Students Learn Intelligent Design

Phillyburbs.com ^ | January 18, 2005 | Martha Raffaele

[FeeinTennessee]

Pa. Students Learn 'Intelligent Design' By MARTHA RAFFAELE The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. - High school students heard about "intelligent design" for the first time Tuesday in a school district that attracted national attention by requiring students to be made aware of it as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Administrators in the Dover Area School District read a statement to three biology classes Tuesday and were expected to read it to other classes on Wednesday, according to a statement from the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which was speaking on the district's behalf.

The district is believed to be the only one in the nation to require students to hear about intelligent design - a concept that holds that the universe is so complex, it had to be created by an unspecified guiding force.

"The revolution in evolution has begun," said Richard Thompson, the law center's president and chief counsel. "This is the first step in which students will be given an honest scientific evaluation of the theory of evolution and its problems."

The case represents the newest chapter in a history of evolution lawsuits dating back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. In Georgia, a suburban Atlanta school district plans to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."

The law center is defending the Dover district against a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of eight families by two civil-liberties groups that alleged intelligent design is merely a secular variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life. They maintain that the Dover district's curriculum mandate may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

"Students who sat in the classroom were taught material which is religious in content, not scientific, and I think it's unfortunate that has occurred," said Eric Rothschild, a Philadelphia attorney representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.

Biology teacher Jennifer Miller said although she was able to make a smooth transition to her evolution lesson after the statement was read, some students were upset that administrators would not entertain any questions about intelligent design.

"They were told that if you have any questions, to take it home," Miller said.

The district allowed students whose parents objected to the policy to be excused from hearing the statement at the beginning of class and science teachers who opposed the requirement to be exempted from reading the statement. About 15 of 170 ninth-graders asked to be excused from class, Thompson said.

A federal judge has scheduled a trial in the lawsuit for Sept. 26.

---

Dover Area School District: http://www.dover.k12.pa.us

Thomas More Law Center: http://www.thomasmore.org

January 18, 2005 6:44 PM

[sayfer bullets]

Your points are consistent, at least. I disagree, but thanks. You know, I understand what you are saying. but seriously. I am not arguing the merits of either "science" or competing theories. I am arguing that persons...individuals... even organizations...have a stake in evolution beyond it's scientific limitations. In that way "they" are no different than the great unwashed you are so concerned about.

Is SETI a scientific study effort? Is it scientific to search the heavens for similar stars? solar systems? Why do we do it? It is not religion, is it?

politicized on behalf of the ignorant

You refer to the school board? a local government? Perhaps the Federal Government should excercise some of that Constitutional 14th amendment and teach these freedom-loving idiots a thing or two.

[Idisarthur]

I said the following : I wonder how Evolutionists will deal with the Proteins, the DNA sequences that make them up and their complexity in the coming decades.

Yet no one seems to be talking about this important and new stuff. I'm rather nice I just gave you a pass - it's actually old stuff. Comment on this and impress some of your reader for once.

I also asked this question: What cames first the Protein or the Egg?

Jeff Atlanta - come on; you must be associated with the CDC or Emory... Impress us.

All this talk of non-sequitors, diety this diety that, natural selection... is getting rather boring.

You brilliant evolutionists must know something about bioinformatics, DNA sequencing and how much of a road block the all powerful protein is to your THEORY!

Come on!!! o else get out of here!

[Thatcherite]

There is no evidence that is credible to believe otherwise [the nature of stars]. The evidence states this to be true.

All available scientific evidence supports evolution too. Yet you reject that because your preacher tells you to.

Where in the Bible does it state that "reading of the bible would indicate that they aren't anything like our sun." Could you provide the book and verse on that?

From my instant memory at least 3 that I can quote. You'll know the passages well enough to know where they are. I suspect that many other biblical references exist that imply that our sun is not a star:

a. The sun and the stars were created different days. But the sun is just a star like the others. Why on separate days?

b. The bible speaks of Satan's tail knocking 1/3 of the stars from the heavens to the earth. Whoever wrote this had no idea of the nature of stars and was clearly thinking of little lights a few miles up in the sky. They probably thought that meteors really were "shooting stars".

c. Jesus speaks of all the stars falling to the earth on judgement day. Same problem as (b)

[Thatcherite]

That argument is so pathetic I'm astounded that you bother to put it up.

If Matthew were referring to more than one angel he wouldn't say "the angel", he'd say "one of the angels".

When you say "the x" in an unspecified context the meaning is always quite clear, there is 1 x present.

Don't blame us for poor english translations if you are going to claim that the original Hebrew says something different.

No wonder we can't just read the text. We have to sit down with an expert who can explain to us why it isn't contradictory, really.

[Thatcherite]

I asked you what would falsify ID. I didn't say anything about evolution (for which as you are fully aware unless you never bother to read any scientists posts here numerous potential falsifications exist).

Failure to state an observation that would falsify ID noted.

Conclusion that ID does not yet qualify to be a scientific theory drawn.

[RadioAstronomer]

Come on!!! o else get out of here!

Pardon? Would you please clarify what you mean by this statement?

[RadioAstronomer]

http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/bioinfo.html

[Fester Chugabrew]

Adam wrote Genesis?

When I said, "handed down" I did not say he wrote it. He was the first man. He lived hundreds of years. During those years he did not sit on his thumbs and count on public schools for knowledge. What he learned during those hundreds of years he taught to his children, and they in turm taught their children. He had more than twice the time the touted "Theory of Evolution" has been around to gain knowledge and apply it. Some generations lasted even longer.

At the proper time Moses was instructed to write these things down, which he did carefully. Those words have been preserved throughout all generations to this very day. One creation account summarizes things. The other goes into more detail. Neither was spun out of thin air to satisfy some internal yearning for yarns.

[PatrickHenry]

Would you please clarify what you mean by this statement?

I think it's some kind of code, which roughly translates as follows:

I'm an idiot and I'll probably get banned from this site soon, so I'm going to take every opportunity to impress you with what a flaming fool I am.

[Ichneumon]

I said the following : I wonder how Evolutionists will deal with the Proteins, the DNA sequences that make them up and their complexity in the coming decades.

Probably by continuing the research work they've been doing for the past decades.

Yet no one seems to be talking about this important and new stuff.

Look, just because *you* don't know about it, doesn't mean people aren't working on it and talking about it.

I'm rather nice I just gave you a pass - it's actually old stuff. Comment on this and impress some of your reader for once. I also asked this question: What cames first the Protein or the Egg?

Ribozyme-mediated RNA came first, followed by an "RNP" system as protein enzymes were bootstrapped by tRNA-based replication, which then set the stage for the DNA-based system as we know it:

(See for example chapter 2 entitled "Phylogeny from Function: The Origin of tRNA Is in Replication, not Translation", in the online book "Tempo and Mode in Evolution: Genetics and Paleontology 50 Years After Simpson".)

Jeff Atlanta - come on; you must be associated with the CDC or Emory... Impress us.

Here you go:

The Path from the RNA World Anthony M. Poole, Daniel C. Jeffares, David Penny: Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Massey University

Abstract: We describe a sequential (step by step) Darwinian model for the evolution of life from the late stages of the RNA world through to the emergence of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The starting point is our model, derived from current RNA activity, of the RNA world just prior to the advent of genetically-encoded protein synthesis. By focusing on the function of the protoribosome we develop a plausible model for the evolution of a protein-synthesizing ribosome from a high-fidelity RNA polymerase that incorporated triplets of oligonucleotides. With the standard assumption that during the evolution of enzymatic activity, catalysis is transferred from RNA M RNP M protein, the first proteins in the ``breakthrough organism'' (the first to have encoded protein synthesis) would be nonspecific chaperone-like proteins rather than catalytic. Moreover, because some RNA molecules that pre-date protein synthesis under this model now occur as introns in some of the very earliest proteins, the model predicts these particular introns are older than the exons surrounding them, the ``introns-first'' theory. Many features of the model for the genome organization in the final RNA world ribo-organism are more prevalent in the eukaryotic genome and we suggest that the prokaryotic genome organization (a single, circular genome with one center of replication) was derived from a ``eukaryotic-like'' genome organization (a fragmented linear genome with multiple centers of replication). The steps from the proposed ribo-organism RNA genome M eukaryotic-like DNA genome M prokaryotic-like DNA genome are all relatively straightforward, whereas the transition prokaryotic-like genome M eukaryotic-like genome appears impossible under a Darwinian mechanism of evolution, given the assumption of the transition RNA M RNP M protein. A likely molecular mechanism, ``plasmid transfer,'' is available for the origin of prokaryotic-type genomes from an eukaryotic-like architecture. Under this model prokaryotes are considered specialized and derived with reduced dependence on ssRNA biochemistry. A functional explanation is that prokaryote ancestors underwent selection for thermophily (high temperature) and/or for rapid reproduction (r selection) at least once in their history.

And:

On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells William Martin and Michael J. Russell

Abstract: All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life’s most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. The known capability of FeS and NiS to catalyse the synthesis of the acetyl-methylsulphide from carbon monoxide and methylsulphide, constituents of hydrothermal fluid, indicates that pre-biotic syntheses occurred at the inner surfaces of these metal-sulphide-walled compartments, which furthermore restrained reacted products from diffusion into the ocean, providing sufficient concentrations of reactants to forge the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. The chemistry of what is known as the RNA-world could have taken place within these naturally forming, catalyticwalled compartments to give rise to replicating systems. Sufficient concentrations of precursors to support replication would have been synthesized in situ geochemically and biogeochemically, with FeS (and NiS) centres playing the central catalytic role. The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. The attributes shared by all prokaryotes are viewed as inheritances from their confined universal ancestor. The attributes that distinguish eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet are uniform within the groups, are viewed as relics of their phase of differentiation after divergence from the non-free-living universal ancestor and before the origin of the free-living chemoautotrophic lifestyle. The attributes shared by eukaryotes with eubacteria and archaebacteria, respectively, are viewed as inheritances via symbiosis. The attributes unique to eukaryotes are viewed as inventions specific to their lineage. The origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system and nuclear membrane are suggested to be the fortuitous result of the expression of genes for eubacterial membrane lipid synthesis by an archaebacterial genetic apparatus in a compartment that was not fully prepared to accommodate such compounds, resulting in vesicles of eubacterial lipids that accumulated in the cytosol around their site of synthesis. Under these premises, the most ancient divide in the living world is that between eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet the steepest evolutionary grade is that between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

And:

The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front M. J. RUSSELL & A. J. HALL: Department of Geology and Applied Geology, University of Glasgow

Abstract: Here we argue that life emerged on Earth from a redox and pH front at c. 4.2 Ga. This front occurred where hot (c. 150)C), extremely reduced, alkaline, bisulphide-bearing, submarine seepage waters interfaced with the acid, warm (c. 90)C), iron-bearing Hadean ocean. The low pH of the ocean was imparted by the ten bars of CO2 considered to dominate the Hadean atmosphere/hydrosphere. Disequilibrium between the two solutions was maintained by the spontaneous precipitation of a colloidal FeS membrane. Iron monosulphide bubbles comprising this membrane were inflated by the hydrothermal solution upon sulphide mounds at the seepage sites. Our hypothesis is that the FeS membrane, laced with nickel, acted as a semipermeable catalytic boundary between the two fluids, encouraging synthesis of organic anions by hydrogenation and carboxylation of hydrothermal organic primers. The ocean provided carbonate, phosphate, iron, nickel and protons; the hydrothermal solution was the source of ammonia, acetate, HS", H2 and tungsten, as well as minor concentrations of organic sulphides and perhaps cyanide and acetaldehyde. The mean redox potential (ÄEh) across the membrane, with the energy to drive synthesis, would have approximated to 300 millivolts. The generation of organic anions would have led to an increase in osmotic pressure within the FeS bubbles. Thus osmotic pressure could take over from hydraulic pressure as the driving force for distension, budding and reproduction of the bubbles. Condensation of the organic molecules to polymers, particularly organic sulphides, was driven by pyrophosphate hydrolysis. Regeneration of pyrophosphate from the monophosphate in the membrane was facilitated by protons contributed from the Hadean ocean. This was the first use by a metabolizing system of protonmotive force (driven by natural ÄpH) which also would have amounted to c. 300 millivolts. Protonmotive force is the universal energy transduction mechanism of life. Taken together with the redox potential across the membrane, the total electrochemical and chemical energy available for protometabolism amounted to a continuous supply at more than half a volt. The role of the iron sulphide membrane in keeping the two solutions separated was appropriated by the newly synthesized organic sulphide polymers. This organic take-over of the membrane material led to the miniaturization of the metabolizing system. Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in this same milieu. But iron, sulphur and phosphate, inorganic components of earliest life, continued to be involved in metabolism.

And:

Obcells as Proto-Organisms: Membrane Heredity, Lithophosphorylation, and the Origins of the Genetic Code, the First Cells, and Photosynthesis (Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 53 - Number 4/5, 2001)

N-Carbamoyl Amino Acid Solid-Gas Nitrosation by NO/NO_x: A New Route to Oligopeptides via alpha-Amino Acid N-Carboxyanhydride. Prebiotic Implications (Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 48 - Number 6, 1999

Chemical interactions between amino acid and RNA: multiplicity of the levels of specificity explains origin of the genetic code (Naturwissenschaften, Volume 89 Number 12 December 2002)

The Nicotinamide Biosynthetic Pathway Is a By-Product of the RNA World (Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 52 - Number 1, 2001)

On the RNA World: Evidence in Favor of an Early Ribonucleopeptide World

Inhibition of Ribozymes by Deoxyribonucleotides and the Origin of DNA

Genetic Code Origin: Are the Pathways of Type Glu-tRNAGln to Gln-tRNAGln Molecular Fossils or Not?

Johnston WK, Unrau PJ, Lawrence MS, Glasner ME, Bartel DP.RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization: accurate and general RNA-templated primer extension. Science. 2001 May 18;292(5520):1319-25.

Ferris JP. (1999 Jun). Prebiotic synthesis on minerals: bridging the prebiotic and RNA worlds. Biol Bull , 196, 311-4.

Levy M, and Miller SL. (1999 Jun). The prebiotic synthesis of modified purines and their potential role in the RNA world. J Mol Evol , 48, 631-7.

Unrau PJ, and Bartel DP. (1998 Sep 17). RNA-catalysed nucleotide synthesis [see comments] Nature , 395, 260-3.

Roth A, and Breaker RR. (1998 May 26). An amino acid as a cofactor for a catalytic polynucleotide [In Process Citation] Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 95, 6027-31.

Jeffares DC, Poole AM, and Penny D. (1998 Jan). Relics from the RNA world. J Mol Evol , 46, 18-36.

Poole AM, Jeffares DC, and Penny D. (1998 Jan). The path from the RNA world. J Mol Evol , 46, 1-17.

Wiegand TW, Janssen RC, and Eaton BE. (1997 Sep). Selection of RNA amide synthases. Chem Biol , 4, 675-83.

Di Giulio M. (1997 Dec). On the RNA world: evidence in favor of an early ribonucleopeptide world. J Mol Evol , 45, 571-8.

Hager AJ, and Szostak JW. (1997 Aug). Isolation of novel ribozymes that ligate AMP-activated RNA substrates. Chem Biol , 4, 607-17.

James KD, and Ellington AD. (1997 Aug). Surprising fidelity of template-directed chemical ligation of oligonucleotides [In Process Citation] Chem Biol , 4, 595-605.

Lohse PA, and Szostak JW. (1996 May 30). Ribozyme-catalysed amino-acid transfer reactions. Nature , 381, 442-4.

Lazcano A, and Miller SL. (1996 Jun 14). The origin and early evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre- RNA world, and time. Cell , 85, 793-8.

Ertem G, and Ferris JP. (1996 Jan 18). Synthesis of RNA oligomers on heterogeneous templates. Nature , 379, 238-40.

Robertson MP, and Miller SL. (1995 May 5). Prebiotic synthesis of 5-substituted uracils: a bridge between the RNA world and the DNA-protein world [see comments] Science , 268, 702-5.

Robertson MP, and Miller SL. (1995 Jun 29). An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil [published erratum appears in Nature 1995 Sep 21;377(6546):257] Nature , 375, 772-4.

Breaker RR, and Joyce GF. (1995 Jun). Self-incorporation of coenzymes by ribozymes. J Mol Evol , 40, 551-8.

James KD, and Ellington AD. (1995 Dec). The search for missing links between self-replicating nucleic acids and the RNA world. Orig Life Evol Biosph , 25, 515-30.

Bohler C, Nielsen PE, and Orgel LE. (1995 Aug 17). Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides [see comments] Nature , 376, 578-81.

Connell GJ, and Christian EL. (1993 Dec). Utilization of cofactors expands metabolism in a new RNA world. Orig Life Evol Biosph , 23, 291-7.

Nielsen PE. (1993 Dec). Peptide nucleic acid (PNA): a model structure for the primordial genetic material? Orig Life Evol Biosph , 23, 323-7.

Lahav N. (1991 Aug 21). Prebiotic co-evolution of self-replication and translation or RNA world? J Theor Biol , 151, 531-9.

Ekland EH, Szostak JW, and Bartel DP. (1995 Jul 21). Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences. Science , 269, 364-70.

Let me know when you get done reading those, and I'll give you some more.

Or if you'd like the Cliff-Notes version, here's a schematic:

Any other questions?

[RadioAstronomer]

Wonderful post! :-)

Thank you so much!

[nmh]

You: All available scientific evidence supports evolution too. Yet you reject that because your preacher tells you to.

LOL! Unlike you I don't blindly believe my fellow evolutionist. If it "supports evolution too" then why wouldn't Creation be true? BTW, you do realize your statement is a tad irrational? Then again, logic isn't an evolutionists strong suit because evolution defies ALL logic as well as the laws of science.

Where in the Bible does it state that "reading of the bible would indicate that they aren't anything like our sun." Could you provide the book and verse on that?

"From my instant memory at least 3 that I can quote. You'll know the passages well enough to know where they are. I suspect that many other biblical references exist that imply that our sun is not a star:"

Well you're "instant memeory" appears to be faulty today. I'm waiting for your quotes - chapter and verse and see none. I'm not interested in what you "suspect" or what you believe are implications.


When you tell me, I will respond.

[nmh]

"That argument is so pathetic I'm astounded that you bother to put it up.
If Matthew were referring to more than one angel he wouldn't say "the angel", he'd say "one of the angels"."

Again, logic isn't your strong suit. When someone states there are TWO angels OBVIOULSY there is atleast ONE. How somoen expresses that doesn't have to be in your choice of words. I realize you think highly of yourself but I allow the author to express themself in their choice of words. Good grief!


"Don't blame us for poor english translations if you are going to claim that the original Hebrew says something different."

I don't "blame" you for anything except bad comprehension skills. You don't even need the Hebrew to read plain English! This is an OBVIOUS problem on your part - reading and comprehension as well as the usual - LOGIC.

"No wonder we can't just read the text. We have to sit down with an expert who can explain to us why it isn't contradictory, really."

Perhaps YOU do. Others don't. They can simply read it for what it says. If you weren't so arrogant and blinded by your emotion you too might be able to read a simple sentence.

[melbell]

"The district allowed students whose parents objected to the policy to be excused from hearing the statement at the beginning of class and science teachers who opposed the requirement to be exempted from reading the statement. About 15 of 170 ninth-graders asked to be excused from class, Thompson said."

Oh these poor babies...I had a test in a science class once in middle school. And one of the questions on the test was an essay, where we had to write a couple of paragraphs explaining the process by which we evolved to what we are now. I was not excused from having to answer that. I didn't answer it, and I failed the test. I took my failing grade and got over it. That was my choice, and I stood by it. They should not be excused from class because they don't want to hear something. If they skip that class, they should be penalized, and they should stand by it. But then again, we are talking about a group of children whose parents have taught them not to accept or expect consequences for their actions.

[melbell]

"Creationists are loosers, they just don't know it yet."

so? ehvolewshinists aer beed speelers.

/sarcasm

[Aquinasfan]

"The revolution in evolution has begun," said Richard Thompson

Thank God.

[Dimensio]

some students were upset that administrators would not entertain any questions about intelligent design.

Ah, this must be the "equal treatment" that IDers want. They want students to be able to question evolution ... but we certainly can't have anyone making inquiries regarding ID.

[Dimensio]

Why do you continue posting? Everyone already knows that you're a documented liar.

[Dimensio]

I'm sure that Idisarthur will be here any moment to thank you for your informative posting, and to apologize for implying that evolution supporters have no answer to his (or her) questions.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

If someone were to dig-up fossils of a Precambrian Rabbit, you'd sweep it under the rug and call it an anomaly.

Failure to state an observation that would falsify ID noted.

Here are a few that FR Member Ahban provided clear back in 2001, along with some brief commentary. Let me know what you think.

1) New families of animals (for tech. reasons, plants and microbes don't count)arise either spontaneously or through breeding. A net gain in info that causes complex new features to arise would do the job, even if it was not a new family. Maybe some wasp species would develop the complicated mating structures of the dragonfly for example.

If a major change like that is observed occurring, even if only once in four centuries, it is enough to show that evolution is a sufficient explanation for what we observe to at least the FAMILY level. This does not mean ID is UTTERLY falsified, but it would strongly tip the scales. Maybe we would retreat to the CLASS or even PHYLUM levels. Still, that would be a big retreat.

It is important to note that many scientists tried to do just that with fruit fly experiments. They bombarded the critters with radiation hoping to observe just such an event. Not only did such attempts end in failure, but they discovered that the same mutations kept occurring. It seems that there are only so many ways to mutate a fruit fly and come up with a viable creature. That argues against method #2, but here goes...

2) ID could be falsified if they could genetically or mathematically show that every phylum of critter is connected to every other phylum by a series of mutations that can produce a viable creature. They would also have to show that the number of mutations required could reasonably occurred in the time allowed.

ID argues that at some level (families, classes, species, whatever) creatures live one genetically isolated "islands". There is great variation on each island, but the distance between islands is too great to cross- at least in the 543 million years we have to work with. If one could show that the gaps are not that great, that genetically creatures have viable mutation paths between families and even phylums, then ID is falsified.

3)Most ID could be falsified to some extent (the same extent as evolution) if the predictions made by the theory are contradicted by new discoveries in the fossil record.

If the fossil record were to show new families and classes, and orders showing up AFTER man (the real man, the one with art, religion, and culture) appears, then this major branch of ID would be largely falsified. Instead, we see that after the advent of man, new critters quit showing up.

-----------

If you want the link to the thread where this came from, let me know. I can't find it now, but can when I have more time.

FRegards, MM