Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[Rhabbi]

That whole article is based on accepting his examples, ie "An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum."

Since Darwins theory takes account of this I don't really see how he manages to draw the conclusions he does. Here's a simple example. A -> B -> C. B dies out, and leaves no trace. We have now no way of knowing how C could evolve the way it did. See, no god needed.

The point here is that Darwins theory does not take this into account, he had absolutely no knowledge of this process. Scientific knowledge in his day saw the cell as a simple and irreducible building block of life. In fact it is a complex biochemical mechanism. The flaggellum is one of the simpler structures in a cell.

If I found a watch in the dessert, no one would think I was crazy if I said a man had made that watch, in fact they would think I was crazy if I told you it was the result of an accidental and random series of events. This is about the level of complexity involved in a flaggelum.

Yet you expect me to walk out into that dessert and find a working factory that is producing thousands of watches and believe that it somehow came about by accident and natural selection. Does this make sense to you?

The division of the RNA looks to me and all molecular biologists I've talked to like magic, (and that's been quite a few). It's staggeringly complex. But from there draw the conclusion that it cannot have evolved by itself is just dumb. All we can do is put it on the list of things we hope to figure out in the future. Us not understanding something cannot be used as evidence for anything.

It is not the division that I am even talking about, but the simple existence of RNA. How did these various chemicals learn to encode so many different things? Not understanding something is also not a reason to reject the only explaanation that offers even a small explanation. The problem with the people who profess evolution is not that they believe in evolution, but they reject the possiblity of Intelligent Design. If they accept it as possible, they might actually be able to prove that it is wrong by devising a test for it. By rejecting ig out of hand they prove my point, that they are not takind a scientific point of view and testing all hypothesies

{QUOTE]And even if I and Darwin are wrong, that's still no case for christianity. All that would mean is that we still don't know. Intelligent design would still be in the pile of maybes. {?QUOTE]

Agreed, but my point has not been to promote Christianity, but to show that evolution is lacking. We need to open the discussion to all possiblities.

[_ID_]

Didn't really see a question in the post. So I will go with the title of the thread.

"Evolution: Science or Philosophy"

Personally I feel anything that is provable falls into the realm of science, not philosophy. I feel this because it doesn't fit the description of a theory as I would understand the definition. I say evolution is science because the results of tests can be proven in separate testing scenarios.

I have a friend of the family that is a biologist. He studies frogs. He has studied why limbs and eyes and organs grow into the spots that they do. For instance; why do your arms grow at your shoulders rather than at your hips? We know it works pretty well for them to be there, so that's where they are. But why (this would lead to your intelligent design theory)? My friend researched the notion that you could find out the point in the growth process when the division of cells decides what parts of the body will go where. He tried to figure out if he could make the arms of the frog grow on other parts of the body.

Evolution comes into all this when we think about the traceable history of the frog. Frogs start as tadpoles correct? This makes them a water born organism at that time. They have evolved to move onto land. Why did they do this? For what purpose? Perhaps for the very same purpose that your arms are on your shoulders rather than your hips. It just works best that way.

In my opinion the watch example that you have given is a very pour illustration of the Intelligent Design theory. A watch is an inanimate object subject to the inputs of the one who posses it. If we are to believe along those lines of Intelligent Design then we must also believe that all of our actions are predestined the same as the watch. Shoots the notion of freedom of choice right out the window if you ask me.

Lets think of another example of evolution in action that is provable. This one will surprise you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example...n#Hawthorn_fly

Hawthorn fly

An interesting example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[7] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Scientists are investigating whether or not the apple-feeding subspecies may further evolve into a new species.

Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.

There are more examples on the page I posted, this just happens to be one of them.

In summary. Either evolution is a fact, and provable, or you are purposing that all newly discovered species and subspecies are a direct result of some benevolent being putting them here on earth at specified times throughout history. Personally I don't know to what extent evolution exists, but I do know that it is there. As far as some greater force having influence on the happenings of the earth. I don't doubt that either. Couldn't it be a mix of the two?

[Rhabbi]

My apologies for the lack of a question, I was interuppted and never got back to edit my post.

This is actually an interesting article, though incomplete. I did not know of this observed phenomenon, and was delighted to add to my trove of knowledge. I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not the best source to use in research, but I will deal with this article on its merites.

First, this article actually disproves speciation:

there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring.

Different species are always sterile, that is how we know they are different species, and not just different sub-types of the same species.

Second, although I am a believer that genetic drift would be the best evidence of speciation, this article points out that the drift is not consitent in any way. there are differences from year to year in the same poulation group, in other words, the same tree. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/119/2/445 I would expect that gentic drift would need some type of consistency to cause speciation.

Third, althoughsympatric speciation is not as controversial as it was in the 1980's, there is still much debate concerning its value and existence.

There have been ongoing experiments in laboratory settings using radiation to cause speciation in fruit flies. These studies are also augmented by studying fruit flies in natural environmnets, yet not onsce has anyone anounced evidence of speciation. Many theorists are moving away from evidence of speciation as proof of evolution because it is so hard to find. Juist something to think about.

[Rhabbi]

Let me state here a law of nature.

[I]The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.[/I]

This is known as the Second Law of Thermodyanamics, and what it generally means is that as time progresses, things fall apart and become less ordered.

Yet those who believe in evolution want me to ignore this law, and accept that in the case of life, this law does not apply.

There is a difference between a law and a theory, one is proven by experiment and math, and has no exceptions. The law of gravity is an example of this. Planes may appear to violate this law, but they actually use other laws, (ie. aerodynamics) to accomplish this. Theories explain observed phenomenon and then tries to account for everything that it sees. If it fails to do this, it is adjusted and rethought, and new experiments are carried out. Einstein's theory of Relativity actually explained that light moved at a constant speed before ir was proven.How did he do this? He was just smarter than anybody else. But his theory has stood the test of time, with some tweaking to the math along the way.

Evolution is, at best, a hypothesis. In other words, it is only an idea on which to hang a theory. As far as I know, the only people that have offered any explanation of how evolution violates the laws of thermodyanamics are people who believe in God as the motive force behind evolution.

I would like someone to explain to me how evolution can violate this law, and please do not try to tell me that because of the sun shining on the eart the biosphere is not a closed system. Adding energy to a system actually increases the rate at wich entropy occurs, although it delays the actual point at which entorpy reaches the maximum rate. Besides, if we take te universe as a whole, it is a closed system, yet life exists.

[_ID_]

I think I understand what your trying to say, that thermodynamics causes a species to mutate. Is that correct, cause I am not college educated, and some of your wording seemed to be dancing around the idea of evolution. If thermodynamics causes a species to mutate. Wouldn't that fit the definition of evolution?

[TomOfSweden]

The point here is that Darwins theory does not take this into account, he had absolutely no knowledge of this process. Scientific knowledge in his day saw the cell as a simple and irreducible building block of life. In fact it is a complex biochemical mechanism. The flaggellum is one of the simpler structures in a cell.

If I found a watch in the dessert, no one would think I was crazy if I said a man had made that watch, in fact they would think I was crazy if I told you it was the result of an accidental and random series of events. This is about the level of complexity involved in a flaggelum.

Yet you expect me to walk out into that dessert and find a working factory that is producing thousands of watches and believe that it somehow came about by accident and natural selection. Does this make sense to you?

That's hardly the case is it. This is the old deist argument for god. According to Darwins theory, there's nothing accidental about natural selection so your point is what?

Who cares what Darwin knew or didn't know. His claim to fame is that he was the first scientist who tested the theory and had the guts to stand by it, in spite of it being very shaky at the time. He unlocked and opened the door, but only a crack. Others after him found the serious proof, ripping the whole door off it's hinges. We've got many times more evidence suporting Darwins theory now than we did when he was alive. It's no accident that the theory wasn't fully accepted by the scientific comunity until well into the 1920'ies. For good reason. Darwin was wrong about a whole boat-load of stuff. Let's focus on what he was right about.

It is not the division that I am even talking about, but the simple existence of RNA. How did these various chemicals learn to encode so many different things? Not understanding something is also not a reason to reject the only explaanation that offers even a small explanation. The problem with the people who profess evolution is not that they believe in evolution, but they reject the possiblity of Intelligent Design. If they accept it as possible, they might actually be able to prove that it is wrong by devising a test for it. By rejecting ig out of hand they prove my point, that they are not takind a scientific point of view and testing all hypothesies

I belong to the crowd who think DNA easily can form spontaneously anywhere. Even in vacuum. This is based on one experiment made in California, so it doesn't really hold water yet. My point is, be careful with saying that things cannot come to be through natural processes. Chances are that they can. There's a big difference between improbable and impossible.

The problem is that intelligent design is just taken straight out of thin air. It's not backed up by anything. If your only case is that you can't imagine it coming to be naturally, it says more about you than the theory of evolution. Argument from ignorance is not valid in logic.

And then you've got the next problem, in that the "designing" isn't particularly intelligent. It's as if our creator couldn't make his mind up if humans should be quadrapeds or bipepeds, so we ended up being something in between, resulting in most humans having back-ache from ordinary life. Why is our vision centre at the back of the head, slowing down our response time? Our most critical sense being in our most vulnerable place in the brain. There's stupidity everywhere in our "design". And it gets worse if we move to other species. The closer you get to the cellular level it gives the impression of being more and more random.

{QUOTE]And even if I and Darwin are wrong, that's still no case for christianity. All that would mean is that we still don't know. Intelligent design would still be in the pile of maybes. {?QUOTE]

Agreed, but my point has not been to promote Christianity, but to show that evolution is lacking. We need to open the discussion to all possiblities.

This pretty much catches the whole point. Yes, we need to be open to all possiblities, which is important within science. But I think we can wait with taking intelligent design seriously until it at least has a coherrant logical model.

And then you've got the problem that Intelligent design isn't really a theory at all. It's more of an anti-theory. Saying that something else, (ie god or gods) has it covered, isn't saying anything at all. All it tries to do is point to the holes in Darwinism without having anything else in it's place. The intelligent design people make no claims at all as to what god is or how it did it. Considering the overwhelming evidence that suports evolution Intelligent design as a long way to go before being a credible competitor.

Regarding speciasation. Science hasn't decided what defines a unique species yet. It's got more to do with politics than biology. In my ears, the debates between scientists so far tend to be extremly silly. They're all on the who-gets-to-get-their-name-on-what level. So it's not clear what you mean by the term. It tends to shift between kingdoms. Let's agree here in the thread that it means stable reproduction of a distinct creature. It seems to me, what what you mean by it?

I have a vivid memory of a discussion, (over a few beers) with a fish expert I had this autumn about a stream in Sweden. In the 18'th century they had one species of fish living in it and in the 20'th century had 4 different stable species, all in different sections of the stream. But beer was involved so I won't swear on having the details right. So I'm not so sure about your claim about specisation never being witnessed in nature. I'll e-mail him for the name of the fish, (if anybody cares).

[Rhabbi]

I think I understand what your trying to say, that thermodynamics causes a species to mutate. Is that correct, cause I am not college educated, and some of your wording seemed to be dancing around the idea of evolution. If thermodynamics causes a species to mutate. Wouldn't that fit the definition of evolution?

Sorry abouit using big words, sometimes I get passionate about something and forget that not everyone is as knowledgeable as I am.

The Second law basicallly says that in any system order, and energy, always decrease. This is called entropy, and the maximum value for entropy means that there is there is no order or energy left. Picture a fire, that is the perfect example of the second law of thermodynamics. You start with a structure of logs, and end up with a pile of ashes.

Now do you see the problem with evolution? Somehow, in this balzing fire, random events came together to cause, not ashes, but gold. Something that could not happen has happened, and no one understands the implications.

[_ID_]

If thermodynamics as you state it were applied to evolution then we wouldn't have evolved as humans from the preindustrial age archaic way of doing things to how we live now, unless your trying to say we as humans will gain momentum until we burn ourselves out of existence.

[Guest 91108]

all energy isn't wasted but rather what is consumed or expended ., the residuals aren't used to further benefit in the case of the log.
is kinda wrong example..

species do not degenerate.
mutations are not degenerations always.

[Rhabbi]

[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;256774]That's hardly the case is it. This is the old deist argument for god. According to Darwins theory, there's nothing accidental about natural selection so your point is what?[/QUOTE}

Here is what Darwin said about Natural selection:

Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life. No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements?--and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten.

His understanding of natural laws was rudimentary compared to ours, but he took the view of a scientist. He was lloking for an explanation of what he observed in nature, and he found on in his Origen of the Species. However his explanation no longer satands upo to the scrutiny of modern science. There are those who say it does, but they are unable to account for the fact that life exists. simply pointing to life and claiming that because it is there it must have been an accident is not an explanation, it is a rationalization.

Who cares what Darwin knew or didn't know. His claim to fame is that he was the first scientist who tested the theory and had the guts to stand by it, in spite of it being very shaky at the time. He unlocked and opened the door, but only a crack. Others after him found the serious proof, ripping the whole door off it's hinges. We've got many times more evidence suporting Darwins theory now than we did when he was alive. It's no accident that the theory wasn't fully accepted by the scientific comunity until well into the 1920'ies. For good reason. Darwin was wrong about a whole boat-load of stuff. Let's focus on what he was right about.

Actually, he was not the first, not even in the sense of publishing, but that is another issue. I am still waiting for someone to show me the proof that evolution is true in a general sense. I can see adaptation to environmnet, and even generla genetic drift on a limited scale resulting in some rather interesting differences among different types of the same species. But where is the so called proof that species develop spontaneously?

I belong to the crowd who think DNA easily can form spontaneously anywhere. Even in vacuum. This is based on one experiment made in California, so it doesn't really hold water yet. My point is, be careful with saying that things cannot come to be through natural processes. Chances are that they can. There's a big difference between improbable and impossible.

I never heard of this experiment, so i will just ask, if proteins have not yet been proven to develop spontaneously, how can a complex chain of proteins and amino acids form into DNA?

The problem is that intelligent design is just taken straight out of thin air. It's not backed up by anything. If your only case is that you can't imagine it coming to be naturally, it says more about you than the theory of evolution. Argument from ignorance is not valid in logic.

And exactly how is evolution any better? Do they also not argue from ignorance?

Let me point out though that i am not arguing from ignorance, I am arguing against implausiblity. I simply state that statisticle odds seem to be stacked against evolution. I then offer the opinion that Intelligent Design actually has an explanation that will deal with these discrepencies, but evolutionary theorists do not. They have postualated that there may be laws of nature that we do not know about that actually force DNA to evolve in the proper conditions. Yet they offer neither mathematical or experimental evidence to support this. yet I am arguing from ignorance because I point this out? Interesting, to say the least.

Science should not be in the business of rejecting a hypothesis just becuse it does not agree with the general idea of the way the universe is. They should test to prove or disprove any hypothesis, even if it goes against personal beliefs. If someone presented evidence that could refute the existence of God I would accept it because I have a scientific outlook. Would you accept evidence that proved the existence of God? If not, which one of us is close minded?

And then you've got the next problem, in that the "designing" isn't particularly intelligent. It's as if our creator couldn't make his mind up if humans should be quadrapeds or bipepeds, so we ended up being something in between, resulting in most humans having back-ache from ordinary life. Why is our vision centre at the back of the head, slowing down our response time? Our most critical sense being in our most vulnerable place in the brain. There's stupidity everywhere in our "design". And it gets worse if we move to other species. The closer you get to the cellular level it gives the impression of being more and more random.

Really? Do you know what the initial design parameters were? How can you be sure that this is not the best of the choices that was available?

This pretty much catches the whole point. Yes, we need to be open to all possiblities, which is important within science. But I think we can wait with taking intelligent design seriously until it at least has a coherrant logical model.

And then you've got the problem that Intelligent design isn't really a theory at all. It's more of an anti-theory. Saying that something else, (ie god or gods) has it covered, isn't saying anything at all. All it tries to do is point to the holes in Darwinism without having anything else in it's place. The intelligent design people make no claims at all as to what god is or how it did it. Considering the overwhelming evidence that suports evolution Intelligent design as a long way to go before being a credible competitor.

I agree, but my point is that this is axactly what evolution does. In fact, evolution is so inconsistent that they are no beeter than those idiots that want me to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. They both ignore any evidence contrary to what they believe, which is why I insist that evolution is not science, but philosophy. I am not pointing to Intelligent Desing as the answer because it has no more basis in science than creationism or evolution. But it does answer some questions that is raised by evolution. We are then left with another question if we acccept ID, where did the designer come from?

Regarding speciasation. Science hasn't decided what defines a unique species yet. It's got more to do with politics than biology. In my ears, the debates between scientists so far tend to be extremly silly. They're all on the who-gets-to-get-their-name-on-what level. So it's not clear what you mean by the term. It tends to shift between kingdoms. Let's agree here in the thread that it means stable reproduction of a distinct creature. It seems to me, what what you mean by it?

I have a vivid memory of a discussion, (over a few beers) with a fish expert I had this autumn about a stream in Sweden. In the 18'th century they had one species of fish living in it and in the 20'th century had 4 different stable species, all in different sections of the stream. But beer was involved so I won't swear on having the details right. So I'm not so sure about your claim about specisation never being witnessed in nature. I'll e-mail him for the name of the fish, (if anybody cares).

I would be delighted to hear about evidence of speciation, but first let us define our terms. Merriam Webster (http://m-w.com) defines
speciation as: the process of biological species formation.
And a species as: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class <confessing sins in species and in number> c: the human race : human beings — often used with the <survival of the species in the nuclear age> d (1): a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name

The key part of this is that different speciess are not capable of interbreeding, and if I remember my biology correctly this is a key element of detirmining species. Older classifications of species have had to be changed becuse interbreeding was detirmined to be possible where it was initially thought to be impossible. Ths actually causes some of the argument about names that you probably are recalling.

(Of course, by this definition, Vulcans and Humans are the same species, and observation that does not really belong here, but one I am incapable of bypassing due to my nature.)

[TomOfSweden]

Let me state here a law of nature.

[I]The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.[/I]

This is known as the Second Law of Thermodyanamics, and what it generally means is that as time progresses, things fall apart and become less ordered.

Yet those who believe in evolution want me to ignore this law, and accept that in the case of life, this law does not apply.

There is a difference between a law and a theory, one is proven by experiment and math, and has no exceptions. The law of gravity is an example of this. Planes may appear to violate this law, but they actually use other laws, (ie. aerodynamics) to accomplish this. Theories explain observed phenomenon and then tries to account for everything that it sees. If it fails to do this, it is adjusted and rethought, and new experiments are carried out. Einstein's theory of Relativity actually explained that light moved at a constant speed before ir was proven.How did he do this? He was just smarter than anybody else. But his theory has stood the test of time, with some tweaking to the math along the way.

Evolution is, at best, a hypothesis. In other words, it is only an idea on which to hang a theory. As far as I know, the only people that have offered any explanation of how evolution violates the laws of thermodyanamics are people who believe in God as the motive force behind evolution.

I would like someone to explain to me how evolution can violate this law, and please do not try to tell me that because of the sun shining on the eart the biosphere is not a closed system. Adding energy to a system actually increases the rate at wich entropy occurs, although it delays the actual point at which entorpy reaches the maximum rate. Besides, if we take te universe as a whole, it is a closed system, yet life exists.

He he. In rhetoric you are using what is known as weasel words. Evolution doesn't have to break the the second law of theromodynamics. It states that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world. The law doesn't state anything about the entropy being symetrical. Order can apear spontaneously. The only thing important is that in average the differences in temperature, pressure and density don't increase.

So life can apear by itself without breaking the laws of thermodynamics. But without anything outside this universe keeping it going, it will finally blink out. This is if we count on the laws as we know them being correct. Since the theory of relativity has a huge gaping hole in it, (and quantum theory), we know for a fact that we're missing a critical bit of the puzzle. So let's not asume too much.

[cheeseburger]

I just skimmed this and I couldn't resist.

He tried to figure out if he could make the arms of the frog grow on other parts of the body.

This has already been done on drosophila flies. In answer to "what makes your arms grow out of your shoulder," it's controlled by "Hox genes." So... not sure what the point is, but this has been studied in depth in several genetic model organisms. If you care...

And Rhabbi, your entropy argument is my favorite. The way that argument goes is, if you take some closed system and leave it alone, it gets more disordered. Therefore, the earth should get more disordered over time instead of evolving life. Makes sense, right?

The earth is not a closed system. It's getting energy thrown at it by the bucketfull in the form of light from the sun. In case you still don't get it, lets go back to the staple entropy analogy: your room.

A mess, right? Let's say you go and clean up your room. You're adding energy to your room, and decreasing the entropy of your room. You're also not violating any laws of physics, because the entropy of the 'universe' is increasing ever so slightly while the entropy of your room is decreasing.

The second law does NOT state that entropy always increases. You can add order to a system by adding energy to it; but, you are also increasing disorder somewhere else. The definition, according to wikipedia, is

"The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time"

Wikipedia has a cute example:
"In general, according to the second law, the entropy of a system that is not isolated may decrease. An air conditioner, for example, cools the air in a room, thus reducing the entropy of the air. The heat, however, involved in operating the air conditioner always makes a bigger contribution to the entropy of the environment than the decrease of the entropy of the air. Thus the total entropy of the room and the environment increases, in agreement with the second law."

Just as a general statement, there is no debate. Evolution vs. 'intelligent design' is a moot point. If you really want to read up on evidence of evolution, take a trip to pubmed and browse some articles on evolution.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, he was not the first, not even in the sense of publishing, but that is another issue. I am still waiting for someone to show me the proof that evolution is true in a general sense. I can see adaptation to environmnet, and even generla genetic drift on a limited scale resulting in some rather interesting differences among different types of the same species. But where is the so called proof that species develop spontaneously?

Now you're avoiding the question. Who cares what Darwin said? I didn't say he was the first. He was the first who had the balls to test and publish it. That's what I said.

You're attacking this from the wrong angle. The fact that we have diverse species is proof that they develop spontaneously. We know how mutations come about, and we know some become stable. Speciasation is just about our defintions. Given enough time every single variety of anything living will be defined as their own species, because scientists get so fucking wet about having their name on shit.

God is an absurd and outlandish concept. The only reason why anybody takes it seriously is because humanity has believed in it for so long. The reasons for this are many and easy to explain. So the burden of proof is on the religious right now. If god was involved in creating the different species, how did god do it?

I never heard of this experiment, so i will just ask, if proteins have not yet been proven to develop spontaneously, how can a complex chain of proteins and amino acids form into DNA?

They couldn't recreate it, so who knows. It was maybe just a fluke or a fault in the measuring systems. But now we're talking about faith. I think it's an intriguing idea, but I'm not going to bank on it being true. Which is what christians are doing about going to heaven, allthough it's just guesswork.

And exactly how is evolution any better? Do they also not argue from ignorance?

ha ha ha. You're going to have to do better than that. Evolution has evidence coming out of the woodwork. We've got fossils and DNA lineages everywhere to study. They're all conclusive. We've yet to have a single bit of living tissue that breaks the theory. So it's pretty safe to say that it's correct by now.

Let me point out though that i am not arguing from ignorance, I am arguing against implausiblity. I simply state that statisticle odds seem to be stacked against evolution. I then offer the opinion that Intelligent Design actually has an explanation that will deal with these discrepencies, but evolutionary theorists do not. They have postualated that there may be laws of nature that we do not know about that actually force DNA to evolve in the proper conditions. Yet they offer neither mathematical or experimental evidence to support this. yet I am arguing from ignorance because I point this out? Interesting, to say the least.

That's just bullshit. We don't know the numbers to use, so we have no idea of what is statistically unlikely. The intelligent design theory does not deal with any discrepancy because it explains nothing. Again. Just saying god has it covered, is not a theory.

Science should not be in the business of rejecting a hypothesis just becuse it does not agree with the general idea of the way the universe is. They should test to prove or disprove any hypothesis, even if it goes against personal beliefs. If someone presented evidence that could refute the existence of God I would accept it because I have a scientific outlook. Would you accept evidence that proved the existence of God? If not, which one of us is close minded?

Nobody will ever be able to prove god doesn't exist. Because god as a concept is everything we want it to be. We can go up to mount Olympos today and visit where the ancient Greeks thought the gods lived. Handy fact, that that religion is dead. Is it a coincidence that the only surviving religions with supernatural claims today are the ones who has a god that's all powerful and invisible. Saying that because you can't that it isn't true then...this...that and the other. Is arguing from ignorance.

God has been used as a wild card for so long now that I think we should demand any proof pointing to that anything in it is true. If not, let's just wait with passing judgement until we've got some more info on god.

Really? Do you know what the initial design parameters were? How can you be sure that this is not the best of the choices that was available?

Now you're thinking. Good. Exactly. How do we know? What were gods available options? See, it's not a coherant theory. Intelligent design explains jack shit. It's just fantasy. A series of what-ifs.

I agree, but my point is that this is axactly what evolution does. In fact, evolution is so inconsistent that they are no beeter than those idiots that want me to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. They both ignore any evidence contrary to what they believe, which is why I insist that evolution is not science, but philosophy. I am not pointing to Intelligent Desing as the answer because it has no more basis in science than creationism or evolution. But it does answer some questions that is raised by evolution. We are then left with another question if we acccept ID, where did the designer come from?

I'm pretty sure your beef with specisation is just Taliban created bullshit. I've e-mailed a molecular biologist about it. Let's hear what her explanation is.

The key part of this is that different speciess are not capable of interbreeding, and if I remember my biology correctly this is a key element of detirmining species. Older classifications of species have had to be changed becuse interbreeding was detirmined to be possible where it was initially thought to be impossible. Ths actually causes some of the argument about names that you probably are recalling.

As your dictionary very aptly pointed out, there are many defintions of it. My biology teacher also told me a simplified version of it. It's simplified. It's a lot more complicated.

[Rhabbi]

You're attacking this from the wrong angle. The fact that we have diverse species is proof that they develop spontaneously.

Now there is a perfect example of a circular argument, a method that is even worse than arguing from ignorance. The simple existence of life does not prove anything about how it got here.

God is an absurd and outlandish concept. The only reason why anybody takes it seriously is because humanity has believed in it for so long. The reasons for this are many and easy to explain. So the burden of proof is on the religious right now. If god was involved in creating the different species, how did god do it?

The concept of a god is no more outlandish than the concept of random chance explaining everything. You are correct that we do not know the actual odds, but every calculatikon aand estimate I have seen puts it so far out that it is not worthy of being considered.

Evolution has evidence coming out of the woodwork. We've got fossils and DNA lineages everywhere to study. They're all conclusive. We've yet to have a single bit of living tissue that breaks the theory. So it's pretty safe to say that it's correct by now.

Show me some. No one has ever pointed to anything and shown conclusive proof of evolution. All they do is to redefine evolution to accept anything that comes along as evidence. How is this science? Which, by the way, is my point. Evolution is not science, it is philosophy, and thus deserves no more merit than, say, the Hindu version of creation.

Nobody will ever be able to prove god doesn't exist. Because god as a concept is everything we want it to be. We can go up to mount Olympos today and visit where the ancient Greeks thought the gods lived. Handy fact, that that religion is dead. Is it a coincidence that the only surviving religions with supernatural claims today are the ones who has a god that's all powerful and invisible. Saying that because you can't that it isn't true then...this...that and the other. Is arguing from ignorance.

I am sure the Hindus, who believe in neither and are also the largest single religion on the face of the planet, would be interested to hear that their religion is dead.

Now you're thinking. Good. Exactly. How do we know? What were gods available options? See, it's not a coherant theory. Intelligent design explains jack shit. It's just fantasy. A series of what-ifs.

And evolution is different how?

I'm pretty sure your beef with specisation is just Taliban created bullshit. I've e-mailed a molecular biologist about it. Let's hear what her explanation is.

Do so, perhaps after she answers you we can move on to other things. Speciation is the one point than has been generally conceeded as the single greatest weakness in evolutionary theory, it will be intersting to see if there is something I am unaware of.

[Rhabbi]

The earth is not a closed system. It's getting energy thrown at it by the bucketfull in the form of light from the sun. In case you still don't get it, lets go back to the staple entropy analogy: your room.

A mess, right? Let's say you go and clean up your room. You're adding energy to your room, and decreasing the entropy of your room. You're also not violating any laws of physics, because the entropy of the 'universe' is increasing ever so slightly while the entropy of your room is decreasing.

Agreed, but the amount of energy that has apparently been added by the sun does not seem to account for the drastic decrease in entropy. It is almost the equivelant of adding a nuclear bomb to a normal bonfire. The Earth does not retain most of the energy that actually reaches it from the sun.

[TomOfSweden]

Now there is a perfect example of a circular argument, a method that is even worse than arguing from ignorance. The simple existence of life does not prove anything about how it got here.

It's not circular. Evolution has a model. It fits the model. That's how science works. You have a model and then you try to disprove it. So far it holds up nicely. It has holes. But most models do.

Intelligent design as nothing. It cannot explain how god works. God leaves no residual traces anywhere. Something transfering that much energy all the time must leave something behind right?

The concept of a god is no more outlandish than the concept of random chance explaining everything. You are correct that we do not know the actual odds, but every calculatikon aand estimate I have seen puts it so far out that it is not worthy of being considered.

Nobody has ever said anything about random chance. But you alone keep repeating it. It's just right-wing christian propaganda, and it's bullshit. Just drop it.

What I meant was that finding minute holes in the theory of evolution is not a case for god doing it. All it means is that we need to figure out more. So far the god theory doesn't have anything going for it. That is arguing from ignorance.

Even a theory with holes in it is better than no theory at all.

Show me some. No one has ever pointed to anything and shown conclusive proof of evolution. All they do is to redefine evolution to accept anything that comes along as evidence. How is this science? Which, by the way, is my point. Evolution is not science, it is philosophy, and thus deserves no more merit than, say, the Hindu version of creation.

In the 60'ies humanity discovered the DNA. We can trace DNA in anything living. What more evidence do you need?

I am sure the Hindus, who believe in neither and are also the largest single religion on the face of the planet, would be interested to hear that their religion is dead.

Now it's getting silly. How did I say Hinduism is dead? I suggest reading up on Hinduism.

And evolution is different how?

ha ha ha. It's a model that makes sense.

Do so, perhaps after she answers you we can move on to other things. Speciation is the one point than has been generally conceeded as the single greatest weakness in evolutionary theory, it will be intersting to see if there is something I am unaware of.

Intelligent design still has a long way to go before being a contender theory.

I'll get back when we have her answer

[Rhabbi]

It's not circular. Evolution has a model. It fits the model. That's how science works. You have a model and then you try to disprove it. So far it holds up nicely. It has holes. But most models do.

Nobody has ever said anything about random chance. But you alone keep repeating it. It's just right-wing christian propaganda, and it's bullshit. Just drop it.

Then explain to me what the model is. You are telling me that evolution is not random chance, yet that is exactly what I was taught in school and college. When exactly did that change, and why didn't I get the memo?

What I meant was that finding minute holes in the theory of evolution is not a case for god doing it. All it means is that we need to figure out more. So far the god theory doesn't have anything going for it. That is arguing from ignorance.

Even a theory with holes in it is better than no theory at all.{/QUOTE}

Again, tell me what the hteory is. I appaerently was mislead all through school.

In the 60'ies humanity discovered the DNA. We can trace DNA in anything living. What more evidence do you need?

Mitochondrial DNA has been traced back to an "Eve" who apparently lived in Africa, but it has not been traced back to anything else.


[QUOTE]Now it's getting silly. How did I say Hinduism is dead? I suggest reading up on Hinduism. {?quote}

Go back and read your post, "The only surviving religions..." This does not describe Hiduismk, and it does prove that you maake claims without knowing their validity.

Go read up on evolution and what the people who expound it claim, and then come back and tell me what is wrong with my arguments.

[_ID_]

curious how this would play into this discussion.

http://news. nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html

[Rhabbi]

curious how this would play into this discussion.

http://news. nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html

Actually, I am also. I would have to say that at first glance this appears more an example of adaptation than speciation as I understand it. Maybe Tom is more accurate than I thought in saying that scientists are diluting the definition of a secies. It makes me wonder why.

[cheeseburger]

Agreed, but the amount of energy that has apparently been added by the sun does not seem to account for the drastic decrease in entropy.

I'd like to see your source on this before I respond to it.

Mitochondrial DNA has been traced back to an "Eve" who apparently lived in Africa, but it has not been traced back to anything else.

It's mitochondrial DNA. (In case you don't know what a mitochondrion is, it's the organelle most human (and not so human) cells contain which functions in aerobic respiration; i.e. making ATP or energy).

Where did it come from? According to the secondary endosymbiotic theory, it was originally some single celled bacterium/prokrayote that made it's energy by aerobic respiration (citric acid cycle), and got engulfed by a bigger organism that couldn't digest it.

Point is, it has been traced back to something else.

Maybe Tom is more accurate than I thought in saying that scientists are diluting the definition of a secies. It makes me wonder why.

Scientists are not 'diluting' anything. Over the last decade or so, scientists have gone from a morphological approach to what constitutes a species, to a molecular approach. As a result, some species that 'looked' the same turned out to be unrelated, and some species that didn't look similar were actually related.

Very few different species can mate due to pre-zygotic mating barriers, i.e. you physically cannot mate a whale with a fly. But even if you tried to fertilize a whale egg with sperm from a fly in vitro, you would fail nearly 100% of the time. Mating barriers are generally the first to appear in any speciation event.

You are telling me that evolution is not random chance, yet that is exactly what I was taught in school and college.

This quote indicates you don't even know what evolution is.

Let's take a step back and consider why species even undergo sexual reproduction. It is far 'cheaper' (in terms of energy) to reproduce asexually.

Species reproduce sexually in order to increase variation within the species, because that increases the chances the species will survive. Mutations occur far too infrequently, and are too often detrimental, for it to replace sexual reproduction.

So if species didn't evolve, why bother with the variation within species? If there is no selection, or 'survival of the fittest,' why do practically all species have some mechanism for genetic recombination?

No one's even going to read this. Makes me wonder why I write it...

[TomOfSweden]

Then explain to me what the model is. You are telling me that evolution is not random chance, yet that is exactly what I was taught in school and college. When exactly did that change, and why didn't I get the memo?

No, you wheren't. Not if the teacher knew anything about it. The mutations of traits are random, (well, sort of random) but it's survivability aren't.

Mitochondrial DNA has been traced back to an "Eve" who apparently lived in Africa, but it has not been traced back to anything else.

We can trace DNA in all kinds of shit. We share plenty of genes with all kinds of creatures. All humans share 97% of all our genes with chimpanzees for instance. We share plenty of DNA with anything living on earth. So it's fairly easy to work out evolutionary trees, which insidentaly correlate to Darwins orignial estimates based purely on visible physical charecteristics.

Now it's getting silly. How did I say Hinduism is dead? I suggest reading up on Hinduism. {?quote}

Go back and read your post, "The only surviving religions..." This does not describe Hiduismk, and it does prove that you maake claims without knowing their validity.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Hindu gods are reincarnated in humans. There's no way to prove a suposedly reincarnated god is or isn't. All gods are in turn suposedly reincarnations of Brahma.

Go read up on evolution and what the people who expound it claim, and then come back and tell me what is wrong with my arguments.

The problem with this discussion is that we're basically comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of evolution. There's not two different models to compare. Intelligent design has nothing. So evolution wins by default. All theories accept the purely theorical theories are imperfect. There's gaps in all of them. We have to compare what we've got and take the best one.

We know how mutations can occur. We know how they survive and spread. Specisation is just a logical extension of something we allready know for a fact. If that's your only complaint you have a very weak case. My molecular biology friend hasn't got back to me yet but I'll keep you posted.

We're still back to our original problem.

Intelligent design isn't a theory. There's no Intelligent design models for how creation occured. It's so easy to criticize and throw shit when you've got nothing of your own. In many cases in science we just have to extrapolate, because it's the best we can do. Right now, evolution is all we have.

If you believe in creationism you're stuck in a whole quagmire or problems that we have to solve before it being comparable to evolution as a theory. Answering "what god is at all?", is a good start. How it works? We assume closed systems go toward entropy, so where does god get it's external energy from? Or our models are just plain wrong, (which is extremly likely) which gives the god theory no extra points either. And then you still have to answer how god affects our world/dimension etc? What traces does it leave? On the god side we've only got unanswered questions. They've got nothing tangible at all. God as a concept is only based on extrapolation.

I don't know if you've noticed this. But all you've done this whole thread is criticize evolution as a theory without presenting anything that strengthens an alternative theory at all. You haven't built a case for anything.

[Rhabbi]

I'd like to see your source on this before I respond to it.

Will try to find it, it is from a book I read so I do not heve it handy.

It's mitochondrial DNA. (In case you don't know what a mitochondrion is, it's the organelle most human (and not so human) cells contain which functions in aerobic respiration; i.e. making ATP or energy.

Where did it come from? According to the secondary endosymbiotic theory, it was originally some single celled bacterium/prokrayote that made it's energy by aerobic respiration (citric acid cycle), and got engulfed by a bigger organism that couldn't digest it.

Point is, it has been traced back to something else.

Not really, at least not in the sense I meant. Scientists have, at least theoretically, traced the mitchondrial DNA back to "Eve" through the testing the similarities of different women's mDNA and extrapolating it back to a woman in Africa.

Scientists are not 'diluting' anything. Over the last decade or so, scientists have gone from a morphological approach to what constitutes a species, to a molecular approach. As a result, some species that 'looked' the same turned out to be unrelated, and some species that didn't look similar were actually related.

The definition of a species I learned says that they are unable to mate. As far as I know this would hold true on a molecular level. Species are being redefined because of early misconceptions. Yet you cite a study that shows two different 'species' of butterflies mating to produce a third. To me that means that the definition has been diluted. Artificial support to force a hybrid that is not viable in nature does not prove evolution, it proves an outside influence.

Very few different species can mate due to pre-zygotic mating barriers, i.e. you physically cannot mate a whale with a fly. But even if you tried to fertilize a whale egg with sperm from a fly in vitro, you would fail nearly 100% of the time. Mating barriers are generally the first to appear in any speciation event.

This quote indicates you don't even know what evolution is.

My language was not clear, I am referring to the genisis of life on Earth. Every model I have encountered tells me that the chemiacals in the pre-biotic soup came together and formed the organic molecules that support life, and then life spopntaneoulsy arose. Am I mistaken in this? (By the way, i am aware that this a goss oversimplification, but my point is that the original event seems to be random.)

Let's take a step back and consider why species even undergo sexual reproduction. It is far 'cheaper' (in terms of energy) to reproduce asexually.

Species reproduce sexually in order to increase variation within the species, because that increases the chances the species will survive. Mutations occur far too infrequently, and are too often detrimental, for it to replace sexual reproduction.

So if species didn't evolve, why bother with the variation within species? If there is no selection, or 'survival of the fittest,' why do practically all species have some mechanism for genetic recombination?

Adaptation to environment? I would have no idea, i am at a loss to explain how we went from asexual reproduction to binary reproduction anyway, another thing that has never been explained in any way other than, it happened, so it must have happened.

[Rhabbi]

[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;258897]No, you wheren't. Not if the teacher knew anything about it. The mutations of traits are random, (well, sort of random) but it's survivability aren't.[/QOUTE]

Sort of random?

We can trace DNA in all kinds of shit. We share plenty of genes with all kinds of creatures. All humans share 97% of all our genes with chimpanzees for instance. We share plenty of DNA with anything living on earth. So it's fairly easy to work out evolutionary trees, which insidentaly correlate to Darwins orignial estimates based purely on visible physical charecteristics.

We apparently share DNA with more than just monkeys. but as we do not fully understand the encoding process that DNA uses I am not as confident about those numbers as some others seem to be. I still have problems with the way they usee DNA in leagla cases, and would not be surprised to see that future knowledge throwing out some of the current assumptions about numbers.

The problem with this discussion is that we're basically comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of evolution. There's not two different models to compare. Intelligent design has nothing. So evolution wins by default. All theories accept the purely theorical theories are imperfect. There's gaps in all of them. We have to compare what we've got and take the best one.

[QUOTE]We know how mutations can occur. We know how they survive and spread. Specisation is just a logical extension of something we allready know for a fact. If that's your only complaint you have a very weak case. My molecular biology friend hasn't got back to me yet but I'll keep you posted.

We're still back to our original problem.

Intelligent design isn't a theory. There's no Intelligent design models for how creation occured. It's so easy to criticize and throw shit when you've got nothing of your own. In many cases in science we just have to extrapolate, because it's the best we can do. Right now, evolution is all we have.[/QOUTE]

Evolution is all we have because no one wants to look at the alternatives for fear of being ridiculed.

If you believe in creationism you're stuck in a whole quagmire or problems that we have to solve before it being comparable to evolution as a theory. Answering "what god is at all?", is a good start. How it works? We assume closed systems go toward entropy, so where does god get it's external energy from? Or our models are just plain wrong, (which is extremly likely) which gives the god theory no extra points either. And then you still have to answer how god affects our world/dimension etc? What traces does it leave? On the god side we've only got unanswered questions. They've got nothing tangible at all. God as a concept is only based on extrapolation.

I don't know if you've noticed this. But all you've done this whole thread is criticize evolution as a theory without presenting anything that strengthens an alternative theory at all. You haven't built a case for anything.

I do not have to present an alternative, my point in this thread is that evolution falls short as science. The fact that I do not have an explanation does not make evolution true.

[Guest 91108]

I don't know if you've noticed this. But all you've done this whole thread is criticize evolution as a theory without presenting anything that strengthens an alternative theory at all. You haven't built a case for anything.

Actually neither side has done anything for either argument.
So I propose there is still one idea/theory/supposition out there that noone is intelligent enough to have found yet.
And then i say if we don't understand it why do we try to put in false theories and think they are the answer until they are disproven..
That is what creates all the arguments.

[cheeseburger]

Will try to find it, it is from a book I read so I do not heve it handy.

The only source I accept is an article from an accredited scientific journal. Sorry. Books fall under many genres, one of which is fiction.

Not really, at least not in the sense I meant. Scientists have, at least theoretically, traced the mitchondrial DNA back to "Eve" through the testing the similarities of different women's mDNA and extrapolating it back to a woman in Africa.

Ok. Everyone knows that the Y chromosome is passed down along the male lineage, since boys are XY and only the father can contribute the Y.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed along the female lineage, because a fertilized egg cell, or zygote, already has a mitochondrion. When it divides, just like any other cell, the mitochondrion divides first, and then the cell divides. Sperm has no play in this, and so mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mother to child.

The reason I'm saying this is to give you a better understanding of why people even want to 'trace' mitochondrial DNA. However, tracing it 'all the way back' is pointless. Humans are not the only species with mitochondria, so if you want to find out where the organelle originates, you turn to the secondary endosymbiotic theory, which is a fancy way of saying "what you engulf and can't digest you make friends with."

The definition of a species I learned says that they are unable to mate.

This is an extremely simplistic definition that does not hold true in many cases. Mules are one common example.

The way things are done now, they sequence the genome of a species and compare it to that of another. Good match means either same species or pretty close - but keep in mind, the difference is in the .01% or there abouts. I'm no expert on this, but what you stated is clearly wrong.

Species are being redefined because of early misconceptions.

Reorganized is a better word.

Yet you cite a study that shows two different 'species' of butterflies mating to produce a third. To me that means that the definition has been diluted. Artificial support to force a hybrid that is not viable in nature does not prove evolution, it proves an outside influence.

Wasn't me. And by the way, this means nothing. Another example of this is D. Melanogaster mating with D. Yakuba. Big deal; they're unlikely to create viable offspring due to post-zygotic mating barriers. Nothing is being 'diluted,' whatever you mean by that.

My language was not clear, I am referring to the genisis of life on Earth. Every model I have encountered tells me that the chemiacals in the pre-biotic soup came together and formed the organic molecules that support life, and then life spopntaneoulsy arose. Am I mistaken in this? (By the way, i am aware that this a goss oversimplification, but my point is that the original event seems to be random.)

You are diluting it, but not entirely. Let me add some detail but still keep it really simplistic.

Basically, under the right conditions (reducing atmosphere, lightning, whatever) you form organic (organic simply means containing carbon) molecules that are polar on one side and non-polar on the other side. In an aqueous solution, the non-polar sides get pushed together and you get a very rudimentary membrane, allowing some separation. This means you can do things inside your membrane that couldn't go on outside. Once you have something that reproduces itself, like some self replicating RNA enzymes ('ribozymes') the cat's out of the bag and whatever replicates the fastest sticks around.

Adaptation to environment? I would have no idea, i am at a loss to explain how we went from asexual reproduction to binary reproduction anyway, another thing that has never been explained in any way other than, it happened, so it must have happened.

If you're at a loss, let me explain. Something that reproduces asexually can very quickly 'fill up' a niche that it is well suited to. Any change in that niche that makes it unfavorable for one of these creatures makes it unfavorable for all of the creatures since they're basically clones, and they all die.

And clearly environments change over time. Life is basically adapted to survive stressors. So, some mechanism that enhances variation among a species was highly selected for - since everything else died out once the environment changed.

Or, some creature multiplied so fast mutations became significant and added to the variation. Viruses and bacteria are like this; mutations add a lot of variation to a culture of bacteria because they reproduce something like once every couple hours.

Although bacteria can also reproduce sexually, at a greater cost. If you stress them, by say adding antibiotics, then the 'cost' of reproducing sexually outweighs the 'cost' of dying to the antibiotics, and they all suddenly start reproducing sexually and passinga round resistance genes.

I typed this a little rushed so I apologize for any spelling/nonsense errors.

[cheeseburger]

Actually neither side has done anything for either argument.

Well, it's a little hard to 'do something' for one side of the argument if you don't read the argument. Sorry, but taking a megaphone and yelling down your nose isn't legal. Take the time to read a scientific article, or any of the bajillions of popular science evolution books.

So I propose there is still one idea/theory/supposition out there that noone is intelligent enough to have found yet.

I dunno buddy, are you calling all evolutionary biologists morons? I don't see you with a PhD and 20 years of experience. Even if you did have one, watch your mouth.

And then i say if we don't understand it why do we try to put in false theories and think they are the answer until they are disproven..
That is what creates all the arguments.

Why is argument bad? Argument, if done in a non-condescending and academic manner, is actually very valuable for both sides. It allows them to try and explain their side - which reinforces their theories by explaining it to others, and it allows for an exchange/rebuttal of ideas.

Unfortunately, this particular debate is a little one sided (what with there being myriads of scientific articles on evolution), but it's still interesting (for me).

I'm not trying to be rude, or singling you out for a personal attack. But seriously, don't go around calling people 'not intelligent enough' without an arsenal of proof.

I do not have to present an alternative, my point in this thread is that evolution falls short as science. The fact that I do not have an explanation does not make evolution true.

This attitude I like.

[Guest 91108]

Laughs.

[TomOfSweden]

Sort of random?

Don't weasel your way out of it. Evolution isn't random and the mutations of genes is limited to modifications of it's base pairs. There's physical limits to what's possible. So it's not totaly random. Since we don't know what all genes do we can't say in what way they aren't random. We can just make that statement.

To make it simple
Evolution = not random
Genetic mutations = sort of random

We apparently share DNA with more than just monkeys. but as we do not fully understand the encoding process that DNA uses I am not as confident about those numbers as some others seem to be. I still have problems with the way they usee DNA in leagla cases, and would not be surprised to see that future knowledge throwing out some of the current assumptions about numbers.

I'm sorry. I might be missing something. But I don't understand how this is relevant?

Evolution is all we have because no one wants to look at the alternatives for fear of being ridiculed.

You've got to be kidding. It's the oposite situation. In the west evolutionists have been fighting midieval christian superstition for over a century now. In spite of the christians having nothing but fairytales, extrapolations from arguments from ignorance and strictly theoretical mathematical models.

There's been more money put into proving the Bible and christian god than any other field of study in the world. No other area is even close. You making that claim isn't even funny. It's ignorant to the extreme. Isaac Newtons complete catalogue of articles are without exception only about proving gods existance. It's not from lack of trying or funding. There's just a lack of results.

The theory of evolution came at the same time as Nietschze denied god openly. This instantly become a symbolic issue for the christian comunity. And today it's only the religious fundamentalists who cling to the idea of creation. Only.

I do not have to present an alternative, my point in this thread is that evolution falls short as science. The fact that I do not have an explanation does not make evolution true.

No, it doesn't. You've floated a theory about that speciasation doesn't occur spontaneously in nature which I've yet to find any credible source agreeing with. It seems to be some religious objection, which the scientific comunity doesn't seem to aknowledge as a problem.

A geographically limited group of creatures will constantly mutate and evolve. Ever so slightly, a little at a time. This much I know we can prove. In time they will differ so much from their original group that their genes are incompatible. I don't get what's not to understand? It takes so long and is so gradual that it may very well be, that it hasn't been seen in a laboratory. But that's not a argument against the theory. We know how mutations occur and we know they can become stable. From this we can extrapolate. Where's the holes in it?

We didn't see the big bang either. Good luck denying that one.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually neither side has done anything for either argument.
So I propose there is still one idea/theory/supposition out there that noone is intelligent enough to have found yet.
And then i say if we don't understand it why do we try to put in false theories and think they are the answer until they are disproven..
That is what creates all the arguments.

So what's your objection with accepting evolution as the one theory?

To me it sounds like your trying to sound smart by taking some middle ground. The problem is when it's a middle-ground between two theories that don't carry equal weight. All your doing is to look half-assed.

[Guest 91108]

ToS -- That may be.

just not choosing a side. Odd that an opinion that doesn't support either idea would be seen as smart assed. I just consider it open to something other than what has already been put out by other factions .

I think there are gaps in both theories.

For example - we have an unexplained chromosome. how come there is no explaination for this one by scientists? Others have an explanation ....