prove me wrong on evolution

[Yerda]

Well, I'm undecided, truly, and I wish you could prove to me that evolution was true. I really do.

Consider that it's the best explanation we have. By 'best' I mean it actually explains, quite elegantly, how species might diverge. Why not run with the best we have?

God did it, or something intelligent did it doesn't have quite the same explanatory power.

One strong argument I've heard that contradicts evolution is the irreducibility issue - central to intelligent design, and these people say the single cell organism is the foremost example of an irreducibility.

Why the cell? The human body is irreducibly complex. Take away the brain and look! No worky!

If you missed my point, it's that irreducible complexity is not a problem.

I've never heard an evolutionist explain clearly how the membrane, vacuoles and nucleus could evolve surreptitiously and simultaneously to allow the single cell to survive.

Vacoules? Nuclei? These aren't neccesary for survival. Prokaryotes have neither in most cases. I guess that leaves membranes.

Of course the evolutionist can always fall back its argument that given enough millions of years anything can happen by chance.

Chance? I thought it was by chemical reaction.

 

[mingmty]

I thought creationism used Noahs flood to explain the fossil record?

Which is ridiculous since radioactive atom decay has been used since long to precisely tell the age of fossils, which doesn't date to the supposedly flood. But once again using the non-scientific theory of creationism you could explain this by the simple "testing faith" statement. Creationism is not only contrary to science but dangerous if taken as it.

 

[Antagonist]

Id say the resurection of Christ is pretty strong evidence

Regarding the above quote, are you saying that you're classing the word of a book as evidence here?
Or are you hiding some incredible evidence from the world?

I sure as hell do not think that the word of a book classes as evidence.

But if we use your 'evidence', you could say that other books such as Harry Potter, The Lord of The Rings, The Dark Is Rising and other stories are just as valid as the bible.

:banghead3

 

[Steve]

In the game you described, obviously someone is a card mechanic and the game is fixed.

Exactly, its obvious that somthing other then chance is going on and even if your opponent pointed out that well 20 royal flushes in a row is possible you wouldnt buy it for a second because the improbability is so ridiculous.

It is funny to me that you can apply logic to the idea of the card game, but are totally bereft of that same ability when applying it to the natural world around you, and science.

No whats funny is that you seem to realise the logic behind my argument, eg massive improbability happening over and over again suggests somthing else is going on. Yet it is you who wont apply this same principal to the world around you and science.

I will rely on the schools of thought which led to sterilization, motor vehicles, refrigeration, medicine, and the like.

Thats interesting, many of the scientific pioneers were either strict creationists or believed that the universe did indicate there must be a creator. Even now many scientist are creationists (eg it was a Creationists who developed the MRI), or believe that our universe is evidence for an outside intelligence.

I would simply think your opponent was cheating.

Thats the point.

I thought creationism used Noahs flood to explain the fossil record?

Which is ridiculous since radioactive atom decay has been used since long to precisely tell the age of fossils, which doesn't date to the supposedly flood.

If you are actually interested in this you can see what creationists actually believe about radiometric dating here - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Id say the resurection of Christ is pretty strong evidence

Regarding the above quote, are you saying that you're classing the word of a book as evidence here?
Or are you hiding some incredible evidence from the world?

I do believe the bible is evidence, its not just one book but many and with many different authors testifying to having seen, spoken and eaten with Christ after the resurection. These same people were also willing to die for what they were proclaiming and obviously with such a claim they knew if what they were saying was a lie or not. I dont believe they would go through the different persecutions and ultimatley the various deaths they went to for somthing they knew was a lie. Then there is the various prophecies regarding Christ eg isiah 53, written 700years bc.
Also the Christian church is evidence in itself that Christ was resurected, eg cause and effect, somthing caused the apostles to proclaim what they did after initially deserting Christ at the cross. Then i could also go into things i have personally seen, eg people being delivered from evil spirits in the name of Jesus etc and also the feeling of Christ's presence sometimes in worship etc.

 

[Antagonist]

These same people were also willing to die for what they were proclaiming and obviously with such a claim they knew if what they were saying was a lie or not. I dont believe they would go through the different persecutions and ultimatley the various deaths they went to for somthing they knew was a lie.

Well, they believed they were going to heaven anyway, so surely death was welcomed by them? So if you take the belief that heaven is a marvellous place, I don't think they would be that bothered by the persecutions that beset them.

By the same token, you should have no qualms with muslim fanatics that give their lives in the name of Allah. Or do you see that as wrong? Surely you cannot see one faith as correct and the other as incorrect?

Then i could also go into things i have personally seen, eg people being delivered from evil spirits in the name of Jesus etc and also the feeling of Christ's presence sometimes in worship etc.

These conditions you're describing and the sense of euphoria they engender are no different from the experiences people have at large rock concerts or sporting events and are caused by similar psychological states. Using that analagy these experiences are equally as valid as the ones you cite.

Purely as a matter of interest, have you ever seen an 'Evil spirit' physically leave a body? If so, please describe it for me.

 

[Steve]

These same people were also willing to die for what they were proclaiming and obviously with such a claim they knew if what they were saying was a lie or not. I dont believe they would go through the different persecutions and ultimatley the various deaths they went to for somthing they knew was a lie.

Well, they believed they were going to heaven anyway, so surely death was welcomed by them? So if you take the belief that heaven is a marvellous place, I don't think they would be that bothered by the persecutions that beset them.

By the same token, you should have no qualms with muslim fanatics that give their lives in the name of Allah. Or do you see that as wrong? Surely you cannot see one faith as correct and the other as incorrect?

You just compleatly missed my point, they were in a position to know if Christ had risen, they were not just proclaiming what they suspected or had heard from others etc they knew them selves if it was true and still they were willing to die for what they were testifying to.
"so surely death was welcomed by them?" - how would you like to be stoned to death, or crucified etc? Im not saying that death was their biggest concern because as you mentioned they believed in an afterlife but why - they claimed to have seen the resurectected Christ on many occasions, had meals with him etc so they knew there was an afterlife. If however they knew it was all a big lie, that they hadnt seen Christ, then death would have been a much bigger deal to them.
This is a big difference between the apostles and muslim fanatics, the apostles were in a position to know if what they proclaimed was true.

Also another huge difference is that the apostles/Christians say "we are willing to die for our faith, muslim fanatics say you will die for our faith"

Then i could also go into things i have personally seen, eg people being delivered from evil spirits in the name of Jesus etc and also the feeling of Christ's presence sometimes in worship etc.

These conditions you're describing and the sense of euphoria they engender are no different from the experiences people have at large rock concerts or sporting events and are caused by similar psychological states. Using that analagy these experiences are equally as valid as the ones you cite.

Purely as a matter of interest, have you ever seen an 'Evil spirit' physically leave a body? If so, please describe it for me.

Of course, you know better what i feel and have seen then what i do - how can anyone argue with that? And suppose you are wrong, with your mindset you will never know because you think you already have all the answers.
In regards to dileverance, i havnt seen the evil spirit afterall it is a spirit. However i have seen the effects on the person eg passing out/convulsing/server mood swings(eg crying, tense fear, laughter, unresponsivness, anger - all immidiatly following the other), people trying to crawl/run out of church, and extreame dislike/anger at scriptures such as -"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. Romans 16: 20"

I know people who have seen much more, eg excesive strengh, speaking foreign languages, animalistic actions(eg slithering like a snake) etc.

Although having said all this i know its likely that you will just consider it all exagerated "psychological states" or some such rubish because it dosnt fit into a naturalistic/materialistic world view.
Although if you are interested you may find "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit" by Jack Deere worth a read - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310211271/002-6756464-2147267?v=glance&n=283155

 

[mingmty]

If you are actually interested in this you can see what creationists actually believe about radiometric dating here - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Wrong! I wasn't talking about Carbon-14 dating but general radioactive atom decay. The article you linked is misleaded, Carbon-14 is rarely used when dating fossils. Look at this:

Dating a fossil in terms of approximately how many years old it is can be possible using radioisotope-dating of igneous rocks found near the fossil. Unstable radioactive isotopes of elements, such as Uranium-235, decay at constant, known rates over time (its half-life, which is over 700 million years). An accurate estimate of the rock's age can be determined by examining the ratios of the remaining radioactive element and its daughters. For example, when lava cools, it has no lead content but it does contain some radioactive Uranium (U-235). Over time, the unstable radioactive Uranium decays into its daughter, Lead-207, at a constant, known rate (its half-life). By comparing the relative proportion of Uranium-235 and Lead-207, the age of the igneous rock can be determined. Potassium-40 (which decays to argon-40) is also used to date fossils.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,568 years. That means that half of the C-14 decays (into nitrogen-14) in 5,568 years. Half of the remaining C-14 decays in the next 5,568 years, etc. This is too short a half-life to date dinosaurs; C-14 dating is useful for dating items up to about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago (useful for dating organiams like Neanderthal man and ice age animals).

Also you are forgetting that fossils are usually found in sedimentary rock layers which are formed episodically over time, so you can take a close guess of a fossil date just by looking how deep it is.

Science tryies to understand the universe, when religion wants to be science it tries to force it's beliefs to explain everything... You see the difference? Theology and religion should stay away from science just like science does from theology and religion.

I do believe the bible is evidence, its not just one book but many and with many different authors testifying to having seen, spoken and eaten with Christ after the resurection.

And that's your greatest problem, you seem to apply your logic only to your beliefs. Using your logic the "I Ching" also would be a evidence of the macrocosmos-microcosmos correspondence since it has been published, admired and used for more than 3000 years (way longer than the Christian Bible), which off course is ridiculous, is a matter of belifs.

Also I recommend you to investigate how Christianity was used as a political tool in Rome to return from the Republic to the Empire obviously causing it to spreed amazingly fast since Rome was the center of the world at it's time.

These same people were also willing to die for what they were proclaiming and obviously with such a claim they knew if what they were saying was a lie or not. I dont believe they would go through the different persecutions and ultimatley the various deaths they went to for somthing they knew was a lie.

Now you are justifying war with the absurd argument of "if many died for it then it must be true", don't you see the analogy with now days terrorists? Don't you see they may be thinking the same you do? War has no justifies, violence is wrong no matter for which god.

Jews also went trough many persecutions, and so did pagans, don't count yourself as unique.

Also another huge difference is that the apostles/Christians say "we are willing to die for our faith, muslim fanatics say you will die for our faith"

One word: Crusades.

Then i could also go into things i have personally seen, eg people being delivered from evil spirits in the name of Jesus etc and also the feeling of Christ's presence sometimes in worship etc.

And so could the Islamic, Taoist, Buddhist and many other communities. They also have seen many things but you deeply want to ignore them.

Your post was quite unpleasant to me probably because it relates blind war with a dogmatic belief. I hope not every christian think as you do.

 

[Antagonist]

And suppose you are wrong, with your mindset you will never know because you think you already have all the answers.

I don't think I have all the answers, I'm merely putting across a point and you don't like it as it interferes with your faith. The fact that you seem to get very angry means I must have touched a nerve.

Anyway, in your response to seeing christ, I could claim that I've seen martians land in my garden and have a picnic. Surely my point is equally as valid as yours?

I know people who have seen much more, eg excesive strengh, speaking foreign languages, animalistic actions(eg slithering like a snake) etc.

As I said, it could well be a psychological state, the person believes they have been 'touched' by God, and so they react in a way they feel would show they have been 'touched' by God or the exorcism/removal of Evil Spirits.

Also, if God is all powerful, why does he allow his followers to harbour these 'Evil Spirits'. Surely it should be the sinners that have these spirits? Similarly, why did Jesus have to die to absolve sin? Why couldn't God simply say, "your sin is absolved?" Who was he trying to impress by having Jesus (although some people would argue Jesus was God in human form) crucified?

That aside, aren't we straying from the topic?

 

[Atheist_Dave]

Similarly, why did Jesus have to die to absolve sin? Why couldn't God simply say, "your sin is absolved?" Who was he trying to impress by having Jesus (although some people would argue Jesus was God in human form) crucified?

The people who made up the storied probably thought it would be more memorable if it was impressive rather than "Your sin is absolved", maybe they got a bit carried away when they were making it all up, might have had a few bevies

Peace x

 

[JerryL]

You just compleatly missed my point, they were in a position to know if Christ had risen, they were not just proclaiming what they suspected or had heard from others etc they knew them selves if it was true and still they were willing to die for what they were testifying to

To whom are you alluding? I find no complelling support that the bulk of claimed eye-witness apostles were killed for their beliefs.

"so surely death was welcomed by them?" - how would you like to be stoned to death, or crucified etc?

Can't be any worse than the bone-marrow transplant that I voulentarily had because I wanted the outcome it gave me. How much better guarenteed eternal paradise must be than the poassability 50 years more of life.

they claimed to have seen the resurectected Christ on many occasions, had meals with him etc so they knew there was an afterlife.

Who did? The only person I am aware of that we can verify had that claim was John, though it seems likely Peter made the claim as well.

Who else of the "witnesses" can you even verified existed, much less the reasons for their death?

Also another huge difference is that the apostles/Christians say "we are willing to die for our faith, muslim fanatics say you will die for our faith"

A suicide bomber has killed himself for his belief.

Although having said all this i know its likely that you will just consider it all exagerated "psychological states" or some such rubish because it dosnt fit into a naturalistic/materialistic world view.

And because these magical effects always disappear under controlled conditions. No psycic has ever been able to read minds, no spiritualist to predict the future, no chi-expert to kill goats fro macross a room.

They just make excuses and go into diatribes about "knowing" when called to the floor.

 

[rocketman]

If someone asked me if I believe in the theory of evolution I would probably say something like: "If you mean do I believe in it like I believe in the theory of gravitation or electromagnetism ... er, no"
I'm with the mathematicians on this one. If you take the theory of evolution as a whole, [be sure to include the start of it as well] then according to the theory of probability the theory of evolution is completely improbable [actually impossible in sci-math terms]. I agree with the really clever scientists like Fred Hoyle insofar as I think a more scientific explanation is needed.
Perhaps one day there will be a scientist who is truly clever enough to string it all together instead of the rubbish we get now, a real 'Einstein' of evolution who can answer me the question: which came first, the chicken or the egg?.

Once you accept the theory [even without evidence] then everything 'becomes' evidence, because everything can 'explained' by application of the 'time and chance' protocol. How sad that science has devolved to this. Just once I would like a scientifically-minded person to present in a debate like this some genuine evidence, and I don't mean observational/additive, but something truly substantive, namely, CONFIRMATION OF THE MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION. I've never seen any. And before you think you have dear reader, think again. [anyone with truly confirmational evidence of the mechansim, something that can be repeated and verified in a lab, would become the darling of the science community - no such thing yet].

Evolution as it stands demands I accept that everything happened by accident [call it chance, random, etc if you will - I prefer the term accident because it implies 'not by design']. So, do the scientists of this world HONESTLY expect me to believe that the tens of thousands of interactions of my body accidently came to be in the time geologists say has passed? Bah! How unscientific!! That's just a guess at best. Break it down mathematically [if you have the courage]: how many accidents would it have taken to get just one thing right, like, say, get my eyebrows positioned directly above my eyes? Did having them there help my[our] strain become critically fitter? What about my inner ear; 3 rings at a geometrically correct 90x90x90 degrees? What were the odds of that accidentally happening AND being tied into my brain as well? What about our transitional ancestors? Did they stagger around as if drunk while their inner-ears were still lining up? How many genetic accidents did it take to get it just right?

I love scientists, so please don't take offence at my tone, but I am deeply disturbed by the fact that so many scientists give in to peer pressure and won't face the very, very simple problem of genuine CONFIRMATION. Evolution is a beautiful, elegant idea, but it belongs in the 19th century.
Most scientists are so into evolution they've never stopped to test it for themselves, the way you can most other sciences. There is still no fossil record of human ancestors [dig deep, they were either frauds, or in the modern era misinterpratations, even Lucy -Australopithecus] and next to no tangible transitional records. So to the person who started this post I think the real question is PROVE IT RIGHT! [The onus is on those who present the theory, not the other way around].

Debates like this tend to draw out folks who gleefully think they have enough knowledge to glorify themselves at the expense of others, what's known as intellectual vanity. I mention this because I think this is a major problem with some branches of modern science. I long for real science and not the "Sure it's a guess but he's a SCIENTIST" culture that we live in.

Love you all.

 

[Bishadi]

Dear rocketman are you ready….

rocketman …..Once you accept the theory [even without evidence] then everything 'becomes' evidence, because everything can 'explained' by application of the 'time and chance' protocol.

Light or electromagnetic radiation is “life.” E=mc^2 reflects the 2 opposite positions of the one entity.





CONFIRMATION OF THE MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION

 

[rocketman]

Dear rocketman are you ready….


Light or electromagnetic radiation is “life.” E=mc^2 reflects the 2 opposite positions of the one entity.

CONFIRMATION OF THE MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION

Thanks for your reply as well as your lengthy and complex email.

I will simply reply here as I have at the end of my return email to you:

Your view that life and energy are synergistic is valid and I want to encourage you not to give up exploring the possiblities. But alas, I still don't have evidence of a mechanism that can transform one species into another - in theory, let alone in the lab.

Thanks for your interest.:jiggy:

 

[Bishadi]

I still don't have evidence of

a mechanism that can transform one species into another - in theory

The Mule, a horse and a donkey creating a completely new species then in labs looks at Sunflowers, Oak, Corn, …. Cross species projects are going on all over the world and there are many in existence. Platypus for example…. Since evolution takes time many failures occur but ultimately, “life will prevail.”


If you want to go to basics look into Archaea where you can see a simple example of how a base no-nucleus cell accepts another organism within its structure that makes a protein, (resonant frequency capability) that the host cannot but protects, nourishes and has created a base association that is represented in all living cells and organisms.


So cross species may prove to be an issue of what additions benefit the total organism. Don’t know why a mammal would need a duck bill but it works and continued to survive.


In another scope of evolving traits not considered cross species but evolution just the same you only have to look in the mirror. Do you look like your parents? Or did man create dogs?

 

[rocketman]

The Mule, a horse and a donkey creating a completely new species then in labs looks at Sunflowers, Oak, Corn, …. Cross species projects are going on all over the world and there are many in existence. Platypus for example…. Since evolution takes time many failures occur but ultimately, “life will prevail.”

If you want to go to basics look into Archaea where you can see a simple example of how a base no-nucleus cell accepts another organism within its structure that makes a protein, (resonant frequency capability) that the host cannot but protects, nourishes and has created a base association that is represented in all living cells and organisms.

So cross species may prove to be an issue of what additions benefit the total organism. Don’t know why a mammal would need a duck bill but it works and continued to survive.

In another scope of evolving traits not considered cross species but evolution just the same you only have to look in the mirror. Do you look like your parents? Or did man create dogs?

Sorry, no dice. You are talking about breeding, not speciation. Do some research on the word, not to mention genus etc.

There is still a wide variation of views within science regarding the place of Archaea in the Phylogenetic tree of life, let alone evidence of a direct mechanism which can ramp up DNA into a newer, better adapted species.

Mules, donkeys, corn, people,dogs? We can do some fantastic breeding within a species, enough to make some people think it's a new one! Life will prevail indeed.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Steve, for the sake of not going off-topic, I am creating a new thread in response to the last thing you said in post #44. The thread will be called, "The Bible as Evidence." Check it out!

 

[Yerda]

Once you accept the theory [even without evidence] then everything 'becomes' evidence, because everything can 'explained' by application of the 'time and chance' protocol.

Regular occurence of modern humans in geological strata dated to, say, 15 million years ago? Would that be explained through "time and chance"?

CONFIRMATION OF THE MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION. I've never seen any. And before you think you have dear reader, think again.

Selection? Mutation?

 

[Ceridwen018]

let alone evidence of a direct mechanism which can ramp up DNA into a newer, better adapted species.

I'm not completely sure that I understand what you mean by this, but here goes!

DNA does not get "ramped up" for a newer, better adapted species. If that were the case, it wouldn't make any sense why humans have about 20,000 genes, and fruitflys have around 150,000 or so. No, the difference between humans and fruit flys is not in how "ramped up" our DNA has become, rather, it is in the relationships our proteins and enzymes have with each other, and how they work together. In humans, we need less proteins because two proteins will often do a job together, thereby creating a completely different result. Fruitflys, on the other hand, need more proteins because not all of their proteins are capable of this.

 

[Bishadi]

This was your inquiry,

But alas, I still don't have evidence of

a mechanism that can transform one species into another

a genus has one or more species within, I was using your word and it was easy but let’s get basic for you.



mutations come from within one unit of a single species for example an extended bill for a bird may be a mutation of a birth defect by a dna code being corrupted but within its same species.



So for an organism to obtain completely new protein structures they must be absorbed, consumed or some type of copulation. In small organisms absorptions started the first eukaryotes; which is an achaea; a simple prokaryote that created one of the first associations. A virus or rogue protein may set a catalyst completely different to the initial cell objective and also cause changes.



As multiple cell organizations associated to take on more complex molecular structures consumed like eating but for dna cross species (genus) corruptions the reproductive process is the culprit.



So you may need to redefine your request.

let alone evidence of a direct mechanism which can ramp up DNA into a newer, better adapted species.

take a read …. http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/q-bio/papers/0512/0512025.pdf that from nasa/Smithsonian reference

DNA does not get "ramped up" for a newer, better adapted species. If that were the case, it wouldn't make any sense why humans have about 20,000 genes, and fruitflys have around 150,000 or so.

the reproductive cycle is different and the period of time of the evolutionary tree is relevant, I believe they have been around for a little longer.

No, the difference between humans and fruit flys is not in how "ramped up" our DNA has become, rather, it is in the relationships our proteins and enzymes have with each other, and how they work together. In humans, we need less proteins because two proteins will often do a job together, thereby creating a completely different result. Fruitflys, on the other hand, need more proteins because not all of their proteins are capable of this.

or they do not have the quantity of organized associations, organs, bacteria, nor can they consume the quantity or structures.

 

[rocketman]

I'm not completely sure that I understand what you mean by this, but here goes!

DNA does not get "ramped up" for a newer, better adapted species. If that were the case, it wouldn't make any sense why humans have about 20,000 genes, and fruitflys have around 150,000 or so. No, the difference between humans and fruit flys is not in how "ramped up" our DNA has become, rather, it is in the relationships our proteins and enzymes have with each other, and how they work together. In humans, we need less proteins because two proteins will often do a job together, thereby creating a completely different result. Fruitflys, on the other hand, need more proteins because not all of their proteins are capable of this.

Thanks for the replies all.

They've never turned a fruit fly into a human in the lab, which is my point. In fact, they don't have a mechanism to do it deliberately [speciate anything into anything], and people want me to believe it accidentatly happened [pretty lucky..]. In all seriousness there's not a single top-gun evo-scientist who has a mechanism at their disposal that explains speciation either, so I can't help but chuckle when apparent amateurs use the old 'selection' and 'mutation' expressions. Please guys! I mean really, let's look at what we can do: we can make umpteen versions of a fruitfly in the lab by playing with it's genes, but we can't make it into something ELSE! And no offence Bishadi, but if we attempted surgery with your proscribed methods there would be all sorts of dramas with the genome.[the paper you quote describes a relationship between info+energy in proteins, not new encoding] Somehow the genetic instructions got changed over time according to the evolutionsists, but according to the same people they don't know the exact mechanism [or they'd be able to show you in the lab..see what I mean?].

Remember that how, in the Middle Ages that folks thought that the sun went around the earth, but then some smart cookie came along and said that the earth goes around the sun? If you were an observer at the time you'd probably believe the former not the latter, unless it was proven to you, but until then EVERYTHING would fit in with your theory. Same goes for evolution: once you accept it ['proven' or not] then everything can be explained by time and chance - catch 22. My request is not for more additive/observational evidence but for fundamental confirmation of a mechanism which can [I won't say ramp up] alter the genome into a new creature. [Oh, and Bishadi, the categorization of species is very arbitrary - a species is a group that is able to breed among itself, occasionaly also called a genus but not always, so your crossbreeds don't count]

Selection and mutation have only ever been proven to work within a species [much like breeding], and while it's tempting to apply the terms to speciation, it remains conjecture to do so. Remember at the base level we are dealing with the premise "That which accidentally got stronger survived, that which accidentally got weaker did not survive." At least that's how the theory sounds to me. [why did my non-critical, perfectly aligned and located eyebrows survive? hmmm]

I hope I don't come across as mean-spirited you guys. I'm just here to learn too. I do however have this thing lately about people blindly following evolution because of the overwhelming peer-pressure that has built up around the issue, [probably partly as a result of the whole ID thing]. I just want an honest scientifc answer.