What are /r/DebateEvolution's favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

This one one of the most ignorant statements you could make on the subject. Before speaking with certainty about what is or isn't true, you should educate yourself. Stop listening to creationists and actually do some research. I suggest reading the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne for a complete refutation of this argument and pretty much every other argument the creationists throw up. (Disclosure: I know you won't actually read it, but that just shows you don't sincerely want to learn the facts.)

From Amazon

>Blending cutting-edge ideas with incisive spiritual insights, Evolutionaries is the first popular presentation of an emerging school of thought called “evolutionary spirituality.” Carter Phipps, the former executive editor of EnlightenNext magazine, asserts that evolution is not only a scientific but also a spiritual idea in a book whose message has the power to bring new meaning and purpose to life as we know it. Readers will be fascinated and enlightened by Evolutionaries, a book which Deepak Chopra, the world-renowned author of The Seven Spiritual Laws of Superheroes, Jesus, and Buddha, says “is going to help create a worldview that will influence our vision of the future direction of evolution and also our role in consciously participating in it.”

Probably not a great way to be introduced to evolution to be honest.

> uneducated Victorian nobleman with nothing more than a degree in theology (Darwin)

Patently false, Darwin went to the University of Edinburg and studied medicine along with Theology (which in the context of his time, was pretty common for the educated).

He also studied anatomy, became a naturalist, and his cilia discovery was new to science in his day.

Then he also studied geology, and in fact, that might have been his career. (See this book: https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-First-Theory-Exploring-Quest/dp/1681773163).

Uneducated? Hardly. Medicine was stupid (to him), so he pursued other interests (including the theological interest).

This varied background made him the scientist that he was.

>Nice propaganda.

Seriously? Logic, and mounds of evidence are propaganda? You really need to visit http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html but you won't, because you're mind is locked shut.

>Truth is objective, not subjective, meaning any number of experts can have wrong ideas and it won't change reality.

Any number of scientists (from a variety of disciplines) can have correct predictions verified that are reality. But when evidence is presented that provides new or different predictions, then the science reflects that.

That's why there was an evolutionary synthesis.

But that's a story you won't listen to, read, or even start to examine, because again, your mind is closed to new discovery.

When I was young I believed the creation story too, but incontrovertible evidence (and a curious, open mind) thankfully opened my eyes to the science.

/u/PaulDouglasPrice

I don't hate what I don't believe in.

I do trust modern science more than I trust a book written by a bunch of uneducated goat herders. You won't admit it, but you do too. I'm sure you seek modern health care when you get sick. The bible is not a source any more than the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.

/u/RedSquirrelFtw

>Let's be real nobody knows 100% how the universe was formed or how old it is, we can draw theories based on scientific evidence and the Bible but either side will never know with 100% certainty the exact details.

There are many, many independent lines of evidence that points to the universe being 13.787±0.020 billion years old. I recommend you read 13.8 by Gribbin. He does a great job of explaining how cosmologists have arrived at that number. Unlike the bible, all of the work described in that book has tirelessly been examined and contested for 100s of years of cosmologists and astronomers.

The name calling (I agree it's not acceptable) is born from people claiming their 'theory' is comparable to a scientific theory without any evidence.

Creationist Logic Demonstrates Macro Evolution, The Evolution of a new Kind by Arthur Paliden

"Genesis 1:12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

According to creationists only organisms of the same 'kind' can breed with each other. If they cannot breed then they are different kinds. Like chimps and Man are different 'kinds' even though they have the same body plans, internal organs and over 97% the same DNA they are different 'kinds' because they cannot cross breed..

This means that the plants Senecio vulgaris and Senecio squalidus must be of the same 'kind' since in 1979 it was seen that they could interbreed and produce a hybrid.

Now the hybrid generated by this inter-breeding was given the name Senecio eboracensis. This new plant can breed with itself which means it is a viable hybrid. It is not a sterile hybrid like say a mule. However, and this is the really important part, it cannot breed with either of its parent plants or any other plants. So this means, according to creationist logic, that the new hybrid must be of a different 'kind' than the plants that generated the hybrid.

So what we have is two plants of one 'kind' interbreeding to create a new never before seen plant of a different 'kind'.

Thus a new 'kind' has evolved as a result of hybridization within an existing 'kind'. Which of course, is macro evolution.

Needless to say as these are plants you can of course repeat this on your own kitchen table as often as you want. You know repeatable testable evidence of macro evolution, the evolution of a new 'kind'.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49756476_Plant_Invasions_Interspecific_Hybridization_and_the_Evolution_of_New_Plant_Taxa

> If you want a good, strong summary of some of the best evidences against Darwinism, I suggest you start by watching Evolution's Achilles Heels, available at creation.com/store. To go into greater detail, read the book.

Got a youtube link for it? It's kind of asking a lot to argue that we don't give your arguments eough respect, then ask me to pay you so you can convince me I am wrong.

But I am curious... Have you ever read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne? Are there any arguments in your video that are not thoroughly rebutted in that book?

Again, you are here arguing that we don't treat your arguments with respect, so you really should treat the arguments on the other side with the same respect. Funny how you have shown throughout this thread that you don't. For someone complaining about how we live in an echo chamber, your arguments have been ridiculously disingenuous.

Edit: And I told you I would review read and respond to your creationist material if you responded to /u/guyinachair's question. You have not done so. Why do you refuse to answer what should be a simple question if your belief is true.

have not read it..

but amazon has small number of reviews. largely from creationists, who think its great.. naturally they would eat it up..

https://www.amazon.com/Replacing-Darwin-New-Origin-Species/dp/1683440757#customerReviews

the only critical review I found there was this one:

>Though I am certainly not a creationist, I sometimes enjoy reading creationist material written by smart people. I'm always curious to see where they take their arguments. Nathaniel Jeanson is certainly one of the smartest in the Creationist Movement. AIG is lucky to have him on board.

>There are 2 reasons I enjoyed his book enough to give it 2 stars: First, his writing inspired me to learn more about genetic clocks. After reading his book, I went on to read a great deal about them in the normal scientific literature. If pressed, I could probably put together a pretty good lecture on the topic, now.

>Second, Nathaniel included some of his own research which I found interesting. Though I certainly don't agree with his conclusions, he has found some potentially useful patterns in mammalian speciation rates.

>The reason I gave his book only two stars, is that Dr Jeanson used his data to jump to unreasonable conclusions, and in order to force his models to support a Young Earth view, he cherry picked the variables used in his equations. For example, in his mtDNA clock models, he refused to account for the way natural selection messes with fixation rates. I worry that most readers (unless they are trained in either genetics or statistics) won't notice the logical errors he has made.

>Jon Perry

-amazon review source

> 1 of many reasons is for example that blacks have much more testosteron, which is based on facts.

Simplification and cherry-picking facts are the easiest way to prove any point. Check out this comprehensive essay to get a more balanced view.

Also, you seem to be narrowing down crime to murder and murder to causing death by acts of direct physical violence. When you insist that blacks commit more crimes, do you consider organized persecution on a large scale and mass killings murder for instance? I suppose you know what I'm referring to, certainly not black males.

Ever read any of Hovind's doctoral dissertation? Wikileaks has a link.

I recall that someone analysed the text and determined it was written at roughly a 5th-grade reading level.

Demonstrating Species Evolution on Your Kitchen Table

In 1979 it was discovered that the two sub species plants of the same species Senecio vulgaris and Senecio squalidus could interbreed and produce a hybrid.

Now the hybrid generated by this inter-breeding was given the name Senecio eboracensis. This new plant can breed with itself which means it is a viable hybrid. However, and this is the really important part, it cannot breed with either of its parent plants or any other plants. So this means that the new hybrid must be of a different species than its originating plants.

So what we have is two plants interbreeding to create a new never before seen plant species.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49756476_Plant_Invasions_Interspecific_Hybridization_and_the_Evolution_of_New_Plant_Taxa

>At best the TTSS represents one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum

He means the type 3 secretion system by TTSS. Which is a valid example dispite what he claims. Anyone who doesn't know it's an organelle that has ~10 fewer proteins then a flagellum and functions as an injecting mechanism.

The next step might be something like a moving injector. As "luck" would have it there's at least one bacteria that has such a system. The bubonic plague has a modified TTSS that's only missing 3 proteins from a flagellum, and moves around functioning like an auger. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7513079_The_V-Antigen_of_Yersinia_Forms_a_Distinct_Structure_at_the_Tip_of_Injectisome_Needles

Disclaimer: it's midnight and pulled most of this from memory

Also of note; notice that creationist will never talk about eukaryotic flagellum. That's because dispite it being really complex, we have tons of intermediates

The only "real" paper that comes to mind is Behe and Snoke, 2004, and oh man, how much time do I have to describe the litany of errors in the assumptions and interpretations of this paper? <looks at watch> Not nearly enough time. It's bad. Behe lies about what it shows. And on the stand in the Kitzmiller trial, this paper was demolished.

Yeah, many of these are just bad examples. An eyestalk certainly adds some benefit, but the risk of injury would go up dramatically, so I would argue it is not a superior design.

The same is true of no flippers, no tentacles, or any number of other items.

/u/River_Lamprey Your argument itself is sound, but several of your examples fall flat. Whether we are talking about evolution or creation, it is reasonable to assume that there are some practical considerations that would drive the "design."

For example, flippers would be beneficial, sure, but they would also get in the way when we are living on land. So any "designer"-- whether a god or evolution will do a cost/benefit analysis (iow natural selection, in the case of evolution) and judge whether the feature adds enough benefit to overcome the cost. With flippers, eyestalks, tentacles, gills, trunks, etc., the benefit is just not there, and an intelligent designer can see that just as well as natural selection can.

You do have a couple of good examples, for example your points about vitamins and the backwards eye receptors, but most of them suggest you haven't really considered what the role of a designer is. I don't mean to be insulting, but your list reminds me of when Homer Simpson designed a car. "This would be neat to have, why don't we have that?"

But that isn't the way a designer works. Maybe on the first pass when you are brainstorming for ideas, but there has to be a filter step where you weed out the ideas that aren't practical for the use case. Your list missed that step.

But again, your core argument is actually an excellent one. If you want to dig deeper into the ideas, and see a bunch of outstanding examples of exactly these sort of things that truly are bad design, check out the book Human Errors, by Nathan Lents.

I can't buy it but this one, https://www.amazon.com/Bones-Contention-Controversies-Search-Origins/dp/0226476510 About 10 bucks and shipping.

Can't find pdf for free.

Just looked up the authors, and one of them (Olen R. Brown) appears to have written this book: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Everything-that-Come-Miracle/dp/1419643576

>Woe to you if you taught that nonsense and misled any children.

You'll be happy to know I have two kids and Grandmother Fish is on their bookshelf!

I'll 100% take you up on your offer if there is an afterlife. I have no qualms about how I'm living my life. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge others on a debate a pseudoscience subreddit.

By stating they are related and bacteria can become an oak tree and tiger. You know this. This is what they teach, https://www.amazon.com.au/Laminated-Evolution-Featuring-Charles-Darwin/dp/B06XPQ64G4 from one tree to another it has not changed. I'm not interested in going in circles when you know full well you think you are related to a bacteria and a tiger.

Shuffle a deck of 52 cards and then draw 5. The odds of you drawing those 5 specific cards was approximately 1 in 2.5 million, and yet it happens every time.

You can keep fallaciously playing with numbers to make certain events seem impossible, or you can do yourself a huge favor by picking up a little book called Innumeracy and reading it

You should give this book a read. Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman

Once you "see" how human and political the bible is, you can't "unsee" it.

The book is better the more of the bible you remember and have studied

https://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman-ebook/dp/B07M7S79BT

Casey Luskin(the DI's attack gerbil, as we like to call him) recently wrote a this book with contributions from other main ID proponents. Read the blurb. This was also advertised in the Evolution News website.

OK as you are not a biologist I will not get into heavy biology. So here is an other example of speciation.

Demonstrating Species Evolution, Macro Evolution, on Your Kitchen Table

"A species is a group of individual organisms that interbreed and produce fertile, viable offspring. According to this definition, one species is distinguished from another when, in nature, it is not possible for matings between individuals from each species to produce fertile offspring." The Biological Species Concept - boundless . com

In 1979 it was discovered that the two sub species plants of the same species Senecio vulgaris and Senecio squalidus could interbreed and produce a hybrid.

So what we have is two plants interbreeding to create a new never before seen plant species.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49756476_Plant_Invasions_Interspecific_Hybridization_and_the_Evolution_of_New_Plant_Taxa

http://jkmpic.blogspot.ca/2013/06/senecio-vulgaris-plants-for-sale.html

Yea, I’d rather talk to Ken Ham and Eric Hovind at the same time. The first one will probably just ask me if I was there and I’d just have to remind them that the Bronze Age story tellers weren’t there either and maybe hand them a copy of “The rocks were there”. Eric Hovind would probably just either respond with his dad’s tired arguments or ask me a bunch of questions like he’s never talked to a science accepting faith rejecting atheist before.

>Vestigiality. Proof of Common Ancestry?

Fossil and genetic evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proved that both common ancestry and evolution are true. People now use test kits to trace their common ancestry:

https://www.ancestry.com/

Vestigial systems are an expected outcome of evolution. It's additional evidence, but is not needed to prove that common ancestry is true. If common ancestry was false then you could not have had "biological parents".

> ffect the ability to

Yes you are right.

Checkout the conclusion : https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-flaw-in-the-Stich%E2%80%93Plantinga-challenge-to-Deem/ece7e40df4db531979cf7e84797af67e7e7cf168

Reaches the same conclusion as you. My problem is we cannot throw out a valid philosophical position.

Give this one a read and let me know what you think: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-flaw-in-the-Stich%E2%80%93Plantinga-challenge-to-Deem/ece7e40df4db531979cf7e84797af67e7e7cf168

Its a refutation of Stich and Plantinga.

> Don't believe me? Show me the science.. quote a scientific study where actual lineage is genetically traced, that is not just asserted and assumed. They do not exist. Similarity of design does not imply descent.

u/sweary_biochemist offered this link to you, but you just ignored it twice https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-comprehensive-analysis-of-mammalian-mitochondrial-Gibson-Gowri-Shankar/72ed19999c85a041f19de64961d230518948b458

Not to mention the dozen or so other links that have been presented to you over the last couple months, but all you got is the constant assertion the MtMCRA stops at a clade, but unfortunately for you clades can fit inside clades inside clades many dozens of overlapping layers deep.

If one does a genetic test of only domesticated dogs the mtMCRA will be much more recent than if one studies all wolves and dogs instead, still finding a mtMCRA, and each ending at the clade decided by the population, but with and existing pool of other mtMCRA’s (in this case adding coyotes would be a larger clade, all canines which you accept, and all the further clades of relatedness that you do not accept) I want you to show exactly where the distinction is because over and over again you just assert that the ones we bring up do not count despite in every case it being the exact same evidence that you do accept. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8919866/

There are mtDNA last common ancestors for pretty much any grouping you care to look at.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-comprehensive-analysis-of-mammalian-mitochondrial-Gibson-Gowri-Shankar/72ed19999c85a041f19de64961d230518948b458

Pay attention to figure 5. mtDNA ancestry for everything from echidnas to moles to cats, dogs, whales and humans.

I would guess you've been searching in a rather focussed fashion: many studies examine mtDNA within smaller clades because it can be quite useful in that respect. This in no way implies mtDNA tracing cannot go back further: as shown, it really can. Note that we can also do this with nuclear DNA, and we get the same pattern of nested relatedness.

Meanwhile, the concept of 'created kinds' absolutely, unarguably implies that if you trace ancestry back for extant organisms, you will reach unique, separate and wholly unrelated apex ancestors (for example, the ancestral 'horse' which will be entirely unrelated to the ancestral 'wolf' or the ancestral 'bird'). Common ancestry asserts that this is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE, and this is a clear and unambiguous distinction. Common ancestry asserts that horses and wolves are both mammals (while birds are not), and that horses, wolves and birds are all tetrapod, vertebrate, animal, eukaryotes.

If you desire to give 'created kinds' any sort of validity, you need to work out how to define and detect 'kinds'. No creationist has yet done so, which is...not a great endorsement of the hypothesis, really.

>You're essentially claiming that ... a hunter gatherer living in ice age Europe could've talked to his or her friend about evolution by means of natural selection more easily than you and I could right now.

No, I'm not, and your inability to distinguish the complexity of a concept from the complexity of the linguistic medium is one of the many reasons you shouldn't be trying to have this discussion.

Sure, cultural and intellectual knowledge gets more complex over recorded history. But that's not the same thing, and when you're claiming languages themselves get more complex - as you have multiple times - you're broaching a topic which you clearly lack the basic conceptual framework to talk about.

I'm not that bothered by the specific metric of linguistic complexity you want to use. I'd probably go for something like number of grammaticalised distinctions, but other measures are defensible. Your metric, however, has to describe language itself: not the increase of encyclopaedic background knowledge, which is a different (and, in this context, irrelevant) topic, and not just you disliking their storylines, which is one of the more bizarre arguments I seen on the subject.

This stuff is not controversial. Read an intro to historical linguistics or visit r/linguistics for sources. The claim that "'primitive' languages are simple" is usually racism-lite anyway, and serious linguists haven't taken it seriously for decades.

If you can spare 10 dollars, I strongly suggest picking up the book Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos. He’s a math professor who very effectively explains how probability calculations get used incorrectly, with these Meyer calculations being a prime example.

>How can something so complex suddenly emerge from a past chaos. How can evolution explain that?

You should look up the site BoxCar2D: http://boxcar2d.com/

You start with a random population of cars that are terrible at moving through a level. Then after each member of the population makes their attempt, the best (i.e. the fittest) of the population are taken as the new default with slight mutations. You'll find that you go from absolute garbage to incredibly well performing cars, and it's all based on very simple rules. No designer needed

Say the first self replicant uses R ribose.

When the R ribose is used to make self replicants, more R ribose will form.

Row two of the following table on Le Chatelier's principle

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-le-chatelier-s-principle-in-chemistry

Note that this may not necessarily require a self replicant; perhaps some stable nucleotide polymers may form and consume the pentose reactant, or for whatever reason like some massive crystal of the pentose forming or for whatever reason.

Protein folding is such a huge study that a distributed model was introduced many years ago to use people's CPUs (much like SETI@home) to check data for useful proteins. It's called Folding@home.

https://foldingathome.org/about/

Even with all that computational power, they have not found that many effective proteins for what they're hoping to use in medical and scientific research.

https://foldingathome.org/category/fah-achievements/

That's because it's very complex, and we don't have full knowledge of protein folding to know what we need to find to do something. We only discovered the nature of DNA about 70 years ago. Give us time to get this research down better.

However, we can observe what's already there in nature, study that with other lines of evidence, and determine what all of this evidence points to. We can see how genes change over generations and how long ago different populations diverged based on how quickly their genomes change over generations.

What you're asking us to do is go from start to finish, rather than start where we are now and extrapolate the past from the evidence.

We can always simulate genes that we know and how they work, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking about.

Here is a 2015 update in regards to porins. It's epigenetics in control thus fitting the ID signature, not on the spur evolution signature. Here it is.

Adaptive Resistance in Bacteria Requires Epigenetic ...

journals.plos.org › plosone › article

Mar 17, 2015 · Abstract. Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium. Recent work shows that adaptive resistance requires epigenetic inheritance and heterogeneity of gene expression patterns that are, in particular, associated with the production of porins and efflux pumps.

Author: Santiago Sandoval Motta, Philippe Cluzel, Maximino Aldana
Cited by: 57
Publish Year: 2015

That is a good question. I'm tempted to say the "common sense definition" of an SJW because I haven't actually thought about how to rigorously define an SJW, or if it even is possible.

Mostly those who use intersectional identity politics. Those who adhere to Feminist Epistemology (capitalizing to show that it's one thing; I'm in no way opposed to equal rights between the sexes) and standpoint "theory". With regards to behavior, I think people who are more focused on virtue signalling (e.g. call-out culture) than actually helping people who are oppressed. An example.

I suppose one of the reasons for my opposition is how similar it is to a religion, with "privilege" as their Original Sin and wokeness as their Savior.

If I may, I think you should read Jerry Coynes book Why Evolution Is True . I think he does a great job of explaining how we, through the scientific method, discovered that evolution through natural selection - aka the theory of evolution - is how life has progressed from a single common ancestor.

I think you need to go back and revisit the basics of biology before you start grading biologists. Check out this book, it will cover a lot of your arguments and it's $20.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0878932232/ref=sr\_aod\_dp\_ttl

I don’t even have to buy the book to demonstrate that you took that quote out of context.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe-ebook/dp/B014LJE1HI

The title of the book contradicts what you said he meant.

So could you please not cherry pick quotes? All it would demonstrate if he did in fact mean what you said he meant was that he was wrong, but his book title says he didn’t actually mean what you said he meant.

He also says something similar in this presentation and, just like in the book, he demonstrates that biological systems that might look designed are definitely NOT designed.

So, yes you cherry picked him.

You completely ignored the rest of the book, you probably completely ignored this presentation, and you picked out the one or two cherry picked quotes to support a position that Dawkins spent his whole adult career fighting against.

On the other hand, even if Dawkins was 100% wrong, it has no bearing on what’s been demonstrated in over 162 years and how 0% of that involves witnessing a supernatural being designing something.

You are arguing that, since you don’t understand how any of this could possibly happen naturally, and because you refuse to even read the rest of the book you cherry picked those quotes from, there’s evidence of god in design. It’s an argument from incredulity supporting a god of the gaps leading back to your preconceived conclusion which is a form of circular reasoning. Your position is literally supported by fallacies and you’ve just demonstrated that.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649

Take a look at this book, and the first preview.

I am having the same opinion about this book for example. It's outdated and those argument are bad and questioned by science now.

Aaron Ra wrote a book with that (nearly same) title.

https://www.amazon.com/Foundational-Falsehoods-Creationism-Aron-Ra/dp/1634310780

Please allow me to introduce you to Dr. Nathan H. Lents and his excellent book, Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018), available at Amazon.

From the product description (emphasis mine):

> We humans like to think of ourselves as highly evolved creatures. But if we are supposedly evolution's greatest creation, why do we have such bad knees? Why do we catch head colds so often—two hundred times more often than a dog does? How come our wrists have so many useless bones? Why is the vast majority of our genetic code pointless? And are we really supposed to swallow and breathe through the same narrow tube? Surely there's been some kind of mistake. > > As professor of biology Nathan H. Lents explains in Human Errors, our evolutionary history is nothing if not a litany of mistakes, each more entertaining and enlightening than the last. The human body is one big pile of compromises. But that is also a testament to our greatness: as Lents shows, humans have so many design flaws precisely because we are very, very good at getting around them. > > A rollicking, deeply informative tour of humans' four billion year long evolutionary saga, Human Errors both celebrates our imperfections and offers an unconventional accounting of the cost of our success.

Sounds like you should pick up a biology textbook.

Campbell biology is ridiculously good

https://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-11th-Lisa-Urry/dp/0134093410

It befuddles me how people can decide to criticise evolution without a sufficient biology education.

Number of nucleotides is analogous to computer bits.

A bit on a computer is the smallest piece of information on your hard drive or RAM.

A nucleotide is the smallest piece of genetic information.

I think one of the better answers Ive heard is "No, I wasn't there, but do you know what was? The Rocks Were There " so nice they made a book with that title.

If you really don't want to waste time, I suggest reading a proper biology textbook is probably the most productive.

Almost all creationists have never read a biology textbook...

Campbell biology is the best biology textbook and amazingly good to read with lots and lots of pictures / diagrams

https://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-11th-Lisa-Urry/dp/0134093410

Oh lord. When did you realize it was crap?

I found it really frustrating, and it's the third one in the span of a week where someone outright refused to engage with the evidence presented to them in a gift-wrapped package while telling me they were right and I was wrong, or I didn't know what I was talking about.

If you're up for a book on Titanic by a great recent author, try this one. It's probably the best balance between user-friendliness and comprehensiveness you'll get. Only complaint is the division of chapters. The entire history of each ship is one chapter, so they can be 100+ pages.

> Sorry, but not a single person who is honest becomes more religious by learning more about science.

Wrong again. Your insistence is just showing that you are either ignorant or willing to double-down on your own straw-man world-view without recognizing the facts.

You can hear many former atheists here : https://chnetwork.org/denomination/atheist

Anthony Flew was one of the most famous atheists in England. He changed his view based on science and wrote a book about it here :

https://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304

>If I had to be specific, I guess I'd want to ask about how we as homo-sapiens evolved from our common ancestors with apes. Like how was that process like? What's the evidence for it? Is it true that we share 98% of our genome with apes?

In addition to the other sites and books that others have mentioned, a book I would recommend that deals specifically with the evidence of Human evolution would be <em>Relics of Eden</em> by Daniel Fairbanks.

It shows specific evidence of our own evolution and addresses the similarity between our DNA and other apes. It's fairly basic and easily understood in my opinion. Check to see if you local library has a copy.

> > but the main reason for me is the concept of "functional coherence", as propounded by Dr. Douglas Axe.

> Which is?

In a nutshell, he has conducted research that supports the common-sense idea that complex systems that comprise multiple interdependent subcomponents (like digital computers, the human brain, and novel proteins) cannot arise from undirected causes.

For more information, read his book <em>Undeniable</em>.

Thanks for responding. The reason I put this question on the table is that I believe this is an example of a system that is not evolvable.

Occasionally some of my ideas aren't as strong as I thought, and then I decide not to suggest them as evidences of something not evolvable. So I test them out in places like this.

For the next 12 or so weeks, I will be studying cellular neuroscience and things like voltage-gated ion channels.

Thank you very much for taking time to attempt a substantive responses. The textbook I'm working from is: https://www.amazon.com/Molecules-Networks-Third-Introduction-Neuroscience/dp/0123971799/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518621412&sr=1-1&keywords=from+molecules+to+networks

1st day of class, not a single mention of evolution. 2nd day of class not a single mention of evolution.

>As such, I don't know how much we can really hope to obtain this late in the game. Anything existing between the two niches would likely have gone extinct long ago.

It is also possible the absence of intermediaties today indicates the intermediates never existed. This is a case of the problem of fitness peaks where selection will select AGAINST half formed systems. As I look at the specialization of nerve cells (compared say to a bone cell, or whatever cell), the sophistication just boggles the mind.

In humans, there are all sorts of specialized nerve cells that enable the 5 senses, the motor nerves, the thinking nerves. If a creationist wanted to have a career in biology, he could probably study the physiology of neurons since evolution is pretty much irrelevant in that field as far as I can tell. I put this question up just to see if anyone thought otherwise. Thanks again.

Oh my goodness, dude, you gotta work on your graphic design. Check out The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward Tufte. A lot of the figures in your "theory" are terrible, but that one might take the top prize.

Its a cheap cop out when one says something like youtube university is not evidence. Also people who believe life started when primordial soup got struck by lightning do not qualify to be peer reviewers of anything.

Scientific Study: http://www.amazon.com/DMT-Molecule-Revolutionary-Near-Death-Experiences/dp/0892819278

Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtT6Xkk-kzk

Evidence for soul is overwhelming, evidence of past alien invasion is overwhelming, evidence for past genetic manipulations is overwhelming but no.

What are /r/DebateEvolution's favorite Products & Services? From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

The most popular Products mentioned in /r/DebateEvolution:

The most popular Services mentioned in /r/DebateEvolution:

SemanticScholar

ResearchGate

Scholarpedia

Merriam-Webster

JS Bin

Google Play Books

Academia.edu

Quotefancy

BoxCar 2D

Ancestry

Genetic Cars 2

Project Gutenberg

The Weather Channel

TinyURL

SlideShare

The most popular reviews in /r/DebateEvolution:

What are /r/DebateEvolution's favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments