Many things in nature are sub optimal, imperfect solutions that work well enough. An advantage needs to be significant enough that it creates an advantage in reproduction otherwise it serves no purpose at all. Evolution is a competition of generations, not individuals.

DI implies perfectly designed and specialized creations, something we don't see in nature at all.

Why do golden retrieves have bad hips? (For that matter why do human's have bad backs?)
Why do male black widow spiders hang around to be eaten after reproduction?

The answer is that bad hips and backs don't affect reproduction much at all and being eaten after reproduction doesn't prevent reproduction in spiders.

DI doesn't work as an explanation because it doesn't offer a useful model for predicting or explaining the variation of species.

Evolution is believed in science because it is the only explanation that fits all the natural evidence we've discovered.

"In some cases, like changes in finch beaks, adaptation is heralded as manifestation of Darwinian evolution."
it's adaptation and natural selection to the point of speciation...and that is evolution.
Intelligent Design is disingenuous.

Evolution is Revolution against God. I have yet to see anything in creation which does not have a design, vastly intricate at that. I have yet to see something which popped out of nothing, and yet to see something moving without a mover. I pity all those poor souls who have zero hope for eternal life and cannot say "Thank you" to our benevolent, magnificent God for giving us the overwhelming beauty of creation and the love which is possible between His creatures. I prefer my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to behave and live like precious children of God, rather the descendants of monkeys with no soul or morals or hope for eternal life. I suspect school teachers prefer kids guided by the moral law rather than instinct.

Well said...

"I have yet to see something which popped out of nothing, and yet to see something moving without a mover".

Darwinian evolution doesn't address the origin of the Universe or the existence of God. Those are different subject matters.

"I have yet to see anything in creation which does not have a design, vastly intricate at that."
Yes, evolution has resulted in some rather complicated structures and body plans. Why should that be a surprise?

"I have yet to see something which popped out of nothing", then you haven't sufficiently studied subatomic physics.

Nice that you get comfort from your beliefs, that alone justifies religions, irrespective of their validity.

"subatomic physics"? Wow! Pretty complex stuff! Just cannot see the Intelligent design behind it? Looks like chaos? Really?

Have you measured the designedness of it? What were your findings?

"I have yet to see something which popped out of nothing,"
I thought you believed everything popped out of nothing. Just that a god was doing the popping. But for some reason, didn't need to be popped himself.

I would rather be a rising ape than a falling angel.

If not being Christian equates to no morals, why is the crime rate in Japan (1% Christian) so much lower than it is in the U.S. (75% Christian)?

Japan is a racially and culturally homogeneous country. And the deeply embedded culture of the Japanese encourages honor and respect for one's relationships - both those of the family and the community. Shaped by both Shintoism and Buddhism, their beautifully refined culture encourages a tacit understanding of life as a thing of timeless, eternal value.

Not sure who made the statement "not being Christian equates to no morals" but it is simply is not true and no real Christian would say something like that. I wish the self-proclaimed Christians on this message board would stop making true Christianity look bigoted and stupid by their false self-righteous statements that clearly contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ.

"If not being Christian equates to no morals," I do not think the Japanese are mostly atheists, and they have a deep respect for others. Many so called "Christians" are not at all "Christ-like", as they harbor deep-seated hatred for others. Many give no thought or concern over their tax dollars killing and maiming millions of innocents in the Middle East, forcing millions to flee their homeland, where their cities have been pulverized into body parts stench rubble. The rejection of "Love your neighbor as yourself" explains the murder and mayhem in our families, cities and nations. At this rate nuclear winter is around the corner. I have hope in God for His assistance, but atheists? But even they learn to pray "in a fox hole".

It's good to remember, though, that the Japanese crime rate is probably not so much due to their "lack" of religion as it is to the cultural tradition of being "kind" to....other Japanese. There is still a "meme" in their society of fear and hatred for "outsiders" with an accompanying attitude that all non-Japanese are "inferiors". Their brutality during WWII, when Shintoism was the state religion, demonstrates well this feeling that those not Japanese were "subhumans" deserving of any kind of ill treatment.

You're clearly not aware of the various atheist military organizations, including many who have served multiple combat tours. Among the more famous were Pat Tillman, but you can find a partial list here:
http://militaryatheists.org...

I can, and do BELIEVE that an AWESOME GOD, beyond and outside of creation gifted us with a chance for eternal bliss with Him, if we can pass a test by choosing love over hatred during the few years He gives us. Evolutionists BELIEVE, that instead of a great God, chaos somehow created beauty, love and truth. Sorry, I do not have enough faith to believe such nonsense. All the accidents I have ever witnessed or read about cause havoc or death. Gambling joints make billions from those who believe that "chance" can have positive results.

So what you're saying is that people with traits that lessen their odds of being in fatal accidents or being killed (or left destitute) by loan sharks are more likely to live longer and have more children than those who do not have those traits?

Congratulations, you're an "evolutionist" (which isn't really a term anyone familiar with it would use. It would be like describing yourself as a "germ theorist" because you believe germs cause disease.).

That said, I can certainly get behind the promotion of love over hate. Most of the best Christians I know live that philosophy well.

Also, rule of thumb: in online postings, all caps is generally taken to be the equivalent of yelling or screaming the words capitalized. Anyone familiar with this convention (a.k.a. the 40 and under set) is likely to read your posts by internalizing your text as someone speaking normally and then periodically screaming out a few words. It is a rhetorical device far more likely to elicit humor than express conviction.

Members of a life form contain genetic variations. Adaptation is about survival. Those individuals that contain the genetic variations that allow them to adapt survive and those that don't die. The survivors pass on their genetic material to future generations. Repeated adaptation over many generations can develop distinctly different life forms. The process is called evolution.

"Darwinian evolution requires creation of specified complexity where there was none."

If this is the premise on which the foundation of this article is based, then no wonder the author is so confused. Increasing complexity is not the basis of evolution, it is increasing fitness.

This shows that you're deeply ignorant on the subject at hand. Let me dumb it down for you in a simple step-by-step format.

Life is full of beautiful creatures, past and present, each of which are full of beautiful traits.

Any proposed explanation for the existence of said beautiful creatures must be able to explain the origin of said beautiful traits.

This clearly requires the creation of specified complexity.

Thus, Darwinian evolution, which proposes to explain the entire history of life, requires the creation of specified complexity where there was none.

Dr. Marks is correct, and you are wrong. Please apologize for your error and then immediately remove yourself from the discussion.

No. Life can become more complex over time through evolution. Cell stick together, forming multicellular organisms. Genes are duplicated and evolve new functions. Selective pressures keep benefiting species who evolve new traits to cope with environmental stressors.

"Life is full of beautiful creatures, past and present, each of which are full of beautiful traits."

Subjective statement with no sceintific merit.

"Any proposed explanation for the existence of said beautiful creatures must be able to explain the origin of said beautiful traits."

Traits, and how they came to be, of many creatures beautiful or otherwise are well understood and explained. So much so, there is no doubt, as multiple lines of evidence support the same conclusions.

"This clearly requires the creation of specified complexity."

This is an unsupported statement phrased as an argument to incredulity. You have provided no evidence to discount a natural explanation, only your personal feelings.

"Darwinian evolution, which proposes to explain the entire history of life, requires the creation of specified complexity where there was none."

This is a made up definition of what you want evolution to be so that you pigeonhole it into a container you can dishonestly manipulate.

Evolution is a theory that describes the development of life over time. There is ample evidence to support it, and no evidence to refute it.

Darwinian evolution does not address abiogenisis. However, life has been created from non-life in the lab. The fundamental building blocks of life have been created from constituent chemicals and energy. Irreducible complexity is a red herring that has been repeatedly studied and explained.

You are free to believe in whatever magic you like, but magic isn't science, and has no place in scientific discourse, or classrooms. To get magic involved in scientific conversations, you have to demonstrate its empirical existence through evidence, observations and experiment.

By all means, please continue to attack and expose flaws in scientific research, as that is one of the main ways to refine and improve the theories.

I got just a few sentences in before I saw, "Humans have unquestionably adapted to discoveries in medicine,
sanitation practices and improved nutrition. We are healthier and live
longer than we did a few centuries ago"- talk about "confused"! What he's referring to are "reactions", not any kind of "adaptations"; it's like calling being full after eating a big meal an "adaptation".

It's funny because there's lots of talk in science about how humans *haven't* adapted to discoveries in medicine. There are huge swaths of scientific research dedicated to health issues that are only present in the developed world, where these discoveries in sanitation and medicine have completely shaped our environment. We aren't equipped to grow up in environments where everything's been sanitized. That's why you see issues like allergy, autoimmunity, IBD, and many related conditions only in the developed world. We don't face the same infections and parasites we did for most of human evolution, and our immune systems often have trouble coping with the current environment.

The atheists wish they were wrong the religious wish they were right.
Clearly one group has bias

Wish we were wrong about what? What are you even talking about there?

The existence of God. Theists hope they are right about God existing and believe it does no matter the evidence. Atheists look at the world and see no evidence that there is a God or a divine plan, but wish there was (allegedly).

I don't want to believe in a god. I don't not want to believe in a god. I simply require good evidence to believe in anything that is important, and theists have consistently failed to provide any.

Given that atheism is rooted in deep psychological issues, I think it's safe to say atheists are the group with the bias.

Feel free to provide links to the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate atheist have "deep psychological issues."

Not going to happen.

I suspect you're right.

Nice commercial.

"When I first heard about the beaks of the Galapagos finches changing in accordance to environment and food sources variation, I remember thinking that finch beaks were well designed. They adapted. Likewise, people who lose their sight often develop higher sensitivity to sound and touch. Like New York lawyers removing their suit jackets when transitioning from air conditioning to the outside heat, snakes shed their skins to adapt to increasing size. Some mammals grow heavier coats of fur in preparation for winter. Salamanders in caves quit wasting resources on maintaining their never-used eyes."

Such ignorance. Does the author think beaks changed within a single generation, like a person who loses sight relying more on other senses, a person taking off a coat, or reptiles shedding as they grow? These are apples and oranges. Changes (or clothing) that an individual has over the course of their lifetime is in no way related to the evolutionary process. Snakes shed because their skins don't grow, not because they are evolving new bodies throughout their lives.

The salamander example is far better as an example of evolution. After all, if they were created to live in caves, why bother giving them eyes at all? They'd have to waste biological resources growing the eyes in the first place. However, if they are descended from salamanders who used to use their eyes, but for the ones that went underground, those whose bodies naturally wasted less energy developing eyesight with those eyes would be more successful and have more offspring, more likely to carry on the traits of less development of their eyes.

I realize that the author's paycheck is dependant on him not understanding the basic concepts of evolutionary theory, but surely he can admit to knowledge equivalent to that of a 3th grader?

Nice fairy tale about finches and salamanders. Neither evolved into anything else. I think the article tried to point out the difference between adaptation and evolution. Beaks and tails may change, but they remain beaks and tails. Evolutionists insist stuff comes out of nothing, that life comes from things, and simple things become astronomically intricate by chance, without any intelligence involved. True science is the study of creation. Each and every item studied portrays extremely intricate DESIGN, unbending LAWS, and BENEFICIAL purpose for the enjoyment of life by "men of good will". Those who follow the manufacturer's instructions, (Bible, Ten Commandments, Beatitudes) can have a long, joyful life with hope for eternal life with a Magnificent God. Those who hate, ridicule and harm others have a different option.

If you check the fossil record, you see that they evolved from something else, and that the process is still ongoing.
Evolution in no way insists something comes out of nothing. It posits that all life on Earth originated from a single ancestral organism. How life first arose is abiogenesis, not evolution.

Which fossil record convinced you? Peking man, Lucy?

"Fossil record" does not refer to a single fossil. It refers to the accumulated body of fossil evidence uncovered by archaeologists and paleontologists.

So, in other words, you have no idea what the theory of evolution asserts.

What was the beneficial purpose of polio? The 2004 Indian tsunami?

Though I do agree with you about there being laws we are slowly discovering. But nothing we have found necessitates the existence of gods.

I have never seen my grand father, so I must conclude he never existed. How far back can we trace mankind before we say he, or his father came out of "nothing"? Really? Man has no soul, but is just a clump of protoplasm following it's base instincts? You really underestimate your eternal worth to a Heavenly Father who sent His son to be crucified to show us true love, and a reason to be noble creatures worthy of eternal life.

So- let's see, here: an all-powerful, all-knowing being created an entire universe so that, on ONE little planet, people get ONE chance to either seek Him, or turn away from Him, for which they get rewarded or punished forever. This being already KNOWS what the outcome is going to be; who He's going to have to eventually send to Hell, and who gets eternal bliss in Heaven, but He goes ahead and runs the whole, ultimately meaningless exercise, anyway ( don't toss out that "free will" bunk, either: an "all-knowing" being cannot be "surprised" by anything one does or thinks, else He is not "all-knowing"). He goes on to "clone" Himself and sends Himself to Earth as some sort of "sacrifice" for the "sins" of these people (who are simply operating under the guidelines and parameters of the circumstances HE created); raises Himself from the dead, and promises everyone that He'll be back "soon" to make everything better. Two thousand years later, there's no sign of Him, although millions of people have earnestly prayed for His return. If ANY of this makes "sense" to you, you have indeed drunk too deeply of the fool-aid and are most likely too brainwashed to ever see the truth.
Mark Twain: "It is easier to fool someone, than to convince them that they have BEEN fooled."

We're dealing with someone who is using video games to attempt to prove evolution is bad science. What he misses is that one needs to use science to prove bad science.

I'm guessing you have some form of a learning disability, Sorrythatyouasked, as there's nothing in Dr. Marks' article which attempts to use video games to disprove evolution. It is the evolutionists who are using video games. Dr. Marks is merely pointing out how silly notion is, while also pointing out that what the video game alleges to show isn't even evolution in the Darwinian sense.

Apologize for your error, and see your way to the exit, please.

An engineer, no less. And yet, Bill Nye gets no end of grief for supposedly speaking outside of his area of expertise.