Milken

No!

I agree it doesn't mean "animal with hips". Hips along with a whales other qualities is why it's classified as a mammal, so that's what a meant. Mammals have hips and whales are mammals, so they have hips. A whales hips are used in reproduction(lol, gross, i know). More importantly, I don't think homology is proves a point in either direction. ID can use it, too. Just my 2 cents. . . .

Futuyma, D.J. 1997. Evolutionary Biology. 763 pages. Futuyma, D.J. 2005. Evolution. 543 pages. I'll take 543 pages please. Any good magazines out there??

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Accident, originally it was suppose to be inside the quote to distinguish my words from theirs.

ID has been around since OT times, right? And Darwin put Evolution on the map as an all encompassing theory, secularizing science. In the 1900s the adversaries of Evolution was so severe many thought it would never recover. It wasn't until 1930-40 during the Evolution Synthesis that it became officially accepted among most scientist. I don't know why you'd want ID to be correctable and dynmaic, making it VERY difficult to disprove. E is VERY correctable and dynamic, definitely agree there. The irreducible section is very interesting. Are whales the only animal missing part of the blood clotting system? 3.2 No real proof, just said the guy didn't have enough imagination because he couldn't think of some kind of life contradictory to what's on Earth. I think it's called ID to encompass all beliefs not exclude, i've heard of non Christian IDers. 3.4 Personally, homology doesn't make a good enough case in either direction. I think whales have hips because they're mammals So far so good. . . . just 2 cents What are currently the best books for the evidence of Evolution or books disproving ID??

ID has been around since OT times, right? And Darwin put Evolution on the map as an all encompassing theory, secularizing science. In the 1900s the adversaries of Evolution was so severe many thought it would never recover. It wasn't until 1930-40 during the Evolution Synthesis that it became officially accepted among most scientist. I don't know why you'd want ID to be correctable and dynmaic, making it VERY difficult to disprove. E is VERY correctable and dynamic, definitely agree there. The irreducible section is very interesting. Are whales the only animal missing part of the blood clotting system? 3.2 No real proof, just said the guy didn't have enough imagination because he couldn't think of some kind of life contradictory to what's on Earth. I think it's called ID to encompass all beliefs not exclude, i've heard of non Christian IDers. 3.4 Personally, homology doesn't make a good enough case in either direction. I think whales have hips because they're mammals So far so good. . . . just 2 cents What are currently the best books for the evidence of Evolution or books disproving ID??

I'd like to see someone get abducted,if aliens exist. I know, pretty sick.

Has anyone read the book yet? How is it?

I'm currently doing some research and would like to know the most influential books out there, the more recent the better. Hopefully, nothing older than 15 years old (if not oh well). What are the best books for the proof of Evolution and/or debunk Creationism?

Similarity (homology) is not an arguement for ID or Evolution, because it doesn't prove a mechanism. It cuts both ways an ID or a person can use similar tools/resources to create unrelated things, but the similiar tools/resources suggest the same Designer was involved. It's between 95-97% of DNA is non coding(humans). The little we know about the non coding region is that there are introns that prevent other parts from activating until the proper time. I guess like packaging, but a lot of it, we just don't know the real purpose.

First and most importantly, of all the people living we're of ONE race, homo sapien, anything less is racist. It's really an intersting issue because it's contradictory to evolution ALL of us have melanin, just to different degrees, so essentially we're all SHADES of the same color. As stated earlier, those who can absorb alot of sun( get darker ) also get a lot of Vitamin D (I also thought it was E also). Nonetheless, deficiencies in the vitamin have been known to lead to mental instability. Homo sapiens without melanin retain more of the Vitamins Back the original idea of it being contradictory to evolution. . . having a lot of melanin (dark skin), dark hair, eyes, etc, are DOMINANT GENES. It's possible for two dark people to have a lighter skinned child or even one with randomly blue eyes. But the other way around is IMPOSSIBLE. In other words, if both your parents are very pale, and you stay dark year round, congradulations, you're adopted, or someone has been sleeping. . . lol.