error and also know how to correct it.

This also leads us back to cause and effect relationships. In accordance with uniformitarianism only agencies are capable of such a thing.






See also DNA Repair

Mankind is NOT the Only Intelligent Agency on Earth

-
Richtard Hughes has his head so far up his ass he keeps insisting that mankind is the only intelligent agency on Earth. He must lead a very sheltered life.

So let's see- besides mankind, other intelligent agenicies include:

1- Ants- they domesticate other animals and they also dabble in agriculture

2- Termites- they purposely manipulate the environment for their own needs

3- Beavers- they also purposely manipulate the environment for their own needs

4- Bees, wasps, hornets, birds, well all organisms fall under the category of intelligent agencies

They all do things that nature, operating freely, cannot do.

Clueless EvoTards Think Natural and Artificial Selection are the Same Process

-
According to the (clueless) NCSE:

Artificial selection and natural selection are different forms of the same process.

Laughable, but there it is.

1- Natural selection cannot produce a toy poodle, whereas artificial selection has. If they were the same process then natural selection would be able to produce a toy poodle. That goes for any of the dog breeds.

2- Natural selection can undo what artificial selection has wrought. For example take away humans and all dogs will become basically the same in just several generations.

3- With artificial selection there is actually real selecting going on. Natural selection is an oxymoron as no selecting is gong on as NS is a result, an output. Not only that it is very weak:

The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild:

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin's theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.

Be that as it may, the real burden of Kingsolver's study lies in the quantitative conclusions it reaches. Two correlations are at issue. The first is linear, and corresponds to what in population genetics is called directional selection; and the second quadratic, and corresponds either to stabilizing or disruptive selection. These are the cornerstones of the modern hill and valley model of much of mathematical population genetics. Kingsolver reported a median absolute value of 0.16 for linear selection, and a median absolute value of 0.10 for quadratic selection. Thus an increase of one standard deviation in, say, beak finch length, could be expected to change fitness by only 16 percent in the case of linear selection, and 10 percent in the case of quadratic selection. These figures are commonly understood to represent a very weak correlation. Thus if a change in the length of a beak's finch by one standard deviation explains 16 percent of the change in the population's fitness, 84 percent of the change is not explained by selection at all.

The point being when natural selection is observed to do what artificial selection has been doing you can say the are the same process. But until then saying so is just another big fat evotard lie.

Scientific Reasons to Reject Universal Common Descent

-
The scientific reasons people reject universal common descent:

1- The premise cannot be objectively, ie scientifically, tested

2- There isn't any evidence that the changes required are even possible (see #1)

3- No one knows what makes an organism what it is (see #1)

As a matter of fact the only reason to accept universal common descent is for metaphysical reasons.

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks, Part 1- Revisited

-
To understand the theory of evolution and universal common descent I have been told to read biology textbooks. The funny part is that every time I do so the design inference is confirmed.

The following is what one gets when one reads biology textbooks (quotes are from Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture by Ann Finney Batiza, PhD, which is part of a series- "Biotechnology in the 21st Century"):

It is important to note that the proteins made by an organism determine all of the characteristics that “nature” provides for that particular living thing. The enzymes allow other molecules, including proteins, fats, and carbohydrates to undergo chemical reactions, such as being put together or taken apart inside living things.
… (skipping surface receptors and other structural elements)
Other proteins bind DNA, the molecules of heredity, and determine which codes are going to be used to make proteins- at which time and in which type of cell.

Because each protein has an important job to do, it is crucial that proteins be made to precise specifications, just like the precision parts of an expensive sports car. In fact, the blueprints for some proteins have been so good, they have been preserved through millions and even billions of years of evolution.—page 5

However no one ever says how they evolved in the first place.

The importance of these precise structures and hence functioning of protein machines like these channels cannot be understated. Potassium channels, like other channels that pass other ions from one side of the cell membrane to the other, have a particular architecture that allows them to open and close upon command. We now know that intricately designed and mechanically fine-tuned ion channels determine the rhythm and allow an electrical impulse initiated when we stub our toe to be transmitted to the brain.- page 19

Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.

Those magical mystery mutations are pretty powerful stuff!!

But wait, there's more!

Just for a eukaryotic cell to make an amino acid (polypeptide) chain-

Transcription and Translation-

Transcription:

You start with a tightly wound piece of DNA. Enzymes called RNA polymerases, along with other transcription factors, begin the process by unwinding a portion of DNA near the start of a gene, which is specified by sequences called promoters. Now there are two strands exposed. One strand is the coding strand- it has the correct sequence information for the product- and the other strand is the non-coding strand. That strand contains the complimentary layout.

At this point decisions have to be made. Where to start, where to stop and although it may seem counterintuitive the mRNA goes to the non-coding strand in order to reconstruct the proper codon sequence (nucleotide triplets which code for an amino acid) for the protein to be formed. Both sides of the parent DNA are exposed yet the mRNA "knows" to only form on one.

This process is unidirectional (5’-3’). There is only one start codon which also codes for an amino acid (met) and therefore all amino acid sequences start with methionine. The stop codons don’t code for an amino acid. Transcription actually starts before the “start” codon and continues past the stop codon. Before the mRNA leaves the nucleus any/ all introns are cut out and the remaining exons spliced together. A chemical cap is added to the 5’ end, the non-coding stuff at the end is cut off by a special enzyme (endonuclease) and a string of A’s is added in its place. You now have a processed mRNA.

So now we have this piece of processed mRNA which leaves the nucleus and has to rendezvous with a ribosome-the protein factory within the cell. On to translation:

A ribosome consists of over 50 proteins and 3-4 different kinds of rRNA (ribosomal), plus free-floating tRNA (transfer). Each tRNA has a 3 nucleotide sequence- the anti-codon to the mRNA’s codon plus it carries the appropriate amino acid molecule for its anti-codon. To attach the appropriate amino acid to the correct anti-codon an enzyme called amino-acid synthetase is used.

There, large workbenches made of both protein and nucleic acid grab the mRNA so the correct amino acids can be brought up to the mRNA. Each amino acid is escorted by a module called tRNA or transfer RNA. It is important to note that the escort molecules have three bases prominently exposed on their backsides and that these molecules also use the base U instead of T. The kind of amino acid is determined precisely by the tRNA escort’s anticodon, or triplet set of bases on the escort’s backside.-pg 23

And then the chain starts forming until the stop codon terminates the process.

Next is the folding process. That is what allows the protein to be useful- its spatial configuration.

That is just the basics of what one is introduced to when reading biology textbooks. And it doesn't include the proof-reading and error correction that accompanies the process.

So the bottom-line is if biology textbooks got rid of the biased, untestable and unscientific leanings toward non-telic evolution students reading the books would come to the design inference just based on the data.

Extrapolation and the Design Inference

-
The design inference in a nutshell:

Every time we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and know the cause it has always been via agency involvement. Always. Meaning there has never been an observed instance of X (be that CSI or IC) arising spontaneously, ie without agency invlovement. Never.

Therefor when we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and don't know the cause we can infer, due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism, that an agency was involved.

True the usual evotardgasm is "Man (humans) are the only agency we know of that produces X (be that CSI or IC)", but that is the point of extrapolation.

Ya see if we have already determined design and we also have determined that man (humans) could not be the agency, then we infer it was some other agency-> extrapolation.

So simple my eight year old understands it...

Common Design and Standards

-
It is as if evotards have never designed nor built anything in their lives. Why is that, you say? Well for one just being involved in building a house you will see bulding standards at work. The studs of a wall will be 16" apart on center- building code/ standard.

Floor joists? The same OR 12" apart on center depending on the load the floor will carry. (yes some can be 24" apart, again depending on the floor's load- I have never seen that spacing).

IEEE? Standards that allow for different companys'equipment to work together.

What does this have to do with a common design? EVERYTHING.

The point being is a common design is one that uses the same standards to construct something. That is the same standards others used to construct something else.

Other examples would be plug-n-play electronics, PC clones, rail-road tracks, roads, bridges, etc. (Russia used a different standard for their rail road tracks forcing Germany to refit their rail road cars to ride on Russia's tracks- WWII)

How does this relate to Intelligent Design? Living organisms were designed to the same or very similar standard. It does not require only one designer. Just one set of design standards that must be followed.

Archaeology, Forensic Science, SETI and Intelligent Design

-
For years I have been saying that Intelligent Design is as scientific an enterprise as archaeology, forensic science and SETI. All rely on our ability to understand cause and effect relationships in order to differentiate between what nature, operating freely can do and what takes agency involvement to accomplish.

Easy to understand yet some people, re evotards, just refuse to grasp the concept. They will say that archaeology and forensics we already know who the designer is, which is total bullshit, or that those enterprises strive to identify the designer whereas ID does not. More bullshit as the way archaeologists and forensic scientists do that is by studying the evidence- as I tell them-there evotards:

In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design(s).

But being scientifically illiterate chimp-wannabe's, evotards cannot grasp that. Sad, really.

OR they will want to know what we have found out about the designer so far as if that will somehow refute ID. *shrug, sigh*

So the bottom-line is Intelligent Design is based on our knowledge and experiences of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.

Did Sex End Universal Common Descent?

-
Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation.

All that is left for Zachriel or any other evolutionitwit to do is to assert that Dr Sermonti is mistaken. But one will quickly notice that total lack of evidentiary support for such a premise.


Yes I have posted all of that before- twice. However there is more to sexual reproduction that puts an end to universal common descent. Ya see with sexual reproduction each parent only gets to use 1/2 of its genome to form the offsoring. That means there isn't any guarantee that even the most beneficial mutation will get pssed down. And even if it does there isn't any guarantee it will be the dominant trait (meaning it could end up being recessive and not expressed).

The point being is that there really isn't any mechanism for accumulating beneficial mutations beyond sheer dumb luck.

Evolutionary Math Meets Magic

-
Fitness equations? Dice? Meet reality:

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans-

40 offspring just for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

But that doesn't fit narrative so add some magical synergistic epistasis

But that ain't the point- the point is fitness. Evotards have their equations and their dice and they tell us how fitness can constantly increase. How "selection" can drive this increase. But when we look at reality we find papers like the one linked to above. Papers that say we should be extinct, but obviously we ain't so we will make something up , ie synergistic epistasis, and hope we find evidence for it some day.

Well evotards, keep playing with your dice, your meaningless equations and yourselves. It is all you have and to you it means something.

Kevin R. McCarthy Blows a Gasket!

-
Kevin is definitely lost- he is as ignorant as one can possibly be. Case in point:

There really isn't 'artificial' and 'natural' there is only selection and if artificial is directed, then so is natural.

Yes he did say that. Unbelieveable tard.

wikipedia- the evotard bible says:

Artificial selection (or selective breeding) describes intentional breeding for certain traits, or combination of traits. The term was utilized by Charles Darwin in contrast to natural selection, in which the differential reproduction of organisms with certain traits is attributed to improved survival or reproductive ability (“Darwinian fitness”). As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.

Why Can't We Just Test Evolutionism and Be Done with the Question?

-
It has been over 150 years and still evolutionism remains untestable and is supported only by a minority, ie those with a specific world-view.

It does not have a testable hypothesis and it does not have any positive evidence to support it. Every time I ask for such things I get either a volley of evotardgasms or equivocations. But nothing to support the position. Strange, that.

So how about it, can evotards actually stand up for their position? Or is all they have is to lie and bullshit about ID?

Experience says they can only lie and bullshit about ID...

Intelligent Design Tested and Confirmed

-
Dumbass, ignorant Kevin R. McCarthy has a blog titles Why Can’t We Just Test Intelligent Design and Be Done With the Question?-

ID has been tested, Kevin, and the tests confirm it. Unfortunately Kevin is too stupid to even understand what evidence is.

The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, just as archaeology and forensic science is.

You want to disprove an object is an artifact? Demonstrate that nature, operating freely (ie no agency involvement) can produce it.

You want to disprove a criime was committed? Same thing- demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce the effect in question.

But anyway dumbass, why don't YOU tell us how to test your position?

Testing the claims of Intelligent Design-

(I posted the followingon Kevin's blog (he won't publish it as he has to censor)

As Dr Behe said:

Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.

In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)

How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.

Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?

So how about it ole ignorant and cowardly fuck-up? If you want ID to go away all you need to do is actually step up and produce A) a testable hypothesis for it and B) positive evidence to support that hypothesis.

Equivocation and Evolution, Revisted, Revisted Again

-
It is that time AGAIN:

Seeing that evotards are so dishonest and obtuse they keep parroting the same ole refuted nonsense it is time to revisit this post:

Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Evolution has several meanings*:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

With the above in mind it is easy to see that the theory of evolution is really a theory of equivocation. That is any and all evidences for evolution 1-5 are always used as evidence for evolution #6.

For example- the varying beak of the finch, anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, and genetic similarities (including alleged shared mistakes but regardless of the physiological & anatomical differences), are all used as evidence for evolution #6.

It should also be noted that evolution #6, ie culled genetic accidents, does not produce any predictions beyond perhaps change and/ or stasis, nor is it objectively testable.




* page 136-37 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

cont-

In October 2007 I posted a piece I called Equivocation and Evolution, to highlight the blatant misrepresentation that evolutionists use in order to deceive anyone reading their comments.

This equivocation has now filtered into mechanisms- so called evolutionary mechanisms.

1. As I have pointed out many times, evolution is not being debated.

2. Evolutionary mechanisms could very well be telic- ie designed, as in designed to evolve, with genetic accidents being a small part of the scenario. See Dr Spetner's Not By Chance

And finally, as has been pointed out at least several thousand times, not one of the evolutionary mechanisms, nor any combination, has been demonstrated to do anything except provide slight, oscillating variations in an existing population.


Note: Page 67 of “The Edge of Evolution” Dr Behe has Table 4.1- Varieties of DNA Mutations- substitution, deletion, insertion, inversion, gene duplication, genome duplication. IOW those evolutionary mechanisms are not ignored.


Let the evotard flailing begin...

Biological Evolution- What is Being Debated- Revisted For Kevin R. McCarthy

-
Kevin R. McCarthy of Round Rock Texas (aka OgreMKV) believes his ignorance is a refutation.

He doesn't understand the debate even after it has been explained to him.

But anyway-

Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

The debate isn't as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don't seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don't appear to understand the issue. The TE's I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE's are closet IDists.)

Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were. Just as Carolus Linneaus attempted to do some 200 years ago.

see also The Current Status of Baraminology


With Creation vs. "Evolution #6" the 4 main debating points are clear:

1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)
2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).
3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from "simpler" bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)
4) The mechanism for evolution.

With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.

IDists understand that if life didn't arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose soley due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).

What does the data say? Well there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything.

So there you have it Kevin- this explains how supporting your position will refute ID. However it is a sure bet you are too stupid/ ignorant to understand any of it.