ID proponents testified under oath that ID is not supposed to be religious in nature. Either Pat Robertson is an idiot totally unfamiliar with the issues or the Dover school board members committed perjury.
The butterfly example you mention above would not be speciation since the butterflies you mention choose not to mate with each other. In general, speciation occurs when a species diverges into two seperate kinds that cannot mate together.
Actually, "species" barriers are a fuzzy definition because of the nature of speciation. Typically it is used to refer to sets of genetically distinct organisms that no longer interbreed. Physical limitations between species are often used as the defining barrier, but it's perfectly acceptable to define two different species when a member of one group of organisms will not normally choose to mate with a member of another group of organisms, even if they have ample opportunity and could potentially produce viable offspring.
On your last point, you point out the biggest problem with evolution as science. It is not possible to test evolution,
Evolution can be tested and is tested all the time. Each fossil find is a test of evolution. DNA sequencing across species tests evolution.
only small parts
Everything in science is tested in "small parts". That's how you keep things manageable. Singling out evolution and using the "small parts" aspect of testing as an excuse to dismiss it as testable is intellectually dishonest.
or theories.
Um, evolution is a single theory. That's all that gets tested, when the "small parts" are tested. You do know what "theory" means in the context of science, right?
The difference is that we assume that God created the universe a few thousand years ago
What physical evidence provides the basis for this assumption regarding the age of the universe and the means by which it came to exist? And to which "God", out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history do you refer? And why do you exclude all other possible deities? Be specific.
while the mainstream scientists believe the universe evolved to this point with no God over a few billion years.
The universe did not "evolve". Evolution applies to living organisms (things that reproduce imperfectly). The age of the universe and the mechanisms behind its formation are founded in actual documented physical evidence and real observations. The claims regarding the origins of the universe are not mere "assumptions", as you dishonestly imply, they are founded in research and such claims about the formation of the universe would not be made if the observed evidence were not as it is.
There are as many scientists that will disagree with the evidence that supports evolution as those that agree with it,
Support this assertion. Reference only scientists who could be reasonably versed in the relevant subjects (ie, presenting someone who only deals in physics would not be support for your claim).
therfore, it will always be theory.
You seem to think that explanations in science can go beyond "theory". They can't. Theories are end-points. They can not graduate to anything "higher". Theory is the highest that an explanation in science will ever get.
All the circumstantial evidence in the world can't prove it.
Theories in science are never proven. It is fundamentally dishonest of you to single out the theory of evolution as though it were unique amongst theories in being unprovable.
Either teach both evolution and ID in school or leave both out.
How, exactly, would ID be taught? What evidence supports ID? What predictions does ID make? What hypothetical observation would falsify ID?
If you can't answer ALL of those questions then ID is not science and has no place in a science cirriculum.
I'm afraid you've only dug your own grave here. Actually, amino acids have the curious property of preferring not to link as such. So, the case worsens. Now, you've got 20 players each getting these hands, but in addition, 3 of Hearts doesn't like 4 of Hearts, and so on.
I'm sure you can reference documentation showing that amino acids normally don't link the way they are observed together in living organisms.
Then, should you somehow get these contentious chums to link up, you've got the second law of thermodynamics
Okay, you've clearly cribbed everything from creationist websites.
THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM! THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ONLY APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS.
That's a terrible analogy. More like 20 Bridge players (each with the name "Amino Acid") look down and each finds that he has Ace through King of the same suit, thus allowing them to link all of their hands together in a chain we'll call "Protein." Your analogy presupposes that any hand will do, and so the probability of getting it doesn't matter. My (correct) analogy posits that only one hand will do and so the probability of getting it and getting it repeatedly is improbable to the point of absurdity.
But your analogy falls apart when you consider that playing cards don't have the same properties as amino acids, wherein the molecular properties cause the viable links to hold together while the nonviable links tend to fall apart. With that in mind, the statistics game becomes meaningless.
See previous Georgia court case where all that was asked was that a sticker be placed that said evolution was not fact, but was a theory.
The sticker in question lied about what the theory of evolution states. There's also the fact that no one lobbied for similar stickers for any other theories taught in schools, such as gravitational theory and atomic theory.
Michael Behe, the man who essentially launched the ID movement, accepts common descent of all biological life forms as truth. So does Michael Denton.
Of course, it's not surprising that you would disagree with the authors of ID theory. It's not like creationists are known for ever having a clue as to what they're talking about.
What I do know is that standard evolutionist propaganda is to present some theory that requires a PhD in biology to understand.
If you consider it "propaganda" that only someone who has actually studied a scientific field extensively can fully understand a theory within that field, you might as well reject all of science.
Anyway, where did this silly idea get started that the theory of common origin claims that any living species is thought to be the ancestor of any other living species?
Creationists tend to make up their own definition of "evolution" and attack their creation rather than learning what evolution really is. It likely started with a creationist totally misunderstanding what common descent theory states and running with it, and other creationists cribbing from the original creationist's work without doing any fact checking.
You've simply listed a set of impossiblities and affixed it as a test to the evolutionary theory.
No, I haven't. The events that I listed are impossible if evolution is true. If evolution is not true, however, then the events are possible, and that is why observing them would falsify evolution.
Creationism (at least the version pushed by the fundimentalists) claims there is only the one true God can create. So if you go out and find another diety capable of creation, or manage to create something yourself ex nihilo, the creationary theory is disproven.
Such an observation would be of the supernatural. Since science only deals with the natural universe, both the counterobservation and the initial premise of creationism itself are not scientific theories.
The point is to make an ideological image that "medicine" == "evolution" (whether its right or wrong) and then bang it so heavily into their conciousness through loud and obnoxious ranting that the can't help themselves but defend against it.
And if you've ever seen a creationist rant, you would know that the response would be "no it isn't!" over and over again. The vocal creationists to whom you wish to target this stunt are by and large incredibly irrational and stupid people who do not care what evolution actually states. To them evolution is something that they don't like and is to be associated with things like fascism, communism and atheism, not things that they do like such as medicine. They have already decided upon a completely bogus notion of what evolution is and what it implies, so trying to give them a different impression won't work.
Find a Precambrian rabbit fossil. Find a transposon in whales and cows that does not exist in hippos.
Evolution can be falsified. Evolution carries with it specific implications about what should never be found because such things could not have occured if all life shares a common ancestor. Observe something that evolution predicts is impossible and the theory fails.
I always found it was much more belivable that a being of energy (or some such thing) created the universe than a bunch of atoms just made themselves and then one day got bored and decided to explode and that somehow just happened to form all that I see.
Darwin's theory says none of that. Why is it that so many people who clearly don't even understand evolution feel qualified to speak on why it is not a credible theory?
Something thathas always bothered me about this debate is how both sides abuse the very concept of science.
Both sides? The only side I see demonstrating a complete ignorance of science is the creationism side, both in terms of scientific concepts (how many idiots still blather on about the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibiting evolution?) and the fundamental nature of science itself.
Is just me or does anyone else believe that for any theory to be remotley scientific it has to have definitive experimentation.
What do you mean by this? Perhaps you could clarify, but I'm not seeing how you're specifically objecting to evolution here.
To many idiots with PHD's are running experiments with results that indicate or suggest something to be true, but hey never proove it definitively.
Ah, okay. Your problem is that you don't understand what a theory is. Theories are never "definitively" proven. In fact, nothing in science can be "definitively" proven. All science is subject to change without notice should observations contradicting existing explanations come in. That's how science works -- nothing gets to be etched in stone because scientists must always allow for the possibility that they are wrong. The best that scientists can do is draw inferences on reality from repeated consistent observations.
This is why I'm a strong believer that neither evolution or creationism(ID or whatever you call it) should be taught in the science classroom. Put it back in Philosophy 101 where people are used to questions that can't be answered.
What unanswerable questions do you see in evolution? Be specific.
Evolution won't be proven unless you observe a specieces for a billion years.
Absolutely no theory in science will ever be proven.
Creationism won't be proven unless someone convinces God to donate a tissue sample to a lab.
Creationism can't be proven either. It's not science because it can't be disproven, which is one of the fundamental requirements for any concept to posess in order to have scientific merit.
Both sides are simply making guesses based on inconclusive evidence several years (I won't argue how many) after the fact.
Wrong. Evolution draws solid inferences based upon consistent and repeated observations as well as fulfilled predictions of future observations in both DNA and the fossil record. Creationism is nothing more than religious stories taken literally.
I haven't had any problems with Skype even on cheap hardware. My Xbox, running Debian, has only half of the "required" RAM yet I can run it with a USB headset with no problems.
Thank you, good troll, for stereotyping all Christians as braindead idiots.
Actually, I was parodying the usual anti-science idiots I often see crawling around discussions of evolution. They are the ones who associate anything that disagrees with their literal Biblical interpretations as anti-Christian, not me.
Whose theory of evolution are we talking about? The Continental School? Neo-Darwinists? Darwin may have shied away from that problem, but the neo-Darwinists seem to think they've got the origin of life all wrapped up. How? By applying the ideas of evolution and competition to chemicals. Sic.
This is a semantic game playing on the fact that as you get to "simpler" and smaller forms of life, the distinction between what is "life" and what is "non-life" becomes unclear.
Ultimately you have a point where you do not have chains of molecules making imperfect copies of themselves (the chains, not the individual molecules). When you have that, you get evolution. If you don't have that, then you don't have evolution and describing what caused those molecular chains to come into existence is not in any way a part of the theory of evolution.
So saying that evolutionary theory posits a mechanism for the origin of life is not as incorrect as you lot are trying to make out.
Evolution deals with diverse sets of populations resulting from common ancestry as a result of imperfect replication. Discussing the origin of life necessitates a distinct point where imperfect replicators did not exist. If there are no imperfect replicators, then there's no evolution, so evolution cannot formally address the entirety of the origin of life. It just might be the case that the distinction between what can be called "life" and what can't might have to be adjusted.
Of course, then you have the bonehead creationists who insist (despite being totally unable to provide a professional reference to support their claim) that the theory of evolution covers the formation of the planet, the solar system and the universe as a whole. But that's a whole long rant for another time.
How the heck to you propose to prove that life spontaneously emerged from nothing?
The discussion is on evolution vs. "Intelligent Design". Evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding life spontaneously emerging from nothing. In fact, there is no hypothesis in biology that makes such a claim.
Misrepresenting the position of science only makes you look unqualified to speak on the debate with any level of credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
ID proponents testified under oath that ID is not supposed to be religious in nature. Either Pat Robertson is an idiot totally unfamiliar with the issues or the Dover school board members committed perjury.
The butterfly example you mention above would not be speciation since the butterflies you mention choose not to mate with each other. In general, speciation occurs when a species diverges into two seperate kinds that cannot mate together.
Actually, "species" barriers are a fuzzy definition because of the nature of speciation. Typically it is used to refer to sets of genetically distinct organisms that no longer interbreed. Physical limitations between species are often used as the defining barrier, but it's perfectly acceptable to define two different species when a member of one group of organisms will not normally choose to mate with a member of another group of organisms, even if they have ample opportunity and could potentially produce viable offspring.
On your last point, you point out the biggest problem with evolution as science. It is not possible to test evolution,
Evolution can be tested and is tested all the time. Each fossil find is a test of evolution. DNA sequencing across species tests evolution.
only small parts
Everything in science is tested in "small parts". That's how you keep things manageable. Singling out evolution and using the "small parts" aspect of testing as an excuse to dismiss it as testable is intellectually dishonest.
or theories.
Um, evolution is a single theory. That's all that gets tested, when the "small parts" are tested.
You do know what "theory" means in the context of science, right?
The difference is that we assume that God created the universe a few thousand years ago
What physical evidence provides the basis for this assumption regarding the age of the universe and the means by which it came to exist? And to which "God", out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history do you refer? And why do you exclude all other possible deities? Be specific.
while the mainstream scientists believe the universe evolved to this point with no God over a few billion years.
The universe did not "evolve". Evolution applies to living organisms (things that reproduce imperfectly). The age of the universe and the mechanisms behind its formation are founded in actual documented physical evidence and real observations. The claims regarding the origins of the universe are not mere "assumptions", as you dishonestly imply, they are founded in research and such claims about the formation of the universe would not be made if the observed evidence were not as it is.
Speciation, or evolution of one species into another, is not observable and has never been found in the fossil record.
Wrong.
There are as many scientists that will disagree with the evidence that supports evolution as those that agree with it,
Support this assertion. Reference only scientists who could be reasonably versed in the relevant subjects (ie, presenting someone who only deals in physics would not be support for your claim).
therfore, it will always be theory.
You seem to think that explanations in science can go beyond "theory". They can't. Theories are end-points. They can not graduate to anything "higher". Theory is the highest that an explanation in science will ever get.
All the circumstantial evidence in the world can't prove it.
Theories in science are never proven. It is fundamentally dishonest of you to single out the theory of evolution as though it were unique amongst theories in being unprovable.
Either teach both evolution and ID in school or leave both out.
How, exactly, would ID be taught? What evidence supports ID? What predictions does ID make? What hypothetical observation would falsify ID?
If you can't answer ALL of those questions then ID is not science and has no place in a science cirriculum.
Thank you for rational and reasoned argument against the parent poster's statement. It will be given all of the consideration it is due.
Quote #79 of the Quote Mine project.
Why are so many creationists such shameless liars?
I'm afraid you've only dug your own grave here. Actually, amino acids have the curious property of preferring not to link as such. So, the case worsens. Now, you've got 20 players each getting these hands, but in addition, 3 of Hearts doesn't like 4 of Hearts, and so on.
I'm sure you can reference documentation showing that amino acids normally don't link the way they are observed together in living organisms.
Then, should you somehow get these contentious chums to link up, you've got the second law of thermodynamics
Okay, you've clearly cribbed everything from creationist websites.
THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM! THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ONLY APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS.
That's a terrible analogy. More like 20 Bridge players (each with the name "Amino Acid") look down and each finds that he has Ace through King of the same suit, thus allowing them to link all of their hands together in a chain we'll call "Protein." Your analogy presupposes that any hand will do, and so the probability of getting it doesn't matter. My (correct) analogy posits that only one hand will do and so the probability of getting it and getting it repeatedly is improbable to the point of absurdity.
But your analogy falls apart when you consider that playing cards don't have the same properties as amino acids, wherein the molecular properties cause the viable links to hold together while the nonviable links tend to fall apart. With that in mind, the statistics game becomes meaningless.
Is gravity not an absolute truth?
No, it isn't. The cause of the force we call gravity far less understood than evolution.
See previous Georgia court case where all that was asked was that a sticker be placed that said evolution was not fact, but was a theory.
The sticker in question lied about what the theory of evolution states. There's also the fact that no one lobbied for similar stickers for any other theories taught in schools, such as gravitational theory and atomic theory.
Where is common descent part of ID?
Michael Behe, the man who essentially launched the ID movement, accepts common descent of all biological life forms as truth. So does Michael Denton.
Of course, it's not surprising that you would disagree with the authors of ID theory. It's not like creationists are known for ever having a clue as to what they're talking about.
When did I say that I actually believed the fossil record? I don't. I believe that God created birds and fish on the 5th day, then mankind on the 6th.
Wait, I thought that you said that you accepted Intelligent Design theory. You are aware that common descent is part of ID, right?
What I do know is that standard evolutionist propaganda is to present some theory that requires a PhD in biology to understand.
If you consider it "propaganda" that only someone who has actually studied a scientific field extensively can fully understand a theory within that field, you might as well reject all of science.
Anyway, where did this silly idea get started that the theory of common origin claims that any living species is thought to be the ancestor of any other living species?
Creationists tend to make up their own definition of "evolution" and attack their creation rather than learning what evolution really is. It likely started with a creationist totally misunderstanding what common descent theory states and running with it, and other creationists cribbing from the original creationist's work without doing any fact checking.
You've simply listed a set of impossiblities and affixed it as a test to the evolutionary theory.
No, I haven't. The events that I listed are impossible if evolution is true. If evolution is not true, however, then the events are possible, and that is why observing them would falsify evolution.
Creationism (at least the version pushed by the fundimentalists)
claims there is only the one true God can create. So if you go out and find
another diety capable of creation, or manage to create something yourself ex nihilo, the creationary theory is disproven.
Such an observation would be of the supernatural. Since science only deals with the natural universe, both the counterobservation and the initial premise of creationism itself are not scientific theories.
The point is to make an ideological image that "medicine" == "evolution" (whether its right or wrong) and then bang it so heavily into their conciousness through loud and obnoxious ranting that the can't help themselves but defend against it.
And if you've ever seen a creationist rant, you would know that the response would be "no it isn't!" over and over again. The vocal creationists to whom you wish to target this stunt are by and large incredibly irrational and stupid people who do not care what evolution actually states. To them evolution is something that they don't like and is to be associated with things like fascism, communism and atheism, not things that they do like such as medicine. They have already decided upon a completely bogus notion of what evolution is and what it implies, so trying to give them a different impression won't work.
Note:Evolution can't be disproven either.
Find a Precambrian rabbit fossil. Find a transposon in whales and cows that does not exist in hippos.
Evolution can be falsified. Evolution carries with it specific implications about what should never be found because such things could not have occured if all life shares a common ancestor. Observe something that evolution predicts is impossible and the theory fails.
I always found it was much more belivable that a being of energy (or some such thing) created the universe than a bunch of atoms just made themselves and then one day got bored and decided to explode and that somehow just happened to form all that I see.
Darwin's theory says none of that. Why is it that so many people who clearly don't even understand evolution feel qualified to speak on why it is not a credible theory?
Something thathas always bothered me about this debate is how both sides abuse the very concept of science.
Both sides? The only side I see demonstrating a complete ignorance of science is the creationism side, both in terms of scientific concepts (how many idiots still blather on about the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibiting evolution?) and the fundamental nature of science itself.
Is just me or does anyone else believe that for any theory to be remotley scientific it has to have definitive experimentation.
What do you mean by this? Perhaps you could clarify, but I'm not seeing how you're specifically objecting to evolution here.
To many idiots with PHD's are running experiments with results that indicate or suggest something to be true, but hey never proove it definitively.
Ah, okay. Your problem is that you don't understand what a theory is. Theories are never "definitively" proven. In fact, nothing in science can be "definitively" proven. All science is subject to change without notice should observations contradicting existing explanations come in. That's how science works -- nothing gets to be etched in stone because scientists must always allow for the possibility that they are wrong. The best that scientists can do is draw inferences on reality from repeated consistent observations.
This is why I'm a strong believer that neither evolution or creationism(ID or whatever you call it) should be taught in the science classroom. Put it back in Philosophy 101 where people are used to questions that can't be answered.
What unanswerable questions do you see in evolution? Be specific.
Evolution won't be proven unless you observe a specieces for a billion years.
Absolutely no theory in science will ever be proven.
Creationism won't be proven unless someone convinces God to donate a tissue sample to a lab.
Creationism can't be proven either. It's not science because it can't be disproven, which is one of the fundamental requirements for any concept to posess in order to have scientific merit.
Both sides are simply making guesses based on inconclusive evidence several years (I won't argue how many) after the fact.
Wrong. Evolution draws solid inferences based upon consistent and repeated observations as well as fulfilled predictions of future observations in both DNA and the fossil record. Creationism is nothing more than religious stories taken literally.
I haven't had any problems with Skype even on cheap hardware. My Xbox, running Debian, has only half of the "required" RAM yet I can run it with a USB headset with no problems.
Thank you, good troll, for stereotyping all Christians as braindead idiots.
Actually, I was parodying the usual anti-science idiots I often see crawling around discussions of evolution. They are the ones who associate anything that disagrees with their literal Biblical interpretations as anti-Christian, not me.
"If Earth were stationary, that would be the end of the story. But Earth is not stationary.
Atheistic trash.
Therefor I don't think a person can be addicted to religion, how can you be addicted to something that is not real?
God-belief and adherence to dogma are quite real, regardless of the reality of the gods in question and regardless of the validity of the dogma.
Whose theory of evolution are we talking about? The Continental School? Neo-Darwinists? Darwin may have shied away from that problem, but the neo-Darwinists seem to think they've got the origin of life all wrapped up. How? By applying the ideas of evolution and competition to chemicals. Sic.
This is a semantic game playing on the fact that as you get to "simpler" and smaller forms of life, the distinction between what is "life" and what is "non-life" becomes unclear.
Ultimately you have a point where you do not have chains of molecules making imperfect copies of themselves (the chains, not the individual molecules). When you have that, you get evolution. If you don't have that, then you don't have evolution and describing what caused those molecular chains to come into existence is not in any way a part of the theory of evolution.
So saying that evolutionary theory posits a mechanism for the origin of life is not as incorrect as you lot are trying to make out.
Evolution deals with diverse sets of populations resulting from common ancestry as a result of imperfect replication. Discussing the origin of life necessitates a distinct point where imperfect replicators did not exist. If there are no imperfect replicators, then there's no evolution, so evolution cannot formally address the entirety of the origin of life. It just might be the case that the distinction between what can be called "life" and what can't might have to be adjusted.
Of course, then you have the bonehead creationists who insist (despite being totally unable to provide a professional reference to support their claim) that the theory of evolution covers the formation of the planet, the solar system and the universe as a whole. But that's a whole long rant for another time.
How the heck to you propose to prove that life spontaneously emerged from nothing?
The discussion is on evolution vs. "Intelligent Design". Evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding life spontaneously emerging from nothing. In fact, there is no hypothesis in biology that makes such a claim.
Misrepresenting the position of science only makes you look unqualified to speak on the debate with any level of credibility.