Here’s a quote from one of us guys here (can’t remember who, might be Atom or Joseph) regarding the issue you raise.

Basically, reproduction interval length (between successive generations), robustness (ability of offspring to reach reproductive maturity) and fecundity (number of offspring per replication event) are the factors we’re examining.

And unfortunately for Darwinism, in the real world, the simpler the organism, the better they do on all three counts (speaking generally).

In the absense of information building mutations the best NS can do is to take generalizations and produce specializations, which will eventually go extinct through lack of generalization.

In the presence of information building mutations NS would be selecting for increased robustness and fecundity, quite the opposite of the traditional evolutionary (molecules to man) pattern.

Ape-to-man evolution does not make sense in terms of “fitness” for survival.

Re: Few fish are dangerous, and none are smart.

I couldn’t resist rising to this fly . . .

Having tried to fool a few fish in my time, I ain’t so sure they ain’t smarter than the average fisher . . . er, . . . person.

[Actually, according to Charlie Waterman, women in his observation are better at catching fish than men . . .]

And the “few” that are dangerous may make up for a lot that aren’t.

[I recall being very, very impressed with an unexpected 15 lb barracuda's dentition; not to mention the prospects of ciguatera, never mind the stories on how "sweet" Barra flesh is. And the pirahna of S America has been described as in effect a local equivalent of a minnow, with teeth. Razor sharp, scissoring-action, triangular teeth.]

Signed: A too-often frustrated fisher — er — person.

GEM of TKI

Statements such as this imply the other riddles are not so troubling. Riddles such as, amongst other things, the lack of either fossilized or conceptualized intergrading functional stages between complex systems. ‘Riddles’ that preclude evolution.

Are you serious? I had no idea there was so little evidence. If this is true how do they even know if a species called Neanderthal even existed? Couldn’t it have been a mutation (someone seriously deformed) and not a species at all?

Tim

Unfortunately the Darwinian mind will not base itself in what can be observed because it has been trained to place its imagination above observation, naturally. If it can merely imagine progress based on naturalism, then it is so. If you question that, then such a mind concludes that you’re against the progress it has fused with its own philosophic naturalism based on imaginary sequences of “natural” progression.

Bah. Next thing you know they’ll be telling us they have photographs of Neanderthals. Did you know that all the Neanderthal bones in the world would handily fit into a single coffin? We don’t know a damn thing about them.