Slashdot Mirror

Fact: Something that you observe to be true.
fact #1: when you drop a hammer, it falls to the ground
fact #2: a genetic sequence can change sufficiently to form a new species. Speciation has been observed more than once in the laboratory and in the wild, so this is a fact. Since we call this process 'evolution', that means evolution is a fact. Keep reading for more explanation of this.

Fact: Something that you observe to be true.
fact: when I dropped a hammer this morning, it appeared (from where I was observing it) to fall to the ground

Theory: A prediction of future behaviour (usually on the basis of evidence)
Theory #1: If I drop a hammer tomorrow, near the surface of the Earth, it will fall towards the Earth's centre.
Theory #2: Objects having the property of "mass" are mutually attracted to each other. Further observation may reveal how the attractive force depends on the properties of those objects.

I'm no believer in Intelligent Design myself, but I find the arguments of the nerves in the giraffe's neck and other arguments to be more convincing than hairsplitting over "theory" versus "fact".

#1 relies on the debunked "irreducible complexity" argument. Supposedly "irreducible" functions in organisms already have a rather detailed explanation. Some information on the claims of irreducible complexity.

#2 makes a claim without substantiating it. Information in DNA is not like information in spoken languages, despite the dishonest creationists who continue to make this comparison. Essentially, you've gone from not wanting to make an argument by "because I said so" by instead deferring to someone else who does exactly the same thing.

#3 is just outright false. The person writing the article is either woefully misinformed or an outright liar.

#4 is an appeal to the debunked "law of thermodynamics" argument. Only complete and total morons appeal to this attempt to assert that evolution violates the principle that entropy always increases in closed systems. It doesn't help their argument that earth is not a closed system.

The "2nd law of thermo" argument is one that Answers in Genesis even says that creationists should NOT use. The author of the piece really demonstrates his fundamental lack of education on the matter.

#5 is a subjective claim. There is a plethora of transitional fossils and living forms, but creationists always seem to want N+1 no matter how many N specimens are found. Here's just a small sample of evidence of transitional forms.

#6 is a common claim from creationists who don't bother to actually understand the evidence. It's funny how many creationists assert that one fossil is "A man, just a man!" while other creationists claim that the same fossil is "an ape, just an ape!".

#7 is outright false. There are multiple dating methods, and no single method is ever used at one time. Findings are always cross-checked with multiple dating methods in order to rule out a possible discrepency with one of the methods involved. Yes, there are conditions that can skew dating methods, but those conditions are often known and worked around in advance, and for the unknowns, there is cross-referencing to detect such discrepencies. Creationists frequently nitpick dating methods without knowing a single thing about how the dating methods are used.

A bit of information on Isochron dating.

#8 is a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of "vestigal". Vestigal organs are not necessarily completely unused, it simply means that they do not serve the same function as they did in the past.

#9 is an outright lie. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how life ultimately came to exist. Once again, the author demonstrates that when he can't attack evolution with facts (or rather, with his total lack of understanding of facts), he's willing to use lies to support his claims.

It is a common creationist tactic to attack "spontaneous generation", and they also misrepresent the work of Louis Pasteur -- who simply demonstrated that fully grown flies do not emerge spontaneously from rotting meat, NOT that life cannot emerge from non-life under any circumstances whatsoever -- as an attack on evolution. This is because creationists don't actually bother studying evolution before they consider themselves educated enough to attack it. It would be like someone attacking the "absurdities" of Christianity without reading a single page of the Bible.

#10 is an assertion that we can never draw conclusions about past events based on evidence. By this reasoning, we can never claim to know anything about history, and our criminal justice system will fall apart, because there's no way to "prove" that a murder ever occured, much less that an accused committed it.

#1 relies on the debunked "irreducible complexity" argument. Supposedly "irreducible" functions in organisms already have a rather detailed explanation. Some information on the claims of irreducible complexity.

#2 makes a claim without substantiating it. Information in DNA is not like information in spoken languages, despite the dishonest creationists who continue to make this comparison. Essentially, you've gone from not wanting to make an argument by "because I said so" by instead deferring to someone else who does exactly the same thing.

#3 is just outright false. The person writing the article is either woefully misinformed or an outright liar.

#4 is an appeal to the debunked "law of thermodynamics" argument. Only complete and total morons appeal to this attempt to assert that evolution violates the principle that entropy always increases in closed systems. It doesn't help their argument that earth is not a closed system.

The "2nd law of thermo" argument is one that Answers in Genesis even says that creationists should NOT use. The author of the piece really demonstrates his fundamental lack of education on the matter.

#5 is a subjective claim. There is a plethora of transitional fossils and living forms, but creationists always seem to want N+1 no matter how many N specimens are found. Here's just a small sample of evidence of transitional forms.

#6 is a common claim from creationists who don't bother to actually understand the evidence. It's funny how many creationists assert that one fossil is "A man, just a man!" while other creationists claim that the same fossil is "an ape, just an ape!".

#7 is outright false. There are multiple dating methods, and no single method is ever used at one time. Findings are always cross-checked with multiple dating methods in order to rule out a possible discrepency with one of the methods involved. Yes, there are conditions that can skew dating methods, but those conditions are often known and worked around in advance, and for the unknowns, there is cross-referencing to detect such discrepencies. Creationists frequently nitpick dating methods without knowing a single thing about how the dating methods are used.

A bit of information on Isochron dating.

#8 is a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of "vestigal". Vestigal organs are not necessarily completely unused, it simply means that they do not serve the same function as they did in the past.

#9 is an outright lie. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how life ultimately came to exist. Once again, the author demonstrates that when he can't attack evolution with facts (or rather, with his total lack of understanding of facts), he's willing to use lies to support his claims.

It is a common creationist tactic to attack "spontaneous generation", and they also misrepresent the work of Louis Pasteur -- who simply demonstrated that fully grown flies do not emerge spontaneously from rotting meat, NOT that life cannot emerge from non-life under any circumstances whatsoever -- as an attack on evolution. This is because creationists don't actually bother studying evolution before they consider themselves educated enough to attack it. It would be like someone attacking the "absurdities" of Christianity without reading a single page of the Bible.

#10 is an assertion that we can never draw conclusions about past events based on evidence. By this reasoning, we can never claim to know anything about history, and our criminal justice system will fall apart, because there's no way to "prove" that a murder ever occured, much less that an accused committed it.

#1 relies on the debunked "irreducible complexity" argument. Supposedly "irreducible" functions in organisms already have a rather detailed explanation. Some information on the claims of irreducible complexity.

#2 makes a claim without substantiating it. Information in DNA is not like information in spoken languages, despite the dishonest creationists who continue to make this comparison. Essentially, you've gone from not wanting to make an argument by "because I said so" by instead deferring to someone else who does exactly the same thing.

#3 is just outright false. The person writing the article is either woefully misinformed or an outright liar.

#4 is an appeal to the debunked "law of thermodynamics" argument. Only complete and total morons appeal to this attempt to assert that evolution violates the principle that entropy always increases in closed systems. It doesn't help their argument that earth is not a closed system.

The "2nd law of thermo" argument is one that Answers in Genesis even says that creationists should NOT use. The author of the piece really demonstrates his fundamental lack of education on the matter.

#5 is a subjective claim. There is a plethora of transitional fossils and living forms, but creationists always seem to want N+1 no matter how many N specimens are found. Here's just a small sample of evidence of transitional forms.

#6 is a common claim from creationists who don't bother to actually understand the evidence. It's funny how many creationists assert that one fossil is "A man, just a man!" while other creationists claim that the same fossil is "an ape, just an ape!".

#7 is outright false. There are multiple dating methods, and no single method is ever used at one time. Findings are always cross-checked with multiple dating methods in order to rule out a possible discrepency with one of the methods involved. Yes, there are conditions that can skew dating methods, but those conditions are often known and worked around in advance, and for the unknowns, there is cross-referencing to detect such discrepencies. Creationists frequently nitpick dating methods without knowing a single thing about how the dating methods are used.

A bit of information on Isochron dating.

#8 is a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of "vestigal". Vestigal organs are not necessarily completely unused, it simply means that they do not serve the same function as they did in the past.

#9 is an outright lie. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how life ultimately came to exist. Once again, the author demonstrates that when he can't attack evolution with facts (or rather, with his total lack of understanding of facts), he's willing to use lies to support his claims.

It is a common creationist tactic to attack "spontaneous generation", and they also misrepresent the work of Louis Pasteur -- who simply demonstrated that fully grown flies do not emerge spontaneously from rotting meat, NOT that life cannot emerge from non-life under any circumstances whatsoever -- as an attack on evolution. This is because creationists don't actually bother studying evolution before they consider themselves educated enough to attack it. It would be like someone attacking the "absurdities" of Christianity without reading a single page of the Bible.

#10 is an assertion that we can never draw conclusions about past events based on evidence. By this reasoning, we can never claim to know anything about history, and our criminal justice system will fall apart, because there's no way to "prove" that a murder ever occured, much less that an accused committed it.

#1 relies on the debunked "irreducible complexity" argument. Supposedly "irreducible" functions in organisms already have a rather detailed explanation. Some information on the claims of irreducible complexity.

#2 makes a claim without substantiating it. Information in DNA is not like information in spoken languages, despite the dishonest creationists who continue to make this comparison. Essentially, you've gone from not wanting to make an argument by "because I said so" by instead deferring to someone else who does exactly the same thing.

#3 is just outright false. The person writing the article is either woefully misinformed or an outright liar.

#4 is an appeal to the debunked "law of thermodynamics" argument. Only complete and total morons appeal to this attempt to assert that evolution violates the principle that entropy always increases in closed systems. It doesn't help their argument that earth is not a closed system.

The "2nd law of thermo" argument is one that Answers in Genesis even says that creationists should NOT use. The author of the piece really demonstrates his fundamental lack of education on the matter.

#5 is a subjective claim. There is a plethora of transitional fossils and living forms, but creationists always seem to want N+1 no matter how many N specimens are found. Here's just a small sample of evidence of transitional forms.

#6 is a common claim from creationists who don't bother to actually understand the evidence. It's funny how many creationists assert that one fossil is "A man, just a man!" while other creationists claim that the same fossil is "an ape, just an ape!".

#7 is outright false. There are multiple dating methods, and no single method is ever used at one time. Findings are always cross-checked with multiple dating methods in order to rule out a possible discrepency with one of the methods involved. Yes, there are conditions that can skew dating methods, but those conditions are often known and worked around in advance, and for the unknowns, there is cross-referencing to detect such discrepencies. Creationists frequently nitpick dating methods without knowing a single thing about how the dating methods are used.

A bit of information on Isochron dating.

#8 is a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of "vestigal". Vestigal organs are not necessarily completely unused, it simply means that they do not serve the same function as they did in the past.

#9 is an outright lie. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how life ultimately came to exist. Once again, the author demonstrates that when he can't attack evolution with facts (or rather, with his total lack of understanding of facts), he's willing to use lies to support his claims.

It is a common creationist tactic to attack "spontaneous generation", and they also misrepresent the work of Louis Pasteur -- who simply demonstrated that fully grown flies do not emerge spontaneously from rotting meat, NOT that life cannot emerge from non-life under any circumstances whatsoever -- as an attack on evolution. This is because creationists don't actually bother studying evolution before they consider themselves educated enough to attack it. It would be like someone attacking the "absurdities" of Christianity without reading a single page of the Bible.

#10 is an assertion that we can never draw conclusions about past events based on evidence. By this reasoning, we can never claim to know anything about history, and our criminal justice system will fall apart, because there's no way to "prove" that a murder ever occured, much less that an accused committed it.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The process of evolution is a fact, because it's describing observed behavior (mutation, speciation, etc). The theory of evolution encompasses good old natural selection (the aggregate effect of random genetic mutations "selected" by fitness over time), which is the mechanism by which the process of evolution occurs.

I wrote this slightly more verbose post a while back with additional links and information. Here's a quote from Stephen Jay Gould, which summarizes the issue in a fairly succinct (albeit opinionated) manner:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory natural selection to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Source: Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

The URL you're looking for probably includes a list of observed speciation examples. Talk Origins has a couple of pages with examples of observed speciation, both natural and induced (artificial):

• Speciation FAQ
• More Examples of Observed Speciation

Hope this helps...

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The process of evolution is a fact, because it's describing observed behavior (mutation, speciation, etc). The theory of evolution encompasses good old natural selection (the aggregate effect of random genetic mutations "selected" by fitness over time), which is the mechanism by which the process of evolution occurs.

I wrote this slightly more verbose post a while back with additional links and information. Here's a quote from Stephen Jay Gould, which summarizes the issue in a fairly succinct (albeit opinionated) manner:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory natural selection to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Source: Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

The URL you're looking for probably includes a list of observed speciation examples. Talk Origins has a couple of pages with examples of observed speciation, both natural and induced (artificial):

• Speciation FAQ
• More Examples of Observed Speciation

Hope this helps...

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The process of evolution is a fact, because it's describing observed behavior (mutation, speciation, etc). The theory of evolution encompasses good old natural selection (the aggregate effect of random genetic mutations "selected" by fitness over time), which is the mechanism by which the process of evolution occurs.

I wrote this slightly more verbose post a while back with additional links and information. Here's a quote from Stephen Jay Gould, which summarizes the issue in a fairly succinct (albeit opinionated) manner:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory natural selection to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Source: Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

The URL you're looking for probably includes a list of observed speciation examples. Talk Origins has a couple of pages with examples of observed speciation, both natural and induced (artificial):

• Speciation FAQ
• More Examples of Observed Speciation

Hope this helps...

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Hovind's offer is a sham. Here is some more information on the subject.

Meh, RNA is fantastically complex compared to what the ancestor self-replicator likely was. Possibly a lipid-bound peptide, 2 or 3 dozen amino acids long.

The Abiogenesis FAQ

A cubit is not an exact measurement, and was used, especially for measurements larger than a few cubits, to convey the sense of size. A cubit was the length from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. It was never intended to be exact.

Every manuscript ever written was/is/will be written in the context of that culture and language. Pure math falls into similar context as well. You could write it as a series of dots representing numbers and even group the dots with symbols in a series, to explain the symbols (whether they are operators or more convenient symbols to represent a quantitiy of dots), and then show proofs using this system. Just about anyone could then read this language, given a bit of thought. But true understanding may be harder, especially for those tribal groups whose language only include the equivalents of one, two, and many. So even this attempt at writing a culture-neutral, universally understood manuscript has limitations.

Commenting on most of the rest of what I've read here:

Almost everyone posting needs to know a science book, not dictionary, definition of theory, fact, and scientific law. I will not provide these. That's what science books are for.

Most posts have no validity whatsoever because they are based on faulty premises, and very bad logic on top of that. Most have much misinformation.

Since there is so much "proof" abounding here I will throw some opinions into the fray. Read the second law of thermodynamics. How does evolution fit in (that's always been my question)?

For those who want to know about how science relates to religion, try Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator," and/or http://www.answersingenesis.org/. For those who want the to know about evolution, try http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/t he-origin-of-species/ for the research that started it all. For an ongoing debate about the subject, try http://www.talkorigins.org/. For a balanced view, try all the above, plus more. Each of these contain lengthy reads, and great opposition. Keep an open mind, flip back and forth between all of them, and you will probably still end up taking a side. The important thing is, that if done properly, the side will be yours.

Happy Thinking!

Finally, a few quotes attributed to "Mark Twain" to shed some absurd insight on all this (disclaimer: these are his own opinions, not to be construed as fact, theory, law, or anything otherwise, though some might be):

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.

The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that ain't so.

-JDS

Take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l and also http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l and also http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

• Mutations are very often neutral. "Decades of biochemical evidence have shown that many amino acid mutations, especially of surface residues, have only small effects on protein function and on protein structure (Branden and Tooze 1999, Ch. 3; Harris et al. 1956; Lesk 2001, Chs. 5 and 6, pp. 165-228; Li 1997, p. 2; Matthews 1996). A striking example is that of the c-type cytochromes from various bacteria, which have virtually no sequence similarity. Nevertheless, they all fold into the same three-dimensional structure, and they all perform the same biological role (Moore and Pettigrew 1990, pp. 161-223; Ptitsyn 1998).

  Even within species, most amino acid mutations are functionally silent. For example, there are at least 250 different amino acid mutations known in human hemoglobin, carried by more than 3% of the world's population, that have no clinical manifestation in either heterozygotic or homozygotic individuals (Bunn and Forget 1986; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 235). The phenomenon of protein functional redundancy is very general, and is observed in all known proteins and genes.
  
  With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein. [emphasis added]"

• Parahomology explains going from 300 to 301 genes:

  "One major consequence of the constraint of gradualism is the predicted existence of parahomology. Parahomology, as the term is used here, is similarity of structure despite difference in function. When one species branches into two species, one or both of the species may acquire new functions. Since the new species must recruit and modify preexisting structures to perform these new functions, the same structure shared by these two species will now perform a different function in each of the two species. This is parahomology. It follows that parahomologous structures have a history that should be explicable from other lines of evolutionary evidence, since derived characteristics (which is what these new functions and structures now are) have evolved from more primitive (i.e. older) structures..."

  "...A stunning confirmation of these evolutionary predictions has come from an analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast) and Caenorhabditis elegans (a worm). The genomes of both these organisms were sequenced very recently (Barrell 1996; Caenorhabditis elegans Sequencing Consortium 1998). The genes used by the yeast, a unicellular organism, are mostly genes dealing directly with core biochemical functions that all organisms must perform. From an evolutionary perspective, we would expect these genes to be ancient. Thus it was expected and shown that the worm contains a great majority of these genes. In contrast, the extra genes used by the worm, which deal with multicellularity, should be more recently evolved. Phylogenetic analysis has shown that this is exactly the case. The vast majority of extra genes in the worm appear to be directly derived from genes providing core cellular functions, in accordance with evolutionary prediction (Chervitz et al. 1998).

  An even larger study of the known eukaryotic genomes has further demonstrated that parahomology is rampant in nature, and that true structural innovation is relatively rare (Rubin et al. 2000).

Of course, neutral mutations and parahomology aren't inconsistent with a designer. On the other hand,

• Mutations are very often neutral. "Decades of biochemical evidence have shown that many amino acid mutations, especially of surface residues, have only small effects on protein function and on protein structure (Branden and Tooze 1999, Ch. 3; Harris et al. 1956; Lesk 2001, Chs. 5 and 6, pp. 165-228; Li 1997, p. 2; Matthews 1996). A striking example is that of the c-type cytochromes from various bacteria, which have virtually no sequence similarity. Nevertheless, they all fold into the same three-dimensional structure, and they all perform the same biological role (Moore and Pettigrew 1990, pp. 161-223; Ptitsyn 1998).

  Even within species, most amino acid mutations are functionally silent. For example, there are at least 250 different amino acid mutations known in human hemoglobin, carried by more than 3% of the world's population, that have no clinical manifestation in either heterozygotic or homozygotic individuals (Bunn and Forget 1986; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 235). The phenomenon of protein functional redundancy is very general, and is observed in all known proteins and genes.
  
  With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein. [emphasis added]"

• Parahomology explains going from 300 to 301 genes:

  "One major consequence of the constraint of gradualism is the predicted existence of parahomology. Parahomology, as the term is used here, is similarity of structure despite difference in function. When one species branches into two species, one or both of the species may acquire new functions. Since the new species must recruit and modify preexisting structures to perform these new functions, the same structure shared by these two species will now perform a different function in each of the two species. This is parahomology. It follows that parahomologous structures have a history that should be explicable from other lines of evolutionary evidence, since derived characteristics (which is what these new functions and structures now are) have evolved from more primitive (i.e. older) structures..."

  "...A stunning confirmation of these evolutionary predictions has come from an analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast) and Caenorhabditis elegans (a worm). The genomes of both these organisms were sequenced very recently (Barrell 1996; Caenorhabditis elegans Sequencing Consortium 1998). The genes used by the yeast, a unicellular organism, are mostly genes dealing directly with core biochemical functions that all organisms must perform. From an evolutionary perspective, we would expect these genes to be ancient. Thus it was expected and shown that the worm contains a great majority of these genes. In contrast, the extra genes used by the worm, which deal with multicellularity, should be more recently evolved. Phylogenetic analysis has shown that this is exactly the case. The vast majority of extra genes in the worm appear to be directly derived from genes providing core cellular functions, in accordance with evolutionary prediction (Chervitz et al. 1998).

  An even larger study of the known eukaryotic genomes has further demonstrated that parahomology is rampant in nature, and that true structural innovation is relatively rare (Rubin et al. 2000).

Of course, neutral mutations and parahomology aren't inconsistent with a designer. On the other hand,

Found these links somewhere else in this thread:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.htm l#observe
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Found these links somewhere else in this thread:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.htm l#observe
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major cooption event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function)...

(see site for seven step path)

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible...

3.Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

• Why humans and chimps don't just share nearly all of our genes, but nearly all of our broken genes (and why human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point).
• Transitional forms like reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, and, yes, apes to human.
• Atavisms, Biogeography, Convergence of independent phylogenies and the other 26+ evidences detailed in 29 Evidences for Macroevolution"-- each one individually usable for predictions about (or for falsifying) evolution.

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major cooption event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function)...

(see site for seven step path)

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible...

3.Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

• Why humans and chimps don't just share nearly all of our genes, but nearly all of our broken genes (and why human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point).
• Transitional forms like reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, and, yes, apes to human.
• Atavisms, Biogeography, Convergence of independent phylogenies and the other 26+ evidences detailed in 29 Evidences for Macroevolution"-- each one individually usable for predictions about (or for falsifying) evolution.

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major cooption event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function)...

(see site for seven step path)

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible...

3.Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

• Why humans and chimps don't just share nearly all of our genes, but nearly all of our broken genes (and why human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point).
• Transitional forms like reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, and, yes, apes to human.
• Atavisms, Biogeography, Convergence of independent phylogenies and the other 26+ evidences detailed in 29 Evidences for Macroevolution"-- each one individually usable for predictions about (or for falsifying) evolution.

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major cooption event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function)...

(see site for seven step path)

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible...

3.Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

• Why humans and chimps don't just share nearly all of our genes, but nearly all of our broken genes (and why human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point).
• Transitional forms like reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, and, yes, apes to human.
• Atavisms, Biogeography, Convergence of independent phylogenies and the other 26+ evidences detailed in 29 Evidences for Macroevolution"-- each one individually usable for predictions about (or for falsifying) evolution.

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major cooption event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function)...

(see site for seven step path)

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible...

3.Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

• Why humans and chimps don't just share nearly all of our genes, but nearly all of our broken genes (and why human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point).
• Transitional forms like reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, and, yes, apes to human.
• Atavisms, Biogeography, Convergence of independent phylogenies and the other 26+ evidences detailed in 29 Evidences for Macroevolution"-- each one individually usable for predictions about (or for falsifying) evolution.

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major cooption event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function)...

(see site for seven step path)

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible...

3.Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

• Why humans and chimps don't just share nearly all of our genes, but nearly all of our broken genes (and why human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point).
• Transitional forms like reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, and, yes, apes to human.
• Atavisms, Biogeography, Convergence of independent phylogenies and the other 26+ evidences detailed in 29 Evidences for Macroevolution"-- each one individually usable for predictions about (or for falsifying) evolution.

Let me rephrase that. I linked to the sub-section of the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" page which describes the word "evidences." This page is what I'd been hoping for.

In other words, the "Preview" button is there for a reason.

Macroevolution has been observed, if by macroevolution, you mean the evolution of completely new species. These cases of speciation have been observed in the laboratory. Oh, and if you want to observe monkeys(sic) turning into humans, take a look at the fossil record.

Just because you say macroevolution has been observed doesn't mean you are right. Please site examples. Thanks.

Here you go.

while atomic theory, gravitational theory, and germ theory can be tested, evolutionary theory cannot.

Yes, it can, and has. If we found human remains in Precambrian strata, or if human DNA wasn't similar to the DNA of the other great apes, or if a cat ever gave birth to a dog, then evolution would be in trouble.

So far, it's passed all the tests.

When a new species has been observed to have evolved, you can remove the stickers (we're discussing only macro-evolution).

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

while atomic theory, gravitational theory, and germ theory can be tested, evolutionary theory cannot.

Yes, it can, and has. If we found human remains in Precambrian strata, or if human DNA wasn't similar to the DNA of the other great apes, or if a cat ever gave birth to a dog, then evolution would be in trouble.

So far, it's passed all the tests.

When a new species has been observed to have evolved, you can remove the stickers (we're discussing only macro-evolution).

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

Apparently a lot of people seem to misunderstand that evolution doesn't say anything about the creation of life (much less anything about the creation of the universe) and is only concerned with the change in life through time. Evolution != abiogenesis.

IANAS, but I've done a lot of personal study on the topic of evolution, as well as evolution vs. "creationism" since all this controversy started up a few months ago. I picked up quite a number of books by Richard Dawkins (One particularly interesting one is "The Selfish Gene" which begins with a great dissertation on abiogenesis and goes through a great story that details how the "chance" of life appearing out the primordial soup is nowhere near as random or billion-to-one as most people believe) and others.

Also, I encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to visit http://www.talkorigins.org/ and study up on how BS the arguments against evolution are, as well as browse various creationist websites to see just how BS they are in general.

But if it ever did happen, we would be diggin up skeletons of fish with legs, and animals that are between species.

We are.

Sigh.

Most biologists today consider evolution to be a fact. What is a theory is the mechanisms that drive evolution, such as natural selection.

Speciation has been observed directly. Mostly with plants and insects. [1] There is more than enough literature on this.

Most theories aren't "provable" nor did the previous poster suggest they are. However they must be testable, as the previous poster said "It needs to be able to be proved wrong". It must make predictions which you can go forward and test.

String theory is certainly a very immature theory but people are working on performing tests which could falsify or further refine the theory.

Similarly people do think up ways of testing and refining evolution .

Check out Talk Origins.

First, here and here is your information about macroevolution (a misnomer in itself).

Second, there's no such thing as being "between species". An organism is either in a given species or it isn't -- and the change of one species into another can happen instantly, or it can happen gradually. In any case, a change of species is so minor that it isn't easily observed in the fossil record.

You might want to look up "species". I think you have a misconception about what it means.

First, here and here is your information about macroevolution (a misnomer in itself).

Second, there's no such thing as being "between species". An organism is either in a given species or it isn't -- and the change of one species into another can happen instantly, or it can happen gradually. In any case, a change of species is so minor that it isn't easily observed in the fossil record.

You might want to look up "species". I think you have a misconception about what it means.

It's been covered many times before

Creationism and it's jumped up little brother Intelligent Design would be hard put to prove themselves as a Hypothesis.

People who misuse the language of science in order to try to disprove something should be pointed and laughed at, rather then engaged in debate.

Learn the ground rules first people, otherwise you come across as a fool.

Fine-tuning is not an argument in favor of supernaturalism. In fact, it is evidence against supernaturalism. Beyond that, it's also questionable whether there even is fine-tuning, let alone the meaning of it. See also this discussion.

If 80% aren't spherical one must ask why the other 20% are NOT.

Why even bother to ask why? If you come across something and you can't figure out how it could have occurred, just claim the event or process is the product of Intelligent Design .

Why spend year after tedious year engaging in reductionist scientific inquiry when you can just bail out immediately with an answer that cannot be falsified: Intelligent Design .

Worried that your invisible sky-ghost or imaginary all-powerful personal friend isn't getting the deferential worship He deserves in this age of secular humanism? Sneak your sky-ghost back into the schools and indoctrinate another generation of devout sheep with Intelligent Design .

Remember the "Argument from Personal Incredulity": if you're too thick to figure out how something works, it must be because no one can figure it out! Don't sweat it! Just explain it away by saying it was caused personally God^H^H^H an Intelligent Designer!

Don't waste time asking question or doing science! Just give credit to an Intelligent Designer and go back to sleep!

...Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder...

...In the following sections we will try to explain the true relation between entropy and probability and show why this relationship does not preclude the possibility of order spontaneously arising from disorder...

If you wish to believe in a creator, that's fine, but please do not mislead others into thinking that such beliefs are supported by science.

>You're wrong and too proud to admit it. Read this, hopefully that settles it for you: Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?.

I didn't say that they didn't publish in any refereed journals, I said that they didn't publish anything in refereed journals that supported creationism. And the referenced article doesn't list any articles supporting a young earth or creationism any refereed scientific journal. Now all you have to do is provide references to some creationism supporting articles in refereed journals.

>>You ignored ... just to make your arithmetic work out.

>The arithmetic works out.

And there's a definite, non-zero probability that all the air molecules in a room will congregate in on corner long enough for every one in the room to die of asphyxiation. I've got equations to calculate that probability in one of my physics books. But, I also understand that those equations are not generally applicable in the macroscopic world.

You have to actually understand what the numbers represent, not just pick the ones that support your viewpoint. You're assuming that you can divide any age estimate that you want by 20 because one paper indicates that a certain type of genetic material isn't as highly conserved as other types. You need to go find out something about the variablity of conservation rates of genetic material, not pick the first number that appears to support your viewpoint.

>>How many variations did you try before you got it to work out?

>The beauty of what you're fighting is that it all converges. Other studies are saying the same thing ....

which converges to an answer of "The mutation rate of mtDNA is not well known". mtDNA mutation rates can even vary dramatically within a single anscestral lineage. Which just means, more research will probably yield interesting results, none of it likely to support creationism. There's an interesting article at Talk Origins about mitochondrial DNA in fossil hominids.

>>The Family tree article doesn't say that there was only one family tree at 1415BC. It says that on average, all family trees intersect at that point, which is vastly different from what you said.

>Talk is cheap. As I said multiple times in those posts: Give me a reason how the study _disproves_ a single ancestor.

That article wasn't about "proving" or "dis-proving" a single ancestor. Why would you expect me to be able to find that in the article, when you can't find anything in the article that "proves" a single ancestor either. You're the one making the positive claim, you prove that the article supports a single ancestor, instead of what the title says "Family trees share roots in 1415BC". "share roots" isn't the same as "has a single root".

>>As far as what Newton believed in. Alchemy, Astrology and Creationism were all appropriate for his time, but just as Alchemy and Astrology have been relagated to quaint history, so has creationism.

>I warned about slandering the dead. According to this article [skepticreport.com], Newton bought books on astrology, but was "soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology". As for alchemy, that was the chemistry of the day.

The article at skepticreport.com was interesting, and had good citations. The reference that I had mentioning astrology was from a wikipedia, and apparently needs to be updated. So, that leaves alchemy and creationism, which still belong to quaint history, having been replaced by scientific theories that explain the vast majority of the evidence in the universe much more precisely.

By the way, thanks for the pointer to skepticreport.co

Isaac Newton also believed in alchemy, astrology, and didn't believe in the Triune God, which would make him a heretic in some people's eyes. The last reputable scientist that defended wholesale creation of life on earth was Louis Agassiz, and even he didn't believe in the Noachian Flood. That was in the 1800's.

A "Gish Gallop" is named for Duane Gish, one of the original "creation scientists". He is associated primarily with the "Institute for Creation Research" It was his technique of galloping from one false statement about science and the age of the earth to another, without actually defending any statement. He depended upon the sheer volume of bunk to prevent any reasoned discussion about his statements. As far as I am concerned, presenting the entire Answers in Genesis web site as "evidence" is a "Gish Gallop". I asked for the single piece of evidence that you felt was most persuasive, because that's all that can be sensibly discussed at a time.

As far as what you have said that is wrong, any claim that you've made that the earth is less than about 4.5 billion years old, has no accepted scientific evidence to support it.

As I said previously, there is no claim presented at "Answers In Genesis", "Creation Evidence", or by any other creationist organization that hasn't been refuted by real scientists. If you want to examine some of those detailed refutations, Talk Origins is a decent reference. It also has links to a number of creationist web sites so you can check their references yourself. Which is an interesting thing in and of itself, and a hallmark of reasoned inquiry. How many creationist web sites have links to counter arguments?

The fact that I find the most interesting is that the Egygptians were busy having a civilization and were building pyramids when the flood was supposed to be happening.

I did read your link, and found it a quite facinating piece of science fiction. The links I listed were just the first few that turned up in a search. Here, try this one for a more comprehensive rebuttal of the creationist arguments.
Sorry, but there is just way too much evidence for an old Earth than a young one.

First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this.

Incorrect.

First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species.

You must have been reading Creationist propaganda. Beware. Those guys lie a lot (it's OK--it's all in the service of the Lord). In reality, there are lots of examples of speciation being observed. For that matter, some of the products of artificial selection, such as Great Danes and Chihuahuas, would unquestionably be classified as different species if discovered in the wild. This isn't evolution (because the selection is artificial rather than natural), but it does demonstrate the ability of selection to produce massive change over a geologically miniscule interval of time.

First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this.

I was going to mod you down but I think it's better to just say that you are wrong.

No scientific dogmatist is ever going to convince me that that incredible sequence happened because of a lot of coin flips by random forces.

Noah's Flood is completely at odds with the fossil evidence. If humans and dinosaurs co-existed, then why don't we find human remains mixed with dinosaurs'? Note that hydrologic sorting doesn't work either.

Creationists don't simply question modern dating methods, they outright reject them. C14 can only be used to date organisms which drew carbon from the atmosphere, not inorganic material. C14 dating can be calibrated by using other methods, such as dendochronology (another poster talked about this earlier).

Creationists don't have assumptions so much as they have religious dogma which they are unwilling to discard in the face of evidence. Many go so far as to state that if evidence contradicts their beliefs, then it's the evidence which must be discarded, not the beliefs! Scientists, on the other hand, study the evidence and modify or discard the scientific theories if necessary. Assumptions and "interpretations" don't play into this.

Your claim that "the evidence can always be interpreted to fit a given model" is an outright lie. While evidence may support several theories, evidence cannot be interpreted so loosely as to support any conceivable theory. One may study Lincoln's remains, and the findings may support several models regarding his death, but they cannot be interpreted to support the claim that he's still alive. Frankly, the whole "interpretations" argument is nothing but a meritless distraction from the evidence which does support modern geology and biology--another way that creationists use to ignore the evidence.

If you haven't seen any evidence that cannot fit in a 6000-year old model, then you haven't been "interpreting," you've simply been ignoring a great deal of modern science. The evidence for the ancient Earth had been known before Charles Darwin's voyage on the Beagle. Creationists don't reject this fact because for scientific or rational reasons, but they do so because of their religious beliefs.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.