Genetics and evolution

[BeccaBama]

evolution should not be presented to the public as a fact

should creationism be presented to the public as a fact?

I don’t think that Creationism should be presented as fact any more than evolution should. But, if the humanistic, evolutionist religion can be presented in school, why not put the Christian view right along side it? What is wrong with giving people all of the facts and allowing them to make their own interpretations, rather than putting a naturalistic, humanistic spin on them? Why not tell people, all we have really seen and tested is adaptation within a family and have just made an educated guess at the rest of it instead of making people think that it is the only way an intelligent person can interpret the evidence we have? People can believe what the Bible says. The fact that there are no indisputable transitional fossils and no evidence to indicate a change from one kind of creature to another, not to mention the difficulties in explaining how the intricate workings of biological systems developed through chance multiple errors and damage to DNA over time or any explanation on how the male/female reproductive systems developed gives strong support for the Creationist interpretation. Genesis 1:25 – So God made the wild animals and all the small crawling animals to produce more of their own kind and Genesis 1:27 - So God created human beings in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.

 

[bamabake]

I don’t think that Creationism should be presented as fact any more than evolution should. But, if the humanistic, evolutionist religion can be presented in school, why not put the Christian view right along side it? What is wrong with giving people all of the facts and allowing them to make their own interpretations, rather than putting a naturalistic, humanistic spin on them? Why not tell people, all we have really seen and tested is adaptation within a family and have just made an educated guess at the rest of it instead of making people think that it is the only way an intelligent person can interpret the evidence we have? People can believe what the Bible says. The fact that there are no indisputable transitional fossils and no evidence to indicate a change from one kind of creature to another, not to mention the difficulties in explaining how the intricate workings of biological systems developed through chance multiple errors and damage to DNA over time or any explanation on how the male/female reproductive systems developed gives strong support for the Creationist interpretation. Genesis 1:25 – So God made the wild animals and all the small crawling animals to produce more of their own kind and Genesis 1:27 - So God created human beings in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.

Great post.I am sure BU will agree with you. He is all for intellectual fairness I am sure.
I just got through watching a show on Discovery about the Tasmanian Devil and attempts to relone it. Of course I learned as a "fact" that dogs are related to bears and oh so much more. The " evolution is a fact" dogma has lng since spread its wings from the earlier indoctrination in the classroom. We are fools living in a world of fools . There is more to come I am afraid as reason itself is under attack in this country.

 

[BeccaBama]

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26

you do realize that no mention whatsoever is made of evolution there.

True, but humanism is a basic underlying principle behind evolutionary thinking.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

that quote alone is simply oxymoronic, 'secular' and 'religion' being contradictory terms

Main Entry: re•li•gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

In view of the definition of religion as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (devoid of any reference to God), the two terms are not necessarily oxymoronic.

 

[blackumbrella]

I don’t think that Creationism should be presented as fact any more than evolution should. But, if the humanistic, evolutionist religion can be presented in school, why not put the Christian view right along side it?

i like the idea of having a world religions class in schools. and in such a class you'd learn about the histories of various religions and the principle doctrines, etc. and of course they'd be taught as topics, not truths. whether or not that's feasible or not is a matter of cultural values. science is in all core curricula i know of, religious studies is not. i'm in fgavor of a religious studies requirement. of course, the curriculum is the least of bama's ed problems.

What is wrong with giving people all of the facts and allowing them to make their own interpretations, rather than putting a naturalistic, humanistic spin on them?

humanism is making more and more appearances in your posts. it's a broad term and i'm curious as to how you read it. i'm guessing in the sense of 'secular humanism' which i understand as a generalizedl belief system that emphasizes humane-ness, which is to say, morality, usually, but not limited to a non-supernatural focus. as such, it is only obliquely related to creationism insofar as creationism often comes along with religious overtones, and secular humanism often comes along with alternative-to-religious overtones. and to associate it so eagerly with evolution is a very suspicious stretch of the term, a result, i'm guessing, of fundamentalist defensive posturing that inevitably lumps all ideas outside its own sphere into the hideous amalgam of otherness or other-than-us, conveniently named 'wrongness.' as for simply presenting the evidence with no interpretation--that's unfortunately impossible. people in all walks 'benefit' from being taught, instructed, guided, whatever. in a way this is indoctrination. but i can't see any way around it. would the bible be so 'meaning'ful without all the parents, friends, bible studiers, and ministers constantly discussing its 'meaning'?

gives strong support for the Creationist interpretation. Genesis 1:25 – So God made the wild animals and all the small crawling animals to produce more of their own kind and Genesis 1:27 - So God created human beings in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.

alot of creation stories are this way. i'll try to dig up the aborigine creation myth. it 'fits' the evidence much better than the judaeo-christian version. maybe that means it's true.

 

[blackumbrella]

True, but humanism is a basic underlying principle behind evolutionary thinking.





Main Entry: re•li•gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

In view of the definition of religion as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (devoid of any reference to God), the two terms are not necessarily oxymoronic.

there's a reason why those numbers are in front of the definitions. you're at number 4. fair enough. you realize though, that such a vague delineation of the concept immediately creates millions of other religions. by that definition, football is a religion, studying is a religion, watching the OC ,etc.

 

[BeccaBama]

How about if we move evolution over to the world religions class and just teach about the adaptability of animals (Natural Selection) in science class? We can leave all the guesswork about how all present life-forms supposedly descended from a single common ancestor to the philosophy classes.

You’ve got a point about benefiting from instruction, but it’s unfortunate that the majority of instruction on evolution comes from such a biased standpoint under the guise of objectivity.

Here’s an interesting quote regarding the teaching techniques of some university professors in the scientific field:

“A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
‘And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.’12
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.”

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm (I saved you the trouble)

Yes, I know, he doesn’t say anything about evolution and is a physicist, but this quote pertains to teaching in general.

 

[blackumbrella]

How about if we move evolution over to the world religions class and just teach about the adaptability of animals (Natural Selection) in science class? We can leave all the guesswork about how all present life-forms supposedly descended from a single common ancestor to the philosophy classes.

well, bc evolution appeals to no supernatural forces, and so doesn't belong in a religion class any more than conservative or liberal economic ideology do.

You’ve got a point about benefiting from instruction, but it’s unfortunate that the majority of instruction on evolution comes from such a biased standpoint under the guise of objectivity.

i'm curious as to how much religious instruction you think passes itself off as something even more objective than objective assessment...absolute truth.

Here’s an interesting quote regarding the teaching techniques of some university professors in the scientific field:

“A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
‘And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.’12
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.”

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm (I saved you the trouble)

Yes, I know, he doesn’t say anything about evolution and is a physicist, but this quote pertains to teaching in general.

yep, and, in particular, to college students, grown folk. religious teaching does the same thing and usually starting at a much earler age and under threat of stuff like burning in hell forever and ever. furthermore, and this is an important point, good science instruction yields mastery of scientific methodology, including an inquisitve, skeptical outlook, not unwavering belief in a set of ideas. and of course it's very important for students to learn the latest ideas, not bc they're dogma, but bc they represent the best ideas in light of current understanding.

 

[bamabake]

well, bc evolution appeals to no supernatural forces, and so doesn't belong in a religion class any more than conservative or liberal economic ideology do.


i'm curious as to how much religious instruction you think passes itself off as something even more objective than objective assessment...absolute truth.


yep, and, in particular, to college students, grown folk. religious teaching does the same thing and usually starting at a much earler age and under threat of stuff like burning in hell forever and ever. furthermore, and this is an important point, good science instruction yields mastery of scientific methodology, including an inquisitve, skeptical outlook, not unwavering belief in a set of ideas. and of course it's very important for students to learn the latest ideas, not bc they're dogma, but bc they represent the best ideas in light of current understanding.

well, bc evolution appeals to no supernatural forces, and so doesn't belong in a religion class any more than conservative or liberal economic ideology do.

It does. It does because it takes faith to believe in. You still, still havent given us on reason to even concider evolution as a theory. Just because? Give me an example of one kind into another kind.
Besides all of this , scientists TODAY, are indeed coming to the conclusion that there MUST be some kind of supernatural force that caused or created all of what is. I know that seems hard for you to come to grips with. Why it is astonishes me. Perhaps it is because of your vague understanding of the subject matter at hand, or at least the most recent discoveries. Oh and please.. all of the goofy parsing of words detracts from any effort you may be making in responding to these post ie humanism et. al.

 

[blackumbrella]

well, bc evolution appeals to no supernatural forces, and so doesn't belong in a religion class any more than conservative or liberal economic ideology do.

It does. It does because it takes faith to believe in.

i expected you'd know a little more about religion than that. by your criteria, excuse me, criterion, the tidefans march madness pool is religion. is cristianity still a religion if you strip away god, satan, and the supernatural aspects of christ? if so, you might see me one of these sundays.

You still, still havent given us on reason to even concider evolution as a theory.

what does that mean? 'as a theory'?

Besides all of this , scientists TODAY, are indeed coming to the conclusion that there MUST be some kind of supernatural force that caused or created all of what is.

that's news indeed. whereever did you come by it. Science? Nature? some other respectable scientific journal?

I know that seems hard for you to come to grips with. Why it is astonishes me.

it wouldn't be hard at all if i you'd kindly cite a credible source, indicating this seachange you speak of in the scientific community is anything other than the typical dissenters, all 5% of them, exalted by you into bellwether revolutionaries.

Perhaps it is because of your vague understanding of the subject matter at hand, or at least the most recent discoveries.

by all means, give us the key points, and bibliography.

Oh and please.. all of the goofy parsing of words detracts from any effort you may be making in responding to these post ie humanism et. al.

it's important in science to operationally define the terms and concepts used, it's one of those ways the enterprise limits subjective bias, the ways i keep mentioning and you keep ignoring. if you don't like the 'parsing' you might want to clarify your posts:

one KIND into another KIND

???? so that i don't have to figure out what you're attempting to say before responding.

 

[bamabake]

i expected you'd know a little more about religion than that. by your criteria, excuse me, criterion, the tidefans march madness pool is religion. is cristianity still a religion if you strip away god, satan, and the supernatural aspects of christ? if so, you might see me one of these sundays.


what does that mean? 'as a theory'?

that's news indeed. whereever did you come by it. Science? Nature? some other respectable scientific journal?


it wouldn't be hard at all if i you'd kindly cite a credible source, indicating this seachange you speak of in the scientific community is anything other than the typical dissenters, all 5% of them, exalted by you into bellwether revolutionaries.

by all means, give us the key points, and bibliography.

it's important in science to operationally define the terms and concepts used, it's one of those ways the enterprise limits subjective bias, the ways i keep mentioning and you keep ignoring. if you don't like the 'parsing' you might want to clarify your posts: ???? so that i don't have to figure out what you're attempting to say before responding.

Nm. Every single thing here has been intellectually delt with. If you cant provide evidence that evolution happened and is happening then the rest is boring. I suppose I could go back in the thread and copy and paste a response everytime you go backwards on this. You should be well past these same tired resposes by now and youe are not. At least you are posting. Seems yhour buddies lack your level of faith in evolution. BTW you parse uselessly in most responses, not just to me.

 

[blackumbrella]

Nm. Every single thing here has been intellectually delt with. If you cant provide evidence that evolution happened and is happening then the rest is boring. I suppose I could go back in the thread and copy and paste a response everytime you go backwards on this. You should be well past these same tired resposes by now and youe are not. At least you are posting. Seems yhour buddies lack your level of faith in evolution. BTW you parse uselessly in most responses, not just to me.

i'm disappointed you're running away, but not surprised. your potemkin village of 'scientific evidence' has repeadedly been exposed as mere facade. your whole approach to the debate--trying to show that evolution is bad science-- undermines your efforts from the start bc science, even if it one day replaces evolution (something the vast vast majority of SCIENTISTS don't see happening anytime soon (your expert opinion aside of course)), it will be with a supernatural explanation--as cabam has pointed out, science is only concerned with naturalistic explanations. go ahead and change the subject to global warming, where you can find some real scientists who actually agree with you.

 

[bamabake]

i'm disappointed you're running away, but not surprised. your potemkin village of 'scientific evidence' has repeadedly been exposed as mere facade. your whole approach to the debate--trying to show that evolution is bad science-- undermines your efforts from the start bc science, even if it one day replaces evolution (something the vast vast majority of SCIENTISTS don't see happening anytime soon (your expert opinion aside of course)), it will be with a supernatural explanation--as cabam has pointed out, science is only concerned with naturalistic explanations. go ahead and change the subject to global warming, where you can find some real scientists who actually agree with you.

Not running. Just tired of repeating the same things to you only to see you ignore the substance, and mumble some response. I started the thread on GW because it is built on assumtions and in some cases lies. Just like your religion evolution. Hop over to the fossil record one. You can participate in that thread. If it gets some legs it will further dismantle the old science you embrace.

 

[Bamalaw92]

maybe so, maybe not, maybe so. it's a tricky term. i don't think it's superstitious to believe there are things we don't and may never understand, things that affect our lives. i do think it's it's superstitious to rigidly assert a very particular and dogmatic understanding of such things bc, as you say, 'you cannot possibly begin to comprehend' them.

I would not call that "superstitious" as much as I would call it "dogmatic" as you later do or simply "obstinate". Faith does not equal superstition.

 

[BeccaBama]

your potemkin village of 'scientific evidence' has repeadedly been exposed as mere façade

I think you’re talking about your own ‘scientific evidence’ repeatedly being exposed as mere façade. It has been shown that the only real ‘scientific evidence’ you have is evidence for adaptability. You have nothing about how amphibians became warm-blooded, where are all the missing links Darwin thought would be found, how lungs developed from gills, how reproductive systems changed from egg-bearing to live birthing, etc. and yet your naturalistic scientific community insists on presenting the evolution of life as fact, attempting to dupe people into thinking it is fact and therefore the Bible must be wrong since science has ‘proven’ evolution is the answer to development of life.

science is only concerned with naturalistic explanations

Thank you for proving my point on your bias toward interpretation of the evidence. You sound like Dr. Scott Todd.

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’

Maybe it’s time to remove some of the bias from the scientific community. I’m sure most of the scientists out there would not use ‘God did it’ to stifle their research. Let’s also remember that operational science is not as affected by bias, it’s the area of historical science that allows bias to take root in determining what the evidence means.

 

[bamabake]

I think you’re talking about your own ‘scientific evidence’ repeatedly being exposed as mere façade. It has been shown that the only real ‘scientific evidence’ you have is evidence for adaptability. You have nothing about how amphibians became warm-blooded, where are all the missing links Darwin thought would be found, how lungs developed from gills, how reproductive systems changed from egg-bearing to live birthing, etc. and yet your naturalistic scientific community insists on presenting the evolution of life as fact, attempting to dupe people into thinking it is fact and therefore the Bible must be wrong since science has ‘proven’ evolution is the answer to development of life.



Thank you for proving my point on your bias toward interpretation of the evidence. You sound like Dr. Scott Todd.

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’

Maybe it’s time to remove some of the bias from the scientific community. I’m sure most of the scientists out there would not use ‘God did it’ to stifle their research. Let’s also remember that operational science is not as affected by bias, it’s the area of historical science that allows bias to take root in determining what the evidence means.

I think you’re talking about your own ‘scientific evidence’ repeatedly being exposed as mere façade.

if by scientific evidence you mean the word scientificus, the word meaning "of relating to, or exhibiting the methods or priciples of science" can be seen as diametrically opposed but not limited to per se the second word there, evidence. evidence meaning, "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment". therefore if your sources have a proclivity towards
decontextualizing the actual observable operational principles of science the results will be skewed or, for those that cannot follow, an oblique or slanting movement, position, or direction that is counter to the years of research done by real scientist.


BU

 

[blackumbrella]

I would not call that "superstitious" as much as I would call it "dogmatic" as you later do or simply "obstinate". Faith does not equal superstition.

okay

 

[blackumbrella]

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’

Maybe it’s time to remove some of the bias from the scientific community.

maybe it's time to remove the bias from alot of things. maybe on sunday you should stand up when the minister says 'and the lord sayeth unto..' and say 'of course, some people believe in a god other than the judaeochristianislamic god, and some people don't believe in as god at all, both beliefs are just as plausible as our own. just wanted to point that out.'

I’m sure most of the scientists out there would not use ‘God did it’ to stifle their research. Let’s also remember that operational science is not as affected by bias, it’s the area of historical science that allows bias to take root in determining what the evidence means.

it's absolutely reductive to exclude supernatural forces from an explanation. this reduction has been pretty beneficial in your beloved operational sciences. what do you suggest as an alternative? should we give up on figuring things out for ourselves? what causes cancer? god does. better say your prayers, lol. the real problem with the supernatural as an explanation is that it takes little or no knowledge of the natural world, the thing you're trying to explain in the first place. plus, as we've seen, naturalistic explanations can be tested, if not in totality, component by component. if we're to allow supernatural explanations, what makes one supernatural explanation better than another?

 

[bamabake]

maybe it's time to remove the bias from alot of things. maybe on sunday you should stand up when the minister says 'and the lord sayeth unto..' and say 'of course, some people believe in a god other than the judaeochristianislamic god, and some people don't believe in as god at all, both beliefs are just as plausible as our own. just wanted to point that out.'




it's absolutely reductive to exclude supernatural forces from an explanation. this reduction has been pretty beneficial in your beloved operational sciences. what do you suggest as an alternative? should we give up on figuring things out for ourselves? what causes cancer? god does. better say your prayers, lol. the real problem with the supernatural as an explanation is that it takes little or no knowledge of the natural world, the thing you're trying to explain in the first place. plus, as we've seen, naturalistic explanations can be tested, if not in totality, component by component. if we're to allow supernatural explanations, what makes one supernatural explanation better than another?

is that it takes little or no knowledge of the natural world, the thing you're trying to explain in the first place. plus, as we've seen, naturalistic explanations can be tested, if not in totality, component by component.

God and the natural world are not mutually exclusive.



plus, as we've seen, naturalistic explanations can be tested, if not in totality, component by component.

Naturalistic explainations for what? Certainly not for evolution itself. You all have failed to show a whiff of evidence.




think you’re talking about your own ‘scientific evidence’ repeatedly being exposed as mere façade. It has been shown that the only real ‘scientific evidence’ you have is evidence for adaptability. You have nothing about how amphibians became warm-blooded, where are all the missing links Darwin thought would be found, how lungs developed from gills, how reproductive systems changed from egg-bearing to live birthing, etc. and yet your naturalistic scientific community insists on presenting the evolution of life as fact, attempting to dupe people into thinking it is fact and therefore the Bible must be wrong since science has ‘proven’ evolution is the answer to development of life.

Respond to this, component by component. Give some substance. Start with the amphibians, and go from there. Surley there is a basic biology book somewhere that can shed light on the aforementioned questions. Come on.

 

[blackumbrella]

Naturalistic explainations for what? Certainly not for evolution itself. You all have failed to show a whiff of evidence.

'naturalistic explanations for..evolution itself'??? what are you trying say? there aren't naturalistic explanations for evolution; evolution IS a naturalistic explanation.

think you’re talking about your own ‘scientific evidence’ repeatedly being exposed as mere façade. It has been shown that the only real ‘scientific evidence’ you have is evidence for adaptability. You have nothing about how amphibians became warm-blooded, where are all the missing links Darwin thought would be found, how lungs developed from gills, how reproductive systems changed from egg-bearing to live birthing, etc. and yet your naturalistic scientific community insists on presenting the evolution of life as fact, attempting to dupe people into thinking it is fact and therefore the Bible must be wrong since science has ‘proven’ evolution is the answer to development of life.

Respond to this, component by component. Give some substance. Start with the amphibians, and go from there. Surley there is a basic biology book somewhere that can shed light on the aforementioned questions. Come on.

okay, and in an attempt to empathize with your position, i'll respond allowing supernatural explanations.

amphibians>warmblood: bartoz, from his throne among the stars, looked down upon the warmblooded animals of world, and sayeth unto them, let thine blood turn cold, and let thine *** the ground bumpeth as you hopeth. and this is the word and the truth, and man, in his foolishness, confused the cold from the warm of blood, and saw that they were reversed in ancience.

well i think one is enough.

now that i switched positions and answered one of your questions with a supernatural explanation, maybe you'd like a third chance at answering one of mine with a natural explanation. take your pick: virgin birth, resurrection.

 

[bamabake]

'naturalistic explanations for..evolution itself'??? what are you trying say? there aren't naturalistic explanations for evolution; evolution IS a naturalistic explanation.





okay, and in an attempt to empathize with your position, i'll respond allowing supernatural explanations.

amphibians>warmblood: bartoz, from his throne among the stars, looked down upon the warmblooded animals of world, and sayeth unto them, let thine blood turn cold, and let thine *** the ground bumpeth as you hopeth. and this is the word and the truth, and man, in his foolishness, confused the cold from the warm of blood, and saw that they were reversed in ancience.

well i think one is enough.

now that i switched positions and answered one of your questions with a supernatural explanation, maybe you'd like a third chance at answering one of mine with a natural explanation. take your pick: virgin birth, resurrection.

You can be such a tard . The two you asked expainations for envolved divine intervention and were supernatural events. I have never nor has anyone else said that they were anything less. For your part however.. you have claimed that the changes that Becca refered to, that I copied and asked you to explain, were and are the result of evolution. You yourself said evolution is a naturalistic explaination. So, your pitiful condesention nothwithstanding, please show the forum a NATURALISTIC EXPLAINATION of:
how amphibians became warm-blooded, where are all the missing links Darwin thought would be found, how lungs developed from gills, how reproductive systems changed from egg-bearing to live birthing, how we get to have a male and a female. Surley the info is at your fingertips.

cheers