Evolution IS NOT a fact. It is a theory in process. Facts are provable. Trust me my kids are not in school but not because of evolution. We still teach them evolution as theory and explain the science used to work on this theory. The most used scientific study the evolution uses as a backbone has already been shown to be flawed, yet it still keeps the believers going.
Welcome back Dead Corn Belief is irrelevant unless it is substantiated by reason and evidence. Created is the keyword here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
This would be the better link to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Problem is you buy it. Hook, line and sinker. Yet right before your eyes is the evidence. Sitting in your lap... ya nothing.. nothing to prove, to show, to observe evolution. Taking adaption and calling it evolution and saying since you saw a fruitfly adapt and comparing it to evolving from a single-cell organism, does not make it so. This is where evolution leaves science and becomes a religion like scientology. You have more faith than I do in the unseen (unobservable). I like to use facts, observable realities, rather than myth and man-made religion to dictate what I believe.
All I did was provide you with a link and you go on to claim that I have "faith in the unseen". Very presumptuous of you. Evolution is very much an observable reality. Perform a simple google search about the subject.
Adaption or evolution? Don't be like stox who thinks the 2 are the same. What evolution ie. one species to another, have we observed?
I know that some of this was covered already, but I just started typing as I read each post. Q1) Why shouldn't Christians be able to use their beliefs in this thread to defend intelligent design? A1) This thread is not about whether intelligent design has valid points, it is about whether intelligent design meets the basic criteria to be taught as a science in a science class. The main backers of intelligent design promote it as an issue that can be taught without religion on a scientific basis. If that is true, then use of scripture would not be needed to defend the concept. Q2) Doesn't science sometimes just make estimates based off of observation like the big bang theory. A2) Real science does not. There is a significant difference between observation and scientific observation. Merely making an observation that cosmological bodies seem to be moving away from each other is not enough to make a scientific theory. Measuring the speed, distance, and angle of travel and using math to calculate when/where things came from and then observing that there is a good chance they all came from the same place at the same time and then having the numbers reviewed by physicists is more in line with converting a hypothesis into a scientific theory. Q3) If you don't take it completely at face value, the Biblical story is in line with scientific findings. So why shouldn't intelligent design be taught in science class? A3) First off, even though it is a flimsy attempt to veil the fact that intelligent design is related to Biblical beliefs the intelligent design people do not link their stance to a particular god or beliefs. If it is not linked to the Christian God or beliefs then one can hardly use the Bible to justify it. Secondly, even if the intelligent design people admitted that the belief was Biblical, the Bible is not a scientific study and provides no justification for teaching the belief in science class. The similarities could be due to many things; better understanding of the cosmos by ancient people than we think, coincidence, dumb luck, etc.... Q4) Isn't it illogical for ancient people to have thought light came before stars? Doesn't that validate Genesis? A4) Ignoring the fact that intelligent design is removed from ties to specific religions by its very own supporters and founders (which by itself invalidates the use of religious text to justify it, not to mention the lack of foundation for a religious text to be used to validate something as a science not a belief), this has no merit. There are any number of reasons that Genesis might reflect this that have nothing to do with it matching concepts in current physics theories. Perhaps it relates to the fact that when babies are born they can distinguish light before they can distinguish objects. Perhaps it relates more to the many meanings of the word (let there be order, let there be good, let there be understanding). I cannot be sure of the meaning in this context as I cannot read ancient Hebrew and that would be the only reliable source for the original text as most other versions have not just normal translation inconsistencies but purposely introduced errors by the translators as well (like the King James version). That doesn't even account for the fact that Genesis was passed down orally for a long time before it was written, or that it offers two different orders of creation (Gen 1 v Gen 2). So no, having some similarities in Genesis and current physics is not a basis for teaching intelligent design as a science. Q5) What scientific advancements have come about from the study of evolution? A5) Let's see, studies in evolution led to trying to find the controlling mechanism. Those studies led Watson and Crick to discover DNA which has given us; genetic disorder tests, paternity tests, evidence to be used in criminal proceedings, tracing back maternal heritage through mitochondrial DNA, the very foundation of modern cell biology, the possibility of genetic therapies, and the list keeps going. How about more down to earth studies like breeding of better livestock and agriculture (sure, we did this before we understood evolution but we can accurately predict the outcomes now that we better understand inheritance - which is an underlying part of evolution). Do you really need more, cause I'm getting tired of typing. Q6) The Bible doesn't rule out science, why should science rule out the Bible? A6) It doesn't, but that doesn't mean either intelligent design or the Bible should be taught in science class. Q7) How is evolution a science, and what experiments have been done to prove it? A7) Evolution is part of biological sciences because it follows the scientific method. The scientific method is gathering observable, empirical and experimental evidence that is used to formulate a hypothesis. Testing is done against the hypothesis to determine its validity. Then it goes through a review process and must be replicated by others on several occasions to be given true theory status. Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands and observed species that looked strikingly similar to animals seen elsewhere. This led to a hypothesis that was later experimented on and reviewed before gaining status as a theory. In order to understand these experiments, one must understand what a species is. A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce viable offspring. One species that arises from another in the process of evolution will look very similar to the parent species. The process of evolution does not account for a dog being born from a fruitfly. Observance of evolution: island genetics as they relate to allopatric speciation (Galapagos, Komodo Islands), fruitflies have been shown to go through the process of peripatric speciation (a small population of limited genetic material breaks off and ends up forming a new species), cichlids and wheat have both gone through observable sympatric speciation (this is when one species forms two or more species in the same geographic area usually due to differing dependencies on resources). Those are just some of the occurrences that have been observed as they happen in the lab and/or nature in one area of evolution. Q8) Isn't intelligent design based on science? A8) No, intelligent design is a stripped down version of creationism that is sprinkled with scientific terms and lacking mention of specific deities in order to end-run the Constitutional separation of church and state. Q9) Isn't it a fact that the entire universe is governed by laws/rules that can be understood? A9) Probably, but unless one understands all of the rules by which the universe is in reality governed by then that is merely an assumption. Q10) Isn't intelligent design the scientific version of Biblical creationism? A10) Yes and no. While the intelligent design movement was founded by Christians (that most likely believe in creationism) it makes no reference to a specific god or religion. Q11) Doesn't everything we have observed scientifically support intelligent design as well as evolution? A11) No. Intelligent design involves the following concepts: Irreducible complexity - the idea that high level organisms are too complex to have evolved because they wouldn't work without all their parts. So what is the gall bladder all about then? This is not supported by what we know now. Just because people need certain parts now does not mean they always needed them or that they always will. Specified complexity - the idea that if something is complex and serves a specific purpose at the same time then it must have been made by a designer. This argument sounds logical, but when fully understood it falls flat on its face. The argument is if something has less than a 1:10^150 chance to occur in nature then it must have been designed by an intelligence. First, this assumption does not take into account that we cannot be sure of the size of our universe (or whether there are more, even infinite, other dimensions) then how can one calculate odds? The larger the size of the universe then the more likely something will occur. Second, the method for determining this is an eliminative process which not accepted as good science. Fine-tuned universe - the idea that all of the rules of the universe work together so well that it must have been made by a designer. This statement cannot be scientifically tested. Furthermore, in any given system the forces at work will create an equilibrium. After billions of years there is no surprise that the universe has achieved some sort of equilibrium. Supernatural causation - the idea that some things just cannot be explained or known by the human mind. This very much contradicts the general belief in science that given enough time and federal funding anything can be understood scientifically. Q12) How is evolution not a religion? What has been done to prove that we came from primordial ooze? A12) Evolution is one of, if not the most, supported theories in modern science. Parts of the theory have gone from theory to fact because they have been repeatedly observes to occur. Primordial ooze has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals strictly with how changes occur in living organisms. The start of life from primordial ooze is a different area of science known as abiogenesis. To understand this process look up Miller's and Fox's experiments from the 50s. Miller was able to spontaneously generate organic monomers. Fox spontaneously formed peptides. UC San Diego spontaneously was able to generate one of the catalysts that is used in all organic life. There is plenty of evidence leaning towards this, but again it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Q13) Aren't dating methods used in science unreliable and scientifically unverifiable? A13) No. This is a common argument used by intelligent designers and creationists. They often say carbon dating has a limited range of accuracy. That's true; it's about 60K years. That's why there are a number of other methods that are used to determine the ages of things. They are scientifically verified (otherwise they wouldn't be acceptable to use in science). How do they get verified? Well, you use them to test the age of things that you know how old they are. Just because we weren't there then doesn't mean we can't obtain certain information. I've never been to the sun, but I can tell you how far away it is. Q14) What observable evidence disproves intelligent design? A14) Well, unlike many would like to believe, intelligent design is not the same as creationism. They are closely related, but not the same. Intelligent design is a set of principles that state the universe is so complex that it must have been designed. However, aside from the few science-like principles that have been worked over and discarded by the scientific community at large (specific complexity, irreducible complexity, fine-tuned universe, etc... were all found to be based on poor science/math and faulty logic) the only part that is left is that there must be a creator. Evolution, and the data behind it, does not support this idea. It does not exclude such a being, but it does not offer scientific support for it either.
The human brain is very limited to explain the infinitive, all the rest is speculations and puting roses to our future graves trying to forget that we have to face death sooner or later. (uhhh did I say that or I read it somewhere)
You came into this world in a very primitive way and you will leave this world in a very primitive way also.
I will do you religious folks a favour. I will make it easy for you to disprove evolution right now. 1. Animals have babies 2. Animals less suited to their environment die earlier or have less offspring 3. Animals pass on their genetic material to their offspring 4. Variations occur through mutations point out which of those statements is untrue and bingo, You have disproved evolution. If you fail to do so it means evolution occurs. simple. as. that. Now for my prediction. They will either; a) claim one of them is untrue when it's patently obvious it is not b) fail to answer it and simply dodge the question like they typically do c) Answer my question with a question of their own. By the way, Do you like my earlier prediction that for-see you guys not offering any evidence for ID and simply refuting evolution? How does it feel to be that predictable?
You are still confusing adaption with evolution. Show where an lizard grew wings to get away from its preditor as a mutation.
So which statement is false? All you have to do is say what statement is false and you would have disproved it. I'm waiting.
No, You are. In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation.
"Science" has done a fantastic job brainwashing impressionable youths. It's one of the many reasons for wanting to homeschool our kid. Unlike many of the public school counterparts, she'll actually be able to tell the difference between faith and fact. They've convinced people that adaptation and evolution are the same thing and if you demand proof of that claim they just make up excuses for why they don't need proof. Not that belief without proof is faith of course. It's still "fact" because "science" says so. Next thing you'll see is a "science" text claiming that daily temperature fluctuations are "global warming" and we'll have these same silly impressionable youths going about how people are idiots for not believing in global warming because it was cold in the morning and warm in the afternoon.
It is you that is confusing what evolution is. The change from one species to another is only one part of evolution. The theory of evolution covers: Heredity Variation through mutation and recombination Natural selection Genetic drift Gene flow Adaptation Co-evolution Co-operation Speciation Extinction The point that intelligent designists and creationists harp on constantly is a skewed version of one part (speciation) of the theory of evolution. All those other things that I listed are part and parcel to evolution. Speciation has four forms, all of which have been observed in nature (Allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric). No form of speciation talks of a species instantly changing be completely different in one generation. It is a process that takes time. A species is merely a reproductively isolated group. It should also be noted that quoting parts of Darwin in order to debunk evolution is a strawman tactic as the theory of evolution that is taught in modern schools is actually not Darwinian evolution. As far as one species changing into another (or making rapid adaptations due to environment): 1) At the University of Rochester they have discovered that a certain parasite that infects insects has actually managed to have its entire genome added to that of the host species (in one case) this type of activity could account for new genetic material being available for a species to use. 2) How about the Basilosaurus isis which is a whale with legs from the Eocene 3) Or the generation of two new species T. mirus and T. miscellus from a the plant genus Tragopogon in just the last 50+ years Roose and Gottlieb, 1976, Genetic and Biochemical Consequences of Polyploidy in Tragopogon, Evolution 30: 818 - 830 4) Or the studies that Hall did fairly recently that show bacteria is more likely to have mutative adaptations only when they need them (and just the ones they need). Hall, 1991, Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations: Mutations involving base substitutions, PNAS 88: 5882- 5886 5) Or better yet, how about the studies done by Nakajima and Kurihara in 1994 that showed unicellular organisms forming mulitcellular chains in the presence of protozoal grazers (adaptation to a predator) Evolution is not and does not give any methods for the origin of life or the spontaneous generation of a radically different species from a parent (that is more in line with the concept from the dark ages where maggots simply formed from rotting flesh).
Heredity - not evolution Variation through mutation and recombination - not evolution Natural selection - not evolution Genetic drift - ? Gene flow - ? Adaptation - not evolution Co-evolution - ? Co-operation - ? Speciation - ? Extinction - not evolution adaptation to a predator - not evolution "How about the Basilosaurus isis which is a whale with legs from the Eocene" Are whales not allowed to have legs? Oh, what you meant to say was "fins." I see now. A blue sky and green grass don't prove evolution Until you can observe one species turning into a completely new species, you have no proof of evolution. Until then all you have is assumptions based on the religious belief that God doesn't exist. "this type of activity could account for new genetic material being available for a species to use." But, it's never actually been observed to have happened. Imagine that. "It is a process that takes time." Excuses. Until you can repeat it in a lab and record the results it is by definition, not science. "Or the generation of two new species T. mirus and T. miscellus from a the plant genus Tragopogon in just the last 50+ years" Is that like tomacco? You are aware that certain animals and certain plants can be bred together to create new things, right? It's not proof of evolution. It's proof that science can't pinpoint what exactly a species is.
this pretty much sums up your understanding of evolution. Do you think evolution claims that animals spontaiously turn into different animals? Is a slow, gradual process. It take thousands, Or millions of years and thousands of generations. Each generation retaining any new beneficial traits. Your entire premise seems to be "I don't understand it in the slightest, So i don't believe it".
Nope, you misunderstood me again (probably on purpose as usual) Did I say spontaneous? nope.... But your faith lets you believe that man came from a single-celled organism, without seeing it or even having any hard evidence of such. I see you retained some non-beneficial traits. Dang, if evolution was true would the human race actually be smarter, stronger, more resilient to cold, more immune to disease and not the opposite? You are more religious than anyone on this whole forum and your blind-faith in your beliefs is greater than anyone I know.
No, I meant legs. The Basilosaurus isis had a hind leg that was seperate from the tail fin and is not accounted for in modern whales. Hind Limb Bone Structure Side drawing that clearly shows the second set of limbs left out by your picture. Perhaps you missed that bit about the two plant species T. mirus and T. miscellus that we did observe being evolved from other species just in the last 50 or so years. You should actually read the journal articles about this. This discovery was just this year. Previously when doing genome studies, these DNA strands were removed as they were believed to be junk that was just left behind by the parasite, but the reality is that the DNA is active and now part of the genome of the host species. It has been observed and proven in bacteria many times. This is the first time it has been observed in a more complex organisim. Heredity - proven Variation through mutation and recombination - proven Natural selection - proven Genetic drift - proven Gene flow - proven Adaptation - proven Co-evolution - proven Co-operation - proven Speciation - proven Extinction - proven If one thinks these things are not evolution, then one should read an actual science text on evolution. These different things are the various parts of the theory of evolution. The fact that people want to strip it down to one skewed idea that is not mentioned in that form anywhere in the theory of evolution just shows their lack of understanding of the subject. A species is a reproductively isolated group. You don't get more exact than that. The tomacco is a grafted plant. Most plant grafts are not fertile and therefore do not constitute a species. In any event, the speciation (splitting into multiple species) of these two plants were not the result of labratory doing. It was observed in the wild.
Does that DNA get passed down to offspring? Can a horse breed with a mule? We've already been through this, any textbook on evolution that claims that adaptation and evolution are the same thing is a textbook that's geared towards the crowd that doesn't think for themselves and is without any scientific merit. Anyone who thinks that extinction is proof of evolution is not thinking. Extinction is proof that things sometimes die in such a great number that they are unable to precreate fast enough to maintain their existance. What you're failing to comprehend is that all the proven stuff proves ID as much as it proves Evolution. It proves aliens brought us here as much as it proves evolution. Fixed that for you. Are you seriously trying to argue that "uniqueness" proves evolution? I hope not.