Slashdot Mirror

Dictionary.com (Faith n.) " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

Untrue. Whether its sponanious evolution, the big bang, or evolution over billions of years, the belief that non-living matter can defy mathimatical probability, and do what cannot be done in a laboritory it does indeed require faith.

Evolution is backed by quite a bit of material evidence. To claim that it isn't is dishonest. I also notice that you mention mathematical probability. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that everything involved in the process is random and I'll bet you have some giant made-up number that you think describes the likelihood of evolution occuring. You probably think that events that have a low probability never happen when it's trivial to show that they do.

When new facts are discovered, knocking the foundations from under evolution, the theory simply... evolves.

People like you really don't understand science at all, do you? In any scientific endeavor, when new facts are discovered that affect parts of a theory the theory is adapted to take those facts into account. That's the whole point! Look at Newtonian physics! Newton's observations were considered so fundamental and proven that earlier scientists called them "laws". Then we got better measuring tools and discovered that they don't fit the observed behavior of subatomic particles or objects travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. So the theory had to be changed. Now scientists don't really use the term "law" to describe new discoveries. It's all theory. Increasingly accurate theory but theory nonetheless. That creationists consider this a failing is proof of their ignorance of science.

It's the willingness, even eagerness, to not ignore reality that separates science from religion.

New evidence is discovered all the time, none of which knocks "the foundations from under evolution". The evidence for evolution is a lot stronger than the complete lack of evidence for christian creation.

Dictionary.com (Faith n.) " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

Untrue. Whether its sponanious evolution, the big bang, or evolution over billions of years, the belief that non-living matter can defy mathimatical probability, and do what cannot be done in a laboritory it does indeed require faith.

Evolution is backed by quite a bit of material evidence. To claim that it isn't is dishonest. I also notice that you mention mathematical probability. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that everything involved in the process is random and I'll bet you have some giant made-up number that you think describes the likelihood of evolution occuring. You probably think that events that have a low probability never happen when it's trivial to show that they do.

When new facts are discovered, knocking the foundations from under evolution, the theory simply... evolves.

People like you really don't understand science at all, do you? In any scientific endeavor, when new facts are discovered that affect parts of a theory the theory is adapted to take those facts into account. That's the whole point! Look at Newtonian physics! Newton's observations were considered so fundamental and proven that earlier scientists called them "laws". Then we got better measuring tools and discovered that they don't fit the observed behavior of subatomic particles or objects travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. So the theory had to be changed. Now scientists don't really use the term "law" to describe new discoveries. It's all theory. Increasingly accurate theory but theory nonetheless. That creationists consider this a failing is proof of their ignorance of science.

It's the willingness, even eagerness, to not ignore reality that separates science from religion.

New evidence is discovered all the time, none of which knocks "the foundations from under evolution". The evidence for evolution is a lot stronger than the complete lack of evidence for christian creation.

You want evidence? You mean aside from the millions of fossils and all of the genetic analysis and observation of evolution in action and ring species and vestigil adapations and morphological features of species relating in a distinctly hirerachical branching pattern and mathematical&computer evidence that the general process of evolution is increadibly powerful at creating information and processing information and creating organisation and complexity?

I mean jeez... any ONE of those topics would fill a number of college courses to cover in depth. I'm quite certain I've neglected out entire fields of science in tossing out that list.

Any decent highschool science curriculum really should give a dencent overview of several of those areas, but sadly many highschools do not. Many probably succumb to pressure or neglect the subject to avoid the controversy in the first place.

Evolution was first published nearly one hundred and fifty years ago, and at the time essentially all scientists were creationists. We're talking nearly one hundred and fifty years of evidence and testing and arguments and all of it inexorably supporting the same conclusion. All of the scientists were creationists, and they were all won over. Now effectively 100% of scientists* in relevant fields have no question of the fundamentals of evolution, the hundred and fifty years of challenges was overwhelming and unrelenting and exhaustive, and evolution passed every test. Now it's just a matter of figuring out the details and enhancing the theory and filling ing bits and peices of the historical map.

*Some of the anti evolution groups like to build impressive lists of scientists that reject evolution, but most are not actually scientists, and those that are scientists are inevitably in some unrelated field. A computer scientist or electrical engineer with no background in the field is hardly an authority. Good luck finding any legitimate practicing scientist in the field of genetics or biology or any related field who does not understand and concurr with evolution.

If you have any specific question or doubt or objection about evolution, and you actually have any interest in understanding it, I'd be happy to address it. I can explain or answer almost anything. I'll make a good faith effort to understand why you think evolution is flawed doesn't or can't work if you'll make a good faith effort to understand why I do think it can and does work.

If you're really looking for the mountain loads of evidence that collectively support evolution beyone 99% certainty then you can get a decent overview (and barely scratch the surface) at the talk origins website. That is an amazing website filled with tons of information and explanations and evidence, and extensively specializes in answering anti-evolution attacks arguments claims and evidence. I cannot recommend the site highly enough.

-

... my HS science teacher taught me that ... we were once fish ...

Those tired old arguments? Creationists need to come up with some new material:

Biogenesis (aka abiogenesis?) Read here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Laws of Thermodynamics? Read here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Now you claim "evidence goes against evolution in almost every situation anyway lol" Please provide factual, provable, scientific evidence against evolution. I'll wait here. And I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

Those tired old arguments? Creationists need to come up with some new material:

Biogenesis (aka abiogenesis?) Read here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Laws of Thermodynamics? Read here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Now you claim "evidence goes against evolution in almost every situation anyway lol" Please provide factual, provable, scientific evidence against evolution. I'll wait here. And I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

Evolution is a fact? Did I miss the memo?

Yes.

(Of course, it's also a Theory which deals with the observed effects of the fact of evolution over millions of years.)

For the Apes to Human transition, would this set of transitional species help?

When you examine the 20 main hominids you find that the earliest ones have thick jaws, big canines, and brains barely larger than those of chimps. They look like other apes. By 500,000 years ago they mostly look like us. But none is transitional?

I'd say each morphs into the next quite nicely, making them a nifty example of missing links. (I list other sets in a post here.)

For the Apes to Human transition, would this set of transitional species help?

When you examine the 20 main hominids you find that the earliest ones have thick jaws, big canines, and brains barely larger than those of chimps. They look like other apes. By 500,000 years ago they mostly look like us. But none is transitional?

I'd say each morphs into the next quite nicely, making them a nifty example of missing links. (I list other sets in a post here.)

For the Apes to Human transition, would this set of transitional species help?

When you examine the 20 main hominids you find that the earliest ones have thick jaws, big canines, and brains barely larger than those of chimps. They look like other apes. By 500,000 years ago they mostly look like us. But none is transitional?

I'd say each morphs into the next quite nicely, making them a nifty example of missing links. (I list other sets in a post here.)

If reliable phylogenetic trees made with different methodologies showed significantly different branching then evolution would be toast.

If atavistic traits of non-ancestors were to appear, that would by pretty compelling evidence against the relavent branches of the phylogenetic tree, which if it couldn't be reconciled would falsify evolution. Horses sprouting wings would be an example that would be pretty troublesome for evolution whereas whales with legs is both expected by evolution and observed.

If any species are discoevered that have DNA or RNA with unusual chirality, that would be real trouble for evolution too. New species are discovered and new DNA analysis are being performed everyday. Each one capable of blowing evolution out of the water.

Of course such contrary evidence keeps failing to materialize. That's why evolution is pretty much a fact. See http://www.talkorigins.org/ for much more.

Now if the ID folks would just stick out their neck and advance even one testable hypothesis they might gain some respect. Don't count on it though.

The answer to the ultimate question can be found here,
The Official God FAQ

A couple of quotes which reflect two individuals stance on religion in schools. Will it result in Genocide in both cases? Should we have taken action against either nation when we new such ideals were being proposed by it's leaders?

Learn how to look after 18000 animals on a single vessel with 11 crew.

My thoughts on Moses... a failing political leader who needed a strong moral line to maintain his position/dictatorship.

Imagine you are the leader of a people who are enduring various hardships with you main political power edge being the promise leading the people into the choosen land, to then be blessed with riches... after a couple years.. the line loses it touch... people start doubting your leadership and your main drive, the God figure. What would you do? Something drastic... something very, very drastic. Now you know you still have quite a strong power base, if you can do something to strengthen/manipulate this power base and their beliefs you might be able to use them as a stronger more influential power base. The best way we know to convince people of your position and throw ignorance to your insuitability as a leader is to appeal to their morals. You needed a plan... very unprobable but it could be pulled off... Invent some rules with .... from God's words!!!! which will appeal to there moral convictions but also stop uprisings against your powerbase....

The plan had an initial failing. For when Moses went off to enact his plot those factions against his rule took this opportunity to foster their own beliefs and forge their political careers. When Moses came back to break out his 10 rules ploy and found others stiring up their beliefs... he was pissed... really pissed. This could be it for him... though the 10 rules idea really seemed to stick with his followers... there was a chance to do it all again... with a little bit more political nouse he pulled it off by embedding a political stance inside 8-9 strong moral stances. If you were to changlenge his story of "Receiving these 10 rules from God" this could also be turned around to say you didn't follow the moral stances of the other rules and could be accused of adultrey, murder etc.

Who would have thought a religion could have been based on a failing politicians outrageous ploy 2000 years into the future??

Modern day "10 rules ploy" believers will even call me immoral for taking this stance...

Well, in that case, I'd better come with my own ploy. I was spoken to by God and he said that the coming of Christ was to happen in the new America.... shit, John Morman already used that one...

I know, how about this one...

Let me create a form of pshyciatric treatment to be based certain feelings in events that have happened in your life... I'll call it dianetics!!! Shit.... already been done too.... and I can't really be bothered fabricating an illustrious naval career. Damn you R. L. Hubbard!. A good example though of how stupid people are and how they will believe in absolutely anything...

I know, I'll call myself the son of God... all fall before me and I shall deliver you from an evil, dirty, nasty place which doesn't actual exist... and send me your donation so I can be holy by owning lots of property, influencing political leadings... and employing those disadvantaged in life on the minimum wage. I shall call this new religion Stupidity. It shall be backed by "The book of fables" believe in it or you shall be accused of eating babies... Let Stupidity be spread through out the world and hope that one day all people will be united by Stupidity. Teach your children to believe in Stupidity!!! Lets have Stupidity in our schools, pray for Stupidity!! Stupidity can heal you.

Please don't mod me funny... religion for me these days is no joke.

This line of reasoning has been disproven countless times. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Evolution doesn'twork the way you claim it does, and these subsystems did not just appear fully formed working all together. If you look at the fossil record you can see how each individual subsystem evolved. The evolution of the eye is in fact well understood. Take a look here. more information.

I can think of nothing more convincing than the evidence. Such as the nearly complete Turkana Boy skeleton, an example of Homo erectus from roughly 1.6 million years ago, as presented in this textbook on evolution. A few ribs my ass. Or how about this nice picture of a whole bunch of hominid skulls from 2.6 million years ago to the present? Teach it for real, and it doesn't take undergraduate level biochemistry. Show the kids pictures of the fossils. Tell the kids about human DNA: how our chromosome 2 is clearly the result of a fusion event between two mid-sized progenitor chromosomes, which are still seen in chimps, our closest relatives. Tell the kids that 200 years ago christian geologists went looking for evidence of the Biblical flood and instead found evidence that the Earth is ancient. While we're at it, we should show them the evidence for creationism and intelligent design, too: a deafening silence lasting 10 seconds should suffice.

You want to falsify evolution? Okay, find a bunny rabbit in the Precambrian. Sequence a mamalian genome and find out that it is more closely related to a banana than another mammal. Find a lizard that doesn't use the standard genetic code or a very close derivative of it. Find a bird with a different set of 20 amino acids. Find a chimera--for instance, a tree with 100% tree features, except that it's TCA cycle enzymes are identical to those found in mice, or if you don't want any biochemistry or genetics, find a goat with bird feathers--can't happen under evolution. Every day, more fossils are found. More genes are sequenced. More papers published, and more proteins are compared. Every day evolution is tested, as it makes specific predictions about how species are interrelated. As a result, evolution is the most thoroughly tested theory in science. Have a look at the evidence--a small portion of it is easily available for the general audience online at talkorigins . Creationism and intelligent design on the other hand are compatible with all evidence, as one can simply say "goddiditthatway" and you're good...unless you want to call it science. You want things taught in science class that are argeed on, fine. Teach evolution.

I can think of nothing more convincing than the evidence. Such as the nearly complete Turkana Boy skeleton, an example of Homo erectus from roughly 1.6 million years ago, as presented in this textbook on evolution. A few ribs my ass. Or how about this nice picture of a whole bunch of hominid skulls from 2.6 million years ago to the present? Teach it for real, and it doesn't take undergraduate level biochemistry. Show the kids pictures of the fossils. Tell the kids about human DNA: how our chromosome 2 is clearly the result of a fusion event between two mid-sized progenitor chromosomes, which are still seen in chimps, our closest relatives. Tell the kids that 200 years ago christian geologists went looking for evidence of the Biblical flood and instead found evidence that the Earth is ancient. While we're at it, we should show them the evidence for creationism and intelligent design, too: a deafening silence lasting 10 seconds should suffice.

You want to falsify evolution? Okay, find a bunny rabbit in the Precambrian. Sequence a mamalian genome and find out that it is more closely related to a banana than another mammal. Find a lizard that doesn't use the standard genetic code or a very close derivative of it. Find a bird with a different set of 20 amino acids. Find a chimera--for instance, a tree with 100% tree features, except that it's TCA cycle enzymes are identical to those found in mice, or if you don't want any biochemistry or genetics, find a goat with bird feathers--can't happen under evolution. Every day, more fossils are found. More genes are sequenced. More papers published, and more proteins are compared. Every day evolution is tested, as it makes specific predictions about how species are interrelated. As a result, evolution is the most thoroughly tested theory in science. Have a look at the evidence--a small portion of it is easily available for the general audience online at talkorigins . Creationism and intelligent design on the other hand are compatible with all evidence, as one can simply say "goddiditthatway" and you're good...unless you want to call it science. You want things taught in science class that are argeed on, fine. Teach evolution.

Actually, if you read the statement, it agrees with my views. (a) it passed peer review. Noone is questioning that.

I'm confused: the link I quoted says very specifically: [the paper] "was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process".

The practices mentioned above are here. I quote: "One of the Society's aims is to give its members an opportunity for prompt publication of their shorter contributions. Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees".

One can argue that Sternberg was the acting managing editor at the time, and therefore qualified to do the review. The fact that no other members of the society or associated editors were consulted looks however very strange to me. Dr Sternberg had controversies with other associated editors before (see his site). Given that Dr. Sternberg himself is (by his own affirmation) a process structuralist, and therefore anti-darwinist, his decision to avoid talking to other editors, the fact that he handled all publishing process himself together with the fact that the peers he claims reviewed the paper are anonymous, I regard the Discovery Institute's claims of "peer reviewing" as quite suspect.

What is your reply to this?

Darwinism makes all sorts of predictions: that fossils found will fit into the tree of life/common descent, that if a specimen is close to another species on that tree of life then its DNA will be closer to that species that to species who lie further away on that tree, etc. Each time someone digs up a fossil it's a test.

See more, in great detail, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (especially the 30 subsequent pages)

You misunderstand the ideas of punctauted equilibrium and evolution. Evolution says nothing about a steady state. Please see this article on punctuated equilibrium and evolution.

You may also be interested in any of the articles listed at the talk.origins archive

You misunderstand the ideas of punctauted equilibrium and evolution. Evolution says nothing about a steady state. Please see this article on punctuated equilibrium and evolution.

You may also be interested in any of the articles listed at the talk.origins archive

You misunderstand. I am trying to point out that if the creator doesn't need a cause, then neither do we.

Evolution per se doesn't speak about the absolute origin of life, it speaks of the mechanism of speciation. Abiogenesis is a different issue than evolution. In fact, evolution doesn't require the process of abiogenesis to be correct. Evolution makes many concrete predictions, all of which have been seen to be true.

One point that you have not mentioned is that Intelligent Design, at least as I have heard it put by its originators and their supporters, posits that each individual species was created seperately, that multiple species did not evolve from one original species. Evolution does posit that present species evolved from a common ancestor, and all the evidence we have to date bears this out.

Whether that one common ancestor was created or self organized out of component parts (abiogenesis) is actually outside the scope of evolution, but not ID. ID takes a definite stance here. If you don't agree with that stance, you do not support ID, you support your own hypothosis which is outside the scope of this debate, really.

Evolution makes plenty of predictions that are falsifiable. All this has been covered many times, both here and on other sites. It gets boring arguing the same point over and over again.

If you want to read more about the probablities of life self generating, let me just refer you to this article on the probability of life self generating. It has a number of references at the bottom you may want to look at as well.

For an observation to be repeatable you need to have a repeatable phenomenon. Which is not the case for evolution.

NO, that's not what science requires. It requires repeatable observation, whether that observation is in the lab or outside it. We can't repeat quasars, but that certainly doesn't prevent us from formulating scientific theories about them.

Well, my sources told me that the problem is not with a nested hieararchy of DNA (which could be used in intelligent design as well). The main problem is the evolution of DNA itself. And molecular biologists (at least those that I talked to) admit that it's at least a gap in the theory. Where are the evolutionary ascendants of the DNA itself?

That's a separate but related field of study, namely abiogenesis. Abiogenesis research has some holes in it, though it's still perfectly sound science (very largely specialized organic chemistry). What evolutionary theory requires is imperfect replicators, whatever their particular means of inheritance may be. There are some pretty promising areas of research, such as the RNA world theory.

Try out http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

How about the HI virus (including all its variants)?
Or if that's not lively enough for you: all those strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticid-resistant pests?
Bigger species take longer time, of course, but for a selection of such cases see here. There is a recent report about speciation in progress (see also here)

It is not an "assumption". Scientists don't construct theories on foundations built from complete and unverified assumptions. Proponents of religious-based origin theories do do exactly that, which is why they think that's how real scientists work.

talkorigins.com is a good resource for refuting creationist nonsense, including their "C14 isn't reliable" claptrap.

Darwin was, in fact, wrong about some things. This was because he was the first person to write on his subject and he didn't have the 150 years of study and evidence we have on the subject today. For example, Darwin didn't know one single thing about genetics.

However, it doesn't matter the things that Darwin was wrong about, because Darwin's on the origin of species is not as far as I'm aware actually taught anywhere, except as a historical relic. What schools teach is biology. I.E., the state of biology in 2005, not the state of biology in 1855 when Darin was working.

However:

Darwin's version is done without God. It occurs by pure chance.

All evolutionary theory is based on this idea.

Also Darwin version states that things evolved slowly and when we look at the evolutionary picture we see that it is not true. Look at how the horse evolved.

I really don't know what you mean by that, but this sounds like you've been listening to some creationist oversimplifications. So to clarify: The theory of punctuated equilibrium does not in any way contradict or stand in opposition to the theory of evolution or darwinism. Meanwhile, it says here that current theory states horses evolved over a period of about 53 million years. That sounds pretty slow to me.

If Intelligent Design is to be given equal time in biology classes (even though it does not even qualify as a scientific theory), then I demand that the Flying Spaghetti Monster get equal time as well...

But seriously folks, evolution is an observable fact. Darwinian Evolution is on of several theories regarding the mechanisms by which evolution works. As for the "it is only a theory" arguement, remember that gravity is only a theory as well.

It is amazing how non-scientists completely misunderstand the meaning of the word theory. A theory is a model for explaining phenomena. A theory is supported by physical evidence and observation. A theory can be used to make predictions about the phenomena in question. A theory is falsifiable (meaning that, if wrong, it can be disproven by experiment or observation). Various theories of evolution meet these criteria. Intelligent Design does not.

Take a gander at TalkOrigins.

The thing is, radioisotope dating for a sample will be invalid if the sample is bad. This is pretty well know. Austin likes to pick bad samples and then claim the whole system is bad.

To make a lame analogy, let's say you're trying to find the average weight of an egg. Austin comes in, sees that you've broken a few, and tells you that your scale doesn't work because the broken eggs weigh less than the whole eggs. Well, yes. The broken eggs are bad samples--half is on the floor.

The earth is no more than 6,000 years old? Buddy, you have a lot more information to research before you post a comment like that... The earth is billions of years old. You are WAY off.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.h tml

Touch up on your information.

However, if you stuck 15 different dog breeds together for a few generations, you would see, not continued exclusivity in breeding, but a return to the basic dog.

Yes, you probably would lose the dinstinguishing characteristics of each breed, at least if evolutionary theory is correct. See, if you "stuck them together" for many generations, they would all be subject to similar evolutionary pressure - they would all be vying for the same niche. Divergence generally happens when a large population has the opportunity to fill multiple niches.

This isn't an argument against evolution, because what you expect to happen is exactly what evolution predicts.

There is no mountain of evidence supporting macro evolution.

Sure there is.

If anything, the mountain supports creation by a supreme being. Too many simultaneous changes must happen in multiple specimens that then decide to interbreed in order to achieve evolution.

1. That isn't necessary to "achieve evolution".

2. That isn't necessary to produce the few cases creationists hold up as examples where it is supposedly necessary.

3. Even if it was necessary, you yourself describe a situation in which evolution can do this.

4. Even evolution is not required to produce the few cases creationists hold up as examples where it is supposedly necessary - on a large enough timescale, even the possibility of random mutation doing it approaches 100%.

Getting an emu and a hummingbirds out of the same original bird doesn't make any sense.

Why not? Do you even understand what evolution is? Inherited changes over time. To argue that two different animals are too different to be related ignores the very concept evolution is built upon - that of change.

And what about all the animals out there that serve no purpose, like the hippopotamus?

What about them? Evolution doesn't say that animals must serve a purpose. You are presupposing that an artifact from your religion - purpose to life - is present in evolution, when it isn't.

Evolution requires an enormous amount of faith. Just as much as believing in creation.
There is no mountain of evidence supporting macro evolution.

No, just spend some time reading an actual text book on the subject and you will see there are mountainloads of evidence from a variety of fields.

The only way you can wave away the evidence is if you want to claim there is a malicious deceiving god that deliverately planted overwelming genetic and fossil and isotopic and geographical distribution evidence of a chain of creatures that appears to be an evolutionary sequence of intermediate forms from a common origin of land mammals to modern whales, and hundreds of other such examples. Oh, and I guess god planted false dating evidence to deceive us into thinking all of these perfect sequences of fossils are actually diferent ages and that that look like they are in just the right order to make exactly the right sequence. They were all actually drowned on the same day by the Great Flood and god glued false aging evidence on all of them.

If you simply weren't aware just how much overwheling evidence there *is* then I suggest you try spending a little time at the talkorigins website. Of course if you simply do not like evolution and you don't care how much "so-called evidence" there is and just how solid it is and how solidly it all interconnects and cross-verifies, then obviously there's no point in you wasting time reading about it. In that case it's much easier to say this is my interpretation of the Bible, and the Bible must be right and my interpretation must be right, and therefor all of that evidence must be mistaken or a deliberate attack by atheists to banish god.

What you neglected to point out is that when they [lions and tigers] are bred together, the offspring is infertile.

Incorrect. I just so happened to be reading this exact subject on Wikipedia the other day.

Under the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger">liger entry you will find:
Female ligers are often fertile and can be mated to a tiger resulting in ti-liger offspring or to a lion resulting in li-liger offspring.

and under the tigon entry you'll find:
a tigon named Noelle in the Shambala Reserve mated with a tiger to produce a "ti-tigon".

So yes there are sometimes fertility problems, but no they are not infertile as a group. You can get grand-baby li-ti-liger-tigon-whozimawhatchamacallit-gons if you want.

Of course this really isn't particularly signifigant either way. If there weren't cross-fertile it certainly wouldn't disprove evolution, and if you want to reject evolution you can make the claim that lions and tigers are the same "kind" as created by god, and that it's merely common error that we call them different speices and that there's only "micro" evolutions between lions and tigers, but there's still some sort of "magic macroevolution" between pumas and panthers and "magic macroevolution" between lions and lynx and "magic macroevolution" between houscats and cheetahs. Yep, it's just those odd lions and tigers that have those really really big "micro" evolutions between them. Chuckle.

Too many simultaneous changes must happen in multiple specimens that then decide to interbreed in order to achieve evolution.

You might be able to get some moderate shift in a species in one to three generation by severly decimating a population some crude collection of latent traits in a population, but in general coherent shifts occur over scores or hundreds of generations. It may often seem "simultaneous" in the fossil record, but that's only because anything less than 10,000 years or so is "simultaneous" in geological terms.

Getting an emu and a hummingbirds out of the same original bird doesn't make any sense.

Why not? It certainly makes more sense to me than a practical

"1. This argument centers on belief in life outside our solar system. Your response has given me no indication you think to contrary of *many* evolutionists. If the majority of evolutionists believe in life outside our solar system, is it really any surprise that Intelligent Design has worked its way into public debate?"

Here is what you originally said:

"Chance over probability. This is probably the weakest argument (because we *could* be the 1 in septendecillion instance), but it is a significant one, because many of the same individuals that believe we evolved from single-cell organisms also believe in extraterrestrial life within our own galaxy. You'd think these individuals would actually be ID proponents."

Your statements appear illogical to me. So far, we have a grand total of one planet with life from which to draw conclusions. Assuming that physics and chemistry work the same on other planets, and assuming that life arose on our planet without the help of some Intelligence, it is reasonable to assume, given the size of the galaxy (let alone the universe) that life arose elsewhere. How you get ID proponents from this line of reasoning escapes me. The probablility arguments used against the likelihood of life arising without an Intelligence are beyond specious. This article, "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Abiogenesis Calculations," discusses some of the issues involved.

"2. The earth is a closed system. Let me repeat, the earth is a closed system. Our environment allows energy and not mass to pass into the system."

You can repeat it all you like... it's still incorrect. The Earth is closed to neither mass nor energy. Plenty of material appears to have impacted the Earth during the solar system's early history, and, to a lesser degree, continues to do so today.

"Thus, the argument has to be that energy-cause mutations can increase information."

Google "Kolmogorov-Chaitin Complexity" for a discussion of information and information increase. Your seeming complaint against "energy-cause mutations" is best seen in this light.

"In such mutations, the organism cannot reproduce or at least, cannot reproduce with those of the same species."

Eh? How do you go from "energy-cause mutations" to this?

So, tell me: how do you think life came to arise on this planet, and how do your ideas as to how life changes over time differ from those expressed in modern evolutionary theory?

John Woodmorappe lists over 350 radiometric dates known to be in error. [Woodmorappe, 1979] He compared the expected age of the material dated with the age obtained by the reporting scientists. The expected age is based on the rock layer from which the sample came, which is based on the specific fossils found in them. He explained that although very common, most discrepant dates are simply excluded from the published reports or explained away.

I would hardly propose these examples are few. It appears they are found on a regular basis and just ignored or other samples are used to fit what evolutionists claim is "historical accurate".

5. It'd matter if I believed in creation. Since I don't, evolution has yet another large gap to explain. The method you are using is so damn near straw-man, I don't know what else to say other than: I do not believe in creation, either. I don't have to "believe" in either, yet the assumption in any debate like this, is that I need to. I don't, I honestly don't care about the issue except with the near religious-like devotion evolutionists have to their cause. I'm rejecting evolution, not accepting creation.
"Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative."

6. On this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.h tml the potential falsification has a "criticism" of the falsification, probably suggested by "believers" rather than real scientists, to account for instances like mammals "evolving" softshells from reptiles, who had hard shells, which also evolved into birds with hard shells. Yet species of early reptiles had soft shells. So apparently the evolution of the shell is just arbitrary. And that's okay, because it doesn't really falsify evolution to have hard shell species evolve into soft shell and back.

Don't get me wrong, I like this page, but there are some huge problems with it. One of the claims of possible falsification is something we've found already: Rhipsalis is a cacti that is found outside of the Americas, with literally no explanation of how it got to Africa.

Again, missing fossils/records are the problem as argued by evolutionists. Falsification is the problem, as indicated by me. We're "just waiting for the complete fossil record". Now tell me that isn't

Actually, according to calculations done on the model by JBS Haldane, the maximum number of mutations (of any sort -- duplication, base-pair, etc) between man and the most recent ancestor of man and apes is 1,667 based on the evolutionary timetable.

Except that Haldane was wrong.

Talk Origins has an article debunking Barry Setterfield:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html/>

Does every comment need to be positive or negative? But to answer your question since you didn't get it the first time, it's negative regarding evolution. I am pointing out that the theory of evolution has many holes. But that's fine since it's just a theory and I am sure it will be refined over time.

I challenge you give a single example where Evolution is wrong.

It has NEVER been recorded in a scientific experiment before.

You are demonstrably wrong; see here.

But somehow, this slight omission never kept anyone from asserting that Darwin's hypothesis of evolution is somehow unscientific.

Care to revise your opinion now you've been shown to be wrong?

Is there any way to falsify the evolution theory?


many, many ways

Our racial traits likely evolved because of a near-extinction (to humans) event 70,000 years ago: the Tobu supervolcano eruption. During that time, humanity went down to about 1,000 individuals and random evolutionary neutral traits (like eye-folds or hair shape) became more common in the then widely separated groups. But for all of our history before and after that event, humans have been moving around constantly, never allowing an isolated population to exist for that long.

Positive "racial" mutations like skin color changes (actually we all have the same skin color, its just that we have diffent saturation) or malarial resistance (sickle-cell isn't just a "black" disease) happened to any group of people who moved to significantly different areas. Race doesn't correlate with race, in other words.

Disclaimer: I am not a creationist.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But you're clearly lazy and willfully ignorant.

On the off chance that you're sincere and not just trolling, I refer you to the talk.origins FAQ. Each of your "unanswered" questions and alleged concerns are tired, old, endlessly hashed and rehashed subjects.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also