# Top Ten Scientific Proofs of Creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231 "2012-04-19T02:09:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/422 "2012-04-23T20:12:23Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > There are countless evidences for a Creator. You are just too blind to ever accept them. I’m getting tired of this, and not just because I know you would be deeply insulted if an “atheist” told you you were too blind to accept evolution. This discussion is becoming pointless, and if you don’t start responding to questions and stick to one topic at a time, I’m going to close it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/423 "2012-04-23T20:32:14Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I refuse to believe that I am nothing more than a bag of chemicals. Well, aren’t you lucky to live in an era where others are happy to view you as nothing more than a bag of chemicals, and when your chemicals get out of balance (i.e. illness) or your bag get punctured (i.e. injury), the work of those others yields medicines and surgeries than can get you back on your feet to resume your chemical-denying ways. Compare their success rates to those who try to heal through prayer, please. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/424 "2012-04-23T20:48:59Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I refuse to believe that I am nothing more than a bag of chemicals. Other animal species follow their instinctive behavior while demonstrating limited social variations in their actions. Humans have a strong need to express their emotions and seek beauty in life. Do I ever seen a chimp getting teary eyed over a beautiful sunset? You can demean your existence all you want, but I know there are no two humans exactly alike even among indentical twins. 1. We are not just a bag of chemicals. We are bones, skin, and a sophisticated electrical network. Anatomy is independent of religion, I would think. 2. No one is disputing that we are more intellectually advanced than other animals. I don’t know if my dog enjoys the beauty of a sunset, but she finds great joy in food and in carrying a ball around the field. 3. Sexual reproduction and the vast number of codons in our genes pretty much guarantees we are all distinct. You don’t need God for that. I’m still waiting for you to tell me what you think evolution says. None of the stuff you mentioned - again - have anything to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/425 "2012-04-23T20:53:08Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I refuse to believe that I am nothing more than a bag of chemicals. I thought this thread was about scientific proofs, at least that’s what is said in the title. This seems to be a statement of belief. It is odd though that our behavior is altered by ingesting chemicals. If there weren’t a chemical component to our nature, I wouldn’t expect that to be the case. Also, I don’t understand the idea that if we are a “bag of chemicals”, why is it demeaning? The processes that allow us to exist are just processes, they don’t define us. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/426 "2012-04-23T20:57:04Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Unless you personally witnessed the transition of single cell organisms into the highly complex and beautifully designed human body, you can not conclusively say man evolved and was not created. Man certainly has not accumulated all the knowledge that is possible in the universe. Gee, man hasn’t even figured a lot about the human body such as the mind/body connection or the placebo effect. I have. I have two daughters who grew from a single egg combined with a single sperm into beautiful smart atheists. Now if you mean we are supposed to have watched a single cell evolve into a person, do you understand that we know this took hundreds of millions of years? What exactly does this challenge mean? Is this your understanding of what evolution says? As for the mind affecting the body, the brain and body are interconnected. One influencing the other is hardly surprising. When I was hooked up to a heart monitor once I found I was able to control my heart rate through the feedback, lowering it - and freaking out the nurse when she returned. Cool but not surprising. A disconnected soul influencing the body would be much odder. So, what does evolution say again? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/427 "2012-04-23T21:04:18Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > It also seems as if they don’t really understand what the discussion is about. Almost as if they think “Science” is a matter of rhetoric and not of trying to describe what is seen in the world in a logical, internally consistent manner. Their use of “gotchas” indicates they think this is decided on cleverness or story-telling ability instead of agreement with observations. What that mostly is, is just a reflection of the methods that persuaded them. Mainstream creationism has stacks of this rhetoric, and little else - the prominent voices in creationism have made a business of constructing and circulating superficial arguments that work well on an audience that wants to be convinced. Substance is not required, because the audience will become convinced without the need to ever dig that deep - indeed, the strength of their conviction will usually cut off any further motivation to dig deeper. That’s the thing that offends me most deeply about creationism - not that it’s wrong (it is), but that it’s making people switch off their minds. It’s a mental prison. /ex-creationist ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/428 "2012-04-23T21:08:57Z")
> [@shy\_guy](#): > > I must say, I do like the double standard. > > Because we didn’t actually observe the process of evolution that led to mankind, we can never say that it happened. But even though we didn’t observe creation either, we can say with certainty that _that_ occurred. > > Likewise, our lack of perfect knowledge of the human body means that we can’t have any opinion on its design, _unless_ that opinion is that its design is perfect. > > Finally, the fact that we don’t know absolutely everything about the physical world means that even our most evidence-backed theories are ultimately meaningless, but speculation on the behavior and desires of an omnipotent cosmic being is definitely a safe bet. Awesome post. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/429 "2012-04-23T21:25:41Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > What that mostly is, is just a reflection of the methods that persuaded them. Mainstream creationism has stacks of this rhetoric, and little else - the prominent voices in creationism have made a business of constructing and circulating superficial arguments that work well on an audience that wants to be convinced. Substance is not required, because the audience will become convinced without the need to ever dig that deep - indeed, the strength of their conviction will usually cut off any further motivation to dig deeper. > > That’s the thing that offends me most deeply about creationism - not that it’s wrong (it is), but that it’s making people switch off their minds. It’s a mental prison. > > /ex-creationist I know. And they will never achieve enlightenment if they keep responding with exclusively emotional reactions. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/430 "2012-04-23T23:36:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t know if my dog enjoys the beauty of a sunset, but she finds great joy in food and in carrying a ball around the field. You dog is Brandon Jacobs?! ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/431 "2012-04-23T23:46:53Z")
> [@miss elizabeth](#): > > All you do here is prove to people like GEEPERS that scientists actually have some desire to prove or disprove the existence of God, which, unless you are a fucking imbecile, you KNOW is crap. Actually, it’s important to understand some basic scientific precepts. For example, I can think of three different roughly scientific approaches to religion. I’ll roughly paraphrase them. The first is Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria, where science deals with empirical matters and religion addresses moral questions. Dawkins claims that because religion makes empirical claims, religion should be examined based on the empirical evidence provided (something most atheists do, IMO). Finally there is Ayer’s “igtheism”, which Czarcasm was alluding to, in which no confidence rating is assigned to a statement which is inherently unempirical. It would also be handy to note that “proof of non-existence” is not a scientific concept. It can be demonstrated that no evidence of a certain entity or phenomenon was found given however many observations or trials. Asserting non-existence is usually reserved to self-contradictory descriptions (square circle, for instance). ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/432 "2012-04-24T00:52:10Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . . . Now if you mean we are supposed to have watched a single cell evolve into a person, do you understand that we know this took hundreds of millions of years? What exactly does this challenge mean? Is this your understanding of what evolution says? . . . This has always been one of my favorite stupid arguments. “No one has ever seen a cat evolve into a dog.” Well, no… Because it takes many, many, many times longer than a single human lifetime! No one has ever seen a seedling grow into a towering giant redwood, either. That, I guess, proves that redwoods were all individually created, in situ, by some intelligent designer… ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/433 "2012-04-24T00:54:53Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > . . . Asserting non-existence is usually reserved to self-contradictory descriptions (square circle, for instance). I like to add, assertions of nonexistence can also meaningfully be applied in cases where the experimental space can be searched exhaustively. I might not be able to prove that there is no such thing as the Yeti or Bigfoot…but I can prove that there aren’t any in my living room. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/434 "2012-04-24T01:00:53Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > In other words, “Christians” win the admiration and support of atheists as long as they agree with atheistic ideology. Gotcha. You are being silly, with a hint of petulance. I said nothing about ideology. That is your invention. I was discussing facts and logic. Reversing your claim, of course, also works. Creationists, (not Christians) seem unable to acknowledge that atheists can be correct on any issue. (Christians, _per se_, do not have that problem, of course. There are clearly many issues on which Christians and atheists are fundamentally at odds, but only Creationists, (and fundy atheists), are given over to making odd claims that dismiss the entirety of the thought processes of people who are not locked into the belielfs they espouse.) ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/435 "2012-04-24T03:14:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m a computer scientist who wrote a compiler for my dissertation, but who has worked on hardware for over 30 years, and I can tell you that hardware is much easier. Hardware has a very limited set of inputs, and doesn’t have to deal with users. > But actually, software evolves also. Windows was designed for standalone single user PCs, and so has all sorts of horrid features - like DLLs - which made sense back 20 years ago and no sense now. UNIX, which was designed as a multiuser system from scratch, does much better. I think it is problematic that big-multigeneration systems are intelligently designed. People may work at each stage, but there is no overriding supervision. Thus we get the kind of junk you see. > I don’t think I’m allowed to give my opinion of HP stuff. I am sure no scientest of any type but yes I use input/output to diagnose at times and of course its easy to spot a bad card that way and slap in a new one. I took a class in cobol one time…I try not to think about it however visual basic was easy and fun. I can fix about any problem the hardware has but am lost when it gets down to the code and even worse at networking. We have no real game plan for the kinds of problems we are facing with our network and software at the moment and it causes some stress but since I remind them on a regular basis its not like I am chugging malox or anything. The system was put in by one man about eight years ago and the bugs and problems have just piled up since. Every now and then they send me a tech for maybe a week and he just does a patch job. Its really funny more than anything. Of course I was kidding about you helping me. For me to provide specifics would be hazardous to my career as well as yours if you reciprocated I am sure. Plus altho I dont doubt your expertise I feel sure there is no phone call fix for my problems. > [@Voyager](#): > > A creator God is everywhere and can do all this design perfectly. It would be a real bad design if it had to be tweaked all the time, wouldn’t it? And if I were divine I would know all the surprises people have thrown at me in advance and could have designed for them, That would save time. I actually almost have, but that comes from a lack of trust in the sanity of users which I have learned from long experience. Yes of course an all powerfull creator could do the design without limitations or flaws but its a two part question. The second part being would he? Would you given the chance design a computer system and give it free will? If yes what would be the purpose of the design? ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/436 "2012-04-24T03:36:24Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > … > > Yes of course an all powerfull creator could do the design without limitations or flaws but its a two part question. The second part being would he? > > Would you given the chance design a computer system and give it free will? > If yes what would be the purpose of the design? These are quite good questions. Please allow me to provide my own answers to these (though they were apparently directed at the very capable **Voyager**. If you posit the existence of a benevolent deity and a static planetary biosphere (that is to say, no evolutionary change), then one would be forced to assume that the deity would make its creations as faultless as possible. This would especially be true for those creations that possess self-awareness such as H. sapiens. Otherwise, the deity would be deliberately causing pain and suffering which could easily be remedied by a series of design changes. This also assumes that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity would ever create anything that was not optimal in design and function. As to your second question, this subject is near and dear to my heart as I am a computer scientist and love to imagine the mechanisms by which our own consciousness works. One of the methods by which cognitive scientists (see [Cognitive Science Society](http://cognitivesciencesociety.org/index.html)) attempt to discover how our minds work is by modeling neural activity using computer programs (and in some cases, artificial neurons). The current state-of-the-art does not even know what ‘free will’ is in a rigorous manner. However, the study of this phenomenon (along with our sense of continuity of self and structure and function of memory) is an ongoing work in which many scientists from many disparate fields are coming together to explore new avenues of discovery. The purpose of such a model would be to greatly increase our understanding of how our minds work. This, in turn, could lead to better therapies for people who have suffered profound neural trauma or disease. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/437 "2012-04-24T03:55:52Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > Jon55, you seem like a relatively intelligent fellow. Thanks > [@Gagundathar](#): > > You also state that you have ‘problems’ with the current theory of Evolution. > Do you have any alternative hypotheses that fit the observed data better than the standard theory? Yes I have an alternate theory, it is not well codified but I do have a circle of friends from various faiths and one atheist who discuss this quite a bit and it would prob be more accurate to say I have some ideas than to say I have a theory. I doubt it is terribly far off from the observed data but I do not claim to up to date on every aspect of biology and the related research fields. Just like many here claim to be able to spot design flaws in me and you with out being able to design either of us I also claim to be able to spot flaws in theory without devoting my every waking hour to study of the same. > [@Gagundathar](#): > > Do you question the basic foundations of biological evolution? Depends on what you mean by that I accept certain parts of Darwins theory and reject others. I think we see many things in nature that are contrary to natural selection. Certain coral reefs are know to emit dimethyl sulphide (a natural aersol) as a defense against sunlight. It takes the whole group to use this method of creating clouds for shade. So what happened here? Mass beneficial mutation? I do believe things evolve it is more of a question of degree with me. > [@Gagundathar](#): > > Please elucidate a positive proposition of your own that contradicts the current theory and gives a plausible mechanism for your thesis. That is not too much to ask. After all, you must have a clear understanding of the current theory in order to make judgement as to its effectiveness as a scientific theory. Surely you have come up with some alternative hypotheses. I, for one, would be pleased to see such presented here. It would be a refreshing change from the usual dreck excreted by other posters who lack your insight into the matter. Thats more of an effort than I am willing to put forth at the moment but I have a feeling it would be \*unusual \*dreck. I will tell you what I will give you a really short version of it and after that we can just postulate that I am complaining. I believe in more than one genesis in fact the Bible talks about more than one and its really not that hard to see. Its my opinion that the message was controled by a select few for such a long time that it became a pardigm. In fact one can think of the flood story as another genesis but that would make three at least. I do think there have been several different humnoid creatures at diferent times on this earth and of course dinos and thier predecessors as well. The Bible also talks about work we will be doing in our afterlife…this makes me think that another genesis is possible. Maybe I will expound on this at some point on another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/438 "2012-04-24T04:28:10Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > These are quite good questions. > Please allow me to provide my own answers to these (though they were apparently directed at the very capable **Voyager**. All of my questions and comments are directed at the whole board regardless of who I address. I have noted there is a private message feature if I feel the need for it. Let me add it is good to have some actual discussion instead of the usual: Fire…duck and cover…fire again. Not that I am blaming anyone for that I have been a full participant as well. > [@Gagundathar](#): > > If you posit the existence of a benevolent deity and a static planetary biosphere (that is to say, no evolutionary change), then one would be forced to assume that the deity would make its creations as faultless as possible. This would especially be true for those creations that possess self-awareness such as H. sapiens. Otherwise, the deity would be deliberately causing pain and suffering which could easily be remedied by a series of design changes. This also assumes that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity would ever create anything that was not optimal in design and function. But what if the pain was a pinprick compared to the beauty that might follow? God admitted that He needs us when Paul in Corinthians 12 asked to be remedied of an unspecified affliction (if this makes Him not tri omni so be it they are His words not mine) Verse 9 And He (God) said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in (your) weakness.” Some atheists have been very vocal about God being as full of hate as much or more than love and even if something convinced them He was real they would still reject Him. But often when it comes to the act of creation they seem to expect a God of cold logic. But then that is the question eh do we see our own reflection when we look for God or does He see His when He looks to us? > [@Gagundathar](#): > > As to your second question, this subject is near and dear to my heart as I am a computer scientist and love to imagine the mechanisms by which our own consciousness works. One of the methods by which cognitive scientists (see [Cognitive Science Society](http://cognitivesciencesociety.org/index.html)) attempt to discover how our minds work is by modeling neural activity using computer programs (and in some cases, artificial neurons). The current state-of-the-art does not even know what ‘free will’ is in a rigorous manner. However, the study of this phenomenon (along with our sense of continuity of self and structure and function of memory) is an ongoing work in which many scientists from many disparate fields are coming together to explore new avenues of discovery. The purpose of such a model would be to greatly increase our understanding of how our minds work. This, in turn, could lead to better therapies for people who have suffered profound neural trauma or disease. So if somehow these programs develop something that looks like free will and then promptly start smacking around thier vitural others would this be sufferring? And if somehow that happened would you shut them down? ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/439 "2012-04-24T04:38:25Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > It also seems as if they don’t really understand what the discussion is about. Almost as if they think “Science” is a matter of rhetoric and not of trying to describe what is seen in the world in a logical, internally consistent manner. Their use of “gotchas” indicates they think this is decided on cleverness or story-telling ability instead of agreement with observations. Come now Dr. you know that statement was in direct response to this. [QUOTE=DrFidelius] Well, if the human (and generally among mammals) airway/ esophagus junction was designed, the Hypothetical Omniscient Designer certainly sweated the details to make sure it looks just like something that started out as a pouch in a fish’s throat to hold a bubble of air. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/440 "2012-04-24T04:44:12Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Ermm, says who exactly? > I smell something rotten in this “argument”. [http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=altruism-biological](http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=altruism-biological) ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/441 "2012-04-24T05:03:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > First, why do you think the explanation in the article fails? I suggest you read “The Selfish Gene” which is cited in the references and which is an easier to understand and longer discussion of some of this stuff. There is a lot of mathematical genetics now, in that various strategies can be simulated and that which comes out best determined. Voyager if I used a creationist like Dr. Duane Gish as a reference I would expect you to reject it out of hand by the same token I have no expectation that Dr. Dawkins could put aside his well documented bias and have no interest in reading his book. I have read commentaries both pro and con and saw in some of the quoted text just what I expected to see. To your question. One of the problems with natural selection in the higher forms of life is that it takes such an inordinate amount of time. With this kind of selection would you not be multiplying exponentially the amount of time it would take? If we had a handful of species exhibiting altruism that would be one thing but the list is long and distinguished running from the original mitochondria to slime molds .to ants, bees and wasps…herding cattle (wouldnt they all evolve to move to the inside?) all the way up to me and you. > [@Voyager](#): > > The problem in your first paragraph is that this noble gene is spread throughout the monkey tribe, and if one sounding the alarm saves monkey lives on the average, the gene will continue to spread. How did the original mutation get spread throughout the monkey tribe? Can we call this lucky selection? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=23)