# Creation/Evolution Thread from Comments on Mailbag **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2000, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282 "2000-06-03T13:54:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bored2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47774/32.png) [@Bored2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bored2001)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/21 "2000-06-06T02:40:05Z")
umm… instinct? Simple. They are inherent ways of thought that cause a animal or person to react a certian way. This can be changed via genetics by mutating a gene which would cause a change in the way neurons and synapses are formed. These changed neurons and synapses may very well cause a change in inherent thought processes of the animal. Since aggressiveness would be advantageous to a lion it would develop in a lion. Since a rabbit couldn’t possibly fight a lion it would be advantageous for it to instinctively run. ~Bored2001 ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/22 "2000-06-06T03:21:59Z")
**capacitor** > [@](#): > > They start explaining the beginning of development of feathers in reptiles, then skip 200 milion(sic) years and voila–birds. Inadequate. 200 million years is not sufficient to go from reptiles to birds? Exactly how long do you think it should take? ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/23 "2000-06-06T03:27:40Z")
Then how come humans don’t have such instincts, other than reflex, if we were allegedly evolved from animals? Would it be easier for us to instinctively know about some things, such as the basics of civil order, as opposed of having to learn just about each and every single thing, and sometimes learning them wrongly? And what is the likelihood that the many species of birds that do fly have the instinct of using their wings optimally as per their species? Yes, David B., I am quite serious about the dangers of the heavy-handed active applications of the threory of evolution, including social Darwinism, in human life. ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/24 "2000-06-06T04:03:17Z")
Ok, here is my humble 2 cents. Most of it is just humble opinion. I have nothing to back it up…just thought I’d throw my thoughts into the pot. > [@](#): > > Then how come humans don’t have such instincts, other than reflex, if we were allegedly evolved from > animals? Humans do have instincts other than reflex. Of course, some instincts have dulled over thousands of years due to more technological advances. The instincts are still there, but they are dulled, or hidden by modern comforts. > [@](#): > > Would it be easier for us to instinctively know about some things, such as the basics of civil order, > as opposed of having to learn just about each and every single thing, and sometimes learning them > wrongly? We don’t need to instinctively know about the basics of civil order. Throughout the GRADUAL evolutionary process, our brains developed until we could function on induction and deduction processes, not just instinct. Lions cannot rationally think through aggressive acts, they must do or die, and quickly. However, humans DO usually have the time to think things through. Whether they are doing it correctly or not is a whole other matter…but the fact is they have the capacity of doing it. Now, on God and evolution. Christians believe that we have free agency to make our own decisions. I believe God gives us the oppurtunity to be on this Earth, and then we are left to either follow Him or not, it’s our decision. I believe He has a plan for us that he would LIKE us to achieve, but He’ll let us decide if we will achieve it or not. God doesn’t, as a general rule, interfer with our daily lives. So, wouldn’t it be contradictory (SP?) if God interferred with everything else? I think that he simply set the wheels of life spinning, so to speak. He set up the conditions for life, and gave life a chance to flourish, and then let it take it’s own direction. Maybe horses were never meant to evolve into what we know them as today, but the conditions and the enviroment dictated what they would become. I also believe that the natural laws of Science not only govern our Universe, but God is subject to these laws to. If what we know as hydrogen and oxygen always makes water than God must always make water with hydrogen and oxygen. You follow? If one follows these lines of reasoning then one could see that God and science go hand in hand together. Now, please don’t come back at me with scriptures and Biblical verses telling me how wrong I am. These are just my personal opinions, that is all. I’m not trying to start a debate or hijack this thread. =) ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/25 "2000-06-06T04:34:56Z")
I believe that the development of instinct reflects that the quick development of that animal possessing it was much more urgent than many you realize. Instinct allows that animal to know what to do with what it has the second it is born. If it doesn’t, it dies. There can be no gradual process that goes towards developing instinct; I don’t think that the species have time for such a gradual process, unless it is isolated or have no natural enemies. For the others, there must be some form of established instinct at the beginning of the development of the species, otherwise that species goes extinct rather quickly and never fuly develops. That is one of the reasons why I believe that if there were any so-called changes from one animal to another, that change has to be radically done, both physically and mentally. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/26 "2000-06-06T04:46:12Z")
I think Tom made a very groundless and gratuitous attack on Rev Swaggart comparing him to a virulent posterior pustule. I think an apology is in order–to all virulent posterior pustules. ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/27 "2000-06-06T05:04:31Z")
Ok…I think this how to answer capacitor…please correct me if I’m wrong… Animals have the ability to adapt, even improvise to a certain extent. For example, maybe way back when early primates were leaving the jungles and going into the plains of Africa (Assuming they did this. If not, consider it an hypothetical) the primates that had the ability to stand up and run faster were the ones that were not killed and they eventually reproduced. The animals that could do this was mutants, freaks, if you will. These mutants were allowed to live longer then their fellow primates. The mutant genes were passed down through the gene pool. What started out as a mutant gene led to evolution, and that evolution led to the devlopment of stronger instincts. Let’s imagine for a second that the primates who moved into the plains of Africa from the jungle had a natural predator that resembled a lion. Obviously the first creatures to leave the jungle would not know that the lion is their natural enemy. But eventually they figured out how to run from it, and the faster ones are the ones that reproduced. The running from predators began as neccesity, and developed into an instinct. In order to ensure the survival of the species, it HAD to become an instinct. Animals born now have natural instincts. That’s obvious. But they don’t have ‘natural’ instincts just because. These instincts had to start and develop somewhere and from something. > [@](#): > > There can be no gradual process that goes towards > developing instinct; I don’t think that the species have time for such a gradual process, But what works for a million years is not going to work forever. Let’s imagine that the lions got faster in response to the primates getting faster. The lions did not just one day become 10 times faster, they were bred that way. The primates that could keep up with the breeding did so, and reproduced more. The same works for natural instincts. And if they didn’t get faster, they died. There are millions of extinct creatures. Ok, this could be all wrong, and I could be talking out of my butt. If so, sorry. And I hope the point I was trying to make came across. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/28 "2000-06-06T05:48:17Z")
**Danielinthewolvesden** stated: > [@](#): > > - > > Evolution is a Fact… > \* ## I was under the impression that this is incorrect. Due to the inherent difficulty in proving a fact scientifically, Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory. Creationism is also a theory. The difference between the 2 is that Evolution has NOT been disproven. Am I correct? **Bored2001** stated: > [@](#): > > - > > Survival of the fittest still rules… > \* I believe that Darwin never said this and it causes misconceptions because… ## I forget the reasons here, could someone explain them for me? If I am not mistaken, of course. **Bored2001** stated: > [@](#): > > - > > Since aggressiveness would be advantageous to a lion it would develop in a lion. - ## Just because a trait would be advantageous does not mean it will develop. If a mutation were advantageous, then it would confer a greater chance of survivability to the offspring of the mutation and eventually this would lead to a change in all members of a population ( or the splitting into seperate populations ). But isn’t mutation itself random? Also 1 that no one brought up but has been bothering me. ## Is there such a thing as devolution? The tendancy is for life to evolve into more complex forms. But if simplicity were favored by enviroment then a species might change to become less complex, perhaps even to resemble an ancestor species. But this would still be evolution, correct? I would apreciate any input on these questions. I would also like to wish **capacitor** good luck. You are going to need it. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/29 "2000-06-06T05:53:26Z")
No, Pepper, you’re doing fine, especially with the “free will” & “setting the wheels in motion” stuff. I just can’t seem to get it into some fundies head, that by them saying the Earth & it’s history & ecosytems have all these big errors that show how wrong Evolution is, they are saying “God is incompetent”. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/30 "2000-06-06T06:26:39Z")
Pepperland, you explained on of my points very well. A change in an animal species is not gradual. It was originally a radical mutant that became the dominant animal in the region due to either that group being resourceful, or to drastic changes in the environment. If evolution starts the argument from that point, I may be swayed to believe in interspecies evolution. That can explain the missing gaps, because there may be none. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/31 "2000-06-06T08:27:28Z")
2sense: No, Evolution is a FACT, as much as the Earth rotates around the Sun & not the other way (despite what some Fundies & the Bible say). HOW Evolution works, ie the mechanisms, is the “theory” part. Eevn “Lamarkism”, altho nearly completely discredited, is a “theory”. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/32 "2000-06-06T10:50:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Would it be easier for us to instinctively know about some things, such as the basics of civil order, as opposed of having to learn just about each and every single thing, and sometimes learning them wrongly? Yes, perhaps it would. However, you appear to be assuming that evolution is a _directed_ process. Just because some characteristic would be advantageous does not mean that it will be produced by evolution. It must both be advantageous _and_ be produced by a equence fo processes which include some randomness. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/33 "2000-06-06T10:58:12Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Evolution is a Fact… > > I was under the impression that this is incorrect. Due to the inherent difficulty in proving a fact scientifically, Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory. Creationism is also a theory. The difference between the 2 is that Evolution has NOT been disproven. Am I correct? You’re a little off. Evolution is indeed a scientific _theory_, but the word “theory” does not mean the same thing in science that it does in everyday conversation. It does not carry an “untested and unproved” connotation. Although it is conceivable that the theory of evolution may be disproved, it is about as unlikely as disproving the theory that gravitation attracts your body to the Earth. There _are_ fundamental differences between the theory of evolution and “creationism theories”. There are many “creationism theories”, but few if any of them are scientific theories. Some of them are not falsifiable; it is inconceivable to disprove them in a scientific framework. All of them start with a dogma that is not to be questioned. Evolution may be questioned (although it’s sufficiently well-established that there’s littel benefit to be gained). ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/34 "2000-06-06T11:54:58Z")
**Capacitor** said: > [@](#): > > Then how come humans don’t have such instincts, other than reflex, if we were allegedly evolved from animals? Who says we don’t? Have you ever been scared when somebody came up to you from behind and you didn’t hear them? Did you jump and feel your heart rate get faster? You didn’t sit there and think, “Oh, my, I’m scared,” you just got scared. That was an instinct. Now, after the initial fright, your rational mind kicked in and you didn’t take off running, but if you had been in another setting (say, the jungle) and it hadn’t been a friend behind you but a lion, you’d have run without thinking too much about it. Instinct. Humans have lots of 'em. > [@](#): > > Would it be easier for us to instinctively know about some things, such as the basics of civil order, as opposed of having to learn just about each and every single thing, and sometimes learning them wrongly? No, because “the basics of civil order” has changed so much in so few years that there hasn’t been time for evolution to really do a whole lot about it. Think about it – humans were living in small hunter/gatherer groups just a short while ago (on an evolutionary timeframe). Now we’re in huge cities. The basics of civil order are quite different. > [@](#): > > And what is the likelihood that the many species of birds that do fly have the instinct of using their wings optimally as per their species? The “likelihood”? Well, what is the likelihood that you can walk on two legs? What is the likelihood that a snake can slither? The ability to use body parts generally evolved with the parts themselves. If a snake was born that, for whatever reason, didn’t know how to slither, it likely wouldn’t live to reproduce. Evolution in action. > [@](#): > > Yes, David B., I am quite serious about the dangers of the heavy-handed active applications of the threory of evolution, including social Darwinism, in human life. Yes, but why didn’t you answer my question? Specifically: **"How many times do we have to explain to you that evolution and social Darwinism are two completely different things? What will it take to get this through to you?"** > [@](#): > > I believe that the development of instinct reflects that the quick development of that animal possessing it was much more urgent than many you realize. Instinct allows that animal to know what to do with what it has the second it is born. If it doesn’t, it dies. Have you ever watched any nature shows on TV? Sure, animals know _something_ of what to do, but not enough to survive on its own (in many cases). That’s what parents are for in the cases of mammals, birds, etc. But since you claim humans have no instincts, have you ever seen a newborn baby? I mean, _really_ newborn? They come out and want to suckle immediately in most cases. Know why? They aren’t thinking, “Hmmm. I’m hungry and new here. I’d better eat.” The reason is _instinct_. > [@](#): > > There can be no gradual process that goes towards developing instinct; I don’t think that the species have time for such a gradual process, unless it is isolated or have no natural enemies. Actually, they do – because those who do the best in genetic development of survival instincts have the best chance of passing that along to their children. None of this is happening in a vacuum, and they aren’t starting out at ground zero with nothing. It all happens incrementally, just like the rest of evolution. I’m sorry that you personally find it difficult to believe, but that doesn’t mean it’s untrue. > [@](#): > > That is one of the reasons why I believe that if there were any so-called changes from one animal to another, that change has to be radically done, both physically and mentally. You can believe anything you want. You’ll still be wrong, but you can believe it. I’ve already explained this to you at least twice. > [@](#): > > A change in an animal species is not gradual. It was originally a radical mutant that became the dominant animal in the region No, no, no, no! Jeez, man, how many times do I have to go over this? It’s not a single huge mutation that causes a new species. It’s a series of small ones. What part of this are you not getting? How can I make it any clearer? **2sense** said: > [@](#): > > Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact because it has been observed in nature. There are theories to explain how it has happened. > [@](#): > > Creationism is also a theory. Not a scientific one. A theological one, perhaps, but then we’re using the same word (“theory”) with two very different meanings. > [@](#): > > Is there such a thing as devolution? > The tendancy is for life to evolve into more complex forms. But if simplicity were favored by enviroment then a species might change to become less complex, perhaps even to resemble an ancestor species. But this would still be evolution, correct? If there were some reason to favor less complex forms, it could happen, yes. For example, in locations where eyesight is unnecessary (dark caves, etc.), we see that some species have “evolved” blindness. They don’t need to see, and eyesight takes up some of their energy that could be better used elsewhere. So while in the “normal” course of evolution, better eyesight would be better, in this case, no eyesight is better. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/35 "2000-06-06T23:05:57Z")
I think that I understand this better. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/36 "2000-06-06T23:45:46Z")
Danielinthewolvesden wrote: > [@](#): > > There just are not enough fossils to show an unbroken line from Newt to man. Well, there isn’t an unbroken line from newt to man, considering that both are modern organisms adapted to the modern Earth, and that newts and humans split off from their common ancestor long before either species evolved. Unless you were talking about Mr. Gingrich. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2000, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/37 "2000-06-06T23:58:17Z")
tomndebb wrote: > [@](#): > > The “Darwin repented” lie was begun by the wife of a British admiral in a speech to an American Protestant seminary just after Darwin’s death in 1882. Some more details about Darwin’s alleged deathbed conversion, from page 199 of _The Survival of Charles Darwin: A Biography of a Man and an Idea_, by Ronald W. Clark (publ. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1985): > [@](#): > > Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: “How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done.” He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he “would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss.” > > With Moody’s encouragement, Lady Hope’s story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin’s story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. “I was present at his deathbed,” she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. “Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.” ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2000, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/38 "2000-06-07T00:43:22Z")
Tracer said: > [@](#): > > Well, there isn’t an unbroken line from newt to man, considering that both are modern organisms adapted to the modern Earth, and that newts and humans split off from their common ancestor long before either species evolved. > > Unless you were talking about Mr. Gingrich. Whaddaya mean “unless”? I thought you _were_ talking about Gingrich. I mean, what with all the talk about Newt splitting off from humans and all… ---
**Author:** ![El\_Guapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/82dd89/32.png) [@El\_Guapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Guapo)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2000, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/39 "2000-06-07T01:39:37Z")
Here is a question: What about the differences in humans themselves? If we all descended from Noah and the ark people, then how do you explain the vast differences in the human race other than evolution. For example, Asians have distinctly unique facial features and very little body hair while Africans have have dark skin and very curly, dense hair. In 300 generations (I’m using very general numbers here, 6,000 years at 20 years a generation), you can account for all the varieties of people in the world without evolution in the time frame given? Mind you, this is from a small group of humans and a very short amount of time spread out over a vast area. I’m with Daniel here, to limit God to your intrepetation of his creation and to your understanding of it would almost border on heresy. Heretic, isn’t what the church called that guy who said the earth wasn’t the center of the universe and all of God’s creation didn’t revolve around that? I forget his name, as he was just a scientist with crazy ideas that no one would believe and couldn’t be supported with the knowledge of the time. Galileo or something like that. At least the church had the cahones to admit they were wrong, all be it a couple hundred years later. As for instincts, every first year psych. student can tell you that all animals (including humans) have four basic instincts commonly refered to as the 4 Fs: Feeding, fighting, fleeing and reproduction. I love that joke! ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2000, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282/40 "2000-06-07T05:27:20Z")
1. Then where did the original instinct, the 4f’s, come from? Was it a random amino acid mixture from the primordal ooze that triggered the whole thing? Or was it engineered? Remember, there are many more DNA mixtures that can prove catastrophic to the organism possessing it, than those that can rigger the 4f’s of instinct. 2. Flight or flee is the basic reflex choice. I mentioned that before. Humans have very few natural instincts in comaprison to even the chimpanzee, our allegedly closest cousin. Was it replaced by our reasoning process? If so, then how much mental capacity in an animal is related to instinct? Why is it still so relatively high in many animals today? 3. I grant that evolution can explain well the development of the physicality of the species within the species, and its interactions within and with the environment. But it has not totally established the emergence of one species from another, from plant to reptile to bird to mammal to human. Evolutionists even admit that the links that can establish once and for all is currently elusive. 4. For example, but for evolution in a transpecies level to be established, the process of transmuting one type of skin to another, must be established. One example is from scales of a reptile to feathers-under-flesh that is a feature of birds. Both are of different substances. Were these new substances made within the tramusted path, or did they come from different sources outside the animal? How can this morphing come about? It could be a reaction to an infection by an undiscovered bacterium that triggered the transmutaion for all we know. Or were there many paths that led to the transmutaion from reptiles to birds? 5. A tree is as good as the shade it gives, the habitat it provides, the strength of its wood, and its fruits. Unfortunately, Social Darwinism is a fruit that came from Darwin’s studies. So no I do not separate the two just as you don’t separate humans from rest of the animals in transpecies evolution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-evolution-thread-from-comments-on-mailbag/21282.md?page=3)