Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive

New York Times ^ | August 21, 2005 | JODI WILGOREN

[Nicholas Conradin]

By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.

After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.

[Ichneumon]

To the pre-conceptual evolutionists here:

The "scientific creationists" are the ultimate example of such "pre-conceptual" methods.

[King Prout]

your pain threshold must be damn near infinite.
I've given up on these goobers.

[Ichneumon]

The best Carroll can say is that “[i]t is reasonable to believe that the ancestors of mammals can be found among cynodonts such as the chiniquodontids or galesaurids that reduced their body size, probably in relationship to an insectivorous diet” [Emphasis added]. (Carroll, 410.) However, as Carroll points out, the chiniquodontids and galesaurids of the Lower to Middle Triassic reveal only “the initial stages in the origin of most of the features that characterize the mammalian skeleton.” (Carroll, 392.) This inability to trace the transition from cynodont to mammal is usually blamed on the paucity of fossils. Carroll writes, “Unfortunately, the record of the immediate ancestors of mammals becomes less complete in the Upper Triassic.” (Carroll, 392.) There are, however, fossils of at least two superfamilies, three families, and seven genera of “advanced” cynodonts from the Upper Triassic. (Carroll, 624.) It just so happens that none of them are suitable as transitions to mammals.

I love how creationists pass around out-of-context, out-of-date quotes which starkly reveal just how out-of-touch they are with the actual field they're so poorly attempting to critique.

Here, chew on this demonstration of just how jaw-droppingly wrong you are in your post:

Evolutionary theory predicted that there should be transitional forms between the reptilian-style jaw joint and the mammalian-style jaw joint (the earliest mammals evolved from reptiles). For years creationists crowed about the "missing links", and made their own predictions that not only would there be no such transitional fossils found, but that any creature with a jaw that was transitional between that of reptiles and mammals would die of starvation, since such a "half and half" jaw joint was "obviously" mechanically unworkable. Nonetheless, biologists kept searching for the fossils predicted by evolution, and not only found one or two, but found a *wealth* of them which provide a *very* complete and smooth transitional sequence -- exactly as evolution predicted. Oddly enough, I never hear the creationists bring that one up...

Reptile -> Mammal evolutionary transition:

Example 2: reptile-mammals

Figure 1.4.1. The jaws of three vertebrates—mammal, therapsid, and pelycosaur. A side view of three idealized skulls of mammals, therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), and pelycosaurs (early reptiles). The figure shows the differences between mammal and reptilian jaws and ear-bone structures. The jaw joint is shown as a large black dot, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. Note how, in the reptile, the jaw joint is formed between the blue quadrate and the yellow articular (with the pink angular close by), and how, in the mammal, the jaw joint is formed between the squamosal above and the dentary below. In the reptile, the squamosal is just above and contacting the quadrate. Advanced therapsids have two jaw joints: a reptile-like joint and a mammal-like joint (Figure based on Kardong 2002, pp. 275, reproduced with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1).

Early in the 20^th century, developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (see the Pelycosaur in Figure 1.4.1). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively; see Figure 1.4.2) (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896). These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function. Young-earth creationist Duane Gish stated the problem this way:

"All mammals, living or fossil, have a single bone, the dentary, on each side of the lower jaw, and all mammals, living or fossil, have three auditory ossicles or ear bones, the malleus, incus and stapes. ... Every reptile, living or fossil, however, has at least four bones in the lower jaw and only one auditory ossicle, the stapes. ... There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear." (Gish 1978, p. 80)

Figure 1.4.2. A comparison of the ears of reptiles and mammals. The reptile ear is shown on the left, the mammal ear on the right. As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise and the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow. The stapes is shown in brown. Note how the relative arrangement of these bones is similar in both taxa, in the order of inner ear-stapes-quadrate-articular.

Gish was incorrect in stating that there were no transitional fossil forms, and he has been corrected on this gaff numerous times since he wrote these words. However, Gish's statements nicely delineate the morphological conundrum at hand. Let's review the required evolutionary conclusion. During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During the course of this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary (see Figure 1.4.1).

How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

Since Figure 1.4.3 was made, several important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles.

Recall that Gish stated: "There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones" (Gish 1978, p. 80). Gish simply does not understand how gradual transitions happen (something he should understand, obviously, if he intends to criticize evolutionary theory). These fossil intermediates illustrate why Gish's statement is a gross mischaracterization of how a transitional form should look. In several of the known intermediates, the bones have overlapping functions, and one bone can be called both an ear bone and a jaw bone; these bones serve two functions. Thus, there is no reason to expect transitional forms with intermediate numbers of jaw bones or ear bones. For example, in Morganucodon, the quadrate (anvil) and the articular (hammer) serve as mammalian-style ear bones and reptilian jaw bones simultaneously. In fact, even in modern reptiles the quadrate and articular serve to transmit sound to the stapes and the inner ear (see Figure 1.4.2). The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear.

Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

The above is from 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, which compiles several hundred transitional fossils, which is itself just a *SMALL* sampling of the ENORMOUS numbers of fine transitional sequences found in the fossil record and well known to anyone who has bothered to CRACK OPEN A BOOK -- or even do a websearch -- in the past 25 years or so... So what's the anti-evolutionists' excuse for remaining abysmally ignorant of such things, and repeatedly making the false claim that there are "no" transitional fossils, etc.?

Here's another look:

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic.

TAXONOMY	LATERAL TEMPORAL FENESTRA	LOWER JAW DENTARY	TEETH	LOWER JAW: POST- DENTARY BONES	MIDDLE EAR & JAW ARTICULATION
M: Early Placental mammals Asioryctes Upper Cretaceous	Merged with eye socket; cheek arch bowed out laterally	100% of jaw length is the den- tary; condylar process in contact with squamosal	Fully differentiated teeth; incisors, canines, premolars; one tooth replacement	No post-dentary bones	3 middle ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus) + tympanic; squamosal-dentary jaw joint
L: "Pantothere" mammals Amphitherium Middle/Upper Jurassic	X	100% of jaw length is the den-  tary; condylar process contacts squamosal	Fully differentiated teeth; incisors, canines, premolars; one tooth replacement	Post-dentary bones migrated to middle ear	Probably 3 middle ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus) + tympanic; squamosal-dentary jaw joint
K: Morganucodontid mammals Morganucodon  Upper Triassic & Lower Jurassic	Merged with eye socket; cheeck arch bowed out laterally	100% of jaw length is the den- tary; condylar process expanded posteriorly to make contact with squamosal	Fully differentiated teeth; incisors, canines, premolars; one tooth replacement	20% of jaw length; reflected lamina decreased to narrow ribbon-like horseshoe	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate tiny; both quadrate-articular and squamosal-dentary jaw joints
J: Chiniquodontid cynodonts Probainognathus Middle Triassic	Much larger than eye socket; 40- 45% of skull length; expanded posterioirly, medially, & laterally; midline of skull narrow sagittal crest; chek arch bowed out laterally	95% of jaw length is the dentary; large coronoid process expanded posteriorly; condylar process expanded posteriorly	Large single canine; cheek teeth multicusped; tooth replacement reduced	20% of jaw length; angular notch widened ventrally; width of main part of angular decreased; reflec - ted lamina decreased to narrow ribbon-like horseshoe	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate tiny; quadrate-articular joint
I:Galesaurid cynodonts Thrinaxodon Lower Triassic	Much larger than eye socket; 40% of skull length; expanded pos- terioirly, medially, & laterally; midline of skull narrow sagittal crest; chek arch bowed out laterally	85% of jaw length is the dentary; large coronoid process expanded to top of eye socket and pos- teriorly; jaw muscles attached to most of coronoid process	Large single canine; cheek teeth multicusped; tooth replacement reduced	25% of jaw length; angular notch widened ventrally; width of reflec- ted lamina decreased; width of main part of angular decreased	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate small; quadrate-articular jaw joint
H: Procynosuchid cynodonts Procynosuchus upper Upper Permian	Much larger than eye socket; 40% of skull length; expanded pos- terioirly, medially, & laterally; midline of skull narrow sagittal crest; chek arch bowed out laterally	75-80% of jaw length is the den- tary; coronoid process expanded to near top of eye socket and posteriorly; jaw muscles  attached to dorsal part of coronoid process	Large single canine; cheek teeth multicusped	30% of jaw length; angular notch widened ventrally; width of reflected lamina decreased	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate small; quadrate-articular jaw joint
G: Early Therocephalians Pristerognathus lower Upper Permian	Larger than eye socket; expanded posteriorly and medially; 30% of skull length	75-80% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterior end of dentary expanded posteriorly and dorsally into narrow blade-like coronoid process; rises to middle of eye socket	Large single canine; other teeth simple cones.	35% of jaw length; angular notch deepened into a cleft; reflected lamina large, broad, blade-like	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate small; quadrate-articular jaw joint
F: Early Gorgonopsians Eoarctops lower Upper Permian	Slightly larger than eye socket; expanded posteriorly and medially (minimal); 20-25% of skull length	65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterior end of dentary slightly expanded posteriorly and dorsally as incipient coronoid process	Large single canine; other teeth simple cones.	40% of jaw length; angular notch deepened into a cleft; reflected lamina large, broad, blade-like	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint
E: Eotitanosuchians Sphenacodon Lower Permian	Small; slightly smaller than eye socket; slightly expanded posteriorly and medially	65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above tooth row	Large single canine; other teeth simple cones.	40% of jaw length; angular notch deepened into a cleft; reflected lamina large, broad, blade-like	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate;  quadrate- articular jaw joint
D: Late sphenacodonts Sphenacodon Upper Pennsylvanian	Small; smaller than eye socket; confined to one side of skull	65% of jaw length is the dentary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above the tooth row	Enlarged incipient canines; other teeth simple cones	60% of jaw length; venntral edge of angular notched ("angular notch") offsetting a short pro- tusion (reflected lamina)	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate large and plate-like; quadrate- articular jaw joint
C: Early spenacodonts Haptodus Upper Pennsylvanian	Tiny; smaller than eye socket; confined to one side of skull	65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above tooth row	Undifferentiated; slightly enlarged incipient canines just behind nares	70% of jaw length; ventral edge of angular with shallow indentation	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint
B: Early ophiacodonts Archaothyris upper Middle Pennsylvanian	Tiny; smaller than eye socket; confined to one side of skull	x	Undifferentiated; slightly enlarged incipient canines just behind nares	x	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint
A: Protorothyrids Hylonomus lower Middle Pennsylvanian	Absent	65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above tooth row	Undifferentiated; slightly enlarged incipient canines just behind nares	70% of jaw length; ventral edge of angular continuous	Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint

Table 1: Morphology of synapsid reptiles and mammals (Note that Hylonomus is a protothyrid, not a synapsid). Data from references cited in text.

Modern reptiles and mammals are very distinctive, easily diagnosable, and do not intergrade. Reptiles are covered by scales, mammals by hair; reptiles are cold-blooded, mammals warm-blooded; reptiles do not suckle their young, mammals have mammary glands; reptiles have sprawling posture, mammals have upright posture. Most of these features are soft part anatomy or physiology that very rarely fossilize (although dinosaur skin impressions are known from Cretaceous sediments, and imprints of mammal hair are known from Eocene bats from Germany; Franzen, 1990). In the fossil record, we must look to skeletal features.

There are many skeletal features which allow us to distinguish the reptiles from the mammals (Carroll, 1988; Table 1, rows A, M). The single most important defining characteristic is the nature of the articulation of the lower jaw to the skull (Simpson, 1959). In reptiles, multiple bones comprise the lower jaw. A small bone at the posterior end of the lower jaw, the articular, articulates with the quadrate bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988). In mammals, one large bone, the dentary, comprises the lower jaw. It articulates with the squamosal bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988).

From comparative anatomy studies, it is certain that most of the bones of the reptiles and mammals are homologous (Crompton & Parker, 1978; Carroll, 1988). Of greatest importance, the middle ear bones of mammals (stapes, incus, malleus, and tympanic) are homologous with several of the skull and jaw bones of reptiles (stapes, quadrate, articular, and angular, respectively; Romer, 1956, p. 33-38, 1970a; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Hopso n, 1987, 1994; Carroll, 1988). One group of reptiles, the synapsids (Subclass Synapsida), share with the mammals an additional homologous structure: the lateral temporal fenestra, which is an opening in the skull behind the eye socket at the triple junction between the squamosal, jugal , and post orbital bones (Broom, 1932; Frazetta, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). A band of bone composed of the jugal and the squamosal is adjacent to the lateral temporal fenestra (Broom, 1932; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). This is the cheek arch so characteristic of mammal skulls (Broom, 1932; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). Therefore, synapsids are commonly named the “mammal-like reptiles.”

The presence of diagnosable morphologic differences between reptiles (including the oldest reptiles and the oldest synapsids) and mammals distinguishes them as distinct taxa. This allows us to test evolution by looking for transitional forms between the two. Because many of the bones are homologous, we should find evidence illustrating how these bones were modified over time to become the new bones. Furthermore, these morphologic changes should happen in parallel and in geochronologic succession.

Synapsid reptiles inhabited Pangea from the Middle Pennsylvanian through the Early Jurassic (Kemp, 1982, 1985; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1969, 1987, 1994; Hopson & Crompton, 1969; Hotton, et al., 1986; Crompton & Jenkins, 1973; Sidor & Hopson, 1998; Romer & Price, 1940; Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Tchudinov, 1983; Olson, 1944; Tatarinov, 1974; Vyushkov, 1955; Efremov, 1954). From the Early Permian through the Early Triassic, they were the largest and most abundant land animals (Sloan, 1983; Colbert, 1965). Though much less well known to the general public than dinosaurs, one of the “cereal box dinosaurs,” Dimetrodon (the sail-backed reptile), is a synapsid, not a dinosaur (Romer & Price, 1940; Carroll, 1988). The oldest mammals are Late Triassic (Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). Below is a discussion of the geochronologic succession linking synapsids and mammals. The oldest reptiles (named protorothyrids; Carroll, 1964, 1988, p. 192-199) are from the lower Middle Pennsylvanian, and the oldest synapsids (Reisz, 1972) are from the upper Middle Pennsylvanian, both of Nova Scotia. Upper Pennsylvanian and Lower Permian forms are known primarily from the midcontinent and Permian Basin region of the United States (Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983). The basal Upper Permian forms are known from Russia (Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Ivakhnenko et al., 1997). Most of the Upper Permian and Lower Triassic succession is known from southern Africa, especially the Great Karoo of South Africa (Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Hopson & Kitching, 1972; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983). The Middle Triassic forms are from South America (Romer, 1969a, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Romer & Lewis, 1973; Bonaparte & Barbarena, 1975), and the Upper Triassic and Lower Jurassic mammals are known from Eurasia (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Kemp, 1982). Subsequent Mesozoic mammals are known from all over the world (Simpson, 1928; Lillegraven et al., 1979).

When placed in proper geochronologic succession, the synapsids naturally form a succession of taxa (genera and families) that progressively become more mammal-like and less reptile-like (Kemp, 1982, 1985; Sloan, 1983; Sidor & Hopson, 1998; Hopson, 1987, 1994). Morphologic changes, summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1, affect the entire skeletal anatomy of these animals, but are most clearly displayed in their skulls.

The lateral temporal fenestra increased in size from a tiny opening smaller than the eye socket to a giant opening occupying nearly half the length of the skull. Ultimately, it merged with the eye socket, thus producing the full development of the cheek arch so characteristic of mammals (Broom, 1932; Frazetta, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Carroll, 1988).

Successively, the relative proportion of the lower jaw comprised of the dentary bone (teeth-bearing bone) gradually increased until the entire lower jaw consisted of the dentary (Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1987, 1994). In Pennsylvanian and Lower and basal Upper Permian synapsids, the postero-dorsal edge of the lower jaw rose broadly but only slightly above the level of the tooth row (Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Ivakhnenko et al., 1997; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Hopson, 1987, 1994). In succeeding forms, the posterior part of the dentary expanded dorsally and posteriorly as a blade-like process, and progressively became larger (Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Sigogneau, 1970; Brink, 1963; Kemp, 1979; Hopson, 1987, 1994), forming the coronoid process (Parrington, 1946; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Hopson, 1987, 1994) to which the mammalian-type jaw musculature is attached (Barghusen, 1968; Bramble, 1978; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). Concomitantly, the post-dentary bones progressively reduced in size (Allin, 1975; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1987, 1994).

Beginning with the Upper Pennsylvanian sphenacodonts, a notch developed in the angular bone that offsets a projection, the reflected lamina (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). The reflected lamina first became a large blade-like flange (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Ivakhnenko et al., 1997; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Broom, 1932; Sigogneau, 1970; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971), and then was progressively reduced to a delicate horseshoe-shaped bone (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Brink, 1963; Parrington, 1946; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Kemp, 1979, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988).

Simultaneously, the quadrate progressively decreased in size (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). The articular did not decrease in size much, being small initially, but developed a downward-pointing prong (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). In the synapsids, the lower jaw was hinged to the skull by the articular and quadrate bones (Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994). Thus they are classified as reptiles (Simpson, 1959; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). As the quadrate and articular became smaller, they were relieved of their solid suture to the dentary and skull (Crompton, 1972; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). A projection of the dentary extended posteriorly and made contact with the squamosal. Morganucodon possessed the mammalian dentary-squamosal jaw joint adjacent to the reptilian articular-quadrate jaw joint (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Carroll, 1988). It is classified as the first mammal, but it is a perfect intermediate. Now that a new jaw joint was established, the quadrate and articular were subsequently relieved of that function (Crompton, 1972; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). Ultimately, in Middle and Upper Jurassic mammals, the tiny quadrate, articular, and ring-like angular migrated as a unit to the middle ear where they joined the stapes and became the incus, malleus, and tympanic bones (Allin, 197 5, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988).

Progressively, the teeth became differentiated. The large canines developed first, followed by the development of multicusped cheek teeth, reduced tooth replacement (Osborn & Crompton, 1973; Crompton & Parker, 1978), and finally full y differentiated incisors, canines, premolars, and molars with one tooth replacement during life (Kemp, 1982; Hopson, 1994).

Many other morphologic changes are documented in the fossil record. These demonstrate the morphologic and geochronologic succession from sprawling limb posture to upright limb posture of mammals (Jenkins, 1971; Romer & Lewis, 197 3; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1994). As Jenkins (1971, p. 210) stated, “In details of morphology and function, the cynodont post-cranial skeleton should be regarded as neither ‘reptilian’ nor ‘mammalian’ but as transitional between the two classes .” Other changes have been adequately summarized elsewhere (Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1994). Obviously, fundamental physiologic changes must have taken place as well, many of which are not directly preserved in the fossil record, though some can be inferred from the skeletal anatomy (Findlay, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983, Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1994).

This is well documented in the fossil record by a massive volume of incontrovertible data that cannot be explained away. Such large-scale, progressive, continuous, gradual, and geochronologically successive morphologic change (Sidor & Hopson, 1998) is descent with modification, and provides compelling evidence for evolution on a grand scale.

(The above is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation", which is yet ANOTHER source the anti-evolutionists are obviously completely ignorant of -- not that that stops them from spouting off falsehoods about the subject anyway...

[donh]

"So how did our universe happen to be so "fine-tuned" as to produce these wonderful, self-important carbon structures? As I explained above, we have no reason to assume that ours is the only possible form of life and perhaps life of some sort would have happened whatever form the universe took--however the crystals on the arm of the snowflake happened to be arranged by chance."

I don't find the universe to be all that fine-tuned. I'd like more oxygen, more warmth in the winter, a multitude of planets with conditions nearly identical to earth's within easy reach, fewer deadly retro-virus, a much bigger brain, an extra reproductive organ or two, a little tuneup on the gravitational constant so that I can fly without wings, and a principle of entropy that is voluntary, by subscription only. The notion that this has all been fine-tuned for my benefit lacks substantial traction when you are not preaching to the choir.

[Ichneumon]

But this part takes the cake (YOU GOTTA READ THIS EVERYBODY!!!):

Yes, everyone please *do* read the link, then reread his post, so that you can all see just how badly LeftCoastNeoCon has misrepresented it in his desire to have a cheap excuse to ridicule donh in particular and physics in general.

Is this really what you have been reduced to? This is your science today?!?! Gimme a break. I KNEW there was some reason you wouldn't answer! You knew it was ridiculous! Thanks for the laugh, though! You really made my day!

This is how children "argue".

Go back to school, Bucko.

You're obviously the one who needs to go back and take more physics courses.

[Ichneumon]

So he just avoided the whole argument!

No, he didn't. He addressed the argument by pointing out one of its false premises. What he "avoided" was your false dichotomy, which is probably why you're so upset.

He cannot explain the fine-tuning (which was ostensibly the whole reason for the article)

Please demonstrate that any other sort of universe was actually possible. We'll wait. Until then, there's no reason to presume that our current configuration required any "tuning" whatsoever to achieve.

and just says, basically, "Well, any universe might have some kind of life in it...duh, I think.

Please demonstrate the truth of your premise to the contrary, upon which your argument critically rests.

Looky pretty snowflake!"

Just how old are you, anyway?

What a crock!

Many of your posts remind me of the manner in which a teenager, who didn't understand a particularly subtle film, will deal with his discomfort by simply declaring, "that was stoopid!"

[LeftCoastNeoCon]

"Please explain why you present this passage as "support" for your assertion that Hawking actually believes that the "best scientific explanation" is creationism. This appears to be a grossly dishonest attempt to misrepresent his position."

I never said that. Don't you start with the "straw man" thing, too.

I said: "From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed."

Got it?

Hawking has stated that he believes the universe is a creation, and has also stated that he sees nothing to the contrary in his study of physics, and in fact has seen evidence in support of this belief (the fine-tuning).

"These laws may have been originally decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it."

Also 'Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of atheism, he is affronted and says that such assertions are not true. For example, Hawking has stated "I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. . . It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics."'

Should we say that one more time? Let's:

"It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics."

'Those who have not read A Brief History of Time may be surprised to find that the book has a main character. That main character is God. This was the feature of the book that the well known atheist Carl Sagan found a bit distressing... God is discussed in A Brief History of Time from near the beginning all the way to the crescendo of the final sentence.'

'Hawking states "The idea that God might want to change His mind is an example of the fallacy, pointed out St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, God knew what He intended when He set it up."

He's talking about God settin' up the universe here, Bucko. Get it?

"Time is a property only of the universe that God created."

"The universe that God created."

CRE-A-TED.

Stephen Hawking: "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws."'

And dude, seriously, Einstein believed in God, too. That the universe was His creation. He saw God's hand in even the "slightest details" as he put it.

'(I)n response to a child who asked if scientists pray, Einstein wrote:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe- a spirit vastly superior to that of man ... in this way, the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

"I want to know how God created the universe. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." - Albert Einstein

Should we repeat that for you?

"I want to know how God created the universe."

Ya see, pal? He believes in a God-created universe? INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED BY GOD! What part of that ain't ya gettin'?!

So once more, with gusto:

From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed.

Consider yourself skooled.

Goodnight and goooooooooood riddance. (And forgive me if this is prickly. It's late and I'm tired. But I had fun. Hope everybody else did too. Later.)

[sphinx]

Insects can't get much bigger. They breathe through their exoskeletons, and the larger they get, the grater their interior volume becomes compared to their surface area. The giant insects in those old monster movies are impossible.

Giant spiders, however, are another matter entirely.

[donh]

So once more, with gusto:

From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed.

They also probably all believed that shoveling snow off the driveway in the winter was a swell idea. That does not make shoveling snow off the driveway a science.

You're kind of a one-idea show, aren't you? Gusto doesn't really make up for failure to turn your brights on, and watch where you're going.

[PatrickHenry]

Slept through a few hundred posts. No time now to respond. That's how it goes ...

[Ichneumon]

["Please explain why you present this passage as "support" for your assertion that Hawking actually believes that the "best scientific explanation" is creationism. This appears to be a grossly dishonest attempt to misrepresent his position."]

I never said that. Don't you start with the "straw man" thing, too.

Wow, what a *remarkably* disingenuous response. Let's check the instant replay, shall we?

In post #230, donh wrote:

Whereas, the proud claim that a supernatural entity beyond the capacity of science to observe, is the best scientific explanation of the universe is just oozing with scientific respectability.

You responded in post #235 by quoting that same passage, and then replying:

So you, donh (a frustrated junior highschool science teacher, I'm guessing? Or just an unpublished Junior College professor?) don't think Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle et al are "scientifically respectable?" Mein Gott! What are you so afraid of that you would say such a thing so obviously at odds with the "gods" of your profession?

CLEARLY, you were claiming that the trio of Einstein, Hawking, and Hoyle actually held such a position.

In reply, I wrote (in post #242):

Neither Einstein nor Hawking has ever made the mistake of claiming such a thing. I suspect you're grossly misreading donh's actual statement. As for Hoyle, he hasn't made that claim either, [snip]

In direct reply to that -- with the obvious intent of demonstrating that Einstein, Hawking, and Hoyle actually did hold such a position (that "a supernatural entity beyond the capacity of science to observe, is the best scientific explanation of the universe"), you made post #248 which consisted of quotes from those same three people.

NOW, suddenly, despite your TWICE making posts with the clear intent of establishing that Einstein, Hawking, and Hoyle did hold that "a supernatural entity beyond the capacity of science to observe, is the best scientific explanation of the universe", you now SUDDENLY try to claim that "I never said that" and called the claim that you had a "straw man".

Do you actually expect anyone to be stupid enough to fall for this?

Or are you just so completely confused that you can't even remember what you were arguing in two different posts a few short hours ago?

I said: "From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed." Got it?

Oh, yes, I "got it" that you are backing away from your position in posts #235 and #238.

Should we say that one more time?

Only if you want to be childish and petulant, and are attempting to make up with mechanical repetition what you lack in substance.

"Time is a property only of the universe that God created." "The universe that God created." CRE-A-TED.

Petulant repetition. Why don't you try discussing things like an adult? Or are you not able?

And dude, seriously, Einstein believed in God, too. That the universe was His creation. He saw God's hand in even the "slightest details" as he put it.

Just not *your* God. Creationists like to selectively quote Einstein out of context to make it appear that he endorsed *their* notions of God, but as even your own next quote hints, he actually found that notion of a "personal God" to be childish:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [Albert Einstein]"

Let's have a look at some of the quotes that the creationists like to sweep under the rug, shall we?

"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..."
-- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

And:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, letter dated 24 March 1954, included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side".

And:

"It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished."
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in W. I Hermanns "A Talk with Einstein," October 1943

And:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950

And:

"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive

And:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive

And:

"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
-- Albert Einstein, 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman, Albert Einstein the Human Side

And:

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press

And:

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."
-- Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797

And:

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
-- Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York

And:

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.

And:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Thoughts, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996, p. 134.

And:

"Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," in the New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930, pp. 3-4; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 205-206.

And:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.

And:

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that is all."
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.

Einstein's "God", his "religion", was the deep spiritual awe he felt in contemplation of the majestic breadth and depth and orderliness of the Universe itself:

"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a Rabbi in Chicago; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1981, pp. 69-70.

Ya see, pal? He believes in a God-created universe? INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED BY GOD! What part of that ain't ya gettin'?!

The part where you grossly misrepresent the nature of Einstein's "God" -- the part where *you* "ain't gettin'" the first thing about what Einstein actually believed. Einstein believed in "God" as the humbling scope of the Universe *itself*, absent any anthropomorphized "intelligence", absent any conscious "designer". In short, Einstein's God was Nature, in all its awe-inspiring glory.

From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed.

You're wrong about Einstein, Hoyle was a crank, and at best Hawking leaves room for the possibility while also pointing out the possibilities of natural origins.

So where are you going with this, if anywhere?

Consider yourself skooled.

In order to "skool" me, you would have to know more about the subject than I do, which so far seems highly unlikely, since much of what you "know" is distorted, fallacious, or outright incorrect.

Goodnight and goooooooooood riddance.

You would do well to use less adolescent "attitude" and more substance and research. Cutting-and-pasting stuff from creationist websites leaves you at a huge disadvantage. Try expanding your horizons with a broader range of sources and, you know, that "education" thing.

(And forgive me if this is prickly. It's late and I'm tired.

Prickly is understandable. Childish is not.

But I had fun. Hope everybody else did too. Later.)

If I didn't enjoy this, I wouldn't be here.

[Timmy]

You and your ilk are just too darn smart for me. But I'll tell you what. I live in a university town. And a friend of mine is one of the leading biological scientists in the nation (maybe, the world). He is quite well-known among those who do that sort of thing for his work in genetics, having had at least one famous break-through (maybe more, but you understand that stuff is way beyond morons like me). Oh, and did I mention he doesn't believe in evolution? Just another moron after all. BTW, what is YOUR background in natural science?

[Timmy]

One more thing when we are talking about how dumb people like me just can't understand this science stuff. I'm just a lowly engineer. It would be nice if DonH, VadeRetro, and Patrick Henry gave us their occupations so we would know what kind of really smart, advanced science professionals we are dealing with. Thanks in advance.

And as far as going to the links, I have done that many times before. I am not a newbie to this debate, and I've heard all the arguments before. So spare me that I am missing all the "proof."

[ohhhh]

[ID will prevail. But first a new generation has to replace the current one in the scientific establishment who have their minds welded tightly shut on their outmoded theory and have a vested interest, both emotionally and career-wise, in promoting Darwin's myth.]

I, as a Christian bible believer ,know that these attacks are promoted by those who love death and do not accept the will of God in their lives but choose to walk in ways that destroy their and their children's lives.

[dread78645]

Twenty two divided by seven....... That is an irrational nbr.,

Okay ...
You have no clue what a rational or irrational number is. Or for that matter what a transcendental, such as pi, is.

... High School math bores me even more than you do.....

Obviously.

[longshadow]

Having a senior fellow does not equate to funded by the Moonies unless you have another article that says it is funded by them. Actually, the Institute is probably funded by a lot of different organizations and individuals.

Which is why I asked if anyone had the links. There was a discussion of this some months ago, and my recollection was someone had posted some sort of information on the topic.

[VadeRetro]

Why would it be? ID requires a fossil record and transitional creatures.

"Requires?" Why do so many advocates of ID tout the supposed lack of these things?

Your position would seem to be a distinct minority in the ID camp. Neither Wells nor Johnson would endorse it, for instance.

[VadeRetro]

The "lack" of fossil evidence is an 800 Pound Gorilla that "die hard" Evolutionist's cannot shake.

Read the thread?

[VadeRetro]

Frankly, as far as I care, ID can have the Big Bang as a pure act of God so long as God doesn't have to intervene every 5 milliseconds thereafter to fix what He didn't get right at t₀.

That said, donh's points are just as good. We don't know enough about the Big Bang yet to state with authority that it wasn't a lawful and predictable event, a consequence of conditions at the time. Except it's hard to even talk about that, because there sort of is no time before then. At least, not the time dimension we have in our universe now. That one curves back on itself at the singularity.

But, again, this stuff isn't my issue if we can agree that the universe is old, the Earth is old, species have evolved from a common ancestor by variation and natural selection, etc. The issue is whether this material be taught in schools through a clear lens instead of a haze of obfuscation. It ought to be a no-brainer. Science class is about science.

[VadeRetro]

Genuine IDers, as opposed to closet creationists are as rare as hens teeth.

Claimants to this distinction usually miserably fail examination. One in particular I believe used only supporting antievolution quotes from Gish, Lubenow, and Menton.