Even if the banana was easy to explain, Ray missed the actual atheist’s nightmare, corn.

It fits the human hand perfectly, being a cylindrical shape that easily snaps of it’s stalk, allowing for effective harvesting.

Corn’s curve is perfect for the mouth, as you can grab the edges and eat every kernel, with it being easy to skewer with a stick.

You can put it in the microwave to produce popcorn, which is the favorite cinema snack and has made millions of dollars.

People even make mazes with corn, giving good memories to any child at a pumpkin patch.

How do evolutionists propose that over millions of years that it just happened that a caveman found corn, that by chance, just decide to pop into popcorn?

It’s practically at forming mazes also challenges evolution, as why did natural selection choose to make it good for maze building.

Corn is only explained by an intelligent design, God, who gave us corn for food, specifically designed for us.

First I'd like to say I'm firmly in the evolutionary psychology camp. I was an anthropology undergrad and was livid when I went to my first day of history of anthro theory course and they showed a slide that said "post-modernism vs science" as though it was somehow considered debatable. So I did some research and found dual inheritance theory and evolutionary psychology.

These lines of thinking I believe are the future but many in the "social sciences", if we can even call them that at this point, are drunk on the post-modernist anti-philosophy and think that science explaining human behavior and culture is somehow a fundamentally racist enterprise. So I'd like to proffer a defense of evo. Psych.

Evolutionary psychology is in principle a sound line of inquiry.

Premise 1. We have a nature that is common to us all that is not culturally inherited.

Premise 2. We can study these cross cultural traits and tendencies

Premise 3. We evolved and acquired all of our mental capacities through evolution

Premise 4. We have near relatives such as chimps, bonobos, other apes, and monkeys who we can compare ourselves to.

Given premise 1 and 3 then we can conclude that there is an evolutionary reason we have this nature and given premise 2 and 4 we have the means with which to study and test theories about these evolved capacities.

Now I use to have and read a little a copy of the oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and from I could gather it was wicked smart stuff. My question is does anyone have a legitimate criticism of evolutionary psychology as a person who has actually studied it that doesn't reduce to the woke nonsense of "it's racist"?

When you say Archaeopteryx is “just a bird” what is your definition of bird.

Do you draw the line at Neornithes, if so you have to explain why Archaeopteryx is just a bird, but it lacks all putative characteristics of Neornithes.

You can’t just replace Avialae with Neornithes (logically) as this fails to separate Archaeopteryx from dinosaur and group it with birds.

Assemble a putative suite of characteristics that groups Archaeopteryx with other birds to your definition, and I’ll accept that Archaeopteryx is just a bird. If you want to, take a crack at separated Archaeopteryx from other theropods, but no Creationist has succeeded in this.