Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s anti-Darwin book “can’t be ignored by the thinking public”

Categories
Books of interest
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Meanwhile, in Darwin’s corner, there is now an English prof somewhere who was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household” (along with a growing army of accusers and litigants?)

Political scientist John West’s essay in The Claremont Review of Books, “Dissent of Man,” is now online here:

It’s not often that a book by a professional philosopher attracts the notice—let alone the ire—of the cultural powers-that-be. One can think of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind in the 1980s, but other examples are hard to come by. At any rate, Mind & Cosmos is well on its way to becoming a book that can’t be ignored by the thinking public. Thus far, it has been denounced in the Nation and the Huffington Post, dubbed the “most despised science book of 2012” by the London Guardian, defended in the New Republic (where Nagel’s critics were blasted as “Darwinist dittoheads” and a “mob of materialists”), subjected to a feature story in the New York Times, and put on the cover of the Weekly Standard, which depicted Nagel being burned alive, surrounded by a cabal of demonic-looking men in hoods.

The author has attracted special displeasure from the powers-that-be for using Mind and Cosmos to praise intelligent design proponents such as biochemist Michael Behe and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer. As the New York Times explained, many of Nagel’s fellow academics view him unfavorably “not just for the specifics of his arguments but also for what they see as a dangerous sympathy for intelligent design.” Now there is a revealing comment: academics, typically blasé about everything from justifications of infanticide to pedophilia, have concluded that it is “dangerous” to give a hearing to scholars who think nature displays evidence of intelligent design.

…

An especially brazen attempt [at Darwin myth-making] is Rebecca Stott’s Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution. Stott’s book purports to tell “the story of the collective discovery of evolution” starting with Aristotle, medieval Islamic writer Al-Jahiz, and Leonardo da Vinci. If it really accomplished that feat, the book would be extraordinary, given that each of those writers believed in the fixity of species and a natural world imbued with purpose.

Though the author herself, a professor of English at East Anglia University, obviously wants to draw a line from Aristotle, et al., to Darwin, she (unlike her book jacket) is frank enough to concede that the thinkers she discusses for the first hundred pages of her book were not in fact evolutionists, Darwinian or otherwise.

Stott highlights what she sees as the oppressive forces of religion squelching heterodox ideas among the valiant, free-thinking proto-evolutionists. For anyone familiar with 19th-century broadsides like Andrew Dickson White’s The Warfare of Science with Theology, this approach is far from fresh. But writing the book was obviously therapeutic for Stott, who makes clear at the start that she was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household.” More.

Note: Full title of the essay is “Dissent of Man: A review of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, by Thomas Nagel and Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution, by Rebecca Stott”

Comments
Tell you what AVS, seeing as you are so much smarter than us IDiots, can you please make it REAL SIMPLE for us and just show us where JUST ONE molecular machine was created by neo-Darwinian processes? in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system. "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,, ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,, Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,, ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ Also of note, Dr. James Tour, who builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,, Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdU5ojTpyzg ,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works: Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyAOCesHv0bornagain77
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PST
AVS, I've noticed between ad hominems that you made against people that you made this statement:
Evolution: the only fact-based explanation for the diversity of life that we see today.
And exactly what facts would you be alluding to AVS? The origin of 'simple' life by purely material processes?
To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/ DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html Punctured cell will never reassemble - Jonathan Wells - 2:40 mark of video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo
Well that 'fact' doesn't help you much. How about we let the almighty power of natural selection in on 'simple' life and see what we can get:
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade." Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516) "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control"
Dang, no 'facts' there to help you. How about the fossil record? Surely you can make a case there out of 'facts'?!?
A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes - David Berlinski July 9, 2013 Excerpt: Representatives of twenty-three of the roughly twenty-seven fossilized animal phyla, and the roughly thirty-six animal phyla overall, are present in the Cambrian fossil record. Twenty of these twenty-three major groups make their appearance with no discernible ancestral forms in either earlier Cambrian or Precambrian strata. Representatives of the remaining three or so animal phyla originate in the late Precambrian, but they do so as abruptly as the animals that appeared first in Cambrian. Moreover, these late Precambrian animals lack clear affinities with the representatives of the twenty or so phyla that first appear in the Cambrian. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011 Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…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." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012)
Dang, no 'facts' there to help you. How about some good ole genetic evidence, certainly there are some 'facts' there to help you out:
Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush - May 15, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.” The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,, ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this? http://crev.info/2013/05/darwins-tree-of-life-is-a-tangled-bramble-bush/ Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution - Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. - Elie Dolgin - 27 June 2012 Excerpt: “I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. "...they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist - Kevin Peterson) Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says. Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong. http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885
bornagain77
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PST
And yes AVS you are both highly educated and indoctrinated ... indoctrination these days is an important aspect of higher education. This site is more about open critical thinking without regards to where it leads... unlike evolutionary science where facts are distorted to fit the paradigm.Johnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PST
Good point Mr Six, although my books are about scientific facts that support the theory of evolution. They are the results of many years of study by many scientists, scientists whose claims are then peer reviewed by others. My books present claims based on closely scrutinized data collection and conclusion. Religion's books are stories passed down by the men before us and galvanized by mob mentality throughout history. Your bible is nothing but the first edition of chicken soup for the soul. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but in the end it doesn't really get you anywhereAVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PST
AVS @ 20 just here to troll I see. Otherwise why are you here. Your remarks reflect that you have not read the list nor have you in anyway verified that half of the signers do not know their names are on the list ... please cite examples or shut up. There are very few computer scientists on the list which should not be down played ... because if you had read those biology books you might know that cells have data processing capabilities.Johnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PST
AVS, please could you explain for us uneducated folks, in your own words, the evidence you feel best supports evolution. If you could start from the beginning and avoid links to technical articles, articles we cannot possibly comprehend, I sure would be grateful. I'm particularly interested in the facts you seem to have that we don't.humbled
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PST
AVS you say that: "Evolution: make a claim, back it with evidence Religion: make a claim, point to a book The two are very different." Yet when asked for such evidence of evolution you point us to a book. Perhaps religion and evolution aren't so different after all?sixthbook
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PST
No worries, I didn't come here to show off my intelligence level. Although I like to think I am quite intelligent, and numerous standardized test scores, my GPA, scholarships, and the like make a pretty good argument. I have returned to this site out of boredom for the most part and will not be here long. Anyways, as for you jerry, care to give me another explanation for the diversity of life that we see today that is also fact-based?AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PST
Evolution: the only fact-based explanation for the diversity of life that we see today.
That is not a definition.jerry
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PST
AVS, I hate to say this, but you are not coming across as a very intelligent (or mature) individual. Several people have tried to engage you in conversation about the issues discussed here and you have not given even one substantive response. The people you are talking to are in fact well educated (and very patient). They do not reject Darwinism because they are ignorant of it, but because they have studied the theory and found it lacking. We might have an interesting and productive conversation if you were willing to engage in an adult discussion of the issues, but sadly, it appears that you are just here to amuse us with your trolling. "When a wise man contends with a fool, the fool only rages and mocks and there is no resolution."sagebrush gardener
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PST
Evolution: the only fact-based explanation for the diversity of life that we see today. And in my book, that means it is the best explanation. For others, who like to ignore facts and talk out of their ass, it is just an idea that they think they can twist into whatever they like and hand to the uneducated; much like this site does.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PST
Well I’m sure with taht thought in mind you are going to get very far. Congrats.
Again, you are mostly throwing ad hominems. No one supports an argument by telling the other person how stupid they are. That is all you have done so far. Why don't you provide a definition for evolution so people can understand the basis for your comments. Maybe a discussion could start.jerry
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PST
You've been studying what for 15 years? You mean you've been reading basic textbooks in your free time and immediately forgetting what you didn't ignore? Are you pursuing a degree in a field of biology, or just doing it for fun? Oh you're doing it in order to prove to yourself how ludicrous evolution is, gotcha. Well I'm sure with taht thought in mind you are going to get very far. Congrats.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PST
With every post you make Jerry, the number of biology books you have read increases. You must be a very fast reader!
You suggested I did not know anything. I told you some of what I have read. I first started studying this area, 15 years ago. I asked you for a definition so we can have a discussion based on science. The response is ad hominems and snarky comments. If the science is so obvious and all there, then provide some of it. We will be polite and are willing to listen.jerry
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PST
That's cute Johnny. Last I heard, half of those people don't even know they're on that list and the other half are computer scientists. And not even 1000? Cmon. In comparison to your "almost 1000" there are thousands of Universities, all with numerous faculty and researchers who laugh at that list along with me.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PST
With every post you make Jerry, the number of biology books you have read increases. You must be a very fast reader! And no, life, I meant exactly what I said. I'm sorry you guys live in your own ignorant little worlds, but the science is all there. It's undeniable once you look at just a fraction of some of the most basic evidence. I have studied biology for the last three years and I will now continue to do so. If you guys would like to talk about biology in depth, I suggest you guys put the money up and get an education on it first. I will warn you though, it isn't easy. Or of course, you can continue to mock me and think that because you have some basic biology knowledge, that you can talk about its complexities. Which is what I am sure you all will do.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PST
AVS This site provides a list of almost 1000 Darwin skeptics ... You must have a Ph.D or M.D. to sign it. They come from many disciplines... By signing the list you acknowledge that you doubt that random mutation plus natural selection could account for all of the diversity of life. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/Johnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PST
Evolution is backed by more science than you can imagine
No it isn't. That just something people say a lot. It's called a mantra.lifepsy
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PST
Evolution is backed by more science than you can imagine
welp, i'm convinced! how can someone ignore such overwhelming evidence as that!
Some people refuse to question evolution because it doesn’t jive with their beliefs or it makes them think about things that they don’t want to think about. I’m sorry if you’re one of those people, but luckily for you, you can just keep on plugging your ears and screaming in ignorance.
fix'dwentzelitis
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PST
Evolution: make a claim, back it with evidence
Don't you mean, Evolution: make a claim, and whatever the data shows, evolution did it. ? Evolution is the epitome of non-falsifiable, ad-hoc, zombie science. No matter how many holes you put in it, it will sustain anything and keep on going.lifepsy
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PST
Like I said, Evolution is science’s explanation for the diversity of life that we see today.
You still haven't defined evolution. I told you I have read Futuyama's book and several college biology texts on evolution. So I would start with a definition of the term you have used several times.jerry
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PST
Yes, you would love everyone to believe that wouldn't you? Unfortunately for you, there a a lot of people in this world who are able to think for themselves, and require evidence for what others claim. Evolution is backed by more science than you can imagine; the fact that you ignore it does not make it go away. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but its not a belief in evolution; it's a problem of acceptance. Some people refuse to accept evolution because it doesn't jive with their beliefs or it makes them think about things that they don't want to think about. I'm sorry if you're one of those people, but luckily for you, you can just keep on plugging your ears and screaming in ignorance.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST
AVS:
[evolution] is simply the best explanation for the diversity of life that we see today
No it isn't. It's a materialist-creationism story. It makes no sense from any kind of scientific or empirical point of view. Evolution is one superstitious claim after the other.lifepsy
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PST
Evolution: make a claim, back it with evidence Religion: make a claim, point to a book The two are very different.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PST
Oh, so an introductory-level book did not explain every little detail of the topic? I never would have guessed. If you want to talk about the complexities of biology, you have a lot of learning and reading to do. Like I said, Evolution is science's explanation for the diversity of life that we see today. It takes into account discoveries made by thousands of scientists in every field of biology in the last 200 years or so. I did not point you to a table of contents, I pointed you to a website that summarizes recent scientific studies in just about every field of science imaginable, including evolution.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PST
AVS Definitely you are the confused party. To see why Evolution is a religion you may be enlightened and also have fun (as I had a lot) by watching this video: Evolution vs. GodInVivoVeritas
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PST
'Anyways… It’s odd that materialism has become so characterized as the antithesis to religion, when materialist/evolutionist worldviews are some of the most superstitious, mystical, pseudo-skeptical belief systems of all time.' There's a poignancy to their ingenuous disappointment at being categorized as 'religious', though, isn't there? Simple souls, who don't deserve the trauma they'll soon be facing, as they try to explain away their highly emotional, desperately misconceived dogmatism.Axel
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PST
AVS wrote:
I'm going to assume you don’t have much of a background in biology...
You're new here, aren't you?sagebrush gardener
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PST
feel free to read a evolutionary biology textbook
I have read Futuyma's book on evolutionary biology. It does not explain the origin of complex novelties which is what the debate is all about. Why don't you define evolution. That way people could be on the same page as you. Also instead of pointing to a table of contents of something, why don't you pick the studies that best support your definition of evolution and why they do so.jerry
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PST
I'm going to assume you don't have much of a background in biology so I will point you to a good source for recent studies in the field of evolutionary biology that a layperson can understand. http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/evolution/ For more of an in-depth education, feel free to read a evolutionary biology textbook or go crazy and read a general biology textbook; preferably college-level if you think you can handle it.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PST
1 2 3 4 5