Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why you are fat and the chimp isn’t

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Explained at Real Clear Science:

As a genus, humans, from Homo sapiens (that’s us) to our extinct ancestors Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus, are wanderers. Over the vast majority of our history, which spans hundreds of thousands of years, we have roved from place to place, inhabiting a wide range of habitats. We moved with the seasons, we moved to find food, we moved — perhaps — just to move. Our adaptability was our key adaptation, an evolutionary leg-up on the competition. The ability to store fat was vital to this lifestyle. Body fat cushions internal organs, but it also serves as a repository of energy that can be readily broken down and used to power muscles. Humans might fatten up at one environment, then move on to another. When food was scarce, we could count on our fat to sustain us, at least temporarily.

Chimpanzees, on the other hand, are localized to specific environments where food is often plentiful, primarily the forests of West and Central Africa. Fatty stores of energy aren’t required, but strength to climb food-bearing trees is. Natural selection favored brawn, causing chimps to shed fat as unnecessary weight.

Clever idea. But thoughts from readers?

(Who would want to be a chimp just to be thin?)

See also: Why human evolution did not go the way analysts would have predicted

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Zachriel, "Genetic drift can be directly observed." So what? That's not the point. Many things can be observed. The question is, whether they can explain other things. Genetic drift in principle is as good as random mutation in Darwin's theory. Good for nothing, that is. Stochastic phenomena (be it drift or random mutation) coupled with law-like necessity of selection, fixation, gravity, friction, nuclear or electromagnetic forces or whatever else, cannot adequately explain the rise of biological function. You are still toying with you theoretical tornadoes generating functional systems for no purpose at all. Functional systems yielding pragmatic utility can only be explained by intelligence simply because nature does not care about pragmatic utility. If you cannot understand this simple empirical fact, I can't help you, I'm afraid.EugeneS
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
bornagain77: “the mutation to the gene that made chimps skinny and us fat made our brains fat too.” The evidence indicates that different genes were involved.Zachriel
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
"However, there is a general explanation" we just talked about that 'general' explanation: "the mutation to the gene that made chimps skinny and us fat made our brains fat too." Silver Asiatic: “Once our brains became fat, then we became humans, then we landed on the moon.” Please try to keep up Zach ---------- Man,,, You’re a freakin’ genius you IDiot! – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J00T-agwjQbornagain77
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
bornagain77: you have no evidence There's never an excuse for *purposefully* misrepresenting someone's position. bornagain77: and give us the Darwinian explanation of the humans brain step by tiny step so that we IDiots can finally ‘get it’ and put all this ID nonsense to rest once and for all ! There is no step-by-step explanation. However, there is a general explanation. Let's start with common descent. Humans share a common ancestor with other apes, indeed, common ancestry with hummingbirds. Okay so far?Zachriel
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Zachriel, you have no evidence, and, thus, no argument to ignore. Thus, the strawman, like the evidence, only exists in your imagination. Speaking of ignoring evidence, care to pick up the ball where wd400 dropped it,,, https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/why-you-are-fat-and-the-chimp-isnt/#comment-567930 ,,, and give us the Darwinian explanation of the humans brain step by tiny step so that we IDiots can finally ‘get it’ and put all this ID nonsense to rest once and for all ! :) If I Only Had a Brain - Video and Lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg66kwRnOpwbornagain77
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
bornagain77: you are head of heals in love with Darwinism Ignoring our comments then making up our position is called a strawman argument.Zachriel
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: "Once our brains became fat, then we became humans, then we landed on the moon." Man,,, You're a freakin' genius you IDiot! - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J00T-agwjQbornagain77
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
"Have no love for any particular theory." In so far as love is defined as not being able to see the glaring faults in what, or whom, you love, you are head of heals in love with Darwinism with a love that would make teenagers blush in shame.bornagain77
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
EugeneS: Neutral theory is as far from the real world as Darwin’s original theory was. Genetic drift can be directly observed. The question that neutral theory attempts to answer is how much of historical evolution is due to this process. EugeneS: The reason is, random causation coupled with law-like causation cannot explain the rise of irreducibly complex linguistic machines (data -> protocol/code -> intended pragmatic end-result). If your gobbledygook refers to adaptation, then we can directly observe evolution by natural selection. If you are referring to the origin of the genetic code, we do not yet have a workable theory of its origin.Zachriel
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Zachriel, "Have no love for any particular theory. Evidence can count for or against a theory. That’s why the current biological theory is quite different from Darwin’s original theory." They are equidistant from objective reality. Neutral theory is as far from the real world as Darwin's original theory was. The reason is, random causation coupled with law-like causation cannot explain the rise of irreducibly complex linguistic machines (data -> protocol/code -> intended pragmatic end-result). We have 0 evidence in support of naturalistic causation begin capable of explaining the observations. On the contrary, we have solid evidence in support of intelligent causation being capable of explaining the generation of linguistic machines (intelligence here means both animal and human).EugeneS
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
OH, I get it now, the mutation to the gene that made chimps skinny and us fat made our brains fat too.
Excellent fact, BA77. Once our brains became fat, then we became humans, then we landed on the moon.
Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years ...
You mean we actually have to know how the proteins work before we can explain their evolutionary origin? No! ... we obviously don't understand evolutionary theory. We already learned why chimps are skinny. You're asking for far too many details, BA77. :-)Silver Asiatic
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
bornagain77: evidence only counts for your beloved theory and never against it. Have no love for any particular theory. Evidence can count for or against a theory. That's why the current biological theory is quite different from Darwin's original theory. In the specific case, we're discussing the branching order of hominins. The evidence may indicate that there was less branching than previously supposed. More evidence will help resolve this issue. This doesn't impact the overall theory of evolution, of course. Silver Asiatic: Loennig shows that there is no fossil evidence There's actually several extinct species of giraffids, including bohlinia and samotherium.Zachriel
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
LOL: "I realize he has already explained why some male chimps are not fat — so that should really be enough to explain the human brain,,," OH, I get it now, the mutation to the gene that made chimps skinny and us fat made our brains fat too. And that is why we can land men on the moon and chimps fling poop at us. Thanks for clearing that up. I really should learn to stop asking for details. :)bornagain77
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Evolution is randomly not random. IDiots.Mung
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
From BA77's references to the complexity of the brain (I observe that wd400 never addresses any of these) ...
The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance.
Let's hear it from the Darwinists: "Evolution is not random!" Now let's hear it from Larry Moran: "Evolution is random!"Silver Asiatic
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
BA
I know you think we are ignorant for believing as such, and I sure want be as smart as you consider yourself to be, but I just can’t see how unguided material processes can create that.
You're right - I would like to see that and maybe some day be as smart as wd400.
So please slow it down and take us through the Darwinian explanation of the humans brain step by tiny step so that we IDiots can finally ‘get it’ and put all this ID nonsense to rest once and for all !
I realize he has already explained why some male chimps are not fat -- so that should really be enough to explain the human brain -- but it would be nice for him to teach all of us IDiots about the evolution of the brain. Yes, nice and slowly. He's got all the time and space needed for it. For example, what are the physical differences between modern human brains and the earliest humans? It must be a huge difference because modern humans can do many things that humans couldn't do for about a million years. It would be great to see the mutational pathways that created language, music, art, mathematics, science -- and also IDiot thinking in the changing physical structure of the brain. Each one had a selection advantage of course, and we should be able to find everything we need in the fossil record.Silver Asiatic
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
wd400
Maybe, just maybe, there is something to evolutionary biology after all.
Yes, the evolution of the giraffe's neck is one of the best: "With the giraffe, the continued preservation of the individuals of some extinct high-reaching ruminant, which had the longest necks, legs, &c., and could browse a little above the average height, and the continued destruction of those which could not browse so high, would have sufficed for the production of this remarkable quadruped [giraffe].” -- Charles Darwin "Darwin’s story of how the giraffe got its long neck is perhaps the most popular and widely-told story of evolution. It is popular because it seems plausible: giraffes with slightly longer necks enjoyed a slight selective advantage in reaching the higher leaves of trees, and so over the ages these slight neck elongations accumulated, resulting in the modern giraffe. " Biologist and geneticist W.E.Loennig has written a detailed, thoroughly-researched study, “The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe”, which shows that almost everything about this popular story is either false or unsubstantiated. In Part I (my English translation is linked from www.discovery.org/csc) Loennig shows that there is no fossil evidence to support the idea of a gradual elongation of the neck from the giraffe’s Okapi-like ancestors, and that the elongation required much more than simple quantitative changes: new features were required, for example, to handle the much higher blood pressure required by the long neck.Silver Asiatic
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Except for my brain. That was knitted together after I got out of my mother's womb. :)Mung
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
wd400: "And thus demonstrating your ignorance of evolutionary theory,,," Speaking of ignorance of evolutionary theory wd400, were not you one of the 'enlightened' Darwinists who claimed that the human brain was the result of a few mutations to HOX genes or something like that? If not, can you please help enlighten us poor ignorant IDiots as to how something so unfathomably complex as the human brain came about by unguided material processes? I found the 'just so story' of HOX gene mutations, told with such conviction, a bit unsatisfying to put it mildly. Hopefully you can be a little more specific as to details! :) Such as these following details
The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution - DONALD DeMARCO - 02/06/2015 Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates. Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies! A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another. Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers. The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution/ Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html Component placement optimization in the brain – 1994 As he comments [106], “To current limits of accuracy … the actual placement appears to be the best of all possible layouts; this constitutes strong evidence of perfect optimization.,, among about 40,000,000 alternative layout orderings, the actual ganglion placement in fact requires the least total connection length. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/14/4/2418.abstract The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain - Dec. 17, 2010 Excerpt: In recent years, a growing body of evidence shows that photons play an important role in the basic functioning of cells. Most of this evidence comes from turning the lights off and counting the number of photons that cells produce. It turns out, much to many people’s surprise, that many cells, perhaps even most, emit light as they work. In fact, it looks very much as if many cells use light to communicate. There’s certainly evidence that bacteria, plants and even kidney cells communicate in this way. Various groups have even shown that rats brains are literally alight thanks to the photons produced by neurons as they work.,,, ,,, earlier this year, one group showed that spinal neurons in rats can actually conduct light. ,, Rahnama and co point out that neurons contain many light sensitive molecules, such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores and aromatic amino acids. In particular, mitochondria, the machines inside cells which produce energy, contain several prominent chromophores. The presence of light sensitive molecules makes it hard to imagine how they might not be not influenced by biophotons.,,, They go on to suggest that the light channelled by microtubules can help to co-ordinate activities in different parts of the brain. It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,, (So) It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422069/the-puzzling-role-of-biophotons-in-the-brain/ Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video https://vimeo.com/39982578 ,,, zero time lag neuronal synchrony despite long conduction delays - 2008 Excerpt: Multielectrode recordings have revealed zero time lag synchronization among remote cerebral cortical areas. However, the axonal conduction delays among such distant regions can amount to several tens of milliseconds. It is still unclear which mechanism is giving rise to isochronous discharge of widely distributed neurons, despite such latencies,,, Remarkably, synchrony of neuronal activity is not limited to short-range interactions within a cortical patch. Interareal synchronization across cortical regions including interhemispheric areas has been observed in several tasks (7, 9, 11–14).,,, Beyond its functional relevance, the zero time lag synchrony among such distant neuronal ensembles must be established by mechanisms that are able to compensate for the delays involved in the neuronal communication. Latencies in conducting nerve impulses down axonal processes can amount to delays of several tens of milliseconds between the generation of a spike in a presynaptic cell and the elicitation of a postsynaptic potential (16). The question is how, despite such temporal delays, the reciprocal interactions between two brain regions can lead to the associated neural populations to fire in unison (i.e. zero time lag).,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575223/
When I see such unfathomable complexity in the brain wd400, I just can't shake the feeling that almighty God put that thing together. I know you think we are ignorant for believing as such, and I sure want be as smart as you consider yourself to be, but I just can't see how unguided material processes can create that. So please slow it down and take us through the Darwinian explanation of the humans brain step by tiny step so that we IDiots can finally 'get it' and put all this ID nonsense to rest once and for all ! :) Verse:
Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
bornagain77
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
I was impersonating evolutionary theorists.
And thus demonstrating your ignorance of evolutionary theory. Which evolutionary theorests do you think proposed giraffes got their long necks from stretching? When presented with an actual evolutionary hypothesis, instead of a strawman of you own making, you can't provide either a criticism or a useful alternative. Instead you a left spluttering. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to evolutionary biology after all. If you'd just learn about it...wd400
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Zachriel, just like I thought, evidence only counts for your beloved theory and never against it. Like I said, that is some neat little 'scientific' theory you got there. It can explain anything and be falsified by nothing. Of course, others not so enamored with your beloved theory might point out that the 'explain anything and be falsified by nothing' quality of your theory is also a sure mark of a pseudo-science. But I'm sure Darwinism can also explain, i.e. offer a just so story, why some people may believe that Darwinism is a pseudo-science.bornagain77
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
wd400
And why you spend time making childish and ignorant cariactures of evolutionary biology if ID is not a scientific competitor to that field.
1. I was impersonating evolutionary theorists. That's why it seemed childish and ignorant - because that's what it is. You'll notice scottH @ 105 compared it to what 5-year olds would come up with. 2. Evolution has a grip on all of science. Pompous academics expect everyone to take their ideas seriously. But it's obvious that they don't take it seriously themselves. You're a perfect example. You simply ignore the evolutionary grand narrative as if it doesn't exist. You really have nothing to say about the story of evolution itself. My comments are merely illustrating how absurd and indefensable the story is. The reason evolution is a target is because the pretensions of evolutionary theorists need to be exposed and broken so that ID's scientific research will be seen for the value it has, and not dismissed through Darwinian-bias. Plus, for entertainment value alone, evolutionary claims provide the most comical material to be found among all of the pseudo-sciences. That's why people laugh at it. I'm certainly not the only one. You could go back to David Berlinski's critiques to find some very funny statements about the absurdity of evolutionary claims. I realize that you won't find them funny at all, for various reasons. 3. In many cases, but not all, ID is a competitor to evolutionary claims. It's important to eliminate causes that can be explained naturally in order for the ID inference to be the most reasonable option. However, ID does not propose that every aspect of nature shows scientifically observable evidence of design. ID is compatible with 'evolution', certain if that term is meant as 'micro-evolutionary adaptations'. But the evolutionist also insists that "there is no evidence of design in nature". ID merely needs to show evidence in one area to refute that. Let's not forget that cosmological ID is obviously not a competitor to evolution also - again, ID is not a grand narrative to explain the origin of life, the origin of the universe or the development of life on earth (as evolution is for that). Instead, it merely presents evidence of intelligent design that can be found in some aspect of each of those areas.Silver Asiatic
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
bornagain77: Always??? This is quoted from Origin of Species by Charles Darwin 1869: "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.” bornagain77: So if a fossil find tears down decades of Darwinian research it is just a problem for further research for Darwinists? It's called evidence. A feature of common descent is that the closer organisms are to their common ancestor, the more difficult it is to distinguish an ancestor from a near cousin. That’s why scientists argue over whether a particular fossil is on the direct line to humans or a side-branch. More evidence will allow scientists to better distinguish between closely related organisms. bornagain77: there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense. Tattersall certainly accepts common descent, and thinks the changes were likely due to "minor structural innovation at the DNA level" in small populations. Do you have a quota for quote-mining or something? Silver Asiatic: Things haven’t changed much since Darwin gave this famous story: “In North America the black bear was seen ..." It was a testable hypothesis. Turns out molecular and fossil evidence shows that whales evolved from the same ancestor as modern artiodactyla.Zachriel
June 7, 2015
June
06
Jun
7
07
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
scottH, please don't insult 5 year olds! :)
Out of the mouths of babes - Do children believe (in God) because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise - Justin Barrett - 2008 Excerpt: • Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty. • Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities' testimony didn't carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency. • Children know humans are not behind the order so the idea of a creating god (or gods) makes sense to them. Children just need adults to specify which one. • Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-olds attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions. Children then have to learn that mother is fallible, and dad is not all powerful, and that people will die. So children may be particularly receptive to the idea of a super creator-god. It fits their predilections. • Recent research by Paul Bloom, Jesse Bering, and Emma Cohen suggests that children may also be predisposed to believe in a soul that persists beyond death. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief People Are Born with Religious Belief Argues New Book - By Jesse Singal Excerpt: "A controversial new book contends that we are all born predisposed to religious belief. Justin L. Barrett discusses his research, his feud with Richard Dawkins—and why he’s a believer himself." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/28/people-are-born-with-religious-belief-argues-new-book.html
of related note:
Young Children Think Like Scientists - 27 September 2012 Excerpt: "What these experiments show if you give the children one of these causal problems like figuring out how the machine works and then just leave the video recorder running, what you see is when the child[ren] are just spontaneously playing. … What they do is to do a bunch of experiments that will give them just information they need to figure out how the toy works," Gopnick said. http://www.livescience.com/23522-young-children-think-like-scientists.html
bornagain77
June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
I have an idea. Let's grab a 5 year old and give him/her some photos of animals. Ask him/her to then come up with a reason why the animal has a certain feature, say why a giraffe has a long neck. Then compare the answers to those of an evolutionary biologist. We can then compare the answers side by side without saying who the answers are from. Maybe it will give us an idea of the level of intelligence needed to propose these explanations. Obviously the biologist will be more intelligent. But maybe we should then expect more from these biologists if the answers cannot be differentiated from the 5 year old and the all mighty evo biologist...scottH
June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Moreover, why do you think male chimps have almost no body fat? The female chimps like em slim and trim. Let's see those abs!Mung
June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Feel free to "articulate" the science of ID. And why you spend time making childish and ignorant cariactures of evolutionary biology is ID is not a scientific competitor to that field.wd400
June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
wd400 As I said, you don't know what ID proposes and you can't articulate it. I'll suggest that you're wasting a lot of your time here if you haven't figured that much out yet.Silver Asiatic
June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
I'll admit that I thought ID was meant to be science.wd400
June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, Thanks for the Darwin quote. I knew that he thought that bears evolved into whales, but I never knew the details of his meticulously researched study of how bears feed themselves on insects! lol -QQuerius
June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply