If by 'cheerleaders' you're referring to me, I just got here so there must be someone else who's on to you and is voting you down.
Welp..it's time to make a post!

Mike! I had too heard of it I just hadn't read it yet! What the hell! YOU ARE TELLING LIES ABOUT ME! STOP IT!

Bravo. You 've done it again. Managed to come in here and insult several productive producers with a few comments. I often wonder if those who praise your work on this site read the comments where you attempt to falsely discredit certain producers.

I don't really give it any stock. Given the environment (mutation-causing radiation levels, lack of food source, 3 Kelvin temperature), and the nature of arrival on Earth (mostly shattering in the stratosphere, occasionally surviving to make big booms on the ground and survivors that don't make the boom still being heated up from 3K to Earth ambient in under a minute), I think the odds of this working are low enough to discount it.
I don't think life on this earth (trees, insects, mammals to name three) came out of a common ancestor that was a chemical pool struck by lightning. I don't think there is a common ancestor. Life is just too varied for me to buy into that. I think the life on the planet was planted here, in various forms, initially. Call that crazy if you like, but this is an alternate explanation to evolution proposed by Richard Dawkins on Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed".

The reality is EF isn 't pointing out contradictions rather making tangential points and taking things out of context. Then he makes a long winded case about something off track and not central to the argument. He 'd make a great politician-

"Quit being an ass"? Kiss me, Titania!

Tag teamed? Quit being an ass. Your claim is incorrect and insulting. That EF found a species of palm that could survive in AK is not the same as thrive and since that palm is native to SE US, unlikely to find its way there by migrating birds. Man over nature, which is man manipulating his environment -which goes beyond the basic observable test of the theory, to which I was referring in a point I made to tex

Sorry Mike, you must mean EconomicFreedom. Either way, good response.

Txs

Reply to WillH above. I gave you a Thumbs Up for a nicely written statement. I do disagree with your thesis, however. You wrote: "I think a person has to find their own truth for their own existence, and their own path thru life and beyond. It is clear to me that to "believe" in either religion, species evolution, or a mix of the two is a leap of faith no matter how you cut it."

I agree that we each depend on our own judgement. We make our own choice. I agree also with your intention above that some "borderline" experiences are not easy to explain within the confines of high school science. I accept the minor premise that there's a lot we don't know.

That said, I disagree that any and every belief is a leap of faith. Not all claims are equally valid or equally verifiable or falsifiable. Truth exists.

I do grant that your larger claim has merit in that right and wrong, truth and falsehood, are not always subject to some simple "philosopher's stone" test. Experimental outliers do not in themselves falsify a theory. However, a large number of them would no longer be mere outliers. The evidence in favor of Darwinian Evolution or Big Bang might be weak, but the evidence against religion is overwhelming.

Objectivists call it "the error of equivalency" when you give the same status to two instances that are not commensurate, as when you say that science and religion are both beliefs and so both are leaps of faith.

I am untypically at the end of my patience.

Well, actually, if you look at the North American bears, you will find fertile hybrids between brown bears and polar bears. If isolated, for instance on an island, such a "transitional form" would regress to its mean and become a identifiable species. I also cite the zebra's tail, perhaps a remnant of the quagga's form and unlike that of other equus today.

Again, you issue a good challenge, but fail to provide substance of your own.

Reply to EconomicFreedom above, who wrote: "I love this site! I love eavesdropping on Objectivists who don't research anything, but think that because they've read Atlas Shrugged and ITOE they know something!" First of all, most of them are not Objectivists, but political conservatives who were drawn to the anti-socialist message in the Atlas Shrugged movies. Even those who do self-identify as Objectivists have not read ITOE. Just for example, on January 16th, khalling had a nice post about the Ayn Rand play, which Producer of the Week LetsShrug had never heard of. Just sayin' it is not fair to assume that everyone has a 25-volume Ayn Rand Library.

As for an example of "justifiable debate that does not crumble the entire theory" I cited the evidences pro and con for Homo-Neatherthal interbreeding. I did that as part of a wider topic on Fertile Hybrids, which falsify the Darwinian definition of species.

That being as it is, I do accept the broader and obvious tenet that life evolves, that lifeforms evolve. Again, as I asked SolarTexan, do you claim that mammals lived in the Carboniferous. Where are the mammals of 5 million years ago? Where are the Neanderthals?... even if their DNA is 1% to 4% still within us?

You do a good job of pointing out other people's contradictions. You make very few positive claims of your own. It is a form of intellectual guerilla warfare. It is satisfying to you, perhaps, but delivers little positive value to the rest of us. (I grant that the Alaskan Date Palms were a plus.)

Reply to Zenphamy above: Thanks for the link to Alaskan palm trees. I followed that and found this salient paragraph:
Growing Palm Trees in Alaska
Since Alaska has a wide range of climates and ranges from USDA Zone 1 to 7b, there are some extremely hardy palms that can survive there. One of those palms is Needle Palm Tree, that can survive cold temperatures down to -10F when mature enough. It is possible to grow Needle Palm in Zone 5. Some other cold hardy palms that can be grown in Zone 7 are:
European Fan Palm Tree – Zones 7b-11 (5 to 10 F)
Pindo Palm Tree – Zones 7b-11 (5 to 10 F)
Sago Palm Tree – Zones 7b-11 (5 to 10 F)
Saw Palmetto Palm Tree – Zones 7a-11 (0 to 5 F)
Windmill Palm Tree – Zones 7b-11 (5 to 10 F)"

Nonetheless, they are adapted to an environmental range. How they then adapt to new environments outside that range is perhaps the key riddle in evolution. Despite massive extinctions, not all die out. Why? Despite population explosions, some disappear. Why? I don't know. But it is interesting.

(BTW, I gave you a point up, but you took 2 down. Apparently the cheerleaders are out. I thought that you made a good point. That you flatly embarrassed khalling was more important to some other people. Remember that her husband is here, also. You can be tag-teamed.)

reply to khalling above, who wrote: "I love this site, because I can downvote you into oblivion. bye bye" Well that was untypical of you.... or at least what you claim... hence I untypically give you a thumbs down for that. (sorry)

Reply to Zenphamy above. You wrote: "At the same time, again I find intelligent people on the belief acceptance side just as I have on the socialism side. But it's apparently an insurmountable issue to overcome beliefs with facts and history." I can cite you some papers on "Why Evidence is Not Enough." You are 100% correct that people often do not have rational reasons for what they claim are rational beliefs. That is a deep problem in psychology; and it intrudes in social psychology, of course.

reply to khalling: Adaptation to the environment is a key element in Darwin's theory. That much at least is clear. Note, of course, that humans who otherwise would grind date palms do indeed live in Alaska today.

(Sorry to see that you took a Thumbs Down. Contrary to your standards, many other people vote by what they agree with, not according to what generates good discussion. It is why I am opposed to voting.)

Reply to TexanSolar above: Where are the dinosaurs? Did mammals live in the Cambrian era? As I said, species, genera, orders,... they come and go with alarming regularity. The Cambrian Explosion, the Cretaceous Extinction and all the rest did actually happen. Yet, here we are today. Darwinian Evolution may be only like Kepler's Laws, a hint at the deeper truth, as yet undiscovered. The same applies to human evolution. The raw data - bones and stones - are unarguable. How to interpret them apparently is not.

Txs.

I must have been unclear. I absolutely don't think there's a magical man in the sky. And I accept evolution as well as that there's more to learn about it if we look and continue to study.

Evolution is real and if you think that a magical man in the sky created us than you are an idiot.