Darwin's Tree Of Life Cut Down

[Wuwei]

All right Mr. Episcopalean, when are you gonna mention they were all killed by a global flood?

Here's how the creation scientists write their findings (from the Utah one 08/03/21)

"

T. rex dinosaur relatives found buried together​

Were these Tyrannosauridae social creatures?​

...

The researchers explain that catastrophes can drive animals together which normally prefer to be on their own. They cite droughts (the need to search for water) and fire (the need to avoid the flames) as examples. In neither case do animals necessarily congregate. Droughts and fire may very well disperse animals, but even when they do come together (where there is water or no flames, respectively) those animals would not be the ones that die—rather, they are the ones that live! Only animals that already behave socially would search for water together or flee from flames together.

What about a flood?​

Indeed, fleeing from surging waters should be added to the list, and actually seems a more natural explanation for the fossil find. Land-dwelling creatures will naturally avoid being caught in a torrent of violently approaching water, and systematically run in the opposite direction. CMI has written a number of times on dinosaur stampedes.3 The resultant dinosaur trackways share common features: footprints of multiple dinosaurs together moving in the same direction."

Social dinosaurs lived and died together?

Teratophoneus dinosaur fossils catastrophically buried together in Noah’s global Flood.

creation.com

A site found several dinosaur footprints all going the same direction. So of course the consensus at creation.com is ...

So yes, we agree, a flood is the best explanation for the fossilized Teratophoneus dinosaurs. Not just any flood, but the biblical Flood that engulfed the whole world.​

That is dripping with bias conformation.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Wow.. They actually believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

That came from a creation site, not a creation science site. If a creationist wants to believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis, I will not quarrel with them. They can live in a comfortable bliss with their miracles and function harmoniously with others.

If they insist that I should believe the same as them especially if they want to teach it in science classes, then I will vehemently stand my ground. james bond promotes creation science, but never shows exactly what the science is. "Creation science" is a shameless misnomer.
.

 

[james bond]

On the other hand, your extremist religious view are contradicted by the facts. If you weed whack through the landscape of ID’iot creationism, you find that the creationist websites are fundamentalist Christian based. Look for the “about” sections of the websites and they all have a “statement of faith” that reiterates literal interpretation of biblical themes.


The fact of biological change over time is a fact. That organisms change to adapt to their environments is a fact

Darwin established a theory to describe that process.

This has been explained to you. It seems your time at the Harun Yahya madrassah has left you with some crippling disadvantages.

>>The fact of biological change over time is a fact. That organisms change to adapt to their environments is a fact

Darwin established a theory to describe that process.<<

You are hilarious. What facts are there with Darwin's Tree of Life? Your boy and his ToL theory has been destroyed already and now he is screaming in agony and pain while waiting for final judgement. He's not even at his final destination yet.

Furthermore, I've already explained God created natural selection. Maybe you should see your Harun Yahya madrassah for his sex tips as clearly you've gone over the R&E edge as well as lacking S&T knowledge and facts. Interesting that I learn about the Yahya and madrassah types from you lol.

 

[Hollie]

>>The fact of biological change over time is a fact. That organisms change to adapt to their environments is a fact

Darwin established a theory to describe that process.<<

You are hilarious. What facts are there with Darwin's Tree of Life? Your boy and his ToL theory has been destroyed already and now he is screaming in agony and pain while waiting for final judgement. He's not even at his final destination yet.

Furthermore, I've already explained God created natural selection. Maybe you should see your Harun Yahya madrassah for his sex tips as clearly you've gone over the R&E edge as well as lacking S&T knowledge and facts. Interesting that I learn about the Yahya and madrassah types from you lol.

Regarding your partisan gods, you explained nothing. You explained nothing about how your gods invented natural selection You simply make statements that are unsupported and include nothing more than “…. because I say so”.

 

[james bond]

Creation.com is just another extremist ministry.

What we believe

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

It seems these various extremist ministries all plagiarize from each other as the “what we believe” sections are identical.

creation.com won't be quoting from Darwin as valid. I just said that Darwin's ToL was destroyed, so you were believing in myths and lies. You thought they were factual when in reality they were lies like the eternal universe which you and the atheist scientists swore by. You moved on to common ancestor and new ToL, but that too will be destroyed.

On the other hand, your extremist religious view are contradicted by the facts. If you weed whack through the landscape of ID’iot creationism, you find that the creationist websites are fundamentalist Christian based. Look for the “about” sections of the websites and they all have a “statement of faith” that reiterates literal interpretation of biblical themes.


The fact of biological change over time is a fact. That organisms change to adapt to their environments is a fact

Darwin established a theory to describe that process.

This has been explained to you. It seems your time at the Harun Yahya madrassah has left you with some crippling disadvantages.

You still do not explain why you know about a sex cult leader. I don't think I'm naive, but had no idea what cult leaders did to get sex, drugs, and more. I'm curious now. How do you rank these priorities of yours?

 

[james bond]

Wow.. They actually believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

I will say this. With actual people and their histories, I can validate 6,000 years while you have nothing observable nor testable to validate millions and billions of years. Humans weren't around.

 

[surada]

I will say this. With actual people and their histories, I can validate 6,000 years while you have nothing observable nor testable to validate millions and billions of years. Humans weren't around.

There is evidence that people were in France and Spain 40,000 years ago..

Who in the Bible lived to be 600? How were they counting ...

Who in the Bible lived to be 600? How were they counting?

Answer (1 of 4): They were counting by the generations of their children. ADAM lived 930 years through his children. The reason that I know this is I counted up the ages of all the children and when you do it right for allowing for child birth and all the ages that the Bible gives, the ages of al...

www.quora.com

Answer (1 of 4): They were counting by the generations of their children. ADAM lived 930 years through his children. The reason that I know this is I counted up the ages of all the children and when you do it right for allowing for child birth and all the ages that the Bible gives, the ages of al...

 

[Hollie]

creation.com won't be quoting from Darwin as valid. I just said that Darwin's ToL was destroyed, so you were believing in myths and lies. You thought they were factual when in reality they were lies like the eternal universe which you and the atheist scientists swore by. You moved on to common ancestor and new ToL, but that too will be destroyed.



You still do not explain why you know about a sex cult leader. I don't think I'm naive, but had no idea what cult leaders did to get sex, drugs, and more. I'm curious now. How do you rank these priorities of yours?

You saying “Darwin's ToL was destroyed,” is among many other “sayings” of yours which amount to ”… because I say so”, sayings that are meaningless “sayings”.

 

[james bond]

You saying “Darwin's ToL was destroyed,” is among many other “sayings” of yours which amount to ”… because I say so”, sayings that are meaningless “sayings”.

The difference is science backs up what I say b/c I take it from the Bible. Or creation science has tested and validated it. When I say Darwin's ToL was destroyed, you can bet it is wrong if you see it still somewhere. It's why I'm a winner while the atheists are usually wrong due to taking opinions from people like you and atheist scientists who are usually wrong. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. People who take their science from scientists who are biased and do not base their findings on science, experiments, nor observable evidence are usually sorely disappointed. I don't know how your Haruya is so important to you, but it must be a doozy.

 

[Wuwei]

There is evidence that people were in France and Spain 40,000 years ago..

Who in the Bible lived to be 600? How were they counting ...

Who in the Bible lived to be 600? How were they counting?

Answer (1 of 4): They were counting by the generations of their children. ADAM lived 930 years through his children. The reason that I know this is I counted up the ages of all the children and when you do it right for allowing for child birth and all the ages that the Bible gives, the ages of al...

www.quora.com

Answer (1 of 4): They were counting by the generations of their children. ADAM lived 930 years through his children. The reason that I know this is I counted up the ages of all the children and when you do it right for allowing for child birth and all the ages that the Bible gives, the ages of al...

Does this mean the Earth is even less than 6000 years old?
.

 

[Hollie]

The difference is science backs up what I say b/c I take it from the Bible. Or creation science has tested and validated it. When I say Darwin's ToL was destroyed, you can bet it is wrong if you see it still somewhere. It's why I'm a winner while the atheists are usually wrong due to taking opinions from people like you and atheist scientists who are usually wrong. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. People who take their science from scientists who are biased and do not base their findings on science, experiments, nor observable evidence are usually sorely disappointed. I don't know how your Haruya is so important to you, but it must be a doozy.

Science does not “back up” the Bible. That’s why you’re unable to offer anything of scientific interest in the Bible.

You claim to be a “winner” but you offer nothing to describe what you have won.

 

[Wuwei]

Science does not “back up” the Bible. That’s why you’re unable to offer anything of scientific interest in the Bible.

You claim to be a “winner” but you offer nothing to describe what you have won.

I believe he might win the infamous Darwin Award.
.

 

[miketx]

If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelligent mind.

“One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs].”20

“The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself.”22



One science book calls this efficient packaging system “an extraordinary feat of engineering.”18 Does the suggestion that there was no engineer behind this feat sound credible to you? If this museum had a huge store with millions of items for sale and they were all so tidily arranged that you could easily find any item you needed, would you assume that no one had organized the place? Of course not! But such order would be a simple feat by comparison.



In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29 *



In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?

Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!



The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33





Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34 *

Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35 *





Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”49



Bibliography

1. How Did Life Begin?

1. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

a. Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.

2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.

a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.

3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.

4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.

5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.

6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.

7. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, “Nuts, Bolts of Who We Are,” by Steven Schultz, May 1, 2000, (Princeton University pr/pwb/00/0501/p/brain.shtml), accessed 3/27/2009.

a. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” Press Release, October 7, 2002, (The official website of the Nobel Prize - NobelPrize.org nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2002/ press.html), accessed 3/27/2009.

8. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” October 7, 2002.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

10. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, p. 32.

11. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 1989, p. 405.

12. Molecular Human Reproduction, “The Role of Proteomics in Defining the Human Embryonic Secretome,” by M. G. Katz-Jaffe, S. McReynolds, D. K. Gardner, and W. B. Schoolcraft, 2009, p. 271.

13. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129.

14. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, pp. 126-127.

15. Origin of Mitochondria and Hydrogenosomes, by William F. Martin and Miklós Müller, 2007, p. 21.

16. Brain Matters—Translating Research Into Classroom Practice, by Pat Wolfe, 2001, p. 16.

17. Research News Berkeley Lab, (Please see http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/ LSD-molecular-DNA.html), article: “Molecular DNA Switch Found to Be the Same for All Life,” contact: Lynn Yarris, p. 1 of 4; accessed 2/10/2009.

18. Life Script, by Nicholas Wade, 2001, p. 79.

19. Bioinformatics Methods in Clinical Research, edited by Rune Matthiesen, 2010, p. 49.

20. Scientific American, “Computing With DNA,” by Leonard M. Adleman, August 1998, p. 61.

21. Nano Letters, “Enumeration of DNA Molecules Bound to a Nanomechanical Oscillator,” by B. Ilic, Y. Yang, K. Aubin, R. Reichenbach, S. Krylov, and H. G. Craighead, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2005, pp. 925, 929.

22. Genome—The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, by Matt Ridley, 1999, pp. 7-8.

23. Essential Cell Biology, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Karen Hopkin, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and Peter Walter, 2004, p. 201.

24. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Fourth Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 2002, p. 258.

25. No Ordinary Genius—The Illustrated Richard Feynman, edited by Christopher Sykes, 1994, photo with no page number supplied; note caption.

a. New Scientist, “Second Genesis—Life, but Not As We Know It,” by Bob Holmes, March 11, 2009, (http://www.newscientist.com/article/ mg20126990.100) accessed 3/11/2009.

26. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence—A Philosophical Inquiry, by David Lamb, 2001, p. 83.

27. Associated Press Newswires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” by Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004.

28. Intelligent Life in the Universe, Second Edition, by Peter Ulmschneider, 2006, p. 125.

29. Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.

30. New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.

31. New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.

32. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.

33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

34. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.

35. Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.

36. National Geographic, “Fossil Evidence,” November 2004, p. 25.

37. The Evolutionists—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105.

(Box) What About Human Evolution?

38. The Human Lineage, by Matt Cartmill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface, p. xi.

39. Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New Perspectives on Human Evolution, by Charles E. Oxnard, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii.

a. From Lucy to Language, by Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar, 1996, p. 22.

b. Anthropologie, XLII/1, “Palaeodemography and Dental Microwear of Homo Habilis From East Africa,” by Laura M. Martínez, Jordi Galbany, and Alejandro Pérez-Pérez, 2004, p. 53.

c. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 22.

40. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.

41. Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.

42. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.

43. New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.

44. The Guardian, London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link), accessed 8/25/2009.

45. New Scientist, May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19.

46. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), p. 202.

47. Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.

48. The Human Fossil Record—Volume Three, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.

49. Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/September 2008, p. 72.

50. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.

51. Conceptual Issues in Human Modern Origins Research, Editors G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, 1997, pp. 5, 60.

a. Wonderful Life—The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1989, p. 28.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books...stions/is-it-reasonable-to-believe-the-bible/

Maybe the tree will evolve into a monkey.

 

[james bond]

Science does not “back up” the Bible. That’s why you’re unable to offer anything of scientific interest in the Bible.

You claim to be a “winner” but you offer nothing to describe what you have won.

It's elementary when science did not back up Darwin's ToL nor evolution. You're not keeping up with the arguments against Darwin's ToL.

When the atheists and their scientists have no explanation for why the universe, Earth, and everything in it are here, then the creationists have won.

Creation science and I are winners because I posted the video how science backs up the Bible. We have discovered the universe had a beginning, the KCA, fine tuning, the Earth is suspended in empty space, every day we are governed by natural laws, and more.

 

[james bond]

There is evidence that people were in France and Spain 40,000 years ago..

Who in the Bible lived to be 600? How were they counting ...

Who in the Bible lived to be 600? How were they counting?

Answer (1 of 4): They were counting by the generations of their children. ADAM lived 930 years through his children. The reason that I know this is I counted up the ages of all the children and when you do it right for allowing for child birth and all the ages that the Bible gives, the ages of al...

www.quora.com

Answer (1 of 4): They were counting by the generations of their children. ADAM lived 930 years through his children. The reason that I know this is I counted up the ages of all the children and when you do it right for allowing for child birth and all the ages that the Bible gives, the ages of al...

I think it has to do with the global flood. If you look at human longevity, it went way down after the global flood, correct?

I don't have an adequate explanation for the longevity of people in the OT, but what I've read is that the sun's radiation wasn't as strong before the flood. There was a canopy of water surrounding the Earth above the sky that we can observe.

 

[surada]

I think it has to do with the global flood. If you look at human longevity, it went way down after the global flood, correct?

I don't have an adequate explanation for the longevity of people in the OT, but what I've read is that the sun's radiation wasn't as strong before the flood. There was a canopy of water surrounding the Earth above the sky that we can observe.

Humans never lived 200 years.. That's asinine... a canopy of water above the earth? Are you nuts? The natural laws haven't changed. Snakes cannot talk and humans can't walk on water or live inside a fish.

Your faith is very fragile..

 

[james bond]

Humans never lived 200 years.. That's asinine... a canopy of water above the earth? Are you nuts? The natural laws haven't changed. Snakes cannot talk and humans can't walk on water or live inside a fish.

Your faith is very fragile..

You're one of those who need to die! Your faith in atheist science has no reply nor history. We have no human history except for that in the Bible and it shows that OT people lived much longer than NT people.

I'm on solid ground here with solar radiation as global warming/climate change will shorten our lives.

 

[Wuwei]

You're one of those who need to die! Your faith in atheist science has no reply nor history. We have no human history except for that in the Bible and it shows that OT people lived much longer than NT people.

I'm on solid ground here with solar radiation as global warming/climate change will shorten our lives.

So you are still wishing people to die.
According to a Reuters poll,
Three in ten (28%) global citizens refer to themselves as “creationists
That means you think 72% of the people of the world need to die. How would you like that to happen? Genocide? A few billion well aimed lightening bolts from God?

How can you be my BFF if you keep wishing that so many people need to die.
.

 

[james bond]

I'm on solid ground here with solar radiation as global warming/climate change will shorten our lives.

Well, the global scientists haven't tracked how solar radiation will shorten our longevity -- 10 Climate Change Impacts That Will Affect Us All --, but I would think it will be one more negative effect. One has to look at how water caused everyone and everything on the planet to die, but the next global catastrophe will be due to fire in the sky.

 

[Hollie]

It's elementary when science did not back up Darwin's ToL nor evolution. You're not keeping up with the arguments against Darwin's ToL.

When the atheists and their scientists have no explanation for why the universe, Earth, and everything in it are here, then the creationists have won.

Creation science and I are winners because I posted the video how science backs up the Bible. We have discovered the universe had a beginning, the KCA, fine tuning, the Earth is suspended in empty space, every day we are governed by natural laws, and more.

The Theory of Evolution has undergone rigorous review in the scientific community and remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth. The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts. The theory of evolution is no less valid than theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the demonstrated facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from the fundamentalist Christian.