[Dimensio]

I suggest Johnson's "Darwin on Trial",

Philip E. Johnson is a trial lawyer with absolutely no expertise or experience in the field of biology and his work shows this. His book is a collection of ignorance amassed against evolution rather than actual logical arguments against the theory.

Behr's "Darwin's Black Box"

You are aware that Behe accepts evolution and common descent, right? I mean, if you'd actually studied Behe's works you would know this.

"A plethora of facts" you say? Produce ONE- just ONE that DOESN't demand we accept adaptation- such as that practiced by dog breeders and cattle ranchers- as your "proof". You cannot.

The "facts" that I reference are what lead to the conclusion of evolution. There's the "FACT" of a broken Vitamin C identical in multiple species of primates, suggesting that the gene became "broken" in a common ancestor that split off into the various primate species that carry the gene (including homo sapiens); for contrast, guinea pigs also have a broken vitamin C synthesis gene that is completely different than the one found in primates. There's the "FACT" of the extensive fossil record. Despite what creationists will dishonestly state, the fossil record leads to the CONCLUSION of descent with modification (because of the variance in fossil types found at varying layers, the abscence of any existing life forms matching those found in the fossil record and the abscence of any fossilized remains of species of existing life forms). Are you looking for anything specific, or are you just here to trash evolution in general without regard to the information used to support it?

[MRMEAN]

Dimensio wrote:

The "facts" that I reference are what lead to the conclusion of evolution. There's the "FACT" of a broken Vitamin C identical in multiple species of primates, suggesting that the gene became "broken" in a common ancestor that split off into the various primate species that carry the gene (including homo sapiens); for contrast, guinea pigs also have a broken vitamin C synthesis gene that is completely different than the one found in primates.

Actually the fact that humans, primates and a few other animals have broken Vitamin C mechanism is itself a proof of evolution. In mammals that produce their own Vitamin C; the Vitamin C molecule is formed from the glucose molecule; four enzymes are required to do the conversion, humans and apes have the first three, having lost the fourth in our evolutionary past.

If God the Intelligent Designer decided that humans and a few other animals did not need to produce their own Vitamin C, why put in the first three enzymes...which do us no good? How do CreationistsIntelligent Design Theorists explain that?

The evolutionary explanation is that prehuman ancestors had the complete ability to produce Vitamin C but with a fruit and leafy diet rich in Vitamin C, a mutation that lost them the ability to produce their own Vitamin C did not pose a reproductive disadvantage to its possessors, (and may have given an advantage).

However, when humans migrated out of Africa to colder climes this lack has caused hardship to humans as they had to adopt a Vitamin C poor diet. If Mankind is God's the Intelligent Desigener's special creation; why didn't He It foresee that we would need that fourth enzyme, and conserve it for us?