Reply to TheRudeboy

[Rust]

This was posted by TheRudeboy on Totse right before the board was taken down. I didn't get the chance to reply then, but I saved it and I'm replying now. Because of the way I saved the text, any formatting (bold, italics and paragraphs) it had has been lost. I apologize. I've added some paragraphs to make it more legible.

------------------------------------------------------------------

This would have been posted and refined better if I had known before hand about this "20 years its over" situation. Anyway, There is a lopsidedness in discussions. I've accepted that. That won't hinder my explanations in any way. Do not appeal to some creationist assumptions about science to reject an idea that is the opposite of a strict evolutionary theory in order to make a reply. Currently all facts are interpreted according to a person, the person uses a reference. even what I am doing right at this moment. Generally, Evolution is interpreted behind Naturalism. Naturalism assumes that things came into existence, without divine intervention. This includes that nonliving matter spawned living matter, apes gave way to humans, non-intellect created intelligence, yearning created religion, ect.

Through Naturalism, you can deduce Evolution. Many accept Evolution as the correct answer to the question of descent, becuase creationism seems to be the only other option, and is unnacredided. But we did not come to the idea because we discovered it, we guessed that it existed and then looked for proof. -who do you think would identify with this? I reject believing in the modern evolutionist idea, and the modern humanistic and naturalistic viewpoints. I reject them becuase I interpret them as such (equate "without cause" as "without divine intervention" as in "by accident"): The universe came into existence from generally unsubstantiated particles expanding, without known cause. The solar system formed in the right proportions to have the right combination of compounds and elements on Earth, which is the proportionally correct distance from the Sun, without cause. The non living matter on Earth came into a living form, without cause. The matter eventually became man, and man eventually became intelligent, and eventually discovered astronomy, mathematics, and the like, as by products, as accidents of the movements of atoms.

If it was all chance, if it was an accident, why should I believe the general interpretation to be true? Why should I accept the general consensus? I don't question observational science dealing with discoveries made in real time during that given moment *before* the speculations and inferences, only the theories made from speculations about the past made as though they were observations that have yet to be proven wrong, or baseless assumptions as many in the past have (Bohr's idea of an atom, or early bloodletting). We observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past. To prove something, a credible eye witnessing of the event is required. This is impossible for the time before we existed. It is the belief that we are of primordial pond scum which originated from nonliving matter, and at the end we like everything else will become extinct and cease to exist, along eventually with the Earth and the entire universe for that matter which perplexes me. I actually hardly disagree with the entire statement, yet my idea of a man from dust turned back into dust after death in a world that will suffer a terminal apocalypse and end all existence is met with ridicule, loosely speaking. I see a marginal difference with heated debate and defensive walls only as a result of personal experience with persons and those persons' personal ideas and experiences. This is why I am confused, since the similarities are so ignored.

But to my arguments: Evolution in the strict Naturalistic idea, refers that non living chemicals organize themselves into self replicating organisms. All current existing living matter are allegedly originated from this one process. The genetic encyclopedia of DNA had to be created from this nonliving matter. How did the matter do this? Through the self replication and slight mutation, causing genetic diversity. But in modern times, the genetic diversity, at least for heterozygous reproducing organisms, comes from the reshuffling of the genetic data, since only a slight amount is stereotypically shown, and the greater amount genetically stored and held, recessive, or just cataloged. Millions of sperm everyone, millions of them. Mutations are rarely effective without the chance of drastic danger to the organisms survival. Mutations can also come in the form of deletion of genes, causing a loss of data. How does a mutation of a single celled organism, a loss of data, create a diversity? Likewise with the Founder effect, in relation to the bottleneck. The surviving organisms have a much lower amount of genetic diversity. This leads to the surviving genes being the only to repopulate the species. How does diversity rise from this? A species is formed since the genetic data is so drastically changed from the original species. Two new species, from the original gene pool. I combine this with the lack of transitional species in or out of the fossil record to substantiate my skepticism of a evolutionary naturalistic tree of life.

Particles to man is just unbelievable to me as a result of this. There are only gaps. I haven't seen a small vector of progress nor a large vector of progress, and I do eagerly want to see it. I do. "rapid evolution" and unfossilizable body parts are poor excuses. Turtles leave excellent fossils, and have no intermediates. Fishes to amphibians are an example. It was accepted that amphibians spawned from the Rhipidistian fish, the coelacanth, which was explained that this fish used its fleshy fins to walk on the sea floor before going on land. No one refuted this, so it was accepted. It was impossible *not* to prove, since the last Rhipidistian lived 70 million years ago according to the fossil record. But a living coelacanth was discovered in 1938 and was observed that the fins were only used for swimming. The soft parts were not transitional. The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega has fully formed legs, where there was no trace of in the discovered Rhipidistian. My point is that everyone accepted the general idea that they were transitional links, just becuase there was not at that time proof otherwise. This mistake in jumping to conclusions was not a lesson learned. Another example is the Bacteria resisting penicillin. Don't say that the bacteria that developed a resistance to penicillin /evolved/. They already had the genetic resistance, but enough of the population and genetic data had to be deleted before it became prevalent. What does the descent have to do with new kinds and new information? Nothing. Then the idea that the mutation caused the resistance comes into play. Usually the bacteria's ability to fight off penicillin is controlled by a gene. The gene inhibits the resistance gene at a certain point. If the bacteria are overwhelmed, the mutation could occur in a form that would delete the controlling gene, allowing the bacteria to resist the penicillin more easily. What does this have to do with new data? Nothing. This is why I see the term evolution as badly stretched and confused. This is all pre existing information, and doesn't explain origin, which is evolutions true department. This doesn't explain particles to man, at least not to me.

A largely unrelated skepticism I have is the proposed evolutionary explanation for the development of Whales and dolphins. It is largely accepted that they originated from a land mammal, the Mesonychids. There are drastic changes required to transition from land to sea. The removal of the pelvis is first. Tail movements are counterproductive to any existing reproductive orifice located in the pelvic region of a land mammal, if referencing the tail movements of the Cetacean whales and dolphins. But the gradual shrinking pelvis would not benefit a land animal which would be unable to support itself, nor a sea creature unable to swim efficiently. The earliest whales had fully functional tales with no land mammal pelvis link. The long amount of time it would take for a mutation or natural selection to occur is also to be noted. The land organism, the Mesonychid, is dated 55 million years ago. Three other transitional creatures, none of which have proportional sizing for a whale, are Ambulocetus, 50 million years, Rodhocetus, 46 million years, and Prozeuglodon, 40 million years. For a mutation to cause an entire gene in the population to create the Land animal to Sea animal transition, it would take at least 5 million years to get 1,700 mutations for an organism living 10 years on average, (the whale). Not only is 1,700 mutated genes not enough to cause this drastic transition from two drastically physically disproportionate organisms, but two transitional applicants do not even cover the 5 million year minimum requirement, Ambulances and Rodhocetus. This is also assuming every single mutation would be beneficial. But the scientific community largely accepts this as the explanation of the whale and dolphin origins.

Then there is the ape to man discussion. Countless fossils such as the Australopithecus afarensis "Lucy" , the A. africanus, and the Homo H. erectus are believed to be the transitions to man. However these are further away in relation structurally and genetically to man than the chimpanzee is. The anatomist Charles Oxnard made detailed analysis of these species and discovered the stark differences including the fact that the species overlapped at many points. (C.E. Oxnard /Nature/ 258:389-395, 1975.) These were not transitional species or missing links to the genus Homo. The genetic similarities between humans and any organism is an inference and interpretation, not a law. It is interpreted that one lead to the other, yet it could just as easily be interpreted that the car designer used the same car parts on two different cars at the same time, without assuming that he had to make one car, and then after making that car was able to make the next car with only advanced parts from the previous car. Anomalies in evolution are common. These "exceptions to the rules" are mere examples of flaws in the theory. An antigen receptor protein has the same unique single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this isn't explained by a shark/camel linkage. The human lysozyme is closer to the chicken lysozyme than any other organism. But this is not explained by a human/chicken transitional fossil. Hemoglobin is found in vertebrates, but also in mollusks crustaceans, and bacteria. This similarity is not dependent on a transitional evolutionary link, and couldn't be, much as the similarities between man and ape are not dependent on an evolutionary link, but are only accepted as such.

As a result of all of this, I see divine intervention as my only possible basis for believing in science. If there was no divinity before and during existence, then the probability of order, or existence, would be low. Because of a belief in Divine intervention, I can have a belief in Science. I have faith, not knowledge, that this is a rational universe on laws, becuase of a rational divinity. Now everyone gets to make the assumption that I somehow think there is a bearded old man in the sky writing everyone's shit down for judgment, becuase of my simple belief.

[the beat]

Holy shite, that's long.


I scanned it, seems like you're on the right page.

[Rust]

1. "I reject believing in the modern evolutionist idea, and the modern humanistic and naturalistic viewpoints. I reject them because I interpret them as such (equate "without cause" as "without divine intervention" as in "by accident"): The universe came into existence from generally unsubstantiated particles expanding, without known cause. The solar system formed in the right proportions to have the right combination of compounds and elements on Earth, which is the proportionally correct distance from the Sun, without cause. The non living matter on Earth came into a living form, without cause."

1a. Scientists don't claim it is without cause. While you do say "equate 'without cause' as 'without divine intervention' as in 'by accident", that seems to be only an excuse for you to portrait in a negative light.

1b. The idea that the solar system formed in the right proportions, that Earth is in the proportionally correct distance from the Sun, and that there was some correct proportion of chemicals for life, is antiquated, biased and wrong. It rests on the biased view of life of the human variety: carbon based life-forms that that need a certain range of temperature to survive. The fact is that nothing precludes non-carbon based life forms, and that we observe countless different life forms that exists in environments that are not hospitable to humans.

A solar system having formed with different proportions, with planets with different distances from their star, and with different proportion of chemicals for life from what we observed on Earth might preclude Human-like life, but not life all-together.

Even if we ignore this, the amount of planets in the supposed "habitable" zone, in our Galaxy alone, is staggering! (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/PLACES/publications/datenfiles/ESA_SP514.pdf)


2. "We observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past. To prove something, a credible eye witnessing of the event is required. This is impossible for the time before we existed. It is the belief that we are of primordial pond scum which originated from nonliving matter, and at the end we like everything else will become extinct and cease to exist, along eventually with the Earth and the entire universe for that matter which perplexes me. I actually hardly disagree with the entire statement, yet my idea of a man from dust turned back into dust after death in a world that will suffer a terminal apocalypse and end all existence is met with ridicule, loosely speaking. I see a marginal difference with heated debate and defensive walls only as a result of personal experience with persons and those persons' personal ideas and experiences. This is why I am confused, since the similarities are so ignored."

2a. We do not observe that intelligence is necessary for complex information. That is false. We observe complexity arising in nature without any "intelligence". We observe complex crystal formations when water freezes. We observe complex geological formations like cave systems.

DNA is the same. That DNA "Codes" means we, observers, have given certain patterns certain meanings. That's it. We can say Snowflakes code for snow if we give them similar meanings.

2b. Your claim regarding are origins is much more than you are making it out to be. It requires the existence of a supernatural creator that violates the laws of physics, has left no meaningful evidence that you've shown for his existence, and that for some unknown reason created reality in way that suggests evolution.


3. "Mutations are rarely effective without the chance of drastic danger to the organisms survival. Mutations can also come in the form of deletion of genes, causing a loss of data. How does a mutation of a single celled organism, a loss of data, create a diversity? Likewise with the Founder effect, in relation to the bottleneck. The surviving organisms have a much lower amount of genetic diversity. This leads to the surviving genes being the only to repopulate the species. How does diversity rise from this? A species is formed since the genetic data is so drastically changed from the original species. Two new species, from the original gene pool. "

3a. Talking about mutations in such a sweeping way is silly. Mutations and their effectiveness are completely relative to their environment. A mutation that poses "drastic danger to an organisms survival" can be immensely beneficial in another environment. To paint them as one way or the other, and then to use that as an argument against evolution is erroneous to say the least.

3b. You said yourself. Deletion is one possible type of mutations.There are many others that add information; that don't result in a loss of data as you claim.

3c. The Founder effects wouldn't even really apply to the first cells. The Founder effects means a loss of genetic variation because the population (and thus the possible combination of genes in a community) has diminished quickly for some reason (e.g. A group of explorers move to far away lands to and establish no communities - hence the name).
The important parts here are that the Founder effect does not preclude genetic variation/mutations (it just means that the pool got smaller), and that to speak of "the pool getting smaller" you need to compare it to something else (i.e. the larger community from which the "Founders" split off from)! What are you comparing the first single-celled organisms to?


4. "I combine this with the lack of transitional species in or out of the fossil record to substantiate my skepticism of a evolutionary naturalistic tree of life.
... Particles to man is just unbelievable to me as a result of this. There are only gaps. I haven't seen a small vector of progress nor a large vector of progress, and I do eagerly want to see it. I do. "rapid evolution" and unfossilizable body parts are poor excuses. Turtles leave excellent fossils, and have no intermediates. Fishes to amphibians are an example. It was accepted that amphibians spawned from the Rhipidistian fish, the coelacanth, which was explained that this fish used its fleshy fins to walk on the sea floor before going on land. No one refuted this, so it was accepted. It was impossible *not* to prove, since the last Rhipidistian lived 70 million years ago according to the fossil record. But a living coelacanth was discovered in 1938 and was observed that the fins were only used for swimming. The soft parts were not transitional. The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega has fully formed legs, where there was no trace of in the discovered Rhipidistian. My point is that everyone accepted the general idea that they were transitional links, just becuase there was not at that time proof otherwise. This mistake in jumping to conclusions was not a lesson learned. Another example is the Bacteria resisting penicillin. Don't say that the bacteria that developed a resistance to penicillin /evolved/. They already had the genetic resistance, but enough of the population and genetic data had to be deleted before it became prevalent."

4a. There are plenty of transitional fossils. In fact, I remember giving you a list of transitional fossil - to which you had no reply. You can follow this link for a long list of transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

4b. Turtles do have intermediates. You are making claims without first investigating the subject. This obvious because just a few months ago (i.e. this can be easily found online given how relatively recent it was) a new transitional fossil in turtle evolution was found.
Abstract:

An ancestral turtle from the Late Triassic of southwestern China. Nature 456: 497-501. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7221/full/nature07533.html)

Blog with pictures:

Odontochelys, a transitional turtle (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/odontochelys_a_transitional_tu.php)

4c. Science makes mistakes. That's not up to debate. That does not refute evolution. So that the evolutionary lineage of a species turned out to be different than what was thought, is not a refutation of evolution.

Moreover, the evolution of fish to amphibians has other transitional species:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

4d. You are wrong that these bacterias already had the genes for the resistance. The colonies used for these types of experiments (i.e. resistance to antibiotics, cleaning agents, pesticides etc.) are grown from a single bacteria! That means that only the genes that any resistance to any of those agents would be new information.

There are plenty of other examples, like organisms that have developed the ability to digest nylon which is a relatively recent human invention.

---

I'll respond to the rest later in the week.

[Obbe]

If it was all chance, if it was an accident, why should I believe the general interpretation to be true? Why should I accept the general consensus?

...

As a result of all of this, I see divine intervention as my only possible basis for believing in science. If there was no divinity before and during existence, then the probability of order, or existence, would be low. Because of a belief in Divine intervention, I can have a belief in Science. I have faith, not knowledge, that this is a rational universe on laws, becuase of a rational divinity. Now everyone gets to make the assumption that I somehow think there is a bearded old man in the sky writing everyone's shit down for judgment, becuase of my simple belief.

There is no reason that there must be a divine order behind it all. It can be illogical and chaotic.

[Rust]

5. "Then there is the ape to man discussion. Countless fossils such as the Australopithecus afarensis "Lucy" , the A. africanus, and the Homo H. erectus are believed to be the transitions to man. However these are further away in relation structurally and genetically to man than the chimpanzee is. The anatomist Charles Oxnard made detailed analysis of these species and discovered the stark differences including the fact that the species overlapped at many points. (C.E. Oxnard /Nature/ 258:389-395, 1975.) These were not transitional species or missing links to the genus Homo. The genetic similarities between humans and any organism is an inference and interpretation, not a law. It is interpreted that one lead to the other, yet it could just as easily be interpreted that the car designer used the same car parts on two different cars at the same time, without assuming that he had to make one car, and then after making that car was able to make the next car with only advanced parts from the previous car. Anomalies in evolution are common. These "exceptions to the rules" are mere examples of flaws in the theory. "

5a. You are citing an article that is more than 30 years old, and that was written by a scientist that agrees with evolution. That's how wrong you are/

This is merely a case where scientists have healthy disagreements as the evidence comes (and a huge amount of new evidence exists now that didn't exist 30+ years ago); much like how there are still disagreements on extinction events, and the like. Here's an excerpt from an article that deals with this issue and mentions Oxnard's most recent views on the subject:

"The constant misuse of Oxnard’s work by creationists illustrates the point I made above: that, without actually considering the merits of different arguments, they select one that can be made to support their own views, and parade it as "the truth". In fact, Oxnard is the only professional palaeoanthropologist who argues that australopithecines might not be part of the human clade. Even he, however, has moved away from the view of his former mentor, Lord Zuckerman, that australopithecines should be excluded from the human clade. In what seems to be his latest publication on the matter 7 he considers the functional anatomy of the Sterkfontein pelvis (referred to as Australopithecus africanus), concludes that it belonged to a creature that was most likely bipedal but not in the modern human fashion, and puts forward four possible explanatory models:

1.mosaic evolution (australopithecines were evolving towards human bipedalism, at different rates in different anatomical features);

2. parallel evolution (australopithecines shared a basic bipedalism with human ancestors, but subsequently diverged and evolved along their own lines);

3. convergent evolution (both humans and australopithecines became bipedal, but independently from a non-bipedal ancestor);

4. and a fourth model, in which they have been misinterpreted, and were not bipedal at all.

The last model he rejects; the other three he considers in turn, concluding that "Maybe the most probable possibility is a combination of mosaicism and parallelism" (p.31).


- http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cgcriticismfossil1.htm


5b. The genetic similarities that humans shares with other organisms is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution where true. Coming up with other outrageous explanations without showing us how it should be that way, is not an argument; it exposes the vacuity if your belief: You don't know why a creator would use the same parts when he doesn't have to and when doing so would make us infer evolution.


6. "
An antigen receptor protein has the same unique single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this isn't explained by a shark/camel linkage. The human lysozyme is closer to the chicken lysozyme than any other organism. But this is not explained by a human/chicken transitional fossil. Hemoglobin is found in vertebrates, but also in mollusks crustaceans, and bacteria. This similarity is not dependent on a transitional evolutionary link, and couldn't be, much as the similarities between man and ape are not dependent on an evolutionary link, but are only accepted as such.


6a. It's not the same. The DNA sequences are different:

Structural analysis of the nurse shark (new) antigen receptor (NAR): Molecular convergence of NAR and unusual mammalian immunoglobulins

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/20/11804.full.pdf

6b. There doesn't have to be a direct shark/camel "linkage" for them to have the antigen receptor. As the article explains, it's an example of convergent evolution. Bats have wings, and so do birds.

[Bilbo]

the term intelligent design itself is bullshit

[Rude Louis]

Well thank you for posting this Rust. Can we not do quote by quote formats here? Anyway:

I am not trying to "portrait" anything in a negative light. It is only my need to scrutinize everything that makes me write. How could someone who holds the basis of using questioning, method, and stipulation discourage that?

This is my basic assumption on the principles of evolution. Tell me if I am wrong here. The idea that the DNA of an organism occasionally changes, or mutates, the idea that the change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral, and the idea that as mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, new species form.

According to the theory, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule billions of years ago and is the origin of every living thing. That simplest life form, through the processes of mutation and natural selection, has been shaped into every living species on the planet.

So, to make a less lengthy statement and a more concise reply, answer how the first living cell arose spontaneously. Answer how point mutations which increase in occurrence, and are caused by, mutagens, and insertions caused by unequal crossover during meosis, are beneficial. So far you stated the opposing viewpoint, responded to my tone, and used ad homenims. But you didn't answer.

And remember that just because a number of people accept an idea, that doesn't make it true. Good God where is the skepticism?

[Rust]

I personally prefer using quotes because it makes sure the other persons responds to or concedes the claims he or she has made. It helps prevent people from not dealing with the things they've said be it on purpose or by mistake. Since you prefer not to use quotes, I'll indulge you. However, I will begin using quotes if I feel you're ever evading the problems in your claims - on purpose or by mistake. Here goes:


I'm not discouraging any questioning, in fact I promote it. It is precisely because I agree that scrutinizing ideas is important that I feel the need to point out how you were using incredibly old and baseless creationist arguments that have been refuted a long, long time ago. It's precisely why I feel compelled to point out how you didn't bother to research, for example, turtle evolution, an area in evolutionary biology for which Science had indeed found transitional fossils, before you made your claim. How is claiming that there are no transitional fossils, without first doing the research, "scrutinizing everything"? And please don't accuse me of using ad-hominems; these are not ad-hominems, these are facts. Specially not after you've implied that I'm committing a logical fallacy when I'm not (e.g. "remember that just because a number of people accept an idea, that doesn't make it true. Good God where is the skepticism? ").


The chemicals didn't randomly organize themselves. That's not the proper word. There are laws of chemistry and physics that govern how these elements can form. These are not random. There are nucleosynthesis processes occurring before abiogenesis that promoted the formation of certain elements. That isn't random either.

How the first cell arose is still something being investigated by Science. So you are asking for answer that is being informed and evolving as we speak. So I may not be able to give you a precise answer. However, that does not mean evolution is wrong. We have countless other evidence, experimental results, studies, and failed falsification attempts, that substantiate the theory of evolution. We have transitional fossils; exactly what we would expect if the theory of evolution were true. We have genetic similarities across species; exactly what we would expect if evolution were true. We have sub-optimal structures in species; exactly what we would expect if evolution where true. I could go on and one. So that I currently cannot give you a full answer regarding the origins of the first cell does not mean that evolution is false; it means Science is working on finding the answer as we speak. That being said, here are some articles that deal with what we do know and some of the hypotheses being worked on today:

First life. American Scientist, 94, 32-39.
Russell, M.J. 2006. (http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/Russell2006FirstLife.pdf)


http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/life/articles/article28.mhtml


On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells
(http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/Martin_&_Russell.pdf)

Inorganic Complexes Enabled the Onset of Life
and Oxygenic Photosynthesis (http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/Russell%20Allen%20Milner%20PS2%202008.pdf)

As for your question in regards to mutations: Point mutations aren't necessarily caused by mutagens and how beneficial a mutation is depends entirely on the environment the organism that just underwent the mutation is in, as I already explained.

[Rude Louis]

But that is my point. Science is still investigating. So why does everyone put 100% faith into something that can easily change once new information is discovered? Why can't I disagree? Why am I not allowed to criticize? A theory is a theory.

[Rust]

Well first of all, arriving at a belief or position based on the scientific evidence avaiable is not a matter of faith. Second of all, there's a difference between not putting "100% faith" in something, and arriving at the oppossite conclusion like you did in the OP. You can say "Hmm, since Science hasn't provided me with the full explanation of abiogenesis, I'll remain neutral". However you crossed that line into the other side a long time a go, and by a lot.

You're allowed to critize; that's not the problem. Science welcomes criticism. The problem comes when the criticism is utterly baseless and without merit. Claiming there are no transitional fossils is an example of criticism that is baseless and without merit. It is simply not true. There are many transitional fossils and the gaps that exist today are being filled in every time.

And a theory is:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

So a theory is something that has withstood many attempts at falsification, and that has large amounts of evidence supporting. You can disagree. Nobody is saying you can't. It's just that for your disagreement to be reasonable, the reasoning behind it should be sound. The reasons given so far aren't really sound.

[Rude Louis]

Well first of all, arriving at a belief or position based on the scientific evidence avaiable is not a matter of faith. Second of all, there's a difference between not putting "100% faith" in something, and arriving at the oppossite conclusion like you did in the OP. You can say "Hmm, since Science hasn't provided me with the full explanation of abiogenesis, I'll remain neutral". However you crossed that line into the other side a long time a go, and by a lot.

You're allowed to critize; that's not the problem. Science welcomes criticism. The problem comes when the criticism is utterly baseless and without merit. Claiming there are no transitional fossils is an example of criticism that is baseless and without merit. It is simply not true. There are many transitional fossils and the gaps that exist today are being filled in every time.

And a theory is:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

So a theory is something that has withstood many attempts at falsification, and that has large amounts of evidence supporting. You can disagree. Nobody is saying you can't. It's just that for your disagreement to be reasonable, the reasoning behind it should be sound. The reasons given so far aren't really sound.
I get this notion that you would say everything you said was wrong if I said everything you said was right, just for the sake of arguing.

There is a lack of transitional fossils.
Mutations don't cause enough genetic diversity.
The transition of man doesn't logically have enough of a time line through apes.
Every cause has an effect. Existence did not happen from nothing without being perturbed.

I'll edit to make elaborations again but right now I'm a bit tied up. My point is I want to be skeptical of the norm and general accepted "blank". In this case it is evolution. Everything we perceive is just that. A perception. Which is nothing more than what we can record with our senses. What can we not sense? What can we not record? Well I guess it isn't real so it doesn't matter.

[Rust]

I get this notion that you would say everything you said was wrong if I said everything you said was right, just for the sake of arguing.

Your accusations might hold some weight if I hadn't provided ample evidence refuting your baseless assertions. I did.

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of arguing (and even if were, that's irrelevant; my reasons are mine alone and don't negate the truthfulness or falsehood of my arguments). I'm disagreeing because you're wrong.


I'll edit to make elaborations again but right now I'm a bit tied up.

I'll be waiting because as of now those are outrageous allegations.


My point is I want to be skeptical of the norm and general accepted "blank". In this case it is evolution.

Why you're doing something, and whether that something is supported by evidence are two very different things. I'm not arguing your reasons. If you want to be skeptical, that's fine. Again, the problem is that your reasoning is not sound. You've been shown to be wrong.

What can we not sense? What can we not record? Well I guess it isn't real so it doesn't matter.

If you can prove that something that we cannot sense and that we cannot "record" exists, then by all means do so. If you cannot, then why would I concern myself with that which I cannot sense, I cannot "record" and that hasn't been proven to exist?

[Rude Louis]

Your accusations might hold some weight if I hadn't provided ample evidence refuting your baseless assertions. I did.

I'm disagreeing because you're wrong.

For the record, I'm not creationist. Secondly, I am trying to show you and everyone else that No one has all of the facts. Rust, do we have all of the facts? Yes or no, does mankind have ALL OF THE FACTS? People in all honesty know nothing, but they know even less when they think that they know something for 100% fact, like how I perceive the way you are replying to everything right now. You have nothing to prove that I am wrong other than what other people have written down. It is the same reasoning of what evidence I use. They study, yes. They are scientists, yes. They are in a community and all that jazz yes. Yet I somehow think you would agree that just because a bunch of people say something doesn't make it right or true. They are people. They aren't infallible, which I find ironic right now.

This "you're wrong" stuff is childish. It's the equivalent of "I win becuase I win." and you saying it shows nothing more than bias against me. That's all. Quit jumping on me. I don't see why we have to be hostile to argue.



Why you're doing something, and whether that something is supported by evidence are two very different things. I'm not arguing your reasons. If you want to be skeptical, that's fine. Again, the problem is that your reasoning is not sound. You've been shown to be wrong. Wait, you aren't arguing my reasoning, but my reasoning isn't sound? Are you or are you not? No I haven't shown to be wrong. You are just doing the same old dance and tune of taking everything I say and using the reply of "Nu-uh, this guy said this and he's right and you're wrong." That proves nothing. We have done nothing but debate. Debate does not decide if you or I am correct in any way. And out sourcing does not decided who is right or wrong. So quit ending your sentences with "that means you're wrong." It doesn't. Also: the stuff I wanted to finish:
My evidence for your viewing pleasure:


There is a lack of transitional fossils.
A transitional fossil shows the evolutionary development from one species to another. Example:
single cell —> fish —> amphibians —> reptiles —> mammals
I doubt you will disagree that fossilization is not easy. The assumption is that most transitional examples were never fossilized. Yes, there are many fossils lying around. That means a lot of plants and animals died and we can find their fossilized remains. Do they fossilize quickly and perfectly? Do they leave picture connect the dot remains? Are there transitional fossils for every species to link together? No.
Ergo, there is a lack of transitional fossils.



Mutations don't cause enough genetic diversity.
A meteor hits the earth. Most species die, since none can magically mutate on cue to adapt. The remaining genetic data survives to repopulate.
Cold snap occurs unexpectedly. All the insects outside in the cold die, since they can' magically mutate on the spot. All that are underground survive. The genetic data randomly lucky enough to survive repopulates.

DNA is so extensive that creation of offspring with drastic phenotype and genotypes is merely from a reshuffling of the data. Breed rats for 5 years, what do you have? Rats. 50 years? Rats. 200 years? rats. 2,000 years? Rats. Mutations would be inevitable during all this. They will still be rats. Mutations aren't causing the diversity compared to bottle necking and simple reshuffling. This is point mutation and ins





The transition of man doesn't logically have enough of a time line through apes.
So the Origin of Species is two hundred years old, and you don't say shit. One of my sources comes from the 70's, and you drive up the wall. Ok. I'm not being scrutinizing, but I haven't seen proof that the fossils of human links aren't regular humans and regular apes that had some tiny irregularity. I want a fossil that is more than slightly different from either an ape or a modern human.
If I am not wrong, the most recent geological periods are Holocene - the present period and back near 10,000 years, and Pleistocene, the period from about 10,000 years ago to 2 million years ago. The well-known fossils believed to be human links come from the Pleistocene time line. Including Australopithecus.
Miniscule source from Michael Bowden's Ape Men
Those fossils known as Australopithecines are very apelike. That is, they look exactly like ape fossils except that a close examination of the teeth, or the jaw shape, or minor bones of the skull leads some scientists to think they see faint “human” characteristics. Early attempts to introduce these fossils as “progressive pre hominids” were ridiculed by scientists. One example is the Australopithecus africanus finding at Taungs in 1924 by Dr. R. A. Dart. He considered the apelike skull pieces (consisting of the front of a face and lower jaw) to have slightly human features. The scientists of the day (who were also evolutionists) treated his proposal with great scorn and considered the skull to be a variety of chimpanzee. They called it “Dart’s baby.” Even the evolutionary advocate and “expert on human origins” Teilhard de Chardin (also loosely associated with Peking Man, Java Man, etc.) considered the Australopithecines to be a branch of development that did not continue to progress up to man. That is, even within the “evolutionary community” many scientists believed that these fossils were only apes.



Every cause has an effect. Existence did not happen from nothing without being perturbed.
If there was a point in time that nothing existed at all, then nothing would continue to not exist. Existence would never occur. Even the expanding universe is not eternal. Now take the nonliving compounds. Nonliving. Not moving. Then, alive. The action came from a reaction. That reaction came from a reaction's reaction to a reaction. Logically there has to be an original source, and it cannot be physical, or it too would require a reaction.






If you can prove that something that we cannot sense and that we cannot "record" exists, then by all means do so. If you cannot, then why would I concern myself with that which I cannot sense, I cannot "record" and that hasn't been proven to exist? That very reasoning could have been asked before microscopes, before x-rays, before sophisticated methods of interrogating and deducing, so why bother trying to learn? Why bother about dark matter? Why bother figuring out what the other dimensions are? Hell, we know were right becuase we have these books written by scientists, that means were right! -This is the attitude I see.

[Obbe]

Every cause has an effect. Existence did not happen from nothing without being perturbed.
If there was a point in time that nothing existed at all, then nothing would continue to not exist. Existence would never occur. Even the expanding universe is not eternal. Now take the nonliving compounds. Nonliving. Not moving. Then, alive. The action came from a reaction. That reaction came from a reaction's reaction to a reaction. Logically there has to be an original source, and it cannot be physical, or it too would require a reaction.

Or order and logic are just lie's, things happen for no reason, and reality is infinite, eternal, illogical and chaotic.

That's not possible?

[Rust]

For the record, I'm not creationist. Secondly, I am trying to show you and everyone else that No one has all of the facts. Rust, do we have all of the facts? Yes or no, does mankind have ALL OF THE FACTS? People in all honesty know nothing, but they know even less when they think that they know something for 100% fact, like how I perceive the way you are replying to everything right now. You have nothing to prove that I am wrong other than what other people have written down. It is the same reasoning of what evidence I use. They study, yes. They are scientists, yes. They are in a community and all that jazz yes. Yet I somehow think you would agree that just because a bunch of people say something doesn't make it right or true. They are people. They aren't infallible, which I find ironic right now.

This "you're wrong" stuff is childish. It's the equivalent of "I win becuase I win." and you saying it shows nothing more than bias against me. That's all. Quit jumping on me. I don't see why we have to be hostile to argue.

1. Yes, nobody has all the facts. Who said otherwise? I know I didn't. That nobody has all the facts does not either substantiate the outrageous claims you've made, refute the evidence I have provided, nor teach me anything that I didn't already know.

2. What I have (i.e. the evidence I have provided) is infinitely more compelling, and substantial than what you have provided, which is nothing but claims. The sources I'm citing come from Scientists knowledgeable on the field, often come in the form of studies submitted to renowned peer-reviewed journals, and are the result of actual physical evidence that exists to support evolution (e.g. physical fossils that exist). Could they be incorrect? Sure. Have you shown they are? No. Are they much more reliable sources than what you are providing? You bet your fucking as they are.

3. You are wrong. Pointing that out is not childish. It's the truth. It has nothing to do with "Winning" anything, hence why you're the first person to talk about "winning" or "contests" or "competitions" or anything where "winning" might be a result.

What's childish is complaining when someone points out how you're wrong.


Wait, you aren't arguing my reasoning, but my reasoning isn't sound? Are you or are you not? No I haven't shown to be wrong. You are just doing the same old dance and tune of taking everything I say and using the reply of "Nu-uh, this guy said this and he's right and you're wrong." That proves nothing. We have done nothing but debate. Debate does not decide if you or I am correct in any way. And out sourcing does not decided who is right or wrong. So quit ending your sentences with "that means you're wrong." It doesn't. Also: the stuff I wanted to finish:

1. I was making a distinction between reasons like "I want to be skeptical of the norm and general accepted "blank"" and the actual claims/reasoning you've used to attack evolution (i.e. "There is a lack of transitional fossils"). I don't care about the former, I care about the latter.

2. You are correct that debate alone does not prove you are incorrect. That's why I didn't say you were wrong because of "Debate". I said you are wrong because the evidence refutes you. That's a fact.

There is a lack of transitional fossils.
A transitional fossil shows the evolutionary development from one species to another. Example:
single cell —> fish —> amphibians —> reptiles —> mammals
I doubt you will disagree that fossilization is not easy. The assumption is that most transitional examples were never fossilized. Yes, there are many fossils lying around. That means a lot of plants and animals died and we can find their fossilized remains. Do they fossilize quickly and perfectly? Do they leave picture connect the dot remains? Are there transitional fossils for every species to link together? No.
Ergo, there is a lack of transitional fossils.



I was replying in this thread as if "Lack of transitional fossils" meant there were none. If what you were saying is that we don't have fossils of all organisms in the world, and all transitional fossils that have ever exist, then while true, that's hardly a meaningful argument. We don't know all the diseased and viruses that have ever existed, but I don't see you doubting germ theory.

Oh, and that "example" of yours doesn't show transition from species to species. "Fish" isn't a species. And before you accuse me of splitting hairs, I'm just making sure we're on the same page.

Mutations don't cause enough genetic diversity.
A meteor hits the earth. Most species die, since none can magically mutate on cue to adapt. The remaining genetic data survives to repopulate.
Cold snap occurs unexpectedly. All the insects outside in the cold die, since they can' magically mutate on the spot. All that are underground survive. The genetic data randomly lucky enough to survive repopulates.

DNA is so extensive that creation of offspring with drastic phenotype and genotypes is merely from a reshuffling of the data. Breed rats for 5 years, what do you have? Rats. 50 years? Rats. 200 years? rats. 2,000 years? Rats. Mutations would be inevitable during all this. They will still be rats. Mutations aren't causing the diversity compared to bottle necking and simple reshuffling. This is point mutation and ins

What did you did there besides repeating the claim? Did you provide evidence to support your claim they would still be rats? Did you provide any evidence that mutations aren't causing the diversity? No. You just reiterated your claim. How is that any different from "Nu-uh, I say this and I'm right and you're wrong"

We've already observed speciation in the laboratory. Most recently we've observed E. Coli evolve the ability to digest citrate (their inability to digest it was one of the defining characteristics of E. Coli as a species of Bacteria)

Full Article:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf


Layman's explanation:

"Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html



So we have evidence, physical evidence in because these Bacteria still exist in a lab, proving you wrong: mutations have been observed to lead to immense changes in an organisms, to the point of speciation, in a relative small amount of time (i.e. much less than 2,000 years).



The transition of man doesn't logically have enough of a time line through apes.
So the Origin of Species is two hundred years old, and you don't say shit. One of my sources comes from the 70's, and you drive up the wall. Ok. I'm not being scrutinizing, but I haven't seen proof that the fossils of human links aren't regular humans and regular apes that had some tiny irregularity. I want a fossil that is more than slightly different from either an ape or a modern human.
If I am not wrong, the most recent geological periods are Holocene - the present period and back near 10,000 years, and Pleistocene, the period from about 10,000 years ago to 2 million years ago. The well-known fossils believed to be human links come from the Pleistocene time line. Including Australopithecus.

Miniscule source from Michael Bowden's Ape Men
[...]


1. I didn't quote the Origins of the Species, did I? You, on the other hand, cited an article that is over 30 years old. Although that doesn't automatically mean that the article is wrong, it's very important to point out (what I did) that there have been plenty of new discoveries since then and that the author now believes there is a relation with human beings.


Stop acting like a child, bringing up things I've haven't even mentioned and implying I believe citing Origins of the Species would be fine.


2. Yes, most of the transitional fossils for humans are found in the Pleistocene because that's when scientists believe homo-sapiens evolved as a species. We wouldn't (much) transitional fossils during the Holocene because homo-sapiens where already established as a species by then!

3. This source of yours is also very old. That being said, it is true that there were some Scientists that thought these specimens were not transitional. So? I don't suggest every single Scientists was in agreement. However, and this is why the date of your source is important, these opinions from those scientists came decades ago before the more intact and well-preserved specimens were found. The consensus today is that they are transitional fossils.


Every cause has an effect. Existence did not happen from nothing without being perturbed.
If there was a point in time that nothing existed at all, then nothing would continue to not exist. Existence would never occur. Even the expanding universe is not eternal. Now take the nonliving compounds. Nonliving. Not moving. Then, alive. The action came from a reaction. That reaction came from a reaction's reaction to a reaction. Logically there has to be an original source, and it cannot be physical, or it too would require a reaction.

1. How is this any different from saying "Nuh uh"? You provide no evidence, just your claim that every cause must have an effect.

2. Prove that a non-physical source does not require a cause itself.

3. This has little to do with evolution which is what I was responding to with this thread. Evolution would be true regardless of what the "first cause" was - if there was one. For example, the position of the Catholic Church - obviously a theistic organization - is that evolution is true but that the first cause was the Christian god.



That very reasoning could have been asked before microscopes, before x-rays, before sophisticated methods of interrogating and deducing, so why bother trying to learn? Why bother about dark matter? Why bother figuring out what the other dimensions are? Hell, we know were right becuase we have these books written by scientists, that means were right! -This is the attitude I see.

I'm making a distinction between what can be sensed and "recorded" but hasn't been, and what simply cannot be sense or recorded (which is what I thought you mean). I'm all in favor of keeping an eye out for things that can be sense and "recorded". However, it seems you want me to conclude these things (god, a supernatural first cause, a designer, what have you) exists without first showing it.

It was ridiculous to expect people to be of the position that x-rays existed before there was any evidence for them.

[Rude Louis]

I want to give a longer reply but I'm currently not in a position to do so, bite sized as I can make it this is the first few lines that interested me in the article you had.

The long delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation.
Is this mutation a good reference for normal occurrences and status quo of mutations?

We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no
mutants among 8.4 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 1012 cells
from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However,
we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to
evolve, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by
20,000 generations.
Doesn't this indicate that it took thousands of generations? What is the time line of one generation combined with the occurrence of a mutation?


Of course, replaying life’s tape on the planetary scale is
impossible, but careful experiments can examine the role of
contingency in evolution on a more modest scale.
Modest, this is the kind of sentence I fail at articulating myself. But even with the most precise experiments, is it not true that small deviations and tiny differences create drastically different results? So what is the true unadulterated control [variable, source, whatever word escapes me right now]?

More coming as soon as I can get to it.

[Rust]

Is this mutation a good reference for normal occurrences and status quo of mutations?

This is the contex of what you're quoting:

"The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history.

The article is focusing on an argument among scientists in regards to evolution being contingent or not. The two schools of thought are the ones they mentioned in that excerpt I just quoted. Their results support the second school of thought. I'm using it here because it's one of the recent examples of speciation I remember out of the top of my head. There are plenty more.


Doesn't this indicate that it took thousands of generations? What is the time line of one generation combined with the occurrence of a mutation?

In this case, yes. However:

1. These bacteria started out with only one individual. One parent. That is not how bacteria exist in nature. There are what? Billions of bacteria in the wild? Trillions? The amount of new offspring undergoing new mutations in nature would be many orders of maginuted greater than this experiment.

2. There were billions of mutations among these bacteria in those generations. We're focusing on one of them.

3. Thousands of generations take a small amount of time In the history of earth/universe.

4. E. coli is asexual. This limits the amount of genetic change and the amount of mutations that can occur.

5. These mutations are "random", so we can only say that on average they take X thousands of generations. That average is the result of times where it might have happened in only dozens or hundreds of generations combined with cases where it took longer.


Modest, this is the kind of sentence I fail at articulating myself. But even with the most precise experiments, is it not true that small deviations and tiny differences create drastically different results? So what is the true unadulterated control [variable, source, whatever word escapes me right now]?

Huh? This type of experiment is not comparing the effects using X on Y, which is where you need a control (e.g. the effects of miracle grow on plants - you would take a group with miracle grow and a group without - the control). This is studying contingency in evolution, which deals with whether the likelyhood of a mutation is constant, or if the likelyhood is contingent on certain other changes in the organism's ancenstors. To do this they need to do just as they did: Freeze different generations of E. Coli at different times, "replay" their growth and notice if there is any difference in how fast it takes the same mutation to occur. This answers the question they wanted to answer quite nicely.

The point is that speciation has been observed. This is but one example I provided out of the top of my head. Small deviations and tiny differences might means some amount of change (Whether it's drastic or meaningless depends on the system); however there is nothing to suggest that these small differences are enough to make speciation happen in the lab and magically not in nature. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to believe these differences are not enough since we've already observed speciation in the wild (http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)!

[Rust]

Just thought I'd make a slight bump, while also posting some relevant information. :)

It's an excerpt from a blog post dealing with the testimony of Michael Behe - an Intelligent Design proponent - during the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District trial. During the trial he was essentially forced to admit just how likely the evolution of an irreducibly complex system - which according to IDers is the bane of evolution because of how difficult to evolve they supposedly are:


"And remember, the core of Behe's entire argument for ID is that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. Yet what does he admit under oath that his own study actually says? It says that IF you assume a population of bacteria on the entire earth that is 7 orders of magnitude less than the number of bacteria in a single ton of soil...and IF you assume that it undergoes only point mutations...and IF you rule out recombination, transposition, insertion/deletion, frame shift mutations and all of the other documented sources of mutation and genetic variation...and IF you assume that none of the intermediate steps would serve any function that might help them be preserved...THEN it would take 20,000 years (or 1/195,000th of the time bacteria have been on the earth) for a new complex trait requiring multiple interacting mutations - the very definition of an irreducibly complex system according to Behe - to develop and be fixed in a population.

In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it. "

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php

[Rude Louis]

Just thought I'd make a slight bump, while also posting some relevant information. :)

It's an excerpt from a blog post dealing with the testimony of Michael Behe - an Intelligent Design proponent - during the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District trial. During the trial he was essentially forced to admit just how likely the evolution of an irreducibly complex system - which according to IDers is the bane of evolution because of how difficult to evolve they supposedly are:


"And remember, the core of Behe's entire argument for ID is that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. Yet what does he admit under oath that his own study actually says? It says that IF you assume a population of bacteria on the entire earth that is 7 orders of magnitude less than the number of bacteria in a single ton of soil...and IF you assume that it undergoes only point mutations...and IF you rule out recombination, transposition, insertion/deletion, frame shift mutations and all of the other documented sources of mutation and genetic variation...and IF you assume that none of the intermediate steps would serve any function that might help them be preserved...THEN it would take 20,000 years (or 1/195,000th of the time bacteria have been on the earth) for a new complex trait requiring multiple interacting mutations - the very definition of an irreducibly complex system according to Behe - to develop and be fixed in a population.

In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it. "

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php

It is also quoted that "However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. I'm not trying to be in favor of ID becuase that's just doublespeak for creationism.

If there is a reasonable doubt, just one, that is reason enough to be skeptical of the status quo of thinking. It isn't correct to assume your references and data make the other data wrong. It's how it is interpreted.
You can interpret that humans came from the sapient monkey that bred us, or you can't. You can choose to see that every living thing came from one single cell originally, or you can choose not to. But since
replaying life’s tape on the planetary scale is
impossible as said in your PDF article, it cannot be proven without the shadow of a doubt.
I have reasonable doubt. Is it unreasonable to think that the facts that don't agree with the current theory are just discarded? Even if they were reasonable facts? I say yes.

[Rust]

It is also quoted that [...] not trying to be in favor of ID becuase that's just doublespeak for creationism.

I understand. I didn't say you were in favor of ID. I provided that quote because it was still relevant. It showed how even one of the biggest opponents of evolution has still had to concede that one of the biggest obstacles to evolution - according to him - is still pretty likely. This relates to some of your criticisms of evolution; for example the likelihood of mutations adding useful information. The quote showed one of the biggest enemies of evolution having to admit just how likely developing an irreducibly complex system - which is much more than just adding information.

If there is a reasonable doubt, just one, that is reason enough to be skeptical of the status quo of thinking. It isn't correct to assume your references and data make the other data wrong. It's how it is interpreted.
You can interpret that humans came from the sapient monkey that bred us, or you can't. You can choose to see that every living thing came from one single cell originally, or you can choose not to. But since
as said in your PDF article, it cannot be proven without the shadow of a doubt.

This was never about "doubt". You can doubt the theory of evolution all you want - I think it's ridiculous given how well supported the theory is, but you can insist on doubting it if you want to. My objective always was to point out the incorrect claims/arguments you made against evolution. For example, your claims regarding mutations or transitional fossils.

It would be entirely fruitless to argue "reasonable doubt" because you would get to move the goal post whenever you wanted! Who would get to decide what "reasonable doubt" is? You would. So why would I argue that? For example, I don't believe you've presented any reasonable doubt against evolution yet you apparently do. In my opinion, all reasons to doubt evolution you've presented have either already been dealt with (e.g. There are plenty of transitional fossils, speciation has been observed, there are transitional fossils for turtles, etc.) or are unreasonable.

We haven't observed all diseases/germs in the world. We haven't observed the full rotation of all planets. We don't have a complete theory of gravity. Do you then not believe in germ theory? Not believe in the rotation of planets? Not believe in the gravitational theory we do have? I doubt it. You choose to inflate your requirements of evolution to absurd heights (i.e. require that we replay life on a planetary scale) because you just don't want to believe in it. That's not reasonable.


I have reasonable doubt. Is it unreasonable to think that the facts that don't agree with the current theory are just discarded? Even if they were reasonable facts? I say yes.

What facts? What fact that is "against the current theory" have you pointed out and how was it discarded?

--

So if you want to come out of this discussion still doubting evolution, then so be it. That's your problem. However, just don't use the same tired creationist arguments (not saying you're a creationist - just that you use pretty much the exact same arguments). They've been refuted.

[Xlite]

What Obbe said :P