monk writes:
If its only one question, then shouldn't it be:
"Is random mutation and natural selection adequate to account for the complexity of life?"
You guys should bear in mind that "RM+NS" is the creationist's definition of evolutionary theory, not the working definition of scientists.
Evolution consists of more than random mutation and natural selection. There is also sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effects and other population processes, etc. etc. When we describe evolutionary theory as RM+NS we're doing ourselves a disservice. The answer to the suggested question is well known to be "No". I'm sure that Dawkins et al would agree.
Mick
™ Version 4.2
