Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!

if we were to graph evolution, it would be depicted by an upward slope from left to right, this graph would represent what evolution claims is happening to an organism's genome due to beneficial information-adding mutations.

the real graph of a genome over time slopes downward from left to right because of the high rate of deletrious mutations. this is consistent with entropy, but inconsistent with the theory of evolution. real scientists would ditch the failed theory because the evidence contradicts it.

i believe selective breeding and natural selection both play a sizable role in genetics, but variations can only go so far. i too believe in an intelligent designer as it is only logical. the being knew that climates would change and species would migrate, so in their genetics the being equipped them with mechanisms that give them the ability to adapt. i'm not talking mutations, but traits that already exist in their genes that just need the right stimuli to be invoked. this is consistent with what we've seen.

reply to post by andersensrm


Words are important they are used to construct are abstract of reality around as. At best they are still an approximation giving us a model of the world. Not the world itself.

Recently Einstein theory of evolution was proven incorrect. Some particles travel faster than the speed of light. A whole pillar of science has crumbled

There are scientists that disagree with the theories of evolution, even some at the likes of oxford or the mit institute. It is not correct to come out and say the science is a fact. It is simply wrong. But hey think what you like i dont mind. I can present the information and you can do with it as you will.

For the record I am neither a creationist or an evolutionist. Neither explain the transition life around me on our biosphere.

reply to post by chr0naut


What???? Implies intelligent design?? where do you get that from if you don't mind me asking. I don't believe in intelligent design, if that tells you anything. i do however believe that we have more influence on things than we know of, and the will, or concsiousness, or spirit that lies within all living things may be the drive or the influence that makes seemingly random events, not so random.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by andersensrm

 

Words are important they are used to construct are abstract of reality around as. At best they are still an approximation giving us a model of the world. Not the world itself.

Recently Einstein theory of evolution was proven incorrect. Some particles travel faster than the speed of light. A whole pillar of science has crumbled

There are scientists that disagree with the theories of evolution, even some at the likes of oxford or the mit institute. It is not correct to come out and say the science is a fact. It is simply wrong. But hey think what you like i dont mind. I can present the information and you can do with it as you will.

For the record I am neither a creationist or an evolutionist. Neither explain the transition life around me on our biosphere.

I agree with what you have to say, but what i was getting at, is if we live by the rules of science as you say, you can never prove anything, and you can never say anything is a fact, which then goes on to make facts a non existent entity, in which case there would be no need for facts. So now that we can't differentiate from what is real, to what we think is real, to what we want to be real, what are we to do. This is why I say, sometimes you have to sacrifice the words real definition. I can't say that the earth is a sphere is a fact, which means you can't really say that it isn't a cube, or a pyramid, or a cone, or whatever. So now we don't really know whats what, because we are playing with semantics. If we can agree that the earth is in fact a sphere, then we can say it is not a pyramid, and not a cube. This doesn't mean that the earth is actually a perfect sphere, because it is nowhere close. But it is incredibly closer to that, than that of a cube or pyramid. Its about coming to an understanding, of course nothing can be proven to be fact, but we call it a fact, to differentiate it from things that are completely made up.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Ah, the trustworthy unbiased site, evolutionfairytale.com. I checked out the sources they give and half of them don't even come up. Especially

The probability p of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U6. Therefore, making the substitution,

#6 lead to a dead link. Important part of the equation that needs verification.

I see all the studies, but what I don't see is proof that our mutation rate is too high. I see opinions that people have on the studies. The problem is we don't have a living ancestor that we can study and measure the mutation rates on. For all we know, that could be normal with hominids. It may be something to be concerned about, but it doesn't disprove anything about evolution, and none of the scientists that actually performed the studies said that. The website that throws all these things together and nitpicks certain details out of context making silly claims hidden in studies then coming up with a silly conclusion. Hell, maybe we are destined for extinction as 99% of species to ever live the planet are, but a new species that branches off of us will survive and continue. Do you believe that mutation rates never change? It's very possible that our rate of mutation is affected by our pollution, processed foods and other toxins that enter the body on a daily basis. There could be tons of possible explanations. I'm glad you brought this up because I will now be following it to learn the answer. Maybe it's because our DNA is tampered with. There's no question we evolved from the earlier hominids, it's obvious in fossils, genetics and everything else. That doesn't mean we weren't modified.

reply to post by Barcs


I agree, there can be many outside factors, that we may not even be aware of, that are affecting these types of things, such as mutations and what not. Also the time that we've had to analyze all this stuff hasn't been that long, especially when looking at the length of the human race so far. We've been able to measure only recent mutation rates, but as you said, whos to say these arent changing all the time due to outside factors, such as weather, stellar events, and others.

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by chr0naut

 

What???? Implies intelligent design?? where do you get that from if you don't mind me asking. I don't believe in intelligent design, if that tells you anything. i do however believe that we have more influence on things than we know of, and the will, or concsiousness, or spirit that lies within all living things may be the drive or the influence that makes seemingly random events, not so random.

Lets assume for one moment that this "spirit", "will" or "consciousness" that influences biological evolution arises from you.

Are you intelligent?

Possibly.

reply to post by Barcs

There's no question we evolved from the earlier hominids, it's obvious in fossils, genetics and everything else.

of course, your trademark fallback "it's a fact" line dispite what the evidence says.

no. the evolutionists who wrote the article actually padded their results AND included natural selection as already removing "x" amount of deleterious mutations based on another theory called "synergistic epistasis" that has not been observed and is illogical. their original article is available online, though it isn't free.

if you have evidence that the article i gave you is lying, then by all means, show me.

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U [detrimental mutation rate] would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction [like humans and apes etc.] . . . The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e -U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes.

www.detectingdesign.com...
i found another seperate paper based on different research by different geneticists confirming a 3 or higher rate of mutations.

the evolutionist answer, put simply, is that harmful effects from deleterious mutations combine (even though most are neutral, or so close to neutral that it doesn't matter) and have a global negative effect that is greater than their combined individual effect. this has not been seen, and is an attempt by evolutionists to keep their theory alive on flimsy associations with no real evidence supporting them.

even if synergistic epistasis existed, every female human would still have to have 40+ kids and 39 would have to die. this is unsustainable.

this shows that humans could not have evolved, neither could apes. now, since you follow "science" and "evidence" will you blindly continue believing a theory that is obviously wrong? most scientists do, revealing their bias.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by chr0naut

 

What???? Implies intelligent design?? where do you get that from if you don't mind me asking. I don't believe in intelligent design, if that tells you anything. i do however believe that we have more influence on things than we know of, and the will, or concsiousness, or spirit that lies within all living things may be the drive or the influence that makes seemingly random events, not so random.

Lets assume for one moment that this "spirit", "will" or "consciousness" that influences biological evolution arises from you.

Are you intelligent?

Possibly.

edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Okay, well I guess I was alluding to the intelligent mind, that lies outside as some separate entity. Thats how most people see the intelligent design theory, my theory has always been that consciousness is the cause for the universe, but I guess I never looked at it as intelligent. Using this theory of consciousness, it seems that arguments on both sides of the creation,intelligent mind theory could be correct, as in there is no separate being that creates us, rather it is the collective consciousness of us all that came about to our creation, this not being separate from us, but from time, space, and all other forms of existence. It could also explain dark matter. Dark matter could be consciousness, a collective consciousness of all living things, that ultimately keeps the galaxy from ripping itself apart. There is no known way of detecting consciousness other than getting indirect impulses from our brains. Light could also be a form of consciousness. Well i guess we could say that all forms of matter could ultimately be lead back to the conscious. This could also explain psychics( don't know if i spelled that right at all) People who can look into the future, are doing so by accessing the collective consciousness that is not bound by space or time. This could also explain remote viewing. Sometimes people aren't right in there predictions because of the many outcomes that are possible. At any time we can change into a different dimension. Driving down the freeway to your job would usually go normal, and you'd get there no problem, but if you wanted to, you could for no reason, yank the steering wheel to the right and just cause a massive accident. This is but one of the many examples of what you could do to put yourself into a different dimension. Problem being once your there, theres no going back. There are certain dimensions we can change into, and then theres the ones we cant. In theory the amount of dimensions that we wouldnt be able to go to, would be infinite. These dimensions can be accesed through the consciosness because it is not bound by space in time. Therefore there is no way you can create anything. When george lucas came up with star wars, that dimension already existed, and so he was able to access the consciousness as all living things are, whether they are aware or not, and obtain the thought to make it. I believe that if you could cut time in to a theoretical, smallest interval, and do the same for space, every time you move through one of these intervals in time, or units through space, you are changing dimensions. So each interval of time, and each unit of space, for every possible outcome, for every possible universe, would make up all of the dimensions. All of these dimensions are all happening right now. All the time. We all have our individual concsious's though. This means we all perceive time, space, and the dimensions differently. You could think of a time line, with a theoretical beginning and a theoretical end, and starting from the beginning to the end, multiple strings. Each string is made up of many tiny strings all woven together. The separate strings represent the different dimensions inaccessible once started. But in each string, there are multiple other strings that are close enough together that we can access them, for example the freeway incident. The point is, is that all the strings are already there. We can access them. And since there all there all the time, right now, then even in the beginning when the first someone, came up with the first something, they actually got it through the consciousness looking into a different dimension.

Sorry for Rambling

The theory of evolution is just the scientists version of religion. We all need something to believe in. Why don't we see species evolving today. Magically poofing from one form to another. My best guess is that the species with the mutation that helped them to survive conditions there fellow beings coudln't got duplicated in the shallow gene pools of the world. The fact that most living beings share the same genes and some of these genes could have mutated is why some fish have legs and some people have scales. I can just picture a species low on the food chain saying to itself,"No thanks I'm done evloving. Im quite comfortable where I'm at." Who woudlnt want to change there station in life?

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by BBalazs

 

What evolutionary advantage is there in us seeing "immense beauty" in the structure and process of the universe?

We don't need to see beauty, form, color or anything like that to survive.

It would appear that the human race is directed towards an outcome that goes beyond both genetics and selection pressures.

If you balance the results of random chance and compare that to the observed universe, and apply a little mathematical and statistical nous, you have to admit that it is highly, ridiculously impossible that things would be so anthropocentric.

In that mindset, I see the universe directed to achieve specific results.

edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Let's for a minute focus on creationism.

Too much focus is spend by creationists being on the offense of the debate lately; For a bit, this evolutionist here wants to go on the offense regarding your creationist "theory."


Your Bible, it says something like "God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Sooo, than, who created all the other planets in the Universe.

If your going to include all the other planets in your definition of "the Heavens", that I would ask, so does that mean
God's first planet he created was Earth? If not, than why does your Bible mention only one planet?

Also

When was the Universe made, and how?

When where Galaxies formed, and how?

When where stars, "dark matter", "dark energy", etc. made?

What causes Supernova's and etc.?

When where the first solar system's made? How long after the Universe was made?

When was our solar system made? How long after the first solar system's appeared was ours made?

How was the moon made, and when?

edit on 24-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

The single sentence "God created the heavens and the Earth" does not necessarily imply the chronological order of the creation. It could also imply simultaneous creation of heaven & Earth.

Big Bang cosmology, however dictates that the Big Bang occurred first, the universe inflated rapidly, stars and galaxies came into being as gravity caused the clumping of matter into accretion disks around significantly large amounts of matter. From the accretion disk around our proto-Sun, the planets (including the Earth) formed. This is not inconsistent with the Heavens being formed and then the Earth.

The oldest book in the bible (the book of Job) written in what we would call the bronze age (or earlier), mentions that the constellation of Orion is different than the other constellations because its stars are bound together gravitationally, which is the case. One has to acknowledge that there is no way back then that they could even have understood the significance of what God was telling Job about the universe.

Perhaps in light of the fact that both science and the Bible are in accord on the matter you posted about, you should adjust your opinions to fit the facts.

edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Ok, so your saying a Big Bang happened, than cosmic inflation, than galaxy to solar system, etc.

Sounds like proof of Evolution. Regarding Big Bang, I see no proof that a God was needed. Why?

1- Well recently, they discovered that even empty space has has latent energy, something regarding virtual particles...

2- More solid, is, simply, why is a God asserted in the first place? It has to be proven.

At best, if a "being" created us (and the Universe), they are just a more advanced alien race or some sort. I mean, we are just scratching the surface of quantum computing, who knows maybe our computer's bit's and byte's has a soul, a feeling, an emotion.... In fact, (acting like a creationist would), they would say, "You can't throw away your computer cause your killing the 1's and 0's"!!!

Thus, now that we see you can't proof what you are asserting (God), unless you can provide evidence, Evolution is the theory with countless proofs....

When your proofing your God, make sure notice the parrell regarding "throwing a computer away" and all the loss of "bits and byte's"

Originally posted by riseofman13
The theory of evolution is just the scientists version of religion. We all need something to believe in. Why don't we see species evolving today. Magically poofing from one form to another. My best guess is that the species with the mutation that helped them to survive conditions there fellow beings coudln't got duplicated in the shallow gene pools of the world. The fact that most living beings share the same genes and some of these genes could have mutated is why some fish have legs and some people have scales. I can just picture a species low on the food chain saying to itself,"No thanks I'm done evloving. Im quite comfortable where I'm at." Who woudlnt want to change there station in life?

Out of all the trillions upon trillions of planets out there, you think human's are at the top of the food chain?

You imply that.

We see species evolving, I just put up a thread about a single celled yeast evolving into multicelluar yeast within 60 days!!!

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

the mutation rates confirm that evolution cannot occur. even if you accept their explanation (for which there is no evidence) you STILL have to assume that every human female HAS AT LEAST 40 KIDS!

I just debunked that claim. Why are you still holding to it?

*

reply to post by Barcs

Don't bother. He already posted his 'proof' (see his first post in the thread). It's some crank calculation derived by an electronics engineer who runs a creationist web site and radio show, based on a genuine scientific paper he didn't understand and got his knickers in a twist over. Notice how – typical creationist trickery – Mr. Sholtz ignored my post and offered the same argument all over again, just as if it hadn't been debunked.

*

reply to post by Barcs

Ah, I see you did bother. What's the bet it doesn't stop young Bob posting that piece of nonsense on a few more forum threads in the weeks to come? That's the great thing about creationist claims; you debunk them, and two minutes later they've stuck the damn' things together with spit and glue and they're holding them up again.

reply to post by chr0naut

Thanks for supplying a checkable example. I read the Wired article, and then looked at the original paper, which is available from PNAS as a free PDF download.

You are wrong, of course: there was genetic change. Some genomes were eliminated, others selected for. The selection was based on the extended phenotypes manifested by the yeast strains; strains that clustered together were selected for. It is discussed in the paper; in any case, it should be obvious to anyone on nodding terms with biology that phenotypic change over generations, absent environmental changes impacting on development, has to be of genetic origin in a simple organism like yeast; no other possibility exists. Yeast is not conscious, or trainable.

You complain that the selection was artificial; well, what of it? Did you expect the experiment to last the billion or more years it took for multicellularity to evolve from unicellularity in the natural way?

The point of the experiment was not to replicate natural conditions exactly, but simply to show that multicellular organisms can evolve from unicellular ones. This it quite clearly demonstrates. Thus another prediction of the theory of evolution is shown to be accurate; there is no hitherto-unsuspected obstacle to the evolution of multicellularity. It is in this way, and this way only, that the cited experiment supports the theory of evolution by natural selection.

You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy, Chr0naut. The objection you raised is one I would expect from some poorly-educated person unfamiliar with the theory of evolution by natural selection; it's unworthy of you.

Would you like to try again? Maybe you will fare better with one of your other examples.

reply to post by Astyanax


Again you implied genetic change. That implies the genes were not there at the beginning of the experiment and that these new genes were evolved during the experiment.

All this experiment did was to separate yeasts genetically predisposed to clumping from yeast not genetically predisposed to clumping. Both traits existed in the source population prior to the experiment.

That is why it happened in 60 days.

If Bert shoots and kills his brother Bob, removing Bob's unique traits from the gene pool, it does not follow that Bert has suddenly evolved. There has been NO genetic change in Bert.

This experiment was similar to the Bert & Bob example except that it was preformed on populations rather than individuals.

Surely you can see that you are playing a rather silly semantic game and the process of mutation/genetic drift is entirely absent from the example. Therefore one of the pillars of biological evolution process is absent in ths experiment.

reply to post by chr0naut

You implied genetic change. That implies the genes were not there at the beginning of the experiment and that these new genes were evolved during the experiment. All this experiment did was to separate yeasts genetically predisposed to clumping from yeast not genetically predisposed to clumping. Both traits existed in the source population prior to the experiment.

I didn't imply it, I stated it explicitly. You really should have read the paper before replying. Here is a quote from the abstract.

We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved.

From the authors' description of the experimental setup:

Ten replicate populations of initially isogenic S. cerevisiae were grown in nutrient-rich liquid medium with shaking to stationary phase... before subculturing and daily transfer to fresh medium.

'Isogenic', as I am sure you know, means 'genetically identical'. In practice it means the cells were clones.

From the description of the progress of the experiment:

Individual cells, obtained by enzymatic digestion of snowflake clusters, were tracked via microscopy for 16 h of growth. During this time each cell was seen to give rise to a new snowflake-type cluster, whereas aggregation was never seen, demonstrating that clusters arise via postdivision adhesion and not by aggregation of previously separate cells.

This wasn't about clumping, you see. The yeast evolved a genetic capacity for multicellularity. And, as the paper goes on to explain, cells in the new multicellular yeast strain began to show signs of specialized function.

This is real genetic change; and there is no more direct way to demonstrate it, other than perhaps to undertake the vast, dauntingly time-consuming and colossally expensive task of sequencing some of the parent yeast genome and some of the descendant yeast genomes and comparing the two, side by side, snip by snip. That's not going to happen – not only because it's too big a task, but also because it isn't necessary.

Surely you can see that you are playing a rather silly semantic game and the process of mutation/genetic drift is entirely absent from the example. Therefore one of the pillars of biological evolution process is absent in ths experiment.

You really should have read the paper before writing that. It's all about mutation, really.

reply to post by Astyanax

I just debunked that claim. Why are you still holding to it?

firstly, that article you posted doesn't debunk the mutation rates i posted, it simply says that natural selection is responsible for removing deleterious mutations from the genepool. secondly, since they offer no evidence that contradicts a U=3+ mutation rate, they must be assuming each human female is giving birth to 40 kids.

so no, not debunked at all.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Astyanax

 

I just debunked that claim. Why are you still holding to it?

firstly, that article you posted doesn't debunk the mutation rates i posted, it simply says that natural selection is responsible for removing deleterious mutations from the genepool. secondly, since they offer no evidence that contradicts a U=3+ mutation rate, they must be assuming each human female is giving birth to 40 kids.

so no, not debunked at all.

You have no evidence backing your assertion of a need for a "U=3+ mutation rate," A link to a creationist website is not evidence or proof. Well, it's proof that your lazy, going to your set list of creationist websites in order to argue this issue.

Wouldn't you agree that a bear standard for debating "design vs. evolution" is not using obviously bias sourcing i.e website's that have the word "design" in the URL or the word "evolution" in the URL? "Creation" and "Evolve" as well I guess.

reply to post by Confusion42

obviously you didn't go to either of my sources.

Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3

evolutionfairytale.com...
eyre-walker and keightley were a bit dishonest at best, but in the end, even THEY admit the mutation rate is 3 per new individual plus the sum of it's parents mutations.

Now consider that extremely favorable assumptions for evolution were used in the Eyre-Walker & Keightley article. If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1, which they admit is "remarkably high" (even this may be a favorable assumption, considering Maynard Smith estimates the genic area to be between 9 - 27%7).

even the evolutionists admit the rate is closer to 3 when they used the correct size of a functioning genome.
now, from the second article:

Nachmann and Crowell detail the perplexing situation at hand in the following conclusion from their fairly recent paper on human mutation rates: The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U [detrimental mutation rate] would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction [like humans and apes etc.] . . . The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e -U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

www.detectingdesign.com...

the research backing the two papers i've cited was carried out by evolutionists, not creationists. you'd know that if you had even looked at them. hell, you didn't even bother to find a paper that disagrees, you basically state "you're wrong because you're wrong".

this tells me you have no care for evidence because you already assume all opposing views as wrong, no matter what evidence exists to back them up. sadly this is what i've come to expect from people who claim evolution is science.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Confusion42

 

obviously you didn't go to either of my sources.

Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3

evolutionfairytale.com...
eyre-walker and keightley were a bit dishonest at best, but in the end, even THEY admit the mutation rate is 3 per new individual plus the sum of it's parents mutations.

Now consider that extremely favorable assumptions for evolution were used in the Eyre-Walker & Keightley article. If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1, which they admit is "remarkably high" (even this may be a favorable assumption, considering Maynard Smith estimates the genic area to be between 9 - 27%7).

even the evolutionists admit the rate is closer to 3 when they used the correct size of a functioning genome.
now, from the second article:

Nachmann and Crowell detail the perplexing situation at hand in the following conclusion from their fairly recent paper on human mutation rates: The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U [detrimental mutation rate] would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction [like humans and apes etc.] . . . The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e -U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

www.detectingdesign.com...

the research backing the two papers i've cited was carried out by evolutionists, not creationists. you'd know that if you had even looked at them. hell, you didn't even bother to find a paper that disagrees, you basically state "you're wrong because you're wrong".

this tells me you have no care for evidence because you already assume all opposing views as wrong, no matter what evidence exists to back them up. sadly this is what i've come to expect from people who claim evolution is science.

I will not waste time debating somebody who does not understand what the word "bias" means and whose #1 source of scientific information is a website called "evolutionFairyTale"

I wont go down to your lowly depths. Kind of ironic, your use of the site, evolution "Fairy Tale"