Things evolutionists can't (or can???) explain?

Turnabout is fair play: please explain how your Bible-based Creationism explains how to make the perfect cheese danish. Oh? It can't? Well, then, clearly we've just proven the Bible false.

Well, you tell me. What do your beliefs say concerning the preparation of cheese danishes? After all, Christianity and cheese danishes have as much to do with each other as evolution and cosmology. If you're asking meaningless questions don't blame me if you get a meaningless answer.

It does not. What does the formation of the universe have to do with changes in allele frequencies over time?

It doesn't matter that cosmologists can't explain why the universe exists as opposed to not existing. It's like waking up drugged in Mexico. You may not know why you're in Mexico, or how you got there. Not knowing doesn't mean that you're not in Mexico, or that God put you in Mexico.It just means that you're in Mexico, and you don't know why. Even if you can never explain how you go to Mexico, you'll still be in Mexico until you leave.Get it yet? (This is an analogy, btw.)

Yes. We have no idea why there's a universe instead of their not being a universe. Perhaps it's not possible for a universe not to exist. Who knows? The rules that govern the origin of universes need not be the same as the rules that govern what happens in them (aka physics and logic.)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-14-2003]

See my previous post. Firstly, it's not "the strongest survive." It's "the fittest survive". "Fit" in this context doesn't mean "healthy", or "strong", or any common meaning of "fit." "Fitness" is the biological context refers to how many of your offspring survive. The more survive, the more fit you are. So literally, the fit survive.As for morality, it's called "kin selection." Look it up. We've had an evolutionary explanation for this for ten years. Basically it's that the societies that implement some moral code tend to survive longer than those that don't. Also individuals can sometimes pass more copies of the genes they share with their relatives by engaging in behaviors that actually reduce their fitness (i.e. sounding an alarm to their community at the cost of their own lives, etc.) This is the "selfish gene" concept, and it largely explains altruism. You're quite wrong about this. Not only do we have significant evidence of transitional fossils, but we observe new species arising as a contemorary, ongoing process. It's driven by adaptation and reproductive isolation.It may be that you don't truly understand what a transitional fossil is. Here's a hint - it's not a half-formed, monstrous bird-fish. All transitional fossils are fully-formed examples of their species. Think about it this way - you're the transitional form between your father and your son. Does that mean you're made of half your father and half your son? Of course not. It means that your father is your ancestor, and you are your son's ancestor. All species are transitional forms between their ancestors and their decendants. (Unless they don't have decendants, of course.) Easy. Adaptation and reproductive isolation. That's all it takes to have massive diversity in a system of natural selection and random mutation. We're all distant decendants of lizards. If you want Mark on this board can show you a diagram of how the lizard jawbone migrated to become part of the mammalian ear through a whole bunch of transitional forms.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-16-2003]