To counteract entropy requires energy and information.
You keep asserting this, but you've not provided any hard information beyond simple single-case analogies. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that a system's entropy never decreases without energy input, but it says nothing regarding "information". You need to substantiate your claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it is presently stated is incomplete before you can justify your claims with your redefinition of it.
I am not quite sure what you mean here. Like a disk it carries information of every living thing. It also carries the information on how to make the building blocks for its own construction and how to do the actual constructing of the readout and data handling systems that then guide the construction of complex things like eyes and ears.
But a disk alone does nothing. Clearly there's more to DNA than just information storage. Information alone doesn't do anything, so how can DNA replicate if it's just a storage medium?
If evolution allows for the existence of a designer, why then are evolutionists fighting the idea of ID and a Creator so strenuously?
ID is fought because it's a fundamentally bogus theory. The very foundation of "irreducable complexity" is easily debunked. ID's foundation is garbage. A "Creator" is even worse, because there's no positive evidence whatsoever for the claim. Neither ID nor a "Creator" are scientific claims. They might be true, but they fail to meet the criteria of scientific inquiry. ID pushers want to shove non-science into science classrooms. The opposition is to the fundamental dishonesty of calling non-science science.
Admitting the existence of a designer, implies at least a supernatural beginning and that such a designer might tweak the design now and then.
But there's no scientific basis for such a claim. As such, it's not science, and has no business in a science class. Science is about where the evidence points, not every infinite possibility simply because it "might" be true.
The evolutionary ideas of ORIGINS cannot be proven by science, while other aspects of evolution theory can be.
What are the "evolutionary ideas of ORIGINS"?
Discussion of origins is beyond hard science and becomes a belief system.
So essentially crystal formations are structures of molecules that, because of the fundamental physical properties of the universe, tend to form in distinct patterns. Meaning that they essentially replicate their structure over and over again.
Odd, that's essentially what life does. In fact, the simplest "life forms" -- if they could really be called alive -- essentially only do that. They just do it in a slightly different way than crystals.
So really, if you look at DNA, it's just a series of molecules that happen to be structured in such a way as to continually replicate themselves (as in they create additional chains of molecules that look like the original). One difference is that the replications may not be perfect. However, if the replications are still sufficient to continue replicating on their own, then the imperfection of the replication doesn't really matter. In fact, if the change in replication creates an advantage -- perhaps in a universal sense or perhaps in a sense dependant on environmental conditions -- then that particular permutation may become dominant over the original. Hmm. There's a name for replication in such a pattern, but I can't quite remember...starts with an "e".
Increasing entropy also decreases the order of a system.
That's kind of a consequence of entropy, yes.
I could counter your "information" claims with crystal formation, but you've already decided that the "laws of physics" are a form of information without justifying it. It's a convenient excuse to claim that laws of physics are additional "information" and then deny that there might be "laws of biology" (or even the same "laws of physics" acting on biological life forms) to allow evolution to occur. Could you perhaps justify the claim that the laws of physics are a form of information when it comes to crystal formation, but that they cannot apply to DNA structures?
I'm not an expert on Biology, and I can't point out which of "Lucy"'s bones are human/non-human.
So your claims regarding the Lucy find are nothing but conjecture, and you don't even have credentials to speak with authority on the matter. Why should I take your word on it over that of biologists and palaentologists who have actually studied the find?
Scientific discoveries are subject to peer review, but peer review takes time.
It's been over 25 years.
ERV-insertion sounds quite interesting, but it certainly doesn't fit with the empirical method.
How so? Predictions were made, DNA was sequenced, ERV sequences were found in strikingly predictable patterns.
My disbelief of evolution stems mostly from problems with foundational arguments that are required for evolutionary logic to have any meaning.
Yet you don't actually seem to have demonstrated any competence in evaluating the foundational arguments. For example...
I have no reason to believe that C14 dating would be accurate to validate million-year old bones
This statement demonstrates that you haven't even studied C14 dating. If you had, you would know that C14 dating is limited to 50,000 years (and on the far end of that spectrum it requires extreme care to produce valid dates). Anyone who speaks of C14 dating getting "millions of years" for dating bones hasn't studied C14 dating at all.
try asking a biology or anthropology teacher for a real discussion of radioactive dating... they are more disturbed than willing to help.
Actually, there's a poster on another forum who goes by the name "Coyoteman" who actually uses C14 dating in his work. He's always willing to share information about C14 dating, how it works, and how to verify that information received from it is valid.
If you had conclusive evidence that common radioactive dating methods used by the biological community were inaccurate, you would reason that any discovery of a transitional species was nonsense.
And yet, I've not seen any conclusive evidence to that effect. I've seen assertions, but typically they are based upon nothing at all, or upon fundamental misrepresentations of the applications of the testing methods -- C14 is a major victim of creationist misrepresentation, for example.
Johanson discovered an Australopithecus afarensis from the bones that he found, because he was trying to build one. From the article linked, you can read further down that some of the bones were found "up a slope" from where he found the original hominid bone.
It's quite likely that instead of discovering a complete (complete enough for forensic study) transitional hominid skeleton, Johanson instead found a skeleton of an ape, and a few human bones.
So one bone is found down a slope, anda ll of the rest are found together. Could you perhaps point out which of these bones is the human bone amidst the rest of the ape skeleton?
This simply because he was itching to find something he learned had to be there from his 15-20 years of evolutionary thought brainwashing.
The nice thing about any science is that all discoveries and claims are subject to "peer review". Perhaps you could explain how peer review failed to catch what you claim happened? Or is every biologist on the planet "brainwashed"? That's a rather convenient excuse for you to use when handwaving away evidence -- say that anything that leads to conclusions that you don't like is the result of "brainwashing". Almost makes me wonder if you've just got it set in your head that evolution is false and you're looking for any reason to dismiss evidence that you might possibly be wrong. What's that word? Oh, yes, "brainwashed".
Evolutionary theory lies outside of empirical science, simply because experimentation is not possible
This statement is simply false. Experimentation does not require that the entire process be duplicated. Predictions of observations that would naturally arise as a result of a process can help validate a theory. Example: ERV insertion points in non-coding regions of primate DNA. Any ERV insertion at the same place in "old world" monkeys and "new world" monkeys will also be found in apes. Any ERV insertion in orangutangs and chimpanzees will also be found in humans. Predictions of genetic markers such as this were made before DNA sequencing was done, and validated afterwards. The most rational explanation for these identical markers in non-coding regions is established lineages of common descent.
But mostly just because it continues to be taught to everybody who goes through public school, who then go out into the field and use their dogmaticly taught principles of evolution to further prove evolution..
Perhaps you could justify this assertion rather than just making it. Also, explain how this is different from other sciences that are taught in public schools, such as physics and chemistry?
The well established laws of entropy totally contradict evolution's central dogma -- namely the progression from the simple toward the complex. Complex systems break down into simpler pieces, but nothing simple ever becomes more complex without the input of energy and INFORMATION.
Please cite the "laws of entropy" that state a requirement of "INFORMATION". Make sure you cite your sources.
Sure they can and are being proven all the time
Name a theory that has been proven and cite the proof thereof.
To counteract entropy always requires two elements. One is the input of energy and the other is the adding of information. When you clean up the mess in your house, you expend energy and apply information, a product of mind, to decide what to do with the stuff.
That's interesting. It's well established that local entropy can only decrease with additional input of energy into a system, but I've never heard of "information" also being required. Could you cite the scientific law that you are referencing that includes a requirement of "information" to counteract entropy?
My point is simply that evolution does not cover all of the bases
What bases? Evolution covers a specific phenomenon in biology. Scientific theories are like that -- they keep their scope limited to a set of events. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution because how the first life came to exist has no bearing on the evolution of that life after it exists.
and if this was not a forum where religion was essentially banned from discussion, I would use it to fill in the missing gaps.
The lack of explanation for life origins is not a "gap" in evolution, it's simply a matter outside of the scope of the theory. Evolution also does not address the ultimate origin of matter, the formation of planets or stars or how a manual transmission operates. Those aren't "gaps" in the theory, those are issues that the theory does not try to address.
This dogma is in direct opposition to the established fact of entropy pushing all things from the complex toward the simple. We get older and wear out. Everything breaks down from order to disorder as time goes forward.
So how do crystals form? How does an adult human form from a less complex zygote?
The "2nd Law of Thermo" bullshit is an old creationist canard that is exposed as bogus with just a little bit of critical thinking.
My Honda has wheels at the four corners, therefore it descended from my old Ford which has them, which came from my even older Volkswagen, which also, strangely, has exactly four, not three or six. They also all have steering wheels and other components common to cars. All airplanes also have wings and therefore descended from the Wright bothers flyer.
None of the objects you have mentioned are capable of producing offspring, much less passing variable traits to said offspring. As such, your analogy is inane and stupid, and your use of it demonstrates a fundamental lack of critical thinking ability.
Can I propose that natural selection (as a subset of evolutionary theory) has some pretty monstrous holes in it, without being labelled an anti-intellectual zealot?
Let me remind you that as widely-known and understood as evolution is, even Darwin himself admitted that the theory could be debunked if it could be proven that a system could not exist in an "intermediate" state such as that which evolution requires:
And thus far no such system has been observed. All theories are potentially falsifiable -- an explanation that has no falsification criteria is not scientific. Evolution stands strong for many reasons, including the total failure of any potential falsifying observations to come about despite ample opportunity.
The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever as to how the first life forms came into existence. If you do not know this much, then you do not have a sufficient understanding of the theory of evolution to criticize it.
No, you're just trying to fundamentally misrepresent science so that you can claim that evolution is not science. Your incredibly lame automobile analogy is a demonstration of just how desperately you are reaching.
My point is that none of the theories of origins has been proved by repeatable experiments,
NO THEORY IN SCIENCE IS EVER PROVEN! Theories CANNOT be proven. Theories are ALWAYS tentatitve, they are ALWAYS subject to change should contrary information arise.
. True scientific theories eventually require experiments to prove or disprove their validity.
No, true scientific theories are required to make predictions that can establish confidence in their validity or demonstrate their falsehood. They cannot be "proven". Evolution has made numerous fulfilled predictions that have established further confidence in the theory. Thus far no observations that contradict the theory have been observed, even though there has been ample opportunity for such observations to arise in biological and palaentological study.
Evolution from simple to complex life forms has never been demonstrated in the lab.
And you don't have to demonstrate this. Demonstrating this "in the lab" wouldn't "prove" that such an event occured millions or billions of years ago anyway. All you need to do is establish that such a process would leave currently observable traces in evidence today, then find such evidence.
You are sorely mistaken about how science operates. Not every theorized process needs to be completely and fully duplicated in a lab for scientists to have confidence in the process.
I still don't understand. My parents are two DIFFERENT life forms, and they produced me.
or take two or more identical single celled creatures such as say an amoeba, and make an entirely NEW, complex multicellular, viable organism.
In how many generations? And why use amoebas, when likely multicellular life sprang from bacteria cells, not amoebas.
Make a bird out of two or more reptiles, since evolution claims that birds descended from reptiles.
Again, in how many generations?
Do an experiment showing evolution of the complex from the simple.
You are apparently mistaken as to how science operates. You don't need to be able to experimentally reproduce every theorized event in order to establish confidence that such events occured. All you need to do is provide a justified explanation of things that should be observed as a result of common descent and then demonstrate such observations. Example: the established lineage of primate evolution predicts that if an ERV insertion is found at at the same location in orangutangs and chimpanzees, that insertion must also exist in humans and gorillas. Thus far, genetic sequencing has confirmed exactly that.
Yes and my Honda descended from a Ford some time ago.
Why do so many creationists think that this is a valid analogy? Are they all really so stupid as to believe it an apt analogy, or do they just turn their brains off when it comes to scientific fields that they don't want to understand for fear of shattering their fragile faith?
Hondas and Fords are not imperfect self-replicators. Comparing automobiles to living organisms as a means of disputing evolution is not a valid analogy.
-> The theories of electrodynamics, which have resulted in all the wonderful gadgets, such as the computer you are now reading this on. -> The theory of nuclear fission, which has resulted in weapons that could destroy mankind. -> The theories behind the chemical reactions of both life and non-life, that make possible the modern materials all around you. -> Einstein theories and quantum theories have been experimentally verified. I'm sure, anybody can come up with a long list of others.
Please list or reference the "proofs" that demonstrate that these theories cannot possibly be false.
Evolutionary biology has never been tested by experiments, to be either true or false.
Actually, it has. Experimental testing does not necessarily require replicating the entire process in a laboratory.
Nobody has ever taken two distinct life forms and made a third one according to the predictions of this conjecture
Uh, two distinct life forms producing a third one? I daresay that you're the product of such an "experiment". If you didn't mean standard reproduction, then perhaps you could explain exactly what you do mean.
Nobody has ever demonstrated by experiment the creation of life from the non-living elements.
Irrelevant. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about "the creation of life from the non-living elements".
.....Evolution could have been refuted........Evolution could have been refuted....
Yes "could have been". As in the potential existed. But it wasn't refuted, because the evidence didn't contradict it.
Neither evolution, creationism or ID have been proved or refuted by repeatable EXPERIMENTS,
No amount of "experimenting" will "prove" any explanation in science. Absolutely nothing in science is ever proven. Claiming that evolution is not science because it cannot be "proven" only demonstrates that you are fundamentally ignorant of how science works.
Insteal the ID'ers (funny how close that is to "idolaters") will just use the headline "Scientists disprove Evolution."
Indeed, I've seen creationists making this exact claim on conservative discussion forums. One creationist even said that he was going to add Professor Schwartz to a list that he was compiling of scientists who agree that evolution is "religious dogma" (this stemmed from a previous discussion where he claimed that "thousands" of scientists would agree to such a statement but absolutely refused to support it). The fact that Schwartz seems to accept that evolution has occured didn't seem to matter.
Creationists are by and large liars who willfully remain ignorant.
Evolution and ID are philosophical or religious notions of how things came to be, but are not science, since neither have been nor can be demonstrated or refuted by experiment.
Evolution could have been refuted by contradictory finds in the fossil record. Recent discoveries of ERV insertions in primate DNA could have blown common descent out of the water. Instead, ERV insertion observations added yet more compelling evidence for primate evolution, including humans.
Lying about evolution and lying about science in general isn't going to win you any points.
Slashdot Mirror
To counteract entropy requires energy and information.
You keep asserting this, but you've not provided any hard information beyond simple single-case analogies. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that a system's entropy never decreases without energy input, but it says nothing regarding "information". You need to substantiate your claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it is presently stated is incomplete before you can justify your claims with your redefinition of it.
I am not quite sure what you mean here. Like a disk it carries information of every living thing. It also carries the information on how to make the building blocks for its own construction and how to do the actual constructing of the readout and data handling systems that then guide the construction of complex things like eyes and ears.
But a disk alone does nothing. Clearly there's more to DNA than just information storage. Information alone doesn't do anything, so how can DNA replicate if it's just a storage medium?
If evolution allows for the existence of a designer, why then are evolutionists fighting the idea of ID and a Creator so strenuously?
ID is fought because it's a fundamentally bogus theory. The very foundation of "irreducable complexity" is easily debunked. ID's foundation is garbage. A "Creator" is even worse, because there's no positive evidence whatsoever for the claim. Neither ID nor a "Creator" are scientific claims. They might be true, but they fail to meet the criteria of scientific inquiry. ID pushers want to shove non-science into science classrooms. The opposition is to the fundamental dishonesty of calling non-science science.
Admitting the existence of a designer, implies at least a supernatural beginning and that such a designer might tweak the design now and then.
But there's no scientific basis for such a claim. As such, it's not science, and has no business in a science class. Science is about where the evidence points, not every infinite possibility simply because it "might" be true.
The evolutionary ideas of ORIGINS cannot be proven by science, while other aspects of evolution theory can be.
What are the "evolutionary ideas of ORIGINS"?
Discussion of origins is beyond hard science and becomes a belief system.
Justify this claim.
The problem is that the DNA is just an information carrier, similar to a floppy disk or CD.
So you're saying that DNA itself does nothing?
It carries the information on how to make the molecules from which it itself is constructed.
So how, exactly, does it manage to reproduce?
Since evolution denies the existence of a designer,
Actually, it doesn't. It simply describes a natural process by which diverse species emerge from common ancestry.
So essentially crystal formations are structures of molecules that, because of the fundamental physical properties of the universe, tend to form in distinct patterns. Meaning that they essentially replicate their structure over and over again.
Odd, that's essentially what life does. In fact, the simplest "life forms" -- if they could really be called alive -- essentially only do that. They just do it in a slightly different way than crystals.
So really, if you look at DNA, it's just a series of molecules that happen to be structured in such a way as to continually replicate themselves (as in they create additional chains of molecules that look like the original). One difference is that the replications may not be perfect. However, if the replications are still sufficient to continue replicating on their own, then the imperfection of the replication doesn't really matter. In fact, if the change in replication creates an advantage -- perhaps in a universal sense or perhaps in a sense dependant on environmental conditions -- then that particular permutation may become dominant over the original. Hmm. There's a name for replication in such a pattern, but I can't quite remember...starts with an "e".
Increasing entropy also decreases the order of a system.
That's kind of a consequence of entropy, yes.
I could counter your "information" claims with crystal formation, but you've already decided that the "laws of physics" are a form of information without justifying it. It's a convenient excuse to claim that laws of physics are additional "information" and then deny that there might be "laws of biology" (or even the same "laws of physics" acting on biological life forms) to allow evolution to occur. Could you perhaps justify the claim that the laws of physics are a form of information when it comes to crystal formation, but that they cannot apply to DNA structures?
I'm not an expert on Biology, and I can't point out which of "Lucy"'s bones are human/non-human.
So your claims regarding the Lucy find are nothing but conjecture, and you don't even have credentials to speak with authority on the matter. Why should I take your word on it over that of biologists and palaentologists who have actually studied the find?
Scientific discoveries are subject to peer review, but peer review takes time.
It's been over 25 years.
ERV-insertion sounds quite interesting, but it certainly doesn't fit with the empirical method.
How so? Predictions were made, DNA was sequenced, ERV sequences were found in strikingly predictable patterns.
My disbelief of evolution stems mostly from problems with foundational arguments that are required for evolutionary logic to have any meaning.
Yet you don't actually seem to have demonstrated any competence in evaluating the foundational arguments. For example...
I have no reason to believe that C14 dating would be accurate to validate million-year old bones
This statement demonstrates that you haven't even studied C14 dating. If you had, you would know that C14 dating is limited to 50,000 years (and on the far end of that spectrum it requires extreme care to produce valid dates). Anyone who speaks of C14 dating getting "millions of years" for dating bones hasn't studied C14 dating at all.
try asking a biology or anthropology teacher for a real discussion of radioactive dating... they are more disturbed than willing to help.
Actually, there's a poster on another forum who goes by the name "Coyoteman" who actually uses C14 dating in his work. He's always willing to share information about C14 dating, how it works, and how to verify that information received from it is valid.
If you had conclusive evidence that common radioactive dating methods used by the biological community were inaccurate, you would reason that any discovery of a transitional species was nonsense.
And yet, I've not seen any conclusive evidence to that effect. I've seen assertions, but typically they are based upon nothing at all, or upon fundamental misrepresentations of the applications of the testing methods -- C14 is a major victim of creationist misrepresentation, for example.
Johanson discovered an Australopithecus afarensis from the bones that he found, because he was trying to build one. From the article linked, you can read further down that some of the bones were found "up a slope" from where he found the original hominid bone.
It's quite likely that instead of discovering a complete (complete enough for forensic study) transitional hominid skeleton, Johanson instead found a skeleton of an ape, and a few human bones.
So one bone is found down a slope, anda ll of the rest are found together. Could you perhaps point out which of these bones is the human bone amidst the rest of the ape skeleton?
This simply because he was itching to find something he learned had to be there from his 15-20 years of evolutionary thought brainwashing.
The nice thing about any science is that all discoveries and claims are subject to "peer review". Perhaps you could explain how peer review failed to catch what you claim happened? Or is every biologist on the planet "brainwashed"? That's a rather convenient excuse for you to use when handwaving away evidence -- say that anything that leads to conclusions that you don't like is the result of "brainwashing". Almost makes me wonder if you've just got it set in your head that evolution is false and you're looking for any reason to dismiss evidence that you might possibly be wrong. What's that word? Oh, yes, "brainwashed".
Evolutionary theory lies outside of empirical science, simply because experimentation is not possible
This statement is simply false. Experimentation does not require that the entire process be duplicated. Predictions of observations that would naturally arise as a result of a process can help validate a theory. Example: ERV insertion points in non-coding regions of primate DNA. Any ERV insertion at the same place in "old world" monkeys and "new world" monkeys will also be found in apes. Any ERV insertion in orangutangs and chimpanzees will also be found in humans. Predictions of genetic markers such as this were made before DNA sequencing was done, and validated afterwards. The most rational explanation for these identical markers in non-coding regions is established lineages of common descent.
But mostly just because it continues to be taught to everybody who goes through public school, who then go out into the field and use their dogmaticly taught principles of evolution to further prove evolution..
Perhaps you could justify this assertion rather than just making it. Also, explain how this is different from other sciences that are taught in public schools, such as physics and chemistry?
The well established laws of entropy totally contradict evolution's central dogma -- namely the progression from the simple toward the complex. Complex systems break down into simpler pieces, but nothing simple ever becomes more complex without the input of energy and INFORMATION.
Please cite the "laws of entropy" that state a requirement of "INFORMATION". Make sure you cite your sources.
Sure they can and are being proven all the time
Name a theory that has been proven and cite the proof thereof.
To counteract entropy always requires two elements. One is the input of energy and the other is the adding of information. When you clean up the mess in your house, you expend energy and apply information, a product of mind, to decide what to do with the stuff.
That's interesting. It's well established that local entropy can only decrease with additional input of energy into a system, but I've never heard of "information" also being required. Could you cite the scientific law that you are referencing that includes a requirement of "information" to counteract entropy?
My point is simply that evolution does not cover all of the bases
What bases? Evolution covers a specific phenomenon in biology. Scientific theories are like that -- they keep their scope limited to a set of events. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution because how the first life came to exist has no bearing on the evolution of that life after it exists.
and if this was not a forum where religion was essentially banned from discussion, I would use it to fill in the missing gaps.
The lack of explanation for life origins is not a "gap" in evolution, it's simply a matter outside of the scope of the theory. Evolution also does not address the ultimate origin of matter, the formation of planets or stars or how a manual transmission operates. Those aren't "gaps" in the theory, those are issues that the theory does not try to address.
My point exactly.
So what about it? What do you intend to demonstrate via your point?
This dogma is in direct opposition to the established fact of entropy pushing all things from the complex toward the simple. We get older and wear out. Everything breaks down from order to disorder as time goes forward.
So how do crystals form? How does an adult human form from a less complex zygote?
The "2nd Law of Thermo" bullshit is an old creationist canard that is exposed as bogus with just a little bit of critical thinking.
My Honda has wheels at the four corners, therefore it descended from my old Ford which has them, which came from my even older Volkswagen, which also, strangely, has exactly four, not three or six. They also all have steering wheels and other components common to cars. All airplanes also have wings and therefore descended from the Wright bothers flyer.
None of the objects you have mentioned are capable of producing offspring, much less passing variable traits to said offspring. As such, your analogy is inane and stupid, and your use of it demonstrates a fundamental lack of critical thinking ability.
Would you mind providing a link to a website which tells me how the first life began out of proteins?
You're talking about events not discussed by the theory of evolution now.
Can I propose that natural selection (as a subset of evolutionary theory) has some pretty monstrous holes in it, without being labelled an anti-intellectual zealot?
That depends. What are the holes?
Let me remind you that as widely-known and understood as evolution is, even Darwin himself admitted that the theory could be debunked if it could be proven that a system could not exist in an "intermediate" state such as that which evolution requires:
And thus far no such system has been observed. All theories are potentially falsifiable -- an explanation that has no falsification criteria is not scientific. Evolution stands strong for many reasons, including the total failure of any potential falsifying observations to come about despite ample opportunity.
The creation of life
The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever as to how the first life forms came into existence. If you do not know this much, then you do not have a sufficient understanding of the theory of evolution to criticize it.
I am not trying to dispute evolution per se,
No, you're just trying to fundamentally misrepresent science so that you can claim that evolution is not science. Your incredibly lame automobile analogy is a demonstration of just how desperately you are reaching.
My point is that none of the theories of origins has been proved by repeatable experiments,
NO THEORY IN SCIENCE IS EVER PROVEN! Theories CANNOT be proven. Theories are ALWAYS tentatitve, they are ALWAYS subject to change should contrary information arise.
. True scientific theories eventually require experiments to prove or disprove their validity.
No, true scientific theories are required to make predictions that can establish confidence in their validity or demonstrate their falsehood. They cannot be "proven". Evolution has made numerous fulfilled predictions that have established further confidence in the theory. Thus far no observations that contradict the theory have been observed, even though there has been ample opportunity for such observations to arise in biological and palaentological study.
Evolution from simple to complex life forms has never been demonstrated in the lab.
And you don't have to demonstrate this. Demonstrating this "in the lab" wouldn't "prove" that such an event occured millions or billions of years ago anyway. All you need to do is establish that such a process would leave currently observable traces in evidence today, then find such evidence.
You are sorely mistaken about how science operates. Not every theorized process needs to be completely and fully duplicated in a lab for scientists to have confidence in the process.
OK I should have said two DIFFERENT life forms
I still don't understand. My parents are two DIFFERENT life forms, and they produced me.
or take two or more identical single celled creatures such as say an amoeba, and make an entirely NEW, complex multicellular, viable organism.
In how many generations? And why use amoebas, when likely multicellular life sprang from bacteria cells, not amoebas.
Make a bird out of two or more reptiles, since evolution claims that birds descended from reptiles.
Again, in how many generations?
Do an experiment showing evolution of the complex from the simple.
You are apparently mistaken as to how science operates. You don't need to be able to experimentally reproduce every theorized event in order to establish confidence that such events occured. All you need to do is provide a justified explanation of things that should be observed as a result of common descent and then demonstrate such observations. Example: the established lineage of primate evolution predicts that if an ERV insertion is found at at the same location in orangutangs and chimpanzees, that insertion must also exist in humans and gorillas. Thus far, genetic sequencing has confirmed exactly that.
Yes and my Honda descended from a Ford some time ago.
Why do so many creationists think that this is a valid analogy? Are they all really so stupid as to believe it an apt analogy, or do they just turn their brains off when it comes to scientific fields that they don't want to understand for fear of shattering their fragile faith?
Hondas and Fords are not imperfect self-replicators. Comparing automobiles to living organisms as a means of disputing evolution is not a valid analogy.
-> The theories of electrodynamics, which have resulted in all the wonderful gadgets, such as the computer you are now reading this on. -> The theory of nuclear fission, which has resulted in weapons that could destroy mankind.
-> The theories behind the chemical reactions of both life and non-life, that make possible the modern materials all around you.
-> Einstein theories and quantum theories have been experimentally verified. I'm sure, anybody can come up with a long list of others.
Please list or reference the "proofs" that demonstrate that these theories cannot possibly be false.
Evolutionary biology has never been tested by experiments, to be either true or false.
Actually, it has. Experimental testing does not necessarily require replicating the entire process in a laboratory.
Nobody has ever taken two distinct life forms and made a third one according to the predictions of this conjecture
Uh, two distinct life forms producing a third one? I daresay that you're the product of such an "experiment". If you didn't mean standard reproduction, then perhaps you could explain exactly what you do mean.
Nobody has ever demonstrated by experiment the creation of life from the non-living elements.
Irrelevant. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about "the creation of life from the non-living elements".
.....Evolution could have been refuted.... ....Evolution could have been refuted....
Yes "could have been". As in the potential existed. But it wasn't refuted, because the evidence didn't contradict it.
Neither evolution, creationism or ID have been proved or refuted by repeatable EXPERIMENTS,
No amount of "experimenting" will "prove" any explanation in science. Absolutely nothing in science is ever proven. Claiming that evolution is not science because it cannot be "proven" only demonstrates that you are fundamentally ignorant of how science works.
There are basically two choices, but both are BELIEFS you can choose from.
False dichotomy. Also misrepresents the status of evolution, which is well-supported by a mountain of evidence.
One is: The path of your origins is "out of the goo by way of the zoo to you".
Hopelessly oversimplified statement of the theory of evolution.
The other is: Your ancestors were put here by a transcendent Creator God who has a purpose for your existence.
Why is this mutually exclusive with evolution? Why is this the only other possibility?
Neither of the above can be "proved", but you may believe one or the other. Many, if not most people still believe the latter is more satisfying.
Argument from wishful thinking. What people find "satisfying" to believe has no bearing whatsoever on reality.
Insteal the ID'ers (funny how close that is to "idolaters") will just use the headline "Scientists disprove Evolution."
Indeed, I've seen creationists making this exact claim on conservative discussion forums. One creationist even said that he was going to add Professor Schwartz to a list that he was compiling of scientists who agree that evolution is "religious dogma" (this stemmed from a previous discussion where he claimed that "thousands" of scientists would agree to such a statement but absolutely refused to support it). The fact that Schwartz seems to accept that evolution has occured didn't seem to matter.
Creationists are by and large liars who willfully remain ignorant.
Evolution and ID are philosophical or religious notions of how things came to be, but are not science, since neither have been nor can be demonstrated or refuted by experiment.
Evolution could have been refuted by contradictory finds in the fossil record. Recent discoveries of ERV insertions in primate DNA could have blown common descent out of the water. Instead, ERV insertion observations added yet more compelling evidence for primate evolution, including humans.
Lying about evolution and lying about science in general isn't going to win you any points.