Richard Dawkins new book - The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

[Harryz]

So anyone pick this one up? Thoughts? Opinions? Bought it today and still making my way through the second chapter. Will post my review when I've finished the book.

In 2008, a Gallup poll showed that 44 percent of Americans believed God had created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. In a Pew Forum poll in the same year, 42 percent believed that all life on earth has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.

In 1859 Charles Darwin's masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, shook society to its core. Darwin was only too aware of the storm his theory of evolution would provoke. But he surely would have raised an incredulous eyebrow at the controversy still raging a century and a half later. Evolution is accepted as scientific fact by all reputable scientists and indeed theologians, yet millions of people continue to question its veracity. Now the author of the iconic work The God Delusion takes them to task.

The Greatest Show on Earth is a stunning counterattack on advocates of "Intelligent Design," explaining the evidence for evolution while exposing the absurdities of the creationist "argument." Dawkins sifts through rich layers of scientific evidence: from living examples of natural selection to clues in the fossil record; from natural clocks that mark the vast epochs wherein evolution ran its course to the intricacies of developing embryos; from plate tectonics to molecular genetics. Combining these elements and many more, he makes the airtight case that "we find ourselves perched on one tiny twig in the midst of a blossoming and flourishing tree of life and it is no accident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random selection."

The Greatest Show on Earth comes at a critical time: systematic opposition to the fact of evolution is menacing as never before. In American schools, and in schools around the world, insidious attempts are made to undermine the status of science in the classroom. Dawkins wields a devastating argument against this ignorance, but his unjaded passion for the natural world turns what might have been a negative argument into a positive offering to the reader: nothing less than a master's vision of life, in all its splendor.

 

[staticprimer]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I thoroughly enjoyed The God Delusion, and I will probably get this as well. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about it.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm afraid to buy it where I live. I might get shot before I leave the store.

 

[lefty]

The part about 42 percent of people polled believing that all life existed in its current form since the beginning of time dumbfounded me... I can't even imagine someone that stupid.

I want one of those people to go to a doctor, and ask them if they believe in evolution or creationism. When the doctor answers "Evolution, of course. All scientists including doctors have accepted it as fact," I want that person to not go to a doctor ever again because they contradict their beliefs and die from a grievous wound inflicted by a large falling crucifix that was prayed over by that person's fat stupid family.

 

[jverne]

does it contain the latest fossil evidence of the missing link between primates and humans? that's almost all the evidence anyone could need.

 

[Murray]

*cough* I don't believe in evolution and I consider myself somewhat educated on the subject. *Hides in bunker*

 

[Eejit]

Elaborate, so we can educate you further.

 

[Murray]

Elaborate, so we can educate you further.

You would want me to do that wouldn't you? I know the score. There's no way anyone of us will convince one side to agree with the other. I'm fairly sure Hl2.net have already had these discussions about weather evolution is true or not. The results will only be more tension.

TLR No.

 

[Eejit]

I simply don't understand how someone actually educated about evolution could fail to believe that it's true. I can only assume you don't understand it as well as you think, hence my offer to try and clear things up.

 

[Murray]

I simply don't understand how someone actually educated about evolution could fail to believe that it's true.

Because I find the counter arguments compelling?

 

[Eejit]

I could show the flaws in the counter-arguments if you would list the ones you find compelling.

 

[Murray]

I could show the flaws in the counter-arguments if you would list the ones you find compelling.

Look, I'm sure you're very knowledgable on the field, but I'll be blunt. I can't be arsed. I've been talking with people about evolution before and while both sides bring good arguments to the table, no one convinces the other side.

 

[Eejit]

Actually only one side has good arguments. You have my pity.

 

[Murray]

Agree to disagree, and thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Eejit]

It's sad, seeing someone so content in their close-mindedness.

Anyway the offer remains open for anyone else.

 

[Harryz]

does it contain the latest fossil evidence of the missing link between primates and humans? that's almost all the evidence anyone could need.

I skimmed through it and it does. According to the 'Preface', the book was delayed to include the new findings.

You would want me to do that wouldn't you? I know the score. There's no way anyone of us will convince one side to agree with the other. I'm fairly sure Hl2.net have already had these discussions about weather evolution is true or not. The results will only be more tension.

TLR No.

See, thats the problem. Many creationist refuse to read and acknowledge the evidence for evolution, mainly due to the fact they don't want to be told that what they've been believing in the past XX years is utter bullocks. They whole belief system breaks down and start questioning, is there a god? Its plain and simple, brainwashing. I got no problem with people believing in a higher power, because who the **** knows if there is a god or not. But not believing in evolution when the evidence is there is absurd. Even the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury have no problems with evolution.

 

[The Monkey]

I'm getting rather tired of this guy tbh.

 

[PvtRyan]

I like Dawkins more when he's speaking passionately about evolution, rather than negatively about religion. The latter gets old fast, the first never does. So this book should be a worth a read.

Also, Murray: (H)ERVs. All the evidence a sane person needs.

 

[Sheepo]

I've been talking with people about evolution before and while both sides bring good arguments to the table, no one convinces the other side.

Doubtful. Unless there is some brilliant point that remains a secret to the general public, the arguments you believe justify creationism are probably just as flawed as all the others. The fact is, the principle of natural selection is a matter of common sense, and the hard evidence of evolution and the Earth's age are fairly conclusive. You should never close yourself to new ideas. Hell, you could be right, and we'd all be better off if you gave us the information you were holding out on us.

 

[Murray]

the information you were holding out on us.

I'm not holding out on any information. You know you can probably get most of the info if you google creationism or something. Or if you know swedish, go here.

 

[Sheepo]

Well, if I google creationism I'll most likely just be digging through piles of ignorance for anything slightly intelligent. What I gathered from your post is that there are some indisputable arguments you'd found that kept you convinced.

 

[jverne]

I'm not holding out on any information. You know you can probably get most of the info if you google creationism or something. Or if you know swedish, go here.

i wanna know too...what makes you thing the way you do? find us some data

 

[Laivasse]

I'm not holding out on any information. You know you can probably get most of the info if you google creationism or something. Or if you know swedish, go here.

I gave that site a quick blast with Google language tools and it didn't look promising at all. Take, for example, the very first sentence on the site, which doesn't appear to have been mangled too badly by the language conversion:

Genesis is a non-profit organization that wants to promote a Christian view of the sciences and to the biblical view [sic] is heard in the school and the community.

That should be enough to reveal that the site is insincere and unscientific in its approach. It is in no way scientific to start with a conclusion and work backwards, as you would have to do to arrive at the conclusion that the Biblical view of the world deserves to be heard in school science classes, or to assert that science needs to be passed through a special filter for Christians.

As for the science itself: as far as I'm aware, Creationism has NO arguments for it. That's not just my way of saying that the arguments are poor; it simply has ZERO arguments/evidence in favour of it. What it has instead are arguments against the theory of evolution (which means that Creationism/Intelligent Design is predicated on a fallacious idea from the ground up, ie. 'you're wrong, so I must be right'). If these arguments came from scientists with a legitimate grievance against the compelling evidence for evolution, then they might be worth listening to. Instead they are pathetically poor arguments, coming from people who are working backwards from the conclusion which is written in their Holy Book of Sacred Cows.

The last I checked, creationists had been hinging many of their pseudoscientific hopes on the notion of 'Irreducible Complexity', which has been shown to be complete bunkum. As a result of IC getting debunked, creationists gave up on their belief in intelligent creator and worked towards formulating a better theory- oh wait, no they didn't. They just pretended they hadn't heard the science, then mounted some more poorly conceived attacks on the theory of evolution from a different direction, because they are fanatical charlatans who don't even have a half-workable theory in the first place.

Seriously, if you can read both sides of the debate and not become infuriated at the way Intelligent Design proponents sell their bullshit, you need to polish up your faculties of critical analysis. Or alternatively come and check out this bridge I have for sale.

 

[The Monkey]

Murray, you can't just come in here and tell people to google it up. Why are you so reluctant to tell us why you doubt evolution?

 

[Murray]

Murray, you can't just come in here and tell people to google it up. Why are you so reluctant to tell us why you doubt evolution?

Well to start off. I did it because

Spoiler

I am post count whore, k

I didn't expect to be opening Pandora's box. Geez.

I don't believe in evolution because of several reasons. Fine, I'll list some of the ones mentioned on the site, but I'm not gonna engage in this discussion any further. Reasons already mentioned. You can go about how I'm close-minded and afraid of being proven wrong or whatever.

Note, this is a crappy translation:

1. Build-up instead of wearing out
All human experience speak of structures wearing out given time.Cars rust, dead animals decompose. Mountains erode. Stars are put out. All science respects to this naturistic way of wearing out, except the theory of evolution.

2. Information
Our genes contain loads of information. Information doesn't appear out of itself without some intelligent source. If I for example walk the beach and find the text "I love i Irene" written in the sand, the most logical explanation would be someone has written it there in the attempts to leave a message.

3. Complex organs
The theory of evolution builds on random mutations in the genes as if they are to some advantage for the organism - ie. chosen by natural selection. The problem with this explanation is that many organs and functions require lots of simultaneous explanations to work. Every single mutation "on its way" to the new function is worthless as long as it isn't connected along with the others. Therefore it will be removed by the natural selection - not remain there for thousands of generations later. The movement Intelligent Design has inserted the theory of evolution's problem with the complex organs on the area of molecule biology and call it non-reducable complexity. Rotating bacteria flagella (not sure if that's what they're called in english) and the blood's ability to coagulate are examples. If one percent of the parts are missing, 99% of the function won't be remaining, but zero percent. That means all parts must change simultaneously for there to be any kind of function to exist. Small-step-mutations can't explain this.

4. Genetics
The modern genetics research has discovered design in the genetic material, far more advanced than previously expected. 2003 they finished making a mapping of the sequence of nukleotides (translation?) in the human DNA (the HUGO project). Later research (the ENCODE project) has studied how this secuence can be used as a carrier of information and they have discovered several advanced solutions. The same DNA sequence isn't read once like the letters in a book, but can be read from different dimensions. It doesn't just carry information but meta-information, that is information about information. The belief that our genes contain huge parts of "crap-DNA" is therefore being abandoned. Earlier evolutionosts argued zealously that similarities in non-functional DNA between humans and chimpansees prove our common origin. This because a potential creator wouldn't create similarities on something that lacks functions. This argument becomes passé in the same rate as you find function in DNA that has previously been asumed unnecessary rudiments from previous evolution stages. Similarities between chimpansee and human DNA exists because we have similar needs, not because we're the same origin.

5. Fossils
According to the theory of evolution, life is evolving in small steps from bacteria to human. Therefore the history of life, documented within fossils, contain these continuous sequences from the most simple of lifeforms to the most complex. Contrary to evolutionist predictions, the fossil material shows groups of organisms. A squid has always been a squid, no matter how deep we've been digging in the mountains. A sea star has always been a sea star, and so on for all main groups of animals and plants. Under these main groups in the fossil material is nothing. No half squids, no half sea stars. Evolutionist followers expected the sequences between main groups of organisms although they are screaming with their absence.

6. The cambric explosion

The main groups of animals and plants appear suddenly in a mountain layer that is called cambrium. Below cambrium - that is precambrium, lies very few fossils and the few that do exist are one-cell and relatively simple, like bacteria and alga. The complex life appears totally without evolved predecessors. It's just there, fully "developed" from the start. The trend is so obvious that the cambric explosion also tends to be called the big bang of biology. The organisms that appear suddenly in cambrium aren't even simple or uncomplex. The today dead trilobyte (translation?) for example had shells, segmented body, muscles, breathing systems, nervous systems, merged eyes (the most complexed ever?) plus a brain and blood circulation system. All these complex organs appear fully complete in the fossil material and without preceding semi-fabricated material. No evolution as long as the eye can see.

7. Multiple evolution routes
Evolutionists mean that the similarities we can observe between biological groups on different levels are because they are from the same origin. If this is true we should see the same "evolution tree" no matter what charectaristic we study. This is however far from always the case. When biologists where limited to study visual (morfologic?) similarity, they said that chimpansees were closer related to orangutangs. You can also get different relations by studying different parts of the genes. The human can be the closest related to the baboon, the rat, the snake and the bean, depending on what part of the molecule biology you're studying. Certainly we can't be closest related to all of the above. It all shows that there's something wrong with the reasoning. Similarities must be because of something other than relations.

The list is much longer, but I think I've run out of space. And I can't be arsed to translate the rest. Note that I wrote this list because Corp. Sheepo asked me.

 

[jverne]

Well to start off. I did it because

Spoiler

I am post count whore, k

I didn't expect to be opening Pandora's box. Geez.

I don't believe in evolution because of several reasons. Fine, I'll list some of the ones mentioned on the site, but I'm not gonna engage in this discussion any further. Reasons already mentioned. You can go about how I'm close-minded and afraid of being proven wrong or whatever.

Note, this is a crappy translation:



The list is much longer, but I think I've run out of space. And I can't be arsed to translate the rest. Note that I wrote this list because Corp. Sheepo asked me.

ME FIRST ME FIRST!!!

ok let's see...

1. evolution is a system of how living creatures change and adapt to their surroundings. if the habitat is dead then then the living there will die with it. this argument would be like..."tectonic movement and an mountain formation is bullshit because in the universe everything must come to an end sometimes, right?".

2. gene information has piled up trough time and hasn't just appeared in the full form. there were experiments that show a more simple molecule might have worked for the first organisms o replicate.

3. irreducible complexity has been disproved numerous times http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP3AY0iHEUA
(pin hole eyes, ...).

4. people like bananas too. no seriously, they pulled this argument out of their asses. what about the resemblance with mice and other humans, do we have similar needs as mice or even reptiles or bugs, or bacteria? i do admit i don't know enough genetics to properly debunk this argument, but i can see it from miles away it is horseshit.

5. uff...as i see it, everything living is a transition from something to something else, there are dead branches and really successful branches like sharks, that haven't evolved since the dinosaurs because they are so efficient at what they do.
half squid? ever heard of transitions being very subtle?

6. do you know how cells reproduce..they do it exponentially if the situations are right. so do other animals, if the situation is just right (multiply fast i mean not necessarily exponentially ). few predators lot's of food and besides animals with shells make fossils everything else decomposes, so i wonder how many fossils of transitions got lost that way.

7. horseshit argument. why then do you think the mice grew a full grown human ear when implanted with a human gene. our DNA was recognized my the mices, because their fundamentals are the same.


look i have basic biology knowledge and could easily disprove these arguments...a real biologist could tear them to shreds.

i suggest you do some wiki reading and you'll probably change your mind. do you really think most of us are "atheists" because it the new fad, or because someone pressured us? NO, we read and learned and draw our own conclusions.
i can't say the same for religious people.

 

[PvtRyan]

Those are fresh new arguments that we haven't heard before and that certainly haven't been refuted a million times.

Again: (H)ERVs.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

I'm pretty certain that list has been written to evoke reaction only, because no one with a basic education would stand by some of the most ridiculous and stupid arguments I've ever read.

1. Build-up instead of wearing out
All human experience speak of structures wearing out given time.Cars rust, dead animals decompose. Mountains erode. Stars are put out. All science respects to this naturistic way of wearing out, except the theory of evolution.

Just to take the first one, which I seems like someone is just looking for filler. Natural Selection is a process, it's continuous, it's extremely gradual and yes it doesn't stop. It's not acting on one giraffe being chiselled into a beaver until there is nothing left.

Oxidation of metal occurs till the metal is covered, it's a chemical process which continues even past then as the iron oxide interacts with other elements and compounds.

Dead animals decompose due to bacteria. These are detritivores which recycle the nutrients the dead animal has left behind. The detritivores take these back into the ecosystem and are reused. The process doesn't just wear out. In fact that exact process and system exists because niches existed so organisms adapted to make use of decaying matter.

Mountains erode via weathering, which is the break down of rock in situ. It never stops. Even if the mountain disappears, the rock which it broken down still exists as sediment.

At the end of the day, I'm not particularly bothered by people who put their hands over their ears to the fact of evolution. I dislike people who push creationism instead of evolution. I feel a despair for those who are so ridiculously adamant they are right they refuse to even look at the other side.

Don't try and back up your side with evidence at this point because your side becomes belief, since your proof is a defence of what you think Darwin was saying, not what he was actually saying and what we know today.

 

[Eejit]

1. Build-up instead of wearing out
All human experience speak of structures wearing out given time.Cars rust, dead animals decompose. Mountains erode. Stars are put out. All science respects to this naturistic way of wearing out, except the theory of evolution.

Mountains grow. Stars form. Dead animals decompose, new ones are born. Crystals grow. Planets form.
The universe is full of cycles of creation and destruction. While net entropy does gradually increase this does not preclude the formation of complex structures in the time before universal entropy becomes total.

2. Information
Our genes contain loads of information. Information doesn't appear out of itself without some intelligent source. If I for example walk the beach and find the text "I love i Irene" written in the sand, the most logical explanation would be someone has written it there in the attempts to leave a message.

This is straying from evolution towards abiogenesis, a seperate subject. Suffice it to say that just as a billion monkeys hitting a billion typewriters for billions of years would produce the complete works of Shakespeare it's equally possible for the text "I love i Irene" to be written in the sand randomly. In the same way once the first step towards life were taken the initial random complexities built up - evolution is an additive process, and randomly created useful information is maintained by natural selection. So while a later wave may wash away that message in the sand genetic information is retained and later added to.

3. Complex organs
The theory of evolution builds on random mutations in the genes as if they are to some advantage for the organism - ie. chosen by natural selection. The problem with this explanation is that many organs and functions require lots of simultaneous explanations to work. Every single mutation "on its way" to the new function is worthless as long as it isn't connected along with the others. Therefore it will be removed by the natural selection - not remain there for thousands of generations later. The movement Intelligent Design has inserted the theory of evolution's problem with the complex organs on the area of molecule biology and call it non-reducable complexity. Rotating bacteria flagella (not sure if that's what they're called in english) and the blood's ability to coagulate are examples. If one percent of the parts are missing, 99% of the function won't be remaining, but zero percent. That means all parts must change simultaneously for there to be any kind of function to exist. Small-step-mutations can't explain this.

Genes and proteins exist in related 'families' based on structure and code. Despite this members of the same family can have quite different purposes. The reason for this? Genes are often (on an evolutionary timescale) duplicated. This allows one copy time to pick up mutations, and if these are useful they are kept, if not the copy will eventually be discarded.
This is the process that allows new systems to evolve - multiple copies of multiple genes with existing functions, gradually picking up mutations. Randomly, given time - and there's plenty of time thinking on the timescale evolution takes place on - they can sometimes create a new interacting system just useful enough for it to be selected for and refined over time.

4. Genetics
The modern genetics research has discovered design in the genetic material, far more advanced than previously expected. 2003 they finished making a mapping of the sequence of nukleotides (translation?) in the human DNA (the HUGO project). Later research (the ENCODE project) has studied how this secuence can be used as a carrier of information and they have discovered several advanced solutions. The same DNA sequence isn't read once like the letters in a book, but can be read from different dimensions. It doesn't just carry information but meta-information, that is information about information. The belief that our genes contain huge parts of "crap-DNA" is therefore being abandoned. Earlier evolutionosts argued zealously that similarities in non-functional DNA between humans and chimpansees prove our common origin. This because a potential creator wouldn't create similarities on something that lacks functions. This argument becomes passé in the same rate as you find function in DNA that has previously been asumed unnecessary rudiments from previous evolution stages. Similarities between chimpansee and human DNA exists because we have similar needs, not because we're the same origin.

There's just enough truth in this disingenuous point to confuse most people.
Some of the DNA in our genomes which was previously though to be 'junk' has indeed been found to have a use - it is after all only natural that our understanding of the details of molecular biology increase as we continue to study it.
However, this has very little to do with the construction of phylogenetic trees - maps of how closely related different species are. It's a rather complex process using a lot of statistics, hard to explain, and of course easy to attack. I'll just say that while it has its limitations it remains a very useful tool and is improving all the time.

5. Fossils
According to the theory of evolution, life is evolving in small steps from bacteria to human. Therefore the history of life, documented within fossils, contain these continuous sequences from the most simple of lifeforms to the most complex. Contrary to evolutionist predictions, the fossil material shows groups of organisms. A squid has always been a squid, no matter how deep we've been digging in the mountains. A sea star has always been a sea star, and so on for all main groups of animals and plants. Under these main groups in the fossil material is nothing. No half squids, no half sea stars. Evolutionist followers expected the sequences between main groups of organisms although they are screaming with their absence.

If anything the ability to follow the ancestry of a species and its relations back through the fossil record is robust evidence in favour of evolution. It's also disingenuous to say that there are no half-squids and only variations on the theme - there are plenty of fossils of common ancestors between different groups of species.
As a quick example here's the tree showing the common ancestry of cetaceans (whales, dolphins), artiodactyla (pigs, hippos, camels), perissodactyla (horses, rhinos), and litopterna (a branch which became extinct during the Pleistocene).

6. The cambric explosion

The main groups of animals and plants appear suddenly in a mountain layer that is called cambrium. Below cambrium - that is precambrium, lies very few fossils and the few that do exist are one-cell and relatively simple, like bacteria and alga. The complex life appears totally without evolved predecessors. It's just there, fully "developed" from the start. The trend is so obvious that the cambric explosion also tends to be called the big bang of biology. The organisms that appear suddenly in cambrium aren't even simple or uncomplex. The today dead trilobyte (translation?) for example had shells, segmented body, muscles, breathing systems, nervous systems, merged eyes (the most complexed ever?) plus a brain and blood circulation system. All these complex organs appear fully complete in the fossil material and without preceding semi-fabricated material. No evolution as long as the eye can see.

The Cambrian explosion still generates a lot of debate. However there are many possible scientific explanations for this without resorting to intelligent design if you choose not to ignore them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F and below can give a quick summary).

7. Multiple evolution routes
Evolutionists mean that the similarities we can observe between biological groups on different levels are because they are from the same origin. If this is true we should see the same "evolution tree" no matter what charectaristic we study. This is however far from always the case. When biologists where limited to study visual (morfologic?) similarity, they said that chimpansees were closer related to orangutangs. You can also get different relations by studying different parts of the genes. The human can be the closest related to the baboon, the rat, the snake and the bean, depending on what part of the molecule biology you're studying. Certainly we can't be closest related to all of the above. It all shows that there's something wrong with the reasoning. Similarities must be because of something other than relations.

This is the result of convergent evolution. Similar environments and needs can cause quite unrelated species to end up with almost identical organs (such as the eye) morphologically despite being these quite different on the molecular and genetic level.
There's nothing there that contradicts evolution, although it is one of the reasons that phylogenetics has largely replaced morphological phylogenies.

 

[jverne]

^^

what he said

 

[Murray]

Well done. I'm an evolutionist now. I'm not trolling.

 

[jverne]

Well done. I'm an evolutionist now. I'm not trolling.

sarcasm?

 

[Murray]

Make of it what you want. I know what I meant.

 

[Eejit]

I know what I make of it, more of "being a post count whore", k?

 

[The Monkey]

I didn't expect to be opening Pandora's box. Geez.

You don't know us at all, do you?

 

[jverne]

i really hate the notion, you take us as some religious people trying to force evolution down your throat. read the evidence, get educated you'll realize it yourself. we just like to challenge you to stand by your beliefs which apparently you can't. that is not a sign of how evil or intolerant we are, it's just a sign of you being willfully ignorant.

i'm pretty certain some of us here would dump evolution in a matter of seconds if a FAR better, logical, scientific explanation was given. but guess what...there is nothing better than evolution right now, it stands the test of time.

 

[Sheepo]

Make of it what you want. I know what I meant.

What the hell is the point of a post that only you understand?

 

[unozero]

The part about 42 percent of people polled believing that all life existed in its current form since the beginning of time dumbfounded me... I can't even imagine someone that stupid.

I want one of those people to go to a doctor, and ask them if they believe in evolution or creationism. When the doctor answers "Evolution, of course. All scientists including doctors have accepted it as fact," I want that person to not go to a doctor ever again because they contradict their beliefs and die from a grievous wound inflicted by a large falling crucifix that was prayed over by that person's fat stupid family.

I think it's being willfully ignorant more then being stupid..some might argue that goes hand in hand though.

 

[jondy]

What the hell is the point of a post that only you understand?

Well, we're only in ignorance of his intent - the post is pretty clear.

 

[[Dragoon]]

The problem with Intelligent Design is that the people who believe in it are generally religious, which means faith, essentially the opposite of knowledge, which makes it and the theory of evolution mutually exclusive. Trying to debate evolution/creation with someone who truly believes in creation is about as rewarding as fighting with a brick wall.

If someone were to provide logical, scientifically provable evidence for intelligent design I would be very interested.