# 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:** 23
**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, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/442 "2012-04-24T05:12:21Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Voyager if I used a creationist like Dr. Duane Gish as a reference I would expect you to reject it out of hand . . . But many of us have, in fact, read Gish’s books. We reject them, but we can also document why. It is, in fact, terribly easy to expose the faulty scholarship in Gish’s books. He misquotes Darwin upon a grave many instances. > [@](#): > > . . . I have read commentaries both pro and con and saw in some of the quoted text just what I expected to see. . . . Seeing only what you expect to see is not a strong indication of open inquiry and dedication to reason. > [@](#): > > 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? It certainly was a problem back when Lord Kelvin’s calculations showed the earth could only be 100,000 years old. But with the better measurements of the earth’s age, it would seem that there was time for evolution to function. There are several working measurements of time, from “genetic clocks” to simple observation of the changes in animals under directed breeding. It is no coincidence that Darwin raised pigeons. The fossil record has also shown the pace of evolution, giving us fairly thorough family trees of several major lineages, including humans. ---
**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 24, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/443 "2012-04-24T05:36:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You dog is Brandon Jacobs?! Does his tail go straight up when carrying? If so, yes. I assume that he is also a grandmother like my dog. ---
**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 24, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/444 "2012-04-24T05:36:24Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > One problem is altruism. If a monkey is attacked it will sound the alarm for its troop. **Often this monkey is the one that is eaten** and so its noble genes die with it and cannot be selected. So why are monkeys still sounding the alarm? > [@Latro](#): > > Ermm, says who exactly? > I smell something rotten in this “argument”. (emphasis added by Latro) I was wondering that myself. This doesn’t even strike me as a mutation thing, where one monkey gets randomly born with the “fear alligators” gene, a response that did not previously exist in monkeys. More likely, there’s a natural variation in reflexes among the monkey group. The ones that can more quickly spot an alligator as a potential threat (one among the many that monkeys in the wild might deal with regularly) _and avoid it_ is more likely to survive and reproduce than its less-alligator-fearing brethren, and thus alligator fear gets reinforced. There may come a time when alligators go extinct, and this fear becomes useless and vestigial (and possibly even harmful), but I don’t see a magic switch mechanism in which alligators are ignored until one monkey gets a mutation. The alligator in Jon55’s version operates more like the antagonist in a slasher movie - quietly taking out victims one at a time, otherwise remaining hidden from view, while the survivors remain utterly unaware of what exactly is causing their numbers to shrink until the dramatic final scene where the last survivor goes running through the abandoned summer camp and find impaled, beheaded and bisected corpses everywhere she looks. His view of evolution is cartoonish, at best. ---
**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 24, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/445 "2012-04-24T05:45:10Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > . > > 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. I mostly work deep inside chips. I haven’t done board level stuff for over 15 years. In fact I just got invited on a panel about board test today and turned it down, in no small part because I wouldn’t say much of interest. But good luck. > [@](#): > > 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? Why design bad stuff if you don’t have to? As for your second question, my answer would be yes, in order to get a totally different perspective on problems. An AI would really think different. ---
**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 24, 2012, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/446 "2012-04-24T05:47:03Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > 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… It is similar to the second law argument, that no complex thing grows from something less complex. Gee, happens every summer in my garden. And my squash grow so fast you can practically see them move! ---
**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 24, 2012, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/447 "2012-04-24T06:05:47Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > 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. I’ve actually looked at a few creationist books in the library. I don’t reject them out of hand - I reject them because I found several logical error, downright lies and clever but vacuous debating points on each page. The Selfish Gene is actually very little about creationism (maybe not at all) and is more about Dawkin’s selfish gene concept. The interesting stuff is his computer models of how mutations spread. Climbing Mt. Improbable is more a direct answer to creationist claims that we are too improbable to have evolved. > [@](#): > > 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? Well, why would a deity who wanted to produce intelligent worshipers wait 4 billion years? And 13 billion from the beginning of the universe. It appears that favorable mutations spread very quickly, when the environment changes. Dawkins grudgingly bought into punctuated equilibrium with the very common change from “it’s garbage” to “it’s obvious.” > [@](#): > > 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. But we’d expect that. If a strategy works, it will work over and over again. > [@](#): > > How did the original mutation get spread throughout the monkey tribe? > > Can we call this lucky selection? Not all generations of monkeys get attacked, and not all who sound the alarm die, and not all who would sound the alarm get the chance to. So there is plenty of chance for it to spread randomly. And the models show that even small advantages spread quickly. As for lucky selection, it is a lucky mutation. There is nothing lucky about selection in the large, Each spin of a slot machine produces a lucky result, but all the spins are not random at all. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/448 "2012-04-24T06:10:42Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > 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. Seriously ? You’re going to bring Gish into the mix, a debater so dishonest and so tirelessly putting forward the same tired, debunked shit over and over no matter how many times he’s been demonstrated wrong, people outright _refuse to talk to him_ at all any more ? [That](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop#Debates)Gish ? > [@](#): > > How did the original mutation get spread throughout the monkey tribe? > > Can we call this lucky selection? This presumes there is a specifically “altruist scream” instinct embedded in there to warn the rest of the pack. I would on the contrary posit that when one goes about one’s monkey business in the jungle, and one sees a tiger in the bush, one screams one’s monkey ass off, pack or no pack. That is to say, the pack would have learnt to treat the problem of one monkey as an urgency for everyone, rather than the other way around. Because those who don’t learn get tigered. ---
**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 24, 2012, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/449 "2012-04-24T07:08:13Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > 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. You’re not comparing apples with apples here. Insofar as people reject Gish, they do so because he says things that are demonstrably false, misleading or downright dishonest. The objection that religious people have to Dawkins is usually that he’s a big ol’ meanie. And that’s a really, really important asymmetry - people object to Dawkins’ _conclusions_. People object to Gish’s _methodology_. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/450 "2012-04-24T07:40:04Z")
More to the point, most posters here have been arguing against the arguments provided, not the source. So if someone posted an argument here originating from Gish, it’d probably be debunked relatively quickly, with no mention of the fact that it came from Gish. I’d expect the same treatment for a fallacious argument from Dawkins. If you can find a fallacious argument from Dawkins and quote it in context, feel free to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Hallucinex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ba9def/32.png) [@Hallucinex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hallucinex)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/451 "2012-04-24T10:20:04Z")
> [@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. Same reason that we can’t conclude that someone was killed unless we personally witnessed the murder. Not only that, but we can’t say for sure that the person was ever alive and wasn’t just a corpse all along. ---
**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 24, 2012, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/452 "2012-04-24T10:31:01Z")
> [@Hallucinex](#): > > Same reason that we can’t conclude that someone was killed unless we personally witnessed the murder. Not only that, but we can’t say for sure that the person was ever alive and wasn’t just a corpse all along. And the Civil War is _just a theory_. Were you there? ---
**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 24, 2012, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/453 "2012-04-24T11:07:08Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Come now Dr. you know that statement was in direct response to this. I can’t seem to get the hang of nested quotes. Sorry. Salt and sugar superficially resemble each other, and even share the ecological niche of “diner counter.” However, they are dissimilar is every other measure. It is a fact that the lungs of terrestrial vertebrates develop in the embryo in a parallel manner to the swim bladders of bony fishes, and both seem to be analogous structures to the lungs of lungfish, which are to all intents and purposes, a pouch on the lungfish’s throat that holds a bubble of air. So your comment seemed to be a disingenuous non sequitur intended to divert the discussion to trivialities, or an attempt to set up a false argument ab absurdum. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/454 "2012-04-25T03:16:49Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > More to the point, most posters here have been arguing against the arguments provided, not the source. So if someone posted an argument here originating from Gish, it’d probably be debunked relatively quickly, with no mention of the fact that it came from Gish. > > I’d expect the same treatment for a fallacious argument from Dawkins. If you can find a fallacious argument from Dawkins and quote it in context, feel free to do so. How about just an outright lie? In Dawkins book The God Delusion [http://uath.org/download/literature/RichardDawkinsGodDelusion.pdf](http://uath.org/download/literature/RichardDawkinsGodDelusion.pdf) on page 30 while discussing his opinion (not that he presents it as opinion) that religion gets “undeserved respect” he writes: “The school told him not to wear the T-shirt - and the boy’s parents sued the school. The parents might have had a conscionable case if they had based it on the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. But they didn’t: indeed, they couldn’t, because free speech is deemed not to include ‘hate speech’. But hate only has to prove it is religious, and it no longer counts as hate. So, instead of freedom of speech, the Nixons’ lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion.” But freedom of speech is exactly the grounds that the Nixons sued on. [http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/nixonopinion.pdf](http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/nixonopinion.pdf) In his opinion Judge George Smith quotes the supreme court: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.” Smith notes the Nixons contention that their freedom of speech had been abridged: “Plaintiffs assert that defendants’ actions prohibiting James from wearing the T-shirt constitute an unconstitutional violation of James’ free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Then he notes that: “James’ conduct in wearing his T-shirt clearly constitutes expression under the First Amendment” Towards the end Judge Smith writes: “As previously noted, other students’ mere disagreement with the message on James’ T-shirt is not enough to outweigh James’ constitutional right to free expression. Finally, protection of constitutional rights, and particularly First Amendment rights, is always in the public interest.” Now may we please not use Dawkins as a reference? Particularly in light of the fact that Darwinian evolution is such a slam dunk case on par with the law of gravity and repuatable source should be in plentifull aboundance. And no Kobal2 I am not bringing Gish into the mix I was only using him as an example that I thought some might understand…'pears I was correct on that one. I assure you I have the same amount of respect for Gish as I do for Dawkins and much more dislike as he has been far more effective at muddying the waters than Dawkins could ever hope to be. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/455 "2012-04-25T03:24:03Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > (emphasis added by Latro) > > I was wondering that myself. This doesn’t even strike me as a mutation thing, where one monkey gets randomly born with the “fear alligators” gene, a response that did not previously exist in monkeys. More likely, there’s a natural variation in reflexes among the monkey group. The ones that can more quickly spot an alligator as a potential threat (one among the many that monkeys in the wild might deal with regularly) _and avoid it_ is more likely to survive and reproduce than its less-alligator-fearing brethren, and thus alligator fear gets reinforced. There may come a time when alligators go extinct, and this fear becomes useless and vestigial (and possibly even harmful), but I don’t see a magic switch mechanism in which alligators are ignored until one monkey gets a mutation. > > The alligator in Jon55’s version operates more like the antagonist in a slasher movie - quietly taking out victims one at a time, otherwise remaining hidden from view, while the survivors remain utterly unaware of what exactly is causing their numbers to shrink until the dramatic final scene where the last survivor goes running through the abandoned summer camp and find impaled, beheaded and bisected corpses everywhere she looks. His view of evolution is cartoonish, at best. Bryan please read the link…tis not me tis Professor of Philosophy of Science at Bristol U., Okasha Samir. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/456 "2012-04-25T03:29:55Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > This presumes there is a specifically “altruist scream” instinct embedded in there to warn the rest of the pack. > I would on the contrary posit that when one goes about one’s monkey business in the jungle, and one sees a tiger in the bush, one screams one’s monkey ass off, pack or no pack. > That is to say, the pack would have learnt to treat the problem of one monkey as an urgency for everyone, rather than the other way around. Because those who don’t learn get tigered. No contrary to popular belief there is no universal common sense just born into organisms described in Darwins theory in fact quite the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/457 "2012-04-25T03:52:19Z")
That’s largely because there is no such thing as “universal common sense.” There can’t be! For any given situation, there may be several right answers…or none. And any given answer will be wrong in at least some situations. Evolution has been quite good at hard-coding answers for some organisms – insects, for instance – and at providing a more sophisticated decision-making process for others – the mammals, most notably. Where evolution is indicated is in the graduated process, and especially in the heritage of similar structures. The human brain retains “primitive” structures, such as are found in reptilian brains. (This was the point of the title of Carl Sagan’s book “The Dragons of Eden.”) The creation model fails in explaining things like this, or the hip bones in whales, or the leg bones in some snakes, etc. The evolution model succeeds in explaining – and demonstrating – things like the migration of the three bones at the ends of the reptilian jaw into the bones of the mammals’ inner ear. The creation idea has no meaningful explanation for such things. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/458 "2012-04-25T03:58:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Why design bad stuff if you don’t have to? As for your second question, my answer would be yes, in order to get a totally different perspective on problems. An AI would really think different. I hope you dont mind me making your question more specific and yes changing it a bit. Why would a creator design us in a less than perfect way so that we dont last forever (or even very long) in a way that we feel much pain both physical and mental, in a way that we must take risks to get rewards, that we must make both hard gut wrenching decisions that we can see many possible consequences and split second decisions that carry far reaching consequence that we might not realize at the time? My personal opinion is simple enough. It is training for a higher purpose. Maybe if the creator had designed the things he seeks in us from the get-go we would be but clones of him. You are willing to design an AI that might find its own path. Aside from any possible consequence like in the movie Terminator what will you do if it splits and becomes different entities and the entities dont always play nice would you shut it down? Its just food for thought Voyager but progams like this hypothetical AI might one day provide some of the best subjective evidence either for or against a creator. ---
**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 25, 2012, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/459 "2012-04-25T04:06:13Z")
And if you can reconcile that with birth defects, you might have something. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/460 "2012-04-25T04:21:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve actually looked at a few creationist books in the library. I don’t reject them out of hand - I reject them because I found several logical error, downright lies and clever but vacuous debating points on each page. The Selfish Gene is actually very little about creationism (maybe not at all) and is more about Dawkin’s selfish gene concept. The interesting stuff is his computer models of how mutations spread. Climbing Mt. Improbable is more a direct answer to creationist claims that we are too improbable to have evolved. You are a better person than I because once I see deliberate deception I find other authors. > [@Voyager](#): > > Well, why would a deity who wanted to produce intelligent worshipers wait 4 billion years? And 13 billion from the beginning of the universe. It appears that favorable mutations spread very quickly, when the environment changes. Dawkins grudgingly bought into punctuated equilibrium with the very common change from “it’s garbage” to “it’s obvious.” Very good question and I wish I had a good answer for it but I dont at the moment to be honest I have never thought about it in that way. > [@Voyager](#): > > But we’d expect that. If a strategy works, it will work over and over again. What strategy I thought the mutations were random? You think, perhaps, I am being semantical? I think that it favors my argument that it is hard to discuss this subject without using words that denote forethought. Is plain natural selection not more likely than kin or group selection and if so why would we so much teamwork? > [@Voyager](#): > > Not all generations of monkeys get attacked, and not all who sound the alarm die, and not all who would sound the alarm get the chance to. So there is plenty of chance for it to spread randomly. And the models show that even small advantages spread quickly. As for lucky selection, it is a lucky mutation. There is nothing lucky about selection in the large, Each spin of a slot machine produces a lucky result, but all the spins are not random at all. By models you mean computer simulations? Are they not bound by the laws that the programmer gives them and thus subject to the programmers assumptions? How much fine tuning goes into these models? Does the amount of luck needed to hit on a specific slot machine depend on how that machine was designed? ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/461 "2012-04-25T04:40:55Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That’s largely because there is no such thing as “universal common sense.” There can’t be! For any given situation, there may be several right answers…or none. And any given answer will be wrong in at least some situations. > > Evolution has been quite good at hard-coding answers for some organisms – insects, for instance – and at providing a more sophisticated decision-making process for others – the mammals, most notably. I agree that is what the theory says and is consistent with much of what we observe. It seems I get misunderstood alot so let me say it again I am looking for the most reasonable explanation of what we see and I accept alot of what Darwin had to say and the refinements that followed. I think there is much evidence to support the standard model of evolution but I do not think that it is the slam dunk that many hold it out as and I might add that I consider myself pretty weak on this subject but several of those who are most vocal about Darwins theory being as pr oven as gravity. Not that gravity is the slam dunk that some seems to think it is either while there is no debate that bodies of mass are drawn to each other the method and the why is the least understood of all the forces. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Where evolution is indicated is in the graduated process, and especially in the heritage of similar structures. The human brain retains “primitive” structures, such as are found in reptilian brains. (This was the point of the title of Carl Sagan’s book “The Dragons of Eden.”) What? I thought I had read all of Sagans books I will check this out…thanks. > [@Trinopus](#): > > The creation model fails in explaining things like this, or the hip bones in whales, or the leg bones in some snakes, etc. The evolution model succeeds in explaining – and demonstrating – things like the migration of the three bones at the ends of the reptilian jaw into the bones of the mammals’ inner ear. The creation idea has no meaningful explanation for such things. Well yes of course you are correct and if the God of the Bible is the creator there will never be a complete creation model or anything close to it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=24)