Slashdot Mirror

It seems reasonable enough that color receptors might simply be a neutral mutation. That is they do not require so much energy during developmental stages to necessarily be delerious to an organism that possesses them, but not the neural hardware to process the information. The talkorigins.org site has any interesting article on this very topic The Evolution of Color Vision which shows that, in fact, photoreceptivity is actually much more complex than you may even think.

show me a bacteria that has become a fish

See that aquarium over there? It's full of 'em.

You want to see the process from prokaryote to vertebrate? Got a few billion years?

Your objection is like saying "I see infants and I see old people, but show me right now this minute an infant become an old person!"

We have observed change within species, and we have observed the development of new species within populations. That's about all we're going to be able to observe on human timescales.

If they try that, just point them here

Ok let us start with an easy enough reference point, in this case dinosaurs. Here we have a set of creatures we know existed millions of years ago and which is now believed to be the progenitors to the reptiles and birds. We know there were dinosaurs with some ability of flight and some land and some water based dinosaurs. Why did they choose these different habitats and travel methods? Location! Environment has a great deal to do with the evolution of a species.

You have to remember there are plenty of evolutionary paths for any organism to follow. Humans arguably have evolved somewhat separately while still maintaining compatible DNA. Let us take a look at the case of skin pigmentation. People in the northern most extremes of the world like Scandinavia and Russia developed light skin pigmentations because our bodies did not require as much protection from sun light in these areas. The days were shorter and sunlight exposure as such was also shorter, because of locality. Look at people as you move further south, skin tones begin to get darker the longer your days and more direct your sunlight begins to get. You have people in the Mediterranean and Middle East with darker, "olive" skin and as you move into Africa you begin to get individuals with even darker skin.

The Evolution of man is actually well documented from early ape-like humans to modern man of today. Evolution is a long process and not something you can expect to see overnight. Animals and plants have adapted to their environments and find ways to survive, and the ones that survive go on to breed until the new traits have replaced the older ones completely, or a divergence occurs and a new species incompatible with the previous occurs.

Please check out this site and if you come up with a new argument that actually attempts to present fact then please feel free.

*sigh*
Two can play the link game.
Only mine aren't wild exaggerations of recent and perfectly valid science.
(i.e. - no it wasn't red blood cells found. someone lied to you. And I was reading attempted explanations of geology based on a global flood before the world wide web. the pseudoscience hasn't changed, which saves a lot of time on the repeated debunkings)

Let's see now...
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Red blood cells. That'd be under paleontology (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC)

A stupid misreading of a recent discovery. Ah. Here we go.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html

And I don't pretend to know or care which particular flood claims you find so attractive, but we'll just go with the entire Geology section with attempts to explain complicated geological processes like the Geological Column using simple Sedimentation mixing (read those sections).
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

The fact is, is that the lies are much simpler to understand than the complicated processes of how this world works.
Shame, really. In my opinion, why shrink and belittle the world and its history?
Doesn't that shrink and belittle any Creator?

*sigh*
Two can play the link game.
Only mine aren't wild exaggerations of recent and perfectly valid science.
(i.e. - no it wasn't red blood cells found. someone lied to you. And I was reading attempted explanations of geology based on a global flood before the world wide web. the pseudoscience hasn't changed, which saves a lot of time on the repeated debunkings)

Let's see now...
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Red blood cells. That'd be under paleontology (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC)

A stupid misreading of a recent discovery. Ah. Here we go.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html

And I don't pretend to know or care which particular flood claims you find so attractive, but we'll just go with the entire Geology section with attempts to explain complicated geological processes like the Geological Column using simple Sedimentation mixing (read those sections).
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

The fact is, is that the lies are much simpler to understand than the complicated processes of how this world works.
Shame, really. In my opinion, why shrink and belittle the world and its history?
Doesn't that shrink and belittle any Creator?

*sigh*
Two can play the link game.
Only mine aren't wild exaggerations of recent and perfectly valid science.
(i.e. - no it wasn't red blood cells found. someone lied to you. And I was reading attempted explanations of geology based on a global flood before the world wide web. the pseudoscience hasn't changed, which saves a lot of time on the repeated debunkings)

Let's see now...
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Red blood cells. That'd be under paleontology (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC)

A stupid misreading of a recent discovery. Ah. Here we go.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html

And I don't pretend to know or care which particular flood claims you find so attractive, but we'll just go with the entire Geology section with attempts to explain complicated geological processes like the Geological Column using simple Sedimentation mixing (read those sections).
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

The fact is, is that the lies are much simpler to understand than the complicated processes of how this world works.
Shame, really. In my opinion, why shrink and belittle the world and its history?
Doesn't that shrink and belittle any Creator?

*sigh*
Two can play the link game.
Only mine aren't wild exaggerations of recent and perfectly valid science.
(i.e. - no it wasn't red blood cells found. someone lied to you. And I was reading attempted explanations of geology based on a global flood before the world wide web. the pseudoscience hasn't changed, which saves a lot of time on the repeated debunkings)

Let's see now...
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Red blood cells. That'd be under paleontology (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC)

A stupid misreading of a recent discovery. Ah. Here we go.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html

And I don't pretend to know or care which particular flood claims you find so attractive, but we'll just go with the entire Geology section with attempts to explain complicated geological processes like the Geological Column using simple Sedimentation mixing (read those sections).
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

The fact is, is that the lies are much simpler to understand than the complicated processes of how this world works.
Shame, really. In my opinion, why shrink and belittle the world and its history?
Doesn't that shrink and belittle any Creator?

There is not a single fossil that is part-ape part-man.

The problem is that evolution ISN'T scientific. It isn't verifiable. It isn't repeatable. It isn't falsifiable.

It's tiresome constantly addressing the same points over and over again simple because people DID NOT LEARN THIS STUFF IN HIGHSCHOOL.

If you want examples of the predictions evolution makes... and examples of how they have been tested... and how every test has further confirmed evolution... and an explicit explanation of how each of those tests COULD HAVE FALSIFIED EVOLUTION (which you in errorneously claimed was impossible) then read talkorigins 29+ evidence for Macorevolution. Each section explicitly addresses potential falsifications.

You can't prove evolution any more than you can prove that we are a computer simulation that started last week.

Correct. We are simply demanding that one random feild of science not be singled out and treated differently that any other field of science simply because some religious fundamentalists have their panties in a twist over one random field of science and their particular "literal" interpretation of scripture. In fact this religious fundamentalist group is running entirely contrary to mainstream Christianity. The overwhelming majority of Chistians on earth fully accept evolution, and even THE POPE HIMSELF issued a document accepting the scientific legitimacy of evolution. It is only in the US that we have these fundamentalist activist spouting nonsense that evolution somehow conflicts with God. The same sort of idiots who once claimed that a sun-center solarsystem conflicted with their literal interpretation of the Bible and therefor denied God. Idiots trying to equate evolution and atheism. Yeah right, the Pope part of an atheist conspiracy to exterminate God, heh.

You cannot "prove" chemistry, as you indicate there could be some malicious deciving God feeding us false perceptions and all of our memories could be planted fabrications. However back in the realm of functional society, students do indeed need to be taught the fundamentals of reading and the fundamentals of math and the fundamentals of science.

Students do not have to BELIEVE element theory, but they do need to be familiar with the fundamentals of chemistry and they do need to be presented with the theory of elements and the periodic chart and they do need to be aware of the fact that element theory is the indisputed foundation of chemistry by the scientific community.

Students do not have to BELIEVE evolution, but they do need to be familiar with the fundamentals of biology and they do need to be presented with the theory of evolution and the tree catagorizing all life on earth and they do need to be aware of the fact that evolution is the indisputed foundation of biology by the scientific community. There are approximately two or three genuine professional biologist on the entire planet that seriously dispute the fundamentals of evolution, and even *they* will admit that evolution is the current indisputed foundation of biology.

If you follow the so called evolutionary tree and then look at the genetics it makes no sense.

All I can say here is that you're obviously not familiar with the subject and the scientific results. We have done TONS of genetic analysis and everything falls perfectly into the tree pattern of common decent. This is extensively covered in the prior link I gave.

It happens quickly - then we should be able to observe it happening.

Individual mutations constantly appear, and we do in fact observe it happening. And population gene frequencies do shift over a period of several generations, and we do in fact observe this happening.

2. It happens slowly - in which case we should see some kinds of inbetween stages.

Well it generally takes quite a while for a large number of signifigant changes to accumulate, and virtually everything we see *is* "inbetween" stages. We have fossils of frikin' WHALES WITH LEGS

Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species has NOT been observed.

Wrong.

Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species has NOT been observed. It is theorized, and that is where the current debate arises.

Sigh.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species has NOT been observed. It is theorized, and that is where the current debate arises.

Sigh.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species has NOT been observed.

What do you have to say about:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l

and

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Care to attempt to refute these observations of emergences of new species?

Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species has NOT been observed.

What do you have to say about:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l

and

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Care to attempt to refute these observations of emergences of new species?

For whales I'll point you to http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

As for "If these cell's were to missing any one component, then the entire cell would no longer function at all.", there can be many causes for this, one would be that this cell once had more functionalty and it lost some, thereby replacing another mechanism or giving a new benefit. Nothing is saying that a function arose out of something less.

Now before you respond that "If God set it up so perfectly that he knew it would produce life, then that same condition could have statistically happened all by itself" then I would respond that that's just speculation based on an incomplete knowledge of the universe and the origin of life. Until we see life spontaneously create itself and become more complex, any assertion as to how likely that may or may not be is entirely speculation and certainly not any more fact-based than believing in God.

"Entirely speculation" would be, for example, an ignorant shouting match in an internet forum. As soon as one starts doing research to back up one's claims, the discussion moves out of the "entirely speculation" department and becomes a bit scientific. You're ignoring the process of scientific investigation at your peril, friend. It is inherently "fact-based", in that it seeks to accumulate and refine the "facts" themselves, in pursuit of an accurate explanation for them.

How long has the universe existed? How large is it? How many atoms are in the universe? We don't even have the answers to these questions and we have never seen life spontaneously create itself to a degree necessary to believe we have any idea how statistically common it is or isn't.

The universe has been around for approximately 13.7 billion years' time, according to recent estimates based on the age of white-dwarf-class stars. That estimate has been progressively refined based on many other gathered facts and simulations, such as the layout of the galaxies, the typical formation time of stars and planets, the proportions of various elements around the universe, and yes, even that "evil" mainstay, the fossil record.

There are also similar estimates for the size of the universe. I don't have the most recent figure available, but I know the estimate is based on data from several sources, such as redshift in light from the farthest visible entities, and disturbances in the generally uniform arrangement of matter as mapped from the night sky.

How many atoms are in the universe? Come on, man. Google it. If I sound dismissive, it's because I've seen these questions pop up over and over from people who refuse to do even the most cursory investigation, even if it's just to read the current written works on the subject. But maybe these phenomena go hand in hand: For people who wish to argue on sentimental grounds, objective facts are often the enemy.

You say:
A. "we have never seen life spontaneously create itself,"
B. therefore, we do not "have any idea how statistically common it is"

Use your powers of reasoning, pal. Statement A doesn't lead to statement B. It leads to statement C:
C. therefore, it must be pretty rare, or maybe even impossible.

(For further ironic perspective, consult the Temple of the Invisible Pink Unicorn)

By contrast, we have seen small-scale evolution happen (via natural and unnatural selection) first-hand, in documented experiments that you can reproduce with potted plants in a greenhouse in your own back yard. What's more, the evidence for large-scale evolution is woven throughout the history of man (domestication and spread of crops, for example), as well as pre-human history.

As a Christian I do believe God has an active interest in us but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that that means He can't be actively interested in life elsewhere in the universe.

(Potshot: Yeah, because believing oneself to be one of the conduits of God's will is so much less arrogant than believing oneself to be the conduit of God's will.)

So if you've embraced the idea of intelligent life i

By any meaningful definition of the term, it does not belong in Science classes.

This is a dangerous statement to make.

If you try to create a set of discriminating criteria to seperate science from non-science in the creationist debate (there is little or no symantic difference between creationism and intelligent design, intelligent design is diet creationism (tm)), you run into very tricky problems.

For instance, in his judgement on McLean vs. Arkansas Board, Judge Overton states that creationism does not fit the criteria of a scientific theory (criteria such as falsifiability, testability, non-authoritativeness). He is incorrect, for creationism theory is a classic example of a post-hoc scientific theory which has been designed to add factual legitimacy to the creation story, and it generally meets the criteria he sets forth.

Fortunately, because of it's Genesis underpinnings, creationism has a great deal of baggage in terms of anciliary explanations of geological time (to account for that pesky 30 million percent discrepency for the age of the Earth), fossil records, and other credible scientific evidence, and it doesn't deal well with genetics all the way back to Gregor Mendel. This is only a small selection of critical points: I could go on.

If anything, creationism and intelligent design should not be taught in school science classes because they are very poor scientific theories compared to the main line of scientific thought.

Soren Kierkegaard tells us there is a strong divide between objective and subjective experience. We can no more prove the existence of God via scientific means than we can prove that Browning is better than Yeats.

Unless you're talking about Intelligent Falling, then all bets are off. In all seriousness, this is just a little speedbump in the march of progress. The Kansas creationists tried this in 1999, and got voted out. Now they're are back, but they'll be easier to beat this time. Teaching creationism was found to be unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard. In the Intelligent Design (ID) trial in Dover, strong evidence has been presented showing that "ID" is a drop-in replacement for "scientific creationism." For instance, in the ID book "Pandas and People" we have the remains of a word processor search and replace operation with "cdesign proponentsists" being the resulting "transitional fossil," as Pandas' Thumb puts it. The Dover transcripts make for some particularily hilarious reading, especially Mike Behe's testimony, or when members of the Dover school board perjure themselves. We can count on a trial taking place in Kansas very soon, and it will go in much the same manner as it did in Dover. The Kansas Kangaroo Court has already laid the groundwork, providing good evidence on the motivations of the IDers, and how they are indistinguishable from creationists. These guys have shot themselves in the foot so badly that if either Dover or Kansas went to the Supreme Court it is hard to imagine the outcome for ID being any different than it was in the Edwards v. Aguillard decision back in '87. The two dissenters in Edwards v. Aguillard were Scalia (predictable) and Rhenquist, so even with if Roberts and Alito* vote theocratic (unlikely, they seem rational to me, at least) it'll be a 5-4 split with ID losing. IANAL, tho. I think the big take home message of this is that all of us who care about science need to keep up on what the kooks are doing. While I'm fond of following the creationist movement and even have a small collection of creationists books I've picked up from used book stores, I don't have the slightest idea of who is on the local school board and whether they are pro- or anti-science. That's going to change, though.

Unless you're talking about Intelligent Falling, then all bets are off. In all seriousness, this is just a little speedbump in the march of progress. The Kansas creationists tried this in 1999, and got voted out. Now they're are back, but they'll be easier to beat this time. Teaching creationism was found to be unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard. In the Intelligent Design (ID) trial in Dover, strong evidence has been presented showing that "ID" is a drop-in replacement for "scientific creationism." For instance, in the ID book "Pandas and People" we have the remains of a word processor search and replace operation with "cdesign proponentsists" being the resulting "transitional fossil," as Pandas' Thumb puts it. The Dover transcripts make for some particularily hilarious reading, especially Mike Behe's testimony, or when members of the Dover school board perjure themselves. We can count on a trial taking place in Kansas very soon, and it will go in much the same manner as it did in Dover. The Kansas Kangaroo Court has already laid the groundwork, providing good evidence on the motivations of the IDers, and how they are indistinguishable from creationists. These guys have shot themselves in the foot so badly that if either Dover or Kansas went to the Supreme Court it is hard to imagine the outcome for ID being any different than it was in the Edwards v. Aguillard decision back in '87. The two dissenters in Edwards v. Aguillard were Scalia (predictable) and Rhenquist, so even with if Roberts and Alito* vote theocratic (unlikely, they seem rational to me, at least) it'll be a 5-4 split with ID losing. IANAL, tho. I think the big take home message of this is that all of us who care about science need to keep up on what the kooks are doing. While I'm fond of following the creationist movement and even have a small collection of creationists books I've picked up from used book stores, I don't have the slightest idea of who is on the local school board and whether they are pro- or anti-science. That's going to change, though.

Ok: "As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. " http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

I'm talking about the creation of a new species. If one can observe it in the wild, then ID is proven false.

Done and done. Next question?

I'm talking about the creation of a new species. If one can observe it in the wild, then ID is proven false.

Done and done. Next question?

This is also incorrect. Darwinian natural selection explains almost nothing.

What are you talking about?

The Big Bang follows the same assumptions as Darwinism,

Um, no it doesn't. The Big Bang theory and evolution, Darwinistic or otherwise, have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Again, what is the definition of evolution?

Here's one defintion: "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." (from here.a?)

It's delightfully thorough.

what possible competitive advantage would a half developed wing have served

Oh god, not again.

I am sick of you people coming up with this shit again and again and again. Work it out: your stupid 'God of the Gaps' approach demeans your God because each scientific discovery will shrink him. You're better off accepting scientific method as useful and arguing that God made life work that way.

Justin.
I don't need an imaginary friend.

A materialistic world view colors the interpretation of data...

[...] but they're hard to find in the realm of origins, since the implications of Evolution [...] are very controversial.

[...] but I will at least explain my understanding of the theory. It seems that by nature we were designed. We have specialized body parts, all which serve a purpose, even though we don't always understand what that purpose is at first [...]. We have homologous structures, and can infer that they are to be used for similar purposes [...], the fossil record indicates a disaster or multiple disasters in the past reminiscent of the flood [...], and our DNA seems to be an intricate program. Furthermore, the way our cells interact with each other has been found to be extraordinarily complex. All this is evidence that at the beginning of the universe, we were designed this way [...]. I'm not trying to prove this, just giving some points for clarification of ID's perspective.

I am not sure where you came across the idea that the fossil record disproves the modern synthesis. Variations of fossils in rock strata do not falsify evolution, and are further confirmed by geological theories. There is the cambrian explosion, but this is not a problem for biologists. Note, also, we do not find modern species in ancient fossil records.

The Theory of Evolution is unprovable, precisely because it requires so much time to accomplish that it is completely unobservable.

Note that *no* valid scientific theory is provable. Good theories are falsifiable. The longest-standing theories are ones that could have been falsified over and over again, yet have held up experimentally every time. Evolution is one of those theories. At any rate, your assertion that evolution in unobservable is wrong. See this and this.

-Tez

A materialistic world view colors the interpretation of data...

[...] but they're hard to find in the realm of origins, since the implications of Evolution [...] are very controversial.

[...] but I will at least explain my understanding of the theory. It seems that by nature we were designed. We have specialized body parts, all which serve a purpose, even though we don't always understand what that purpose is at first [...]. We have homologous structures, and can infer that they are to be used for similar purposes [...], the fossil record indicates a disaster or multiple disasters in the past reminiscent of the flood [...], and our DNA seems to be an intricate program. Furthermore, the way our cells interact with each other has been found to be extraordinarily complex. All this is evidence that at the beginning of the universe, we were designed this way [...]. I'm not trying to prove this, just giving some points for clarification of ID's perspective.

I am not sure where you came across the idea that the fossil record disproves the modern synthesis. Variations of fossils in rock strata do not falsify evolution, and are further confirmed by geological theories. There is the cambrian explosion, but this is not a problem for biologists. Note, also, we do not find modern species in ancient fossil records.

The Theory of Evolution is unprovable, precisely because it requires so much time to accomplish that it is completely unobservable.

Note that *no* valid scientific theory is provable. Good theories are falsifiable. The longest-standing theories are ones that could have been falsified over and over again, yet have held up experimentally every time. Evolution is one of those theories. At any rate, your assertion that evolution in unobservable is wrong. See this and this.

-Tez

neither can be disproved by experiment. If a "theory" is not falsible, it does not fall within the realm of scientific analysis.

Evolution can indeed be disproved by experiment. Evolution has been subject to many thousands of tests and has been validated every time. That is why evolution has won over complete acceptance in the scientific community. It is as well supported as any other field of science.

If you want a few lite examples of evolution's predictions and tests look here. If you are up for a far more in depth listing of many evolutionary predictions and how they have been tested countless times, including a specific section on each one explaining how eache test *could* have been a falsification of evolution had the results turned out otherwise, then look here.

Ever since the development of genetic analysis the evidence establishing evolution has become an absolute torrent.

Oh, and a side note... I noticed in some of your other posts you talk of origins. Evolution is no more about the origins of life than chemistry is about the origins of the elements. Evolution is about teh evolution of life.... and the non-science definition of evolution is change. Evolution is the science of how life changes once it exists, and it explains how an initial living thing can and will evolve to produce the incredibly rich and complext variety of life we see today. Just as chemistry is the science of elements, give that they exists. The theory of the origin of life from nonlife is abiogenesis, and it is a very poorly developed and poorly supported field. (It is naturally quite difficult to study a singular microscopic even shrouded in the mists of time and which left no direct trace.) Just as nuclear fusion is the science of teh origin of the elements.

And any poorly developed and poorly supported field like abiogenesis deserves no more than minimal space in a highschool curriculum.

And that is no more a valid attack or failing of evolution than a lack of nuclear fusion explanation would be a valid attack or failing of chemistry.

-

neither can be disproved by experiment. If a "theory" is not falsible, it does not fall within the realm of scientific analysis.

Evolution can indeed be disproved by experiment. Evolution has been subject to many thousands of tests and has been validated every time. That is why evolution has won over complete acceptance in the scientific community. It is as well supported as any other field of science.

If you want a few lite examples of evolution's predictions and tests look here. If you are up for a far more in depth listing of many evolutionary predictions and how they have been tested countless times, including a specific section on each one explaining how eache test *could* have been a falsification of evolution had the results turned out otherwise, then look here.

Ever since the development of genetic analysis the evidence establishing evolution has become an absolute torrent.

Oh, and a side note... I noticed in some of your other posts you talk of origins. Evolution is no more about the origins of life than chemistry is about the origins of the elements. Evolution is about teh evolution of life.... and the non-science definition of evolution is change. Evolution is the science of how life changes once it exists, and it explains how an initial living thing can and will evolve to produce the incredibly rich and complext variety of life we see today. Just as chemistry is the science of elements, give that they exists. The theory of the origin of life from nonlife is abiogenesis, and it is a very poorly developed and poorly supported field. (It is naturally quite difficult to study a singular microscopic even shrouded in the mists of time and which left no direct trace.) Just as nuclear fusion is the science of teh origin of the elements.

And any poorly developed and poorly supported field like abiogenesis deserves no more than minimal space in a highschool curriculum.

And that is no more a valid attack or failing of evolution than a lack of nuclear fusion explanation would be a valid attack or failing of chemistry.

-

FYI, Darwin himself had a pretty good idea that this is how it would work. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

It's true! The transcript is online

What I'm trying to say is, that while evolution is a theory that can account for the present state of things, it is not the only scientific possibility unless you constrain yourself to a strictly naturalistic world view.

However, evolution looks very absurd when you look at it from an unbiased perspective.

For instance, the probabilities involved, the lack of concrete fossil evidence, mutation evidence, the question of "first cause" and many other irreconcilable facts (that probably don't need to be listed in this response) give people more questions than answers.

I'm a bit confused by your last paragraph. You say that 'ID scientists do not attempt to explain natural phenomena with supernatural theories (such as "it was created to be that way")' but you don't say what their explanation is. I'm pretty sure that the intelligent design explanation either A) invokes the supernatural or B) gives no explanation at all. Can you tell me what the "real" ID explanation is? If you could give an explicit explanation of how something that is supposedly "irreducibly complex" exists without using evolution, then I'm sure I could point out the problems with the explanation. I'll also point out that my argument would probably hinge on showing why a non-materialistic explanation really doesn't provide us with any useful information (i.e. an untestable theory can't be used for anything) and is therefore not considered to be science.

Who knows, though, maybe you'll enlighten me. I aint afraid. :) The universe is what it is -- my goal is to explore that reality, not to try and prove it to be what I want it to be.

1. It doesn't explain anything. It says, "Look, evolution can't explain this." There are a lot of things that are unexplained, which is why science is still worth pursuing. Since IC doesn't give an explanation of its own, the task is to figure it out. In order to figure it out scientifically, we must come up with an explanation based on observations of the physical universe. ID gives an explanation, but it invokes a supernatural creator. Therefore, ID is not a scientific explanation.

2. Many of the examples of IC have already been explained by evolution. It's common for those parts that are used in unison to have been used independently in the past. Here's an example: an explanation of how the bacterial flagellum might have evolved. I say "might have" because there are many different ways in which the flagellum could have evolved. We are reasonably confident that evolution was the mechanism, though, because A) evolution can explain it and B) we don't have better explanation.

In conclusion, irreducible complexity doesn't mean much. Pointing out unknowns does not weaken science, it strenthens it by highlighting new avenues to pursue. I suppose IC had some value in that respect, but it's lost in a sea of other unexplored facets of the universe. The political maneuverings of the IDers forced scientists to focus on that particular unknown, and so far it hasn't proven a very difficult challenge. ID itself contributed nothing to science, as its sole proposition is based on an assumption that has no evidence and is completely untestable. Some supernatural being could have created the eyeball, but it's just as likely that the entire Earth and everything on it suddenly formed from randomly moving particles out of pure chance in 1987. They both explain how we got here, but they're both untestable and therefore useless.

P.S., before anybody says that the evolutionary explanation is untestable, the flagellum example above is a test. Evolutionary theory says that the flagellum must have developed from more primitive components. Scientists looked at more primitive bacteria and found those components. That's evidence. How do you find evidence that the parts were designed by God? If you do, you will not only be famous, you will have a pretty big ego knowing that you proved God to be nothing more than a testable part of the physical universe just like the rest of us.

I'll bet he'd be pissed. ;)

1. It doesn't explain anything. It says, "Look, evolution can't explain this." There are a lot of things that are unexplained, which is why science is still worth pursuing. Since IC doesn't give an explanation of its own, the task is to figure it out. In order to figure it out scientifically, we must come up with an explanation based on observations of the physical universe. ID gives an explanation, but it invokes a supernatural creator. Therefore, ID is not a scientific explanation.

2. Many of the examples of IC have already been explained by evolution. It's common for those parts that are used in unison to have been used independently in the past. Here's an example: an explanation of how the bacterial flagellum might have evolved. I say "might have" because there are many different ways in which the flagellum could have evolved. We are reasonably confident that evolution was the mechanism, though, because A) evolution can explain it and B) we don't have better explanation.

In conclusion, irreducible complexity doesn't mean much. Pointing out unknowns does not weaken science, it strenthens it by highlighting new avenues to pursue. I suppose IC had some value in that respect, but it's lost in a sea of other unexplored facets of the universe. The political maneuverings of the IDers forced scientists to focus on that particular unknown, and so far it hasn't proven a very difficult challenge. ID itself contributed nothing to science, as its sole proposition is based on an assumption that has no evidence and is completely untestable. Some supernatural being could have created the eyeball, but it's just as likely that the entire Earth and everything on it suddenly formed from randomly moving particles out of pure chance in 1987. They both explain how we got here, but they're both untestable and therefore useless.

P.S., before anybody says that the evolutionary explanation is untestable, the flagellum example above is a test. Evolutionary theory says that the flagellum must have developed from more primitive components. Scientists looked at more primitive bacteria and found those components. That's evidence. How do you find evidence that the parts were designed by God? If you do, you will not only be famous, you will have a pretty big ego knowing that you proved God to be nothing more than a testable part of the physical universe just like the rest of us.

I'll bet he'd be pissed. ;)

My question is, have there been any experiments done with induced mutation, combined with natural selection, to establish benchmarks for the end-to-end evolutionary process under controlled conditions?

For example, has anyone bombarded bacteria with cosmic rays in a laboratory, and made a note of how long it takes for speciation to occur? (For that matter, has anybody been able to trigger speciation in a lab at all?)

The work of Herman Muller who was a pioneer in these radation bombardment experiments:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=History,Ha ll_of_Fame,Hermann_Joseph_Muller
http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1946/ (he received the Nobel prize for inducing mutations through radiation bombardment)
Another example of mutation inducing experiments:
http://www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.p df (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:762TTjEpLBAJ: www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.pdf+mull er+%2B+flies+%2B+radiation&hl=en)

Some more general links:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution5.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l (recorded examples of speciations)

Google and ye shall find :)

My question is, have there been any experiments done with induced mutation, combined with natural selection, to establish benchmarks for the end-to-end evolutionary process under controlled conditions?

For example, has anyone bombarded bacteria with cosmic rays in a laboratory, and made a note of how long it takes for speciation to occur? (For that matter, has anybody been able to trigger speciation in a lab at all?)

The work of Herman Muller who was a pioneer in these radation bombardment experiments:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=History,Ha ll_of_Fame,Hermann_Joseph_Muller
http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1946/ (he received the Nobel prize for inducing mutations through radiation bombardment)
Another example of mutation inducing experiments:
http://www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.p df (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:762TTjEpLBAJ: www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.pdf+mull er+%2B+flies+%2B+radiation&hl=en)

Some more general links:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution5.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l (recorded examples of speciations)

Google and ye shall find :)

Your problem is that your 1.2.3 steps should be more like

1. Promorial soup

2. for billions of years do:
      a. random mutate
      b. destroy bad mutations

3. People!!!!

Then read http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution. html and come back when you have some coherent complaints.

You have no right to be condescending. You have *no idea* what you're talking about.

BUT the problem is, there is NO EVIDENCE other than deductive logic on how that happened.

This is a breathtakingly wrong statement. Let me help you.

Evidence for evolution. Here is a very good summary of some of the evidence. It shows example after example of physical evidence for evolution. The nice thing about this site is it explains the evidence, shows how it could be falsified, and includes criticisms. To say there is no evidence is completely ignorant. There are transitional fossils, molecular evidence, fossil hominids, evidence of jury-rigged mechanisms, and much more.

I assume you will criticize me for referring you to different parts of the same site. However, that site has an excellent collection of information, and it's all referenced so you can check the primary sources all you want.

NEWS FLASH --> The 'Theory' of evolution still has holes in it. Big ones, like; how did life come to exist? (The question of how life 'evolved' is well explained and fairly supported by 'evolution.' No one is questioning that.)

What do you mean, no one is questioning that?!? That's the whole issue! Here's a NEWS FLASH for you: Evolutionary theory has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how life came to exist. It's about how life *changes*. It's about how life's diversity came about. It's about natural selection and common descent. None of this depends on how life got here. That's a separate area, called abiogenesis, and it's not part of evolution.

And, by-the-way, scientific proof is only accepted as 'proof' if it is repeatable and predictable. In which case, NEITHER evolution or ID has proof behind it as to the beginnings of life, and the only theory that we could 'prove' is ID, for reasons stated in my previous post.

Science doesn't have proof. It has evidence. You don't know what you're talking about, and I'm tired of trying to educate you.

But you want a link?

I didn't ask you for a link.

Do I have to google for you as well as think for you?

Is being an asshole your normal mode of discourse? Damn, if you are going to be so condescending, you should have some faint idea of what you're talking about. LEARN something about science, learn about evolution, and then you might be able to speak with some kind of credibility. Believe me if I wanted someone to think for me, I'd look elsewhere.

I am, however, willing to guess that you won't bother to look at any of the evidence I provided you. You've already decided it doesn't exist, and surely wouldn't want to be bothered with facts.

You have no right to be condescending. You have *no idea* what you're talking about.

BUT the problem is, there is NO EVIDENCE other than deductive logic on how that happened.

This is a breathtakingly wrong statement. Let me help you.

Evidence for evolution. Here is a very good summary of some of the evidence. It shows example after example of physical evidence for evolution. The nice thing about this site is it explains the evidence, shows how it could be falsified, and includes criticisms. To say there is no evidence is completely ignorant. There are transitional fossils, molecular evidence, fossil hominids, evidence of jury-rigged mechanisms, and much more.

I assume you will criticize me for referring you to different parts of the same site. However, that site has an excellent collection of information, and it's all referenced so you can check the primary sources all you want.

NEWS FLASH --> The 'Theory' of evolution still has holes in it. Big ones, like; how did life come to exist? (The question of how life 'evolved' is well explained and fairly supported by 'evolution.' No one is questioning that.)

What do you mean, no one is questioning that?!? That's the whole issue! Here's a NEWS FLASH for you: Evolutionary theory has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how life came to exist. It's about how life *changes*. It's about how life's diversity came about. It's about natural selection and common descent. None of this depends on how life got here. That's a separate area, called abiogenesis, and it's not part of evolution.

And, by-the-way, scientific proof is only accepted as 'proof' if it is repeatable and predictable. In which case, NEITHER evolution or ID has proof behind it as to the beginnings of life, and the only theory that we could 'prove' is ID, for reasons stated in my previous post.

Science doesn't have proof. It has evidence. You don't know what you're talking about, and I'm tired of trying to educate you.

But you want a link?

I didn't ask you for a link.

Do I have to google for you as well as think for you?

Is being an asshole your normal mode of discourse? Damn, if you are going to be so condescending, you should have some faint idea of what you're talking about. LEARN something about science, learn about evolution, and then you might be able to speak with some kind of credibility. Believe me if I wanted someone to think for me, I'd look elsewhere.

I am, however, willing to guess that you won't bother to look at any of the evidence I provided you. You've already decided it doesn't exist, and surely wouldn't want to be bothered with facts.

You have no right to be condescending. You have *no idea* what you're talking about.

BUT the problem is, there is NO EVIDENCE other than deductive logic on how that happened.

This is a breathtakingly wrong statement. Let me help you.

Evidence for evolution. Here is a very good summary of some of the evidence. It shows example after example of physical evidence for evolution. The nice thing about this site is it explains the evidence, shows how it could be falsified, and includes criticisms. To say there is no evidence is completely ignorant. There are transitional fossils, molecular evidence, fossil hominids, evidence of jury-rigged mechanisms, and much more.

I assume you will criticize me for referring you to different parts of the same site. However, that site has an excellent collection of information, and it's all referenced so you can check the primary sources all you want.

NEWS FLASH --> The 'Theory' of evolution still has holes in it. Big ones, like; how did life come to exist? (The question of how life 'evolved' is well explained and fairly supported by 'evolution.' No one is questioning that.)

What do you mean, no one is questioning that?!? That's the whole issue! Here's a NEWS FLASH for you: Evolutionary theory has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how life came to exist. It's about how life *changes*. It's about how life's diversity came about. It's about natural selection and common descent. None of this depends on how life got here. That's a separate area, called abiogenesis, and it's not part of evolution.

And, by-the-way, scientific proof is only accepted as 'proof' if it is repeatable and predictable. In which case, NEITHER evolution or ID has proof behind it as to the beginnings of life, and the only theory that we could 'prove' is ID, for reasons stated in my previous post.

Science doesn't have proof. It has evidence. You don't know what you're talking about, and I'm tired of trying to educate you.

But you want a link?

I didn't ask you for a link.

Do I have to google for you as well as think for you?

Is being an asshole your normal mode of discourse? Damn, if you are going to be so condescending, you should have some faint idea of what you're talking about. LEARN something about science, learn about evolution, and then you might be able to speak with some kind of credibility. Believe me if I wanted someone to think for me, I'd look elsewhere.

I am, however, willing to guess that you won't bother to look at any of the evidence I provided you. You've already decided it doesn't exist, and surely wouldn't want to be bothered with facts.

You have no right to be condescending. You have *no idea* what you're talking about.

BUT the problem is, there is NO EVIDENCE other than deductive logic on how that happened.

This is a breathtakingly wrong statement. Let me help you.

Evidence for evolution. Here is a very good summary of some of the evidence. It shows example after example of physical evidence for evolution. The nice thing about this site is it explains the evidence, shows how it could be falsified, and includes criticisms. To say there is no evidence is completely ignorant. There are transitional fossils, molecular evidence, fossil hominids, evidence of jury-rigged mechanisms, and much more.

I assume you will criticize me for referring you to different parts of the same site. However, that site has an excellent collection of information, and it's all referenced so you can check the primary sources all you want.

NEWS FLASH --> The 'Theory' of evolution still has holes in it. Big ones, like; how did life come to exist? (The question of how life 'evolved' is well explained and fairly supported by 'evolution.' No one is questioning that.)

What do you mean, no one is questioning that?!? That's the whole issue! Here's a NEWS FLASH for you: Evolutionary theory has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how life came to exist. It's about how life *changes*. It's about how life's diversity came about. It's about natural selection and common descent. None of this depends on how life got here. That's a separate area, called abiogenesis, and it's not part of evolution.

And, by-the-way, scientific proof is only accepted as 'proof' if it is repeatable and predictable. In which case, NEITHER evolution or ID has proof behind it as to the beginnings of life, and the only theory that we could 'prove' is ID, for reasons stated in my previous post.

Science doesn't have proof. It has evidence. You don't know what you're talking about, and I'm tired of trying to educate you.

But you want a link?

I didn't ask you for a link.

Do I have to google for you as well as think for you?

Is being an asshole your normal mode of discourse? Damn, if you are going to be so condescending, you should have some faint idea of what you're talking about. LEARN something about science, learn about evolution, and then you might be able to speak with some kind of credibility. Believe me if I wanted someone to think for me, I'd look elsewhere.

I am, however, willing to guess that you won't bother to look at any of the evidence I provided you. You've already decided it doesn't exist, and surely wouldn't want to be bothered with facts.

You have no right to be condescending. You have *no idea* what you're talking about.

BUT the problem is, there is NO EVIDENCE other than deductive logic on how that happened.

This is a breathtakingly wrong statement. Let me help you.

Evidence for evolution. Here is a very good summary of some of the evidence. It shows example after example of physical evidence for evolution. The nice thing about this site is it explains the evidence, shows how it could be falsified, and includes criticisms. To say there is no evidence is completely ignorant. There are transitional fossils, molecular evidence, fossil hominids, evidence of jury-rigged mechanisms, and much more.

I assume you will criticize me for referring you to different parts of the same site. However, that site has an excellent collection of information, and it's all referenced so you can check the primary sources all you want.

NEWS FLASH --> The 'Theory' of evolution still has holes in it. Big ones, like; how did life come to exist? (The question of how life 'evolved' is well explained and fairly supported by 'evolution.' No one is questioning that.)

What do you mean, no one is questioning that?!? That's the whole issue! Here's a NEWS FLASH for you: Evolutionary theory has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how life came to exist. It's about how life *changes*. It's about how life's diversity came about. It's about natural selection and common descent. None of this depends on how life got here. That's a separate area, called abiogenesis, and it's not part of evolution.

And, by-the-way, scientific proof is only accepted as 'proof' if it is repeatable and predictable. In which case, NEITHER evolution or ID has proof behind it as to the beginnings of life, and the only theory that we could 'prove' is ID, for reasons stated in my previous post.

Science doesn't have proof. It has evidence. You don't know what you're talking about, and I'm tired of trying to educate you.

But you want a link?

I didn't ask you for a link.

Do I have to google for you as well as think for you?

Is being an asshole your normal mode of discourse? Damn, if you are going to be so condescending, you should have some faint idea of what you're talking about. LEARN something about science, learn about evolution, and then you might be able to speak with some kind of credibility. Believe me if I wanted someone to think for me, I'd look elsewhere.

I am, however, willing to guess that you won't bother to look at any of the evidence I provided you. You've already decided it doesn't exist, and surely wouldn't want to be bothered with facts.

See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution at the talk.origins archive. Each claim is accompanied by a "potential falsification" section.

CF101 addresses the problem of First Law and the creation of the universe: "Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero".

CF001 and subsections address the problems of the Second Law and evolution:

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
   • the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
   • entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
   • even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
   In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

   Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

An afternoon of browsing the lists should answer some of your questions, and help you form better arguments for and against evolution. For instance:

• CB200 - Irreducible complexity can come from evolution
• CIxxx - All the Intellegent Design arguments

I think evolution best describes the world around us. However, I haven't studied all sides of the issue. This index pointed out several claims that might have been convincing for me if I hadn't heard them before. It is a good reference for those who claim to believe in evolution, but don't know all the facts. In fact, it is a good idea to just poke around that site - there is more than a week's worth of arguments.

CF101 addresses the problem of First Law and the creation of the universe: "Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero".

CF001 and subsections address the problems of the Second Law and evolution:

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
   • the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
   • entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
   • even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
   In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

   Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

An afternoon of browsing the lists should answer some of your questions, and help you form better arguments for and against evolution. For instance:

• CB200 - Irreducible complexity can come from evolution
• CIxxx - All the Intellegent Design arguments

I think evolution best describes the world around us. However, I haven't studied all sides of the issue. This index pointed out several claims that might have been convincing for me if I hadn't heard them before. It is a good reference for those who claim to believe in evolution, but don't know all the facts. In fact, it is a good idea to just poke around that site - there is more than a week's worth of arguments.

CF101 addresses the problem of First Law and the creation of the universe: "Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero".

CF001 and subsections address the problems of the Second Law and evolution:

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
   • the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
   • entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
   • even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
   In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

   Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

An afternoon of browsing the lists should answer some of your questions, and help you form better arguments for and against evolution. For instance:

• CB200 - Irreducible complexity can come from evolution
• CIxxx - All the Intellegent Design arguments

I think evolution best describes the world around us. However, I haven't studied all sides of the issue. This index pointed out several claims that might have been convincing for me if I hadn't heard them before. It is a good reference for those who claim to believe in evolution, but don't know all the facts. In fact, it is a good idea to just poke around that site - there is more than a week's worth of arguments.

CF101 addresses the problem of First Law and the creation of the universe: "Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero".

CF001 and subsections address the problems of the Second Law and evolution:

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
   • the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
   • entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
   • even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
   In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

   Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

An afternoon of browsing the lists should answer some of your questions, and help you form better arguments for and against evolution. For instance:

• CB200 - Irreducible complexity can come from evolution
• CIxxx - All the Intellegent Design arguments

I think evolution best describes the world around us. However, I haven't studied all sides of the issue. This index pointed out several claims that might have been convincing for me if I hadn't heard them before. It is a good reference for those who claim to believe in evolution, but don't know all the facts. In fact, it is a good idea to just poke around that site - there is more than a week's worth of arguments.

CF101 addresses the problem of First Law and the creation of the universe: "Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero".

CF001 and subsections address the problems of the Second Law and evolution:

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
   • the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
   • entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
   • even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
   In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

   Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

An afternoon of browsing the lists should answer some of your questions, and help you form better arguments for and against evolution. For instance:

• CB200 - Irreducible complexity can come from evolution
• CIxxx - All the Intellegent Design arguments

I think evolution best describes the world around us. However, I haven't studied all sides of the issue. This index pointed out several claims that might have been convincing for me if I hadn't heard them before. It is a good reference for those who claim to believe in evolution, but don't know all the facts. In fact, it is a good idea to just poke around that site - there is more than a week's worth of arguments.