When it rains, earthworms tend to surface from underground.

Creatures, like seagulls take advantage of this by "running on the spot", their feet mimicking the pitter-patter of rain. This encourages earthworms to the surface, on which they feed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcJstUfD88

The question is, using The Theory of Evolution, explain how the seagulls developed this ability.

More info about "worm charming"...

Animal behavior[edit]
Worm charming is a behavior also observed in the animal kingdom, especially among birds. The methods used vary, however tapping earth with feet to generate vibrations is widespread. One common example is the "Seagull dance". The wood turtle also seems to be adapted for worm charming, as it is known to stamp its feet - a behavior that attracts worms to the surface and allows the turtle to prey on them.

Soil conditions[edit]
Worms are most commonly found in damp or wet conditions and tend to move away from dry soil. The success of worm charming can often depend on these soil conditions, with charmers choosing damp locations or using water to attract the worms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm_charming

Seagulls wait for the right conditions to do their dance.

These are the kind of observations that happen around you regularly that can help you assess the Theory of Evolution more critically.

(Wait for some illogical so-and-so to read a conclusion into the OP.)

And if the theory of evolution fails to explain why I prefer Oha soup to okra soup, that means......that the theory of evolution is flawed ?
... should be discarded in favor of ....?

plaetton:
And if the theory of evolution fails to explain why I prefer Oha soup to okra soup, that means......that the theory of evolution is flawed ?
... should be discarded in favor of ....?

plaetton:

Lol.
Well sir, this is where your ignorance blooms to the surface.
First, the theory of evolution, just like any complex theory of science, is not quite simple to understand for people not firmly grounded in science, not well educated, and not possessing the minimum of intelligent comprehension.
Your statement assumes that all atheists are well-grounded in science, which in turn implies that all atheists are very intelligent and well educated.
Are these your positions sir?

If after concluding that my ignorance has bloom to the surface you are still asking for my position, you need to check what wisdom or intelligence and being well educated means to you.

2prexios:
Lol. the op is yet to realize that evolution is the religion of the atheist. No religion's dogma can be questioned.

Lol.
Well sir, this is where your ignorance blooms to the surface.

First, the theory of evolution, just like any complex theory of science, is not quite simple to understand for people not firmly grounded in science, not well educated, and not possessing the minimum of intelligent comprehension.

Your statement assumes that all atheists are well-grounded in science, which in turn implies that all atheists are very intelligent and well educated.
Are these your positions sir?

2prexios:
Lol. the op is yet to realize that evolution is the religion of the atheist. No religion's dogma can be questioned.

Theory of Evolution vs Theism is a false dichotomy.

What I am really after here is for some Darwinist to demonstrate that they apply their own experience to their belief, and don't just swallow what they have been told (brainwashed with) -- by..

1. Noticing behaviours around them in their everyday lives, like the seagull behaviour.

2. Having the presence of mind to question it.

3. Asking how the Theory of Evolution applies.

The problem here is that ToE postulates small steps that build more complex outcomes.

What we have here is a behaviour (seagull running on the spot) and its reward (a worm).

But the link between the reward and the action appears to be very subtle, both because it is sporadic (worm may not appear) and deferred (worm typically would appear only after several minutes).

As this running on the spot behaviour seems to have no other function, how did the seagull come to anticipate such a seemingly remote reward, without using logic?

How can you break the behaviour down into small evolutionary steps of immediate reward, leading to the final complex behaviour?

sinequanon:
The problem here is that ToE postulates small steps that build more complex outcomes.

What we have here is a behaviour (seagull running on the spot) and its reward (a worm).

But the link between the reward and the action appears to be very subtle, both because it is sporadic (worm may not appear) and deferred (worm typically would appear only after several minutes).

As this running on the spot behaviour seems to have no other function, how did the seagull come to anticipate such a seemingly remote reward, without using logic?

How can you break the behaviour down into small evolutionary steps of immediate reward, leading to the final complex behaviour?

Firstly, it might not be possible to explain how, when or in what little incremental steps the seagull evolved that beneficial habit.
Again, that takes nothing away from the general ideas of the theory of evolution.

Secondly, the association of rain falling on the ground with the seagull's feet thumping simulation of such might just be odd coincidences that are not related .

Thirdly, evolution is not just biological, but also behavioral or social. A favorable social behavior can be incorporated , in whole, into the character trait of a specie.
And, I do not think that every evolutionists has to recite the exact multi-dimensional mechanisms through which these things happen in order to validate the general theory.

sinequanon:
The problem here is that ToE postulates small steps that build more complex outcomes.

What we have here is a behaviour (seagull running on the spot) and its reward (a worm).

But the link between the reward and the action appears to be very subtle, both because it is sporadic (worm may not appear) and deferred (worm typically would appear only after several minutes).

As this running on the spot behaviour seems to have no other function, how did the seagull come to anticipate such a seemingly remote reward, without using logic?

How can you break the behaviour down into small evolutionary steps of immediate reward, leading to the final complex behaviour?

What the hell is wrong with you people? How many times does someone have to explain natural selection to you before you get it? Why can't you read a book or watch a YouTube video and comprehend like a normal person? I'm tired of repeating this stuff! What the hell!

Look, all living things reproduce. All living things have offspring that are similar to their parents but different in tiny ways that makes each individual unique. Some of those differences favour survival, some make no difference, and some are disadvantages. All living things have more offspring than the environment can support meaning that many or most will die off before adulthood and they all have to compete to survive. Nature selects those who have traits that favour survival and kills off those who don't. Therefore any population of living things will gradually slowly change in appearance, physiology and behaviour as nature and death molds them to fit their environment.

Once upon a time a seagull was born with a type of brain touch that made it behave wierdly and keep running along the ground for no good reason. Somehow, food inexplicably kept coming out of the earth and the seagull ate very well. Because of its constant good diet the seagull grew big and strong and had plenty of seagull babies many of whom also inherited the brain touch. The seagull's babies survived more than those of his mates because of the highly proteinaceous food he kept bringing home. Soon there were plenty of young brain touched seagulls running along the ground and eating the food that strangely kept coming out. The next time there was a drought, many seagulls starved and died but the brain touched seagull's offspring flourished, outcompeted the others and became dominant. Meanwhile even among the brain touched seagulls, some ran in subtly different ways that brought out more or less food. Those whose running style brought out more food out competed those whose brought out less and became dominant. And so, over a long period of time, nature and death continued to shape the seagull population until we ended up with a bunch of birds all of whom can tapdance expertly to attract worms. And that's when some stupìd Christians showed up and claimed it was because of Jesus. It wasn't because of Jesus.

Please note that there is no intelligence or planning involved here. The seagulls have no clue what they are doing, they're just following instincts they were born with. The fact that they exist is solely due to their ancestors having survived and passed on those traits. Also nature doesn't know or care what is happening because it is not intelligent or conscious. Nature is not trying to evolve better seagulls. Its just that the nature of living things and the laws of the universe mean that evolution and increasing complexity are inevitable.

Understand?

EvilBrain1:
Once upon a time a seagull was born with a type of brain touch that made it behave wierdly and keep running along the ground for no good reason.

Behold!

This post was of such utmost stupidity that I initially thought it was a deliberate comedy sketch -- a parody of stupidity.

Maybe it is. If so, well done...very skilful. If not, then it is the dumbest post I have encountered so far on Nairaland.

sinequanon:


Behold!

This post was of such utmost stupidity that I initially thought it was a deliberate comedy sketch -- a parody of stupidity.

Maybe it is. If so, well done...very skilful. If not, then it is the dumbest post I have encountered so far on Nairaland.

Huh

Something tells me that this is going to get interesting.

EvilBrain1:


What the hell is wrong with you people? How many times does someone have to explain natural selection to you before you get it? Why can't you read a book or watch a YouTube video and comprehend like a normal person? I'm tired of repeating this stuff! What the hell!

Look, all living things reproduce. All living things have offspring that are similar to their parents but different in tiny ways that makes each individual unique. Some of those differences favour survival, some make no difference, and some are disadvantages. All living things have more offspring than the environment can support meaning that many or most will die off before adulthood and they all have to compete to survive. Nature selects those who have traits that favour survival and kills off those who don't. Therefore any population of living things will gradually slowly change in appearance, physiology and behaviour as nature and death molds them to fit their environment.

Once upon a time a seagull was born with a type of brain touch that made it behave wierdly and keep running along the ground for no good reason. Somehow, food inexplicably kept coming out of the earth and the seagull ate very well. Because of its constant good diet the seagull grew big and strong and had plenty of seagull babies many of whom also inherited the brain touch. The seagull's babies survived more than those of his mates because of the highly proteinaceous food he kept bringing home. Soon there were plenty of young brain touched seagulls running along the ground and eating the food that strangely kept coming out. The next time there was a drought, many seagulls starved and died but the brain touched seagull's offspring flourished, outcompeted the others and became dominant. Meanwhile even among the brain touched seagulls, some ran in subtly different ways that brought out more or less food. Those whose running style brought out more food out competed those whose brought out less and became dominant. And so, over a long period of time, nature and death continued to shape the seagull population until we ended up with a bunch of birds all of whom can tapdance expertly to attract worms. And that's when some stupìd Christians showed up and claimed it was because of Jesus. It wasn't because of Jesus.

Please note that there is no intelligence or planning involved here. The seagulls have no clue what they are doing, they're just following instincts they were born with. The fact that they exist is solely due to their ancestors having survived and passed on those traits. Also nature doesn't know or care what is happening because it is not intelligent or conscious. Nature is not trying to evolve better seagulls. Its just that the nature of living things and the laws of the universe mean that evolution and increasing complexity are inevitable.

Understand?

Okay, now that you have explained it in the simplest way that anyone with minimum common sense can understand, do you really think it registered?
Common sense is not as common as it sounds.

Here they come, LOL.

I anticipated it in the closing sentence (in brackets) of my OP.

People with very limited intellect and comprehension skills, showcasing both, and the level of their brainwashing.

Ironically, I have to thank them for demonstrating how foolish brainwashed people can be.

sinequanon:


Behold!

This post was of such utmost stupidity that I initially thought it was a deliberate comedy sketch -- a parody of stupidity.

Maybe it is. If so, well done...very skilful. If not, then it is the dumbest post I have encountered so far on Nairaland.

I'm going to have to ask you to go through my post and list, very specifically, all the things I wrote that you found stupìd.

You sound very confident that you can make a fool out of me. Well here I am sticking my chin out. Hit me with your best shot.

*Edited to fix typo

EvilBrain1:


I'm going to have to ask you to go through my list and list, very specifically, all the things I wrote that you found stupìd.

You sound very confident that you can make a fool out of me. Well here I am sticking my chin out. Hit me with your best shot.

1. Nobody mentioned Jesus, but as I anticipated in the OP, some illogical person will enter the thread and start arguing backwards.

2. Your idea of a brain touch is pure naivety and desperation to make the facts fit your belief.

3. Your assumptions that the birds don't know what they are doing is ignorant.

4. I am guessing that you have never seen the behaviour in real life, first hand, then stopped to think about it or use your own initiative. Your lengthy knee-jerk response smacks of brainwashing.

5. These are some of my own ideas..I have seen the behaviour first hand.

Now..

The seagull behaviour tends to happen in damp or rainy weather when worms are close to the surface. I guess that if you were to place a sensitive stethoscope on the ground you would be able to hear the movement of worms just beneath the surface. A wet slithery thing sliding through tunnels is surprisingly noisy.

Although we cannot hear these sounds with our own na.ked ears, I believe that birds can either hear them or sense them through their feet. If you take the time to watch birds, you can sometimes see them pull earthworms out seemingly before they have surfaced.

Also, earthworms are sensitive to vibrations and movement. They use this to avoid predators. I once saw a couple of mating worms vanish down separate holes just as I approached the spot.

So, I would guess that the seagulls can sense a lot of activity just beneath the ground, where earthworms have migrated in wet weather. That activity probably increases as the gull walks over the surface. And a gull is definitely intelligent enough to make the connection and provoke the activity to help it locate the worms.

So my answer is that the remoteness of the reward is deceptive, only from a human perspective. We probably don't have the subtle senses a seagull employs in this particular activity.

That seems a lot more sensible than your fantasy gull with a "brain touch", LOL! LOL! LOL!

sinequanon:
Here they come, LOL.

I anticipated it in the closing sentence (in brackets) of my OP.

People with very limited intellect and comprehension skills, showcasing both, and the level of their brainwashing.

Ironically, I have to thank them for demonstrating how foolish brainwashed people can be.

Can you give us a better explanation for the Seagull behavior Then?

OK I just saw it. But sir you are saying basically the same thing with Evilbrain1

^^^
@sinequanon,

The funny thing here is that you have not in any way refuted his points, but actually helped to validate them.

The bottom line being that the seagul has evolved traits that allow it locate and lure its prey.

Your problem sir is that extreme bias clouds your intellect even when presented with simple common sense stuff.

Your reaction was knee jerk , and once again, it betrayed you.
He answered your querry in kindergarten way that any kindergarten child could understand.

Were you upset because he didn't use your preferred nomenclature?

sinequanon:


1. Nobody mentioned Jesus, but as I anticipated in the OP, some illogical person will enter the thread and start arguing backwards.

2. Your idea of a brain touch is pure naivety and desperation to make the facts fit your belief.

3. Your assumptions that the birds don't know what they are doing is ignorant.

4. I am guessing that you have never seen the behaviour in real life, first hand, then stopped to think about it or use your own initiative. Your lengthy knee-jerk response smacks of brainwashing.

5. These are some of my own ideas..I have seen the behaviour first hand.

Now..

The seagull behaviour tends to happen in damp or rainy weather when worms are close to the surface. I guess that if you were to place a sensitive stethoscope on the ground you would be able to hear the movement of worms just beneath the surface. A wet slithery thing sliding through tunnels is surprisingly noisy.

Although we cannot hear these sounds with our own na.ked ears, I believe that birds can either hear them or sense them through their feet. If you take the time to watch birds, you can sometimes see them pull earthworms out seemingly before they have surfaced.

Also, earthworms are sensitive to vibrations and movement. They use this to avoid predators. I once saw a couple of mating worms vanish down separate holes just as I approached the spot.

So, I would guess that the seagulls can sense a lot of activity just beneath the ground, where earthworms have migrated in wet weather. That activity probably increases as the gull walks over the surface. And a gull is definitely intelligent enough to make the connection and provoke the activity to help it locate the worms.

So my answer is that the remoteness of the reward is deceptive, only from a human perspective. We probably don't have the subtle senses a seagull employs in this particular activity.

That seems a lot more sensible than your fantasy gull with a "brain touch", LOL! LOL! LOL!

All these sensations that the Seagull has,don't you think they evolved to be that way?

Dapo777:


All these sensations that the Seagull has,don't you think they evolved to be that way?

Yes.

Pacific gull, Larus pacificus
Belcher's gull, Larus belcheri
Olrog's gull, Larus atlanticus
Black-tailed gull, Larus crassirostris
Heermann's gull, Larus heermanni
Common gull or mew gull, Larus canus
Ring-billed gull, Larus delawarensis
California gull, Larus californicus
Great black-backed gull, Larus marinus
Kelp gull, Larus dominicanus (called "southern black-backed gull" or "karoro" in New Zealand)
Cape gull, Larus dominicanus vetula
Glaucous-winged gull, Larus glaucescens
Western gull, Larus occidentalis
Yellow-footed gull, Larus livens
Glaucous gull, Larus hyperboreus
Iceland gull, Larus glaucoides
Kumlien's gull, Larus glaucoides kumlieni
Thayer's gull, Larus thayeri
European herring gull, Larus argentatus
Heuglin's gull, Larus heuglini
American herring gull, Larus smithsonianus
Yellow-legged gull, Larus michahellis
Caspian gull, Larus cachinnans
East Siberian herring gull, Larus vegae
Armenian gull, Larus armenicus
Slaty-backed gull, Larus schistisagus
Lesser black-backed gull, Larus fuscus
Genus Ichthyaetus

White-eyed gull, Ichthyaetus leucophthalmus
Sooty gull, Ichthyaetus hemprichii
Great black-headed gull or Pallas's gull, Ichthyaetus ichthyaetus
Audouin's gull, Ichthyaetus audouinii
Mediterranean gull, Ichthyaetus melanocephalus
Relict gull, Ichthyaetus relictus
Genus Leucophaeus

Dolphin gull, Leucophaeus scoresbii
Laughing gull, Leucophaeus atricilla
Franklin's gull, Leucophaeus pipixcan
Lava gull, Leucophaeus fuliginosus
Gray gull, Leucophaeus modestus
Genus Chroicocephalus (may include Saundersilarus)

Silver gull, Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae
Red-billed gull, Chroicocephalus scopulinus
Hartlaub's gull, Chroicocephalus hartlaubii
Brown-hooded gull, Chroicocephalus maculipennis
Gray-headed gull, Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus
Andean gull, Chroicocephalus serranus
Black-billed gull, Chroicocephalus bulleri
Brown-headed gull, Chroicocephalus brunnicephalus
Black-headed gull, Chroicocephalus ridibundus
Slender-billed gull, Chroicocephalus genei
Bonaparte's gull, Chroicocephalus philadelphia
Genus Saundersilarus

Saunders's gull, Saundersilarus saundersi
Genus Hydrocoloeus (may include Rhodostethia)

Little gull, Hydrocoloeus minutus
Genus Rhodostethia

Ross's gull, Rhodostethia rosea
Genus Rissa

Black-legged kittiwake, Rissa tridactyla
Red-legged kittiwake, Rissa brevirostris
Genus Pagophila

Ivory gull, Pagophila eburnea
Genus Xema

Sabine's gull, Xema sabini
Genus Creagrus

Swallow-tailed gull, Creagrus furcatus

Just see how much species of Seagull we have. Not all of them have that ability of tapping their foot on swamp to attract worms,some don't even eat worms. The ones adapted for worm feeding developed that trait you called "intelligence "

Simple!

What this thread demonstrates is the inability of most people to disagree with an argument, even if they agree with the conclusion.

That would be the sign of a critical thinker.

Instead, what we are seeing is a very puerile reaction of agreeing with a rubbish opinion (the "brain touch" automation argument) simply because the poster appears to be "on their side" in some childish religion vs evolution fight.

It shows that many "Darwinists" don't actually engage their brains. They are brainwashed. They react to who does or doesn't appear to be "on their side". That is the extent of their logic.

All other talk of being logical is often just hypocrisy.

sinequanon:


1. Nobody mentioned Jesus, but as I anticipated in the OP, some illogical person will enter the thread and start arguing backwards.

I mentioned Jesus. I like Jesus. Jesus is funny.

2. Your idea of a brain touch is pure naivety and desperation to make the facts fit your belief.

I was trying to use humour and to dumb things down to make it easy for you like plaetton has kindly observed. Maybe it wasn't dumb enough. Maybe I should try using baby sounds. Hmmm... this is going to be tough.

3. Your assumptions that the birds don't know what they are doing is ignorant.

As far as I'm aware, birds don't know what they are doing. I know that I haven't seen any bird authored treatises on the existential meaning of worm eating and car pooping in the literature. I can't be 100% sure though. If you're aware of any please post a link abeg

4. I am guessing that you have never seen the behaviour in real life, first hand, then stopped to think about it or use your own initiative. Your lengthy knee-jerk response smacks of brainwashing.

No I haven't seen the behaviour in person. I'm not a nature documentary filmmaker. That doesn't stop me from thinking up a plausible mechanism for how it evolved.

5. These are some of my own ideas..I have seen the behaviour first hand.

Good you've seen it! That means you can answer the most important question: Whose tap dancing style did they use? Frank Sinatra? Fred Astaire? Sammy Davies Jr? Gregory Hines? I'm guessing Gregory Hines...

Now...

The seagull behaviour bla bla bla...

Whatever methods the seagulls use to do their thing, the fact is that it evolved through natural selection. That is the only natural mechanism by which such complex behaviour has ever been shown to emerge. If you happen to know a different mechanism, please PM me and let me know so we can write a paper and collect our Nobel prize. Let me be the Watson and Crick to your Rosalind Franklin. You make the breakthrough while I collect the credit.

Deleted. Double post.

plaetton:


Okay, now that you have explained it in the simplest way that anyone with minimum common sense can understand, do you really think it registered?
Common sense is not as common as it sounds.

I didn't type all that just for OP. I typed it for all the impressionable minds who might happen to read this thread. This is a public service, I'm trying to reduce the general retârdation level on Nairaland. For all we know, the next Goodluck Jonathan may be reading this. I might just have saved millions of lives.

Actually, op, I do think you're making a whole lot of sense here. You really should consider writing a paper. A paper in which you explain how the seagulls evolved enough intelligence to figure out how to lure out earthworms [s](despite the fact they don't show that sort of intelligence in just about every other sphere of their lives)[/s], rather than the nonsense @evilbrain posted earlier.

EDIT: By the way, have you ever wondered why some dog breeds will chase anything that moves whilst others don't give a $hit? I sense a nobel prize in there somewhere as well. We just need to "put our minds together", as they say.

sinequanon are you a creationist?

sinequanon:


Theory of Evolution vs Theism is a false dichotomy.

What I am really after here is for some Darwinist to demonstrate that they apply their own experience to their belief, and don't just swallow what they have been told (brainwashed with) -- by..

1. Noticing behaviours around them in their everyday lives, like the seagull behaviour.

2. Having the presence of mind to question it.

3. Asking how the Theory of Evolution applies.

No, there is no theory, its only an intellectual dogma. Someone up there tell you the prerequisite of grappling with complex theory of evolution, then you should know it's no longer summarized as a theory of 'survival of the fittest', a biological precept that it used to be. The God factor is ever present: Darwin's forerunner took on God too, so he needed God as leverage for attention and amazement for his theory. So his teeming followers will keep mocking God until they are silenced with superior wisdom, thanks.

Dapo777:


Can you give us a better explanation for the Seagull behavior Then?

OK I just saw it. But sir you are saying basically the same thing with Evilbrain1

No.

What you are basically saying is that any dumb azz explanation will do so long as it arrives at the conclusion you want. That doesn't make them the same. They are only the same to someone who ignores reason and has FAITH in some conclusion.

My explanation is a reasonable one and has NOTHING TO DO with Evilbrain1's crazy seagull with a "brain touch", and generations of clueless offspring.

The level of hypocrisy on this thread is quite astounding.

Every single respondent to my OP has...

1. Lacked the ability to read the OP properly.

2. Based their reasoning and conclusion on whether or not Jesus or god exists (rather than the behaviour in question)

3. Backed the most ludicrous explanation involving crazy seagulls.

4. Made hypocritical excuses for their blunder (ranging from "I was joking" to "your explanation is basically the same".)

You've exposed yourselves folks, and proved me right. Sorry, but you are just too pathetic.

plaetton:

Lol.
Well sir, this is where your ignorance blooms to the surface.

First, the theory of evolution, just like any complex theory of science, is not quite simple to understand for people not firmly grounded in science, not well educated, and not possessing the minimum of intelligent comprehension.

Your statement assumes that all atheists are well-grounded in science, which in turn implies that all atheists are very intelligent and well educated.
Are these your positions sir?

You are funny. This made me laugh; "Ignorance blooms to the surface". I had to laugh out loud so hard.
You now later said; "Are these your positions sir?". After you don abuse the guy finish.
However, what do you mean by; "possessing the minimum of intelligent comprehension?". I'm confused.

NairaMode:

You are funny. This made me laugh; "Ignorance blooms to the surface". I had to laugh out loud so hard.
You now later said; "Are these your positions sir?". After you don abuse the guy finish.
However, what do you mean by; "possessing the minimum of intelligent comprehension?". I'm confused.

I'm immune to insults, I have stronger, dribble-durable enemies always. I have been a scourge to Darwinism on culture section where I told the pretenders that Evolution is a theory because it has not been (or cannot be) scientifically proven. The bolded is an example of double standard, they argue that no intelligent design was involve in nature, but look at the intelligence required to comprehend their story before its ever told. Survival of the fittest has been the mantra, but now, we are likely going through the theory from an advance remix version of it. Whats Evolutionary Source for IQ? Do you need Intelligence to comprehend unintelligent beginning?

2prexios:
...they argue that no intelligent design was involve in nature...

The lay people, who do not understand the issue say this. The scientists who do understand the issue, don't say this, but keep a hypocritical silence.

The formal position is this: You don't NEED to invoke an intelligent designer in order to form a working hypothesis for diversity of life.

Atheists extend this to argue that, [size=18pt]IF[/size] there is no further insight by invoking an intelligent designer and the designer has no difference in effect, then we can ignore the existence of the intelligent designer, who is as good as non-existent. However, they fudge the IF, and pretend the ToE is a fact.

Scientists are nowhere near demonstrating that you don't need an intelligent designer. Most of their efforts are falsehoods, aimed at heading off biblical explanations.

To demonstrate that an intelligent designer is not required, it is not good enough to demonstrate that creatures evolve. You have to demonstrate that a random molecular model would achieve the evolution in the estimated timescales. Throwing large numbers around, like "we have billions of years to play with" is not proof. You have to measure that up quantitatively against what has been achieved and the maximum rate at which random mutation and natural selection can proceed.

2prexios:
I'm immune to insults, I have stronger, dribble-durable enemies always. I have been a scourge to Darwinism on culture section where I told the pretenders that Evolution is a theory because it has not been (or cannot be) scientifically proven. The bolded is an example of double standard, they argue that no intelligent design was involve in nature, but look at the intelligence required to comprehend their story before its ever told. Survival of the fittest has been the mantra, but now, we are likely going through the theory from an advance remix version of it. Whats Evolutionary Source for IQ? Do you need Intelligence to comprehend unintelligent beginning?

You guys are so scientific in your thoughts. I just want to think easy.

EvilBrain1:


Once upon a time a seagull was born with a type of brain touch that made it behave wierdly and keep running along the ground for no good reason.

And that seagull's name was Adam Seagull. The father of all seagulls.