Ok - so some of the recent threads have brought this issue back to the front of my brain again.

One of my grand obsessions are the various anti-evolution movements (that's "evolution" as in "The Origins of Species").  I feel a pressing need to spread good information to overcome the bad.

SO:

I invite anybody who has questions/doubts/inquiries/curiosity about evolution and related topics to post them here. 

It has been my experience that 99% of anti-evolution views are the result of lack of understanding/information.  I hope to be able to correct that.

I am not trying to "convince" anybody - just inform.  The information speaks for itself, and requires no convincing.  I don't plan on debating (hopefully), just performing a public service.

If people care, this could be an informative thread for all.

If nobody cares, this thread will be gone in a day.  Win/win.

So, post yer queries - I shall respond, politely.

Here is an inquiry:

How is it that the THEORY of Evolution is treated as fact without consumate proof given the inaccuracy of Carbon-14 dating and the lack of any "missing link" fossil records?  

However, Creationism is considered "unfactual" based on the same.

Cedric wrote: Creationism isn't based on fact, man. It's based on theory made up by people who wanted an easy explanation for how everything came to be.

As opposed to a Theory made up by people who wanted a complicated explanation for how everything came to be.

*edit - I am not supporting one side or the other in this debate, neither side has any concrete facts to support their "guesses."

Rico's Revenge wrote: Here is an inquiry: How is it that the THEORY of Evolution is treated as fact without consumate proof given the inaccuracy of Carbon-14 dating and the lack of any "missing link" fossil records?   However, Creationism is considered "unfactual" based on the same.

I knew this was going to get me in trouble - each reply is going to be a freakin' treatise... 

But - good question, Rico.  Here goes:

1.  The theory of evolution is not treated as "fact" to a greater or lesser degree than other scientific theories with similar empirical support.  Science never declares any theory as "fact" in a strictly empirical sense - all theories are subject to revision and deletion at any time.  As a practical matter, people (including scientists) may refer to a theory as "fact", but this is vernacular shorthand and not strictly scientific.

Consequently, NO scientific has "consummate proof".  ALL scientific theories are subject to further investigation, including evolution.  Volumes of research is done on evolutionary topics each year, and the theory of evolution is constantly being revised and updated.

It is staggeringly unlikely that the entire theory of evolution will suddenly be discovered to be "wrong" simply due to the massive volume of evidence supporting its key tenets.  That's just not how science works.  It is extremely rare for a well-proved theory to be outright overturned - instead, they are modified. 

Take Newton, for instance.  His theories of physics were the gold standard for centuries, and there are literally tons of evidence supporting the basics of his theory.  But then Einstein comes along, and revolutionizes physics again.  Did Einstein prove Newton "wrong"?  Yes and no - turns out Newton didn't have the whole picture.  Einstein's theories explain things that Newton could not - together they expand our knowledge of the universe.

Similarly, it is a near-certainty that we will see some discovery that will lead to radical changes in the way we view evolution.  Nobody claims to have a complete picture of how this works.  What we DO claim is to have a pile of evidence to support the basic principles.

So, while it is possible that evolution is "overturned", that is extremely unlikely.  But it is guaranteed to be modified on an ongoing basis.

To challenge evolution on the basis that it doesn't have "consummate proof" is unfair and unscientific.  There is no theory in science that could pass that test.  Not one.

If that is your standard, then you must reject all of science.

2.  As to C14 carbon dating - this is a bit of a red herring from the creationist community, the CRI notably has some very shady "scientific" studies on their website that claim to bolster this claim.

First - C14 dating is merely one of many methods of radiometric dating.  It is also not the primary method of testing for really old stuff - C14 is generally considered accurate back about 50,000 years, not a long time in evolutionary terms.  C14 is used by historians more than paleontologists.  Any criticism of C14 is more a criticism of historians than of paleontologists.  Criticisms of C14 are fundamentally irrelevant to the central issues in the theory of evolution, since the theory of evolution mostly deals with things that are much older.  

Second - all scientific tools sometimes give bad results.  Samples get contaminated, the lab screws it up, etc.  This is why all of science is based on the fundamental principal of repetition and more repetition.  You cannot accept the result of any single study, no matter what the result.  No result is valid until it has been replicated many times.  And C14 has withstood the test of replication.  Yes, there have been some screwy results, but even really good pregnancy tests are only 99% accurate.  That doesn't mean the pregnancy test is useless.  It is all about the repetition.  In the long run, C14 testing is VERY reliable and accurate.

Third - The various screwball results of C14 that are routinely brought up by anti-evolutionists have all been addressed numerous times.  These results are usually due to reservoir effects or other weaknesses of C14 testing that can be controlled for with proper procedure.

Fourth - Let's assume that C14 is unreliable.  As I mentioned, it is used more by historians than paleontologists.  If C14 is unreliable, then we cannot accept the dating of Pompeii, the dating of the Mona Lisa, the dating of the Mayan pyramids or the Egyptian pyramids, or the dating of the sword your dad claims is from the Civil War.  C14 dating is in widespread use throughout the world, mostly in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.  This is not just some evolutionist tool.  Most of what is in your history books is based, to some degree, on C14 dating.

3.  The "missing link".  The very existence of "the" missing link is a red herring.  The fossil record has lots of missing links.  Lots.  There is no "one" missing link.  This is an idea created by creationists, who incorrectly focus on the issue of the evolution of homo sapiens.  Scientists do not consider the evolution of man any more or less important than the evolution of snails.  This challenge to evolution is always about the missing link in the evolution in man - where is the question about the missing link in the evolution in snails?  And exactly which missing link in the homo sapiens fossil record is "the" missing link?

There will never come a time when there is no missing link.  But again, this is an impossible standard.  By this standard, scientists and historians could never claim to know anything.  Science and history is all about filling the gaps.  And gaps are being filled all the time - an important missing link was just discovered a few months ago, actually (nothing to do with humans, but very important).

Moreover, we don't need a complete fossil record.  Yes, it would be nifty, but we don't need it.  Paleontology is only one of the fields that supplies evidence for evolution of species.  Biology, zoology, genetics, geology - they all independently support the theory as well.  The lack of a complete fossil record is a bummer, but is also (a) inevitible, and (b) not a problem.  There is significant paleontological evidence for evolution - significant.  Just because the evidence isn't perfect doesn't make it any less significant.

4.  As to creationism - again, I would hope nobody refers to creationism as "fact" in a strict scientific sense of the word, as they should not so refer to the theory of evolution. 

But more importantly, from a scientific perspective, creationism is both (a) unproven, and (b) unprovable.

First, you have to define creationism, of course.  I will use this definition:  "the earth was created from nothing by a supernatural being".  I think that definition should be generally acceptable.

Here's the trick:  Even if we could prove that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, or 1 week old, or 5,000,000,000 years old - that still will not be evidence of the central part of creationism:  that Earth was created by god.  The central point of divine intervention will not have been proven.

God is unprovable - more importantly, is un-disprovable.  Any scientific theory has to be falsifiable.  There have to be observable facts that could contradict the theory.  Since god is supernatural/divine/omnipotent, it is true by definition that we can never disprove god.  Science deals only with the measurable - god is unmeasurable.

Science doesn't claim that god doesn't exist - science doesn't even claim that god didn't create the earth.  In fact, many evolutionary scientists do believe that god created the earth.  Science simply does not address the issue of god or ultimate creation at all, because it cannot.

God is outside of the capabilities of science.  Creationism is therefore not a scientific theory.  This is not an attack on creationism - it is simply a limitation of science.

There.  Hope that was helpful and not too long.  Keep'em coming.

So Clark, in 1000 words you basically said that both of the largest theories of the origin of the World (Good grief, imagine if we threw in the rest of the known Universe and the possibility of life on other terrestrial masses or even Theistic Evolution!) are based on a system of beliefs none of which has any proof.  

Doesn't sound like this would be an arguement that anyone could win.

Rico's Revenge wrote: So Clark, in 1000 words you basically said that both of the largest theories of the origin of the World (Good grief, imagine if we threw in the rest of the known Universe and the possibility of life on other terrestrial masses or even Theistic Evolution!) are based on a system of beliefs none of which has any proof.   Doesn't sound like this would be an arguement that anyone could win.

I don't believe I said that, Rico.

First off, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of the Earth, the universe, or life.

Evolution is the study of the origins and change of SPECIES.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The origins of life and the planet are far beyond the scope of evolution.

Creationism, on the other hand, does address all of those, which is another reason why the two theories are not directly opposed.

Nor did I say that these theories do not have any proof.  To the contrary, I said several times that there is vast empirical evidence to support evolutionary theory.  Vast.  So vast that even trained scientists casually (and incorrectly) refer to theory as "fact".  Evolution is arguably one of the best-supported scientific theories there is.  Certainly better supported than any current theory of gravity, for instance.

Creationism, on the other hand, has ZERO scientific evidence to support its central claim - that god created something.  This is not a slam on creationism, but simply an observation that religious beliefs are at their fundament non-scientific.  Religion deals with the unprovable - if it were provable, it would just be science.

Most importantly, I am not trying to win an argument.  I am not trying to disprove creationism (can't be done).  Heck, I have nothing against creationism.

I am simply trying to correct some of the misunderstandings about evolution and science in general that are so prevasive in American society.

Creationism = really dumb theory so people wont go all evil and kill everybody

Evolutiom = an absolutly retarded idea so people can try to sound smart with they're half-ass theories

Destruction wrote: __sneaky__ wrote: Creationism = really dumb theory so people wont go all evil and kill everybody Evolutiom = an absolutly retarded idea so people can try to sound smart with they're half-ass theories Then what's your belief on how life came to be on earth and how the earth came to be itself?

For all I know a monkey coulda had sex with a walrus and thus came the human race... It makes more sence then most religions out there... I try not to dwell on it too much, I just live my life and enjoy it while im here. when I'm dead... well I'll figure that one out when i get there.

__sneaky__ wrote:   Basically all of them (evolution included) is physically impossible.

Would you mind telling me why you believe evolution is physically impossible?  Maybe I can help you with that.

mbro wrote: ... we need to state that evolution != big bang, they are two different things and deal with entirely different issues.

Good point.

And I'll add abiogenesis to the mix.

In short:

Creationism is a centralized theory that covers the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and the origins of species (including man).

It takes (at least) three scientific theories to accomplish that:

1.  Big Bang.  This theory governs the origins of the universe, or, to be more specific, the beginning of time.  It is a spectacularly well supported theory.  While there are of course plenty of discussion about the minor issues, the central theme is pretty much settled at this point.  The big bang theory does NOT address what came "before" the beginning of the universe.  This is (at least for now) unmeasurable to us, and therefore beyond the scope of science.

2.  Abiogenesis.  This theory governs the origins of life.  In particular, it suggests that life spontaneously came to be through chemical reactions in the "primodial soup".  This theory is very much in its infancy, and does not have a substantial amount of evidence to back it up.  It is quite controversial, and is considered by some to be speculative.

3.  Evolution.  This theory governs the origins of species, including the pathways and mechanisms of same.  It is quite well proven.  Evolution does not address the origins of life, only the origins of species.

The important feature here is that these are all independent theories.  Criticisms of abiogenesis, for instance (of which there are many), do not in any way impact the validity of the big bang or evolution.

Although this is a good thread packed with good info...

too much thinking for summer.

battlefreak wrote: Monk wrote: Two words... Intelligent Design.... two more words .... missing link

I missed the original Intelligent Design post. Was there a specific question about ID?  I would be happy to talk about that as well.

As to the missing link - battlefreak, I addressed the missing link in my long post on the first page.  If there is something else you would like to know about the missing link, please let me know.  I can elaborate.

Dang it... I was hoping not to get into a long conversation.   But I like discussions with Clark too much.   The little lezbo actually thinks about the answer given.     And Clark, no complaining, you brought this on yourself!   Based on your original post, I don't have to prove Creationism or any other type of "where did we come from" theories... I just have to prove that Evolution is correctly labelled a Theory.   I can assure you that I will not fall into the percieved 99% of mis/underinformed people on this one.

This topic is pretty close to home since my father was a science teacher for 36 years in the public school system.   The last 10 he was constantly in a battle with the NY State Education Committee because he would present both Evolution and Creation equally, present a list of suggested study material supporting both theories and allow his students to make their own choice.   I was in his class (yeah, that sucked) and the tests on this portion of the year were not graded.

Rico's Revenge wrote: ...the origin of the World...

Yup, you wrecked me on this one.   Poor choice of wording given your topic... sorry about that, I was trying to get out the door for lunch and my stomach got in the way of my brain.   Now to a more complete counter-point:

I am well aware that there would not be only one "missing link" that ties everything in.   There would be thousands if not millions of sub-species that would be involved.   Based on those numbers, there should be some type of fossil record for the interim periods.  

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything other than the perception of Evolution being fact.   The root of my irritation, as indirectly alluded to above, is the tendancy of the secular academic community to teach the Theory of Evolution not as a suggested possibility, but as 100% fact and as the only "logical" explanation for the current populace of the Earth.   You pointed out yourself that the theory is constantly "evolving" (pun intended).   Therefore how can it be taught as fact?   Throughout the years there have been many "proofs" of evolution which have been proven false.   So much so that:

W.B. Provine, Atheistic Evolutionist wrote: "Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed."

Next subject:   I feel the need to correct you on your use of the adjective "empirical" which according to wickopedia, "refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment."  However, casting aside the semantics of proper word usage, there is no 1st hand knowledge or experimentally fortified evidence that points to Evolution as more than a guess.

Age of the Earth:   One of the largest issues that create a rift in schools of thought is dating of the Earth.   The evolutionary process would take millions of years whereas the creationary process would take very little time.   Therefore, in order for the evolutional theory to even be remotely considered as plausible, the Earth must be proven to be extremely ancient, millions if not billions of years old.  Obviously, the opposite would be true from a creationism stand point.   This is where dating methods come in and screw everything up for everybody...

First off, I'm not sure who the "CRI" is (Creationary Research Institute?) but, as I said, C14 dating is very inaccurate regardless of who is saying it.   You touched on it in your other post in that with the half-life of C14 being less than 6000 years, after 50,000 years there would be no measurable amount of C14.   The use of this data always confused me since based on that, if there is measurable C14, then it would be obvious to me that the object being dated would be less than 50,000 years old, not millions of years.   Also, to correct your examples used:

If C14 is unreliable, then we cannot accept the dating of Pompeii, the dating of the Mona Lisa, the dating of the Mayan pyramids or the Egyptian pyramids, or the dating of the sword your dad claims is from the Civil War.

Although you didn't mean it this way, you are 100% correct that C14 could not be accepted to verify any of the examples that you gave.   The reason being is that with Pompeii the carbon properties inherent to volcanic activity negate any possible accurate measure utilizing C14 measurement.  Further, C14 is present only in living things therefore the physical makeup of the rest of your examples (stone, rock, steel) would not be candidates for C14 dating.   Paleonologists study previously living objects, therefore; C14 dating would actually fit more into their mileu than that of the Historian.   The problem is that there are so many variables that could change the carbon content and give conflicting results so there could be dating results from the same batch of samples that vary from thousands of years to millions of years.   Since the "thousands" results doesn't suit their purposes, evolutionist paleontogist will reject these as "irregularities" in favor of the "Millions" results.  

The other forms of dating also fall prey to fallibility as radiometric isotopes, radioactive daisy-chain decay and isotones are all subject to changes in environment (pressure, heat, cold, water, volcanic activity, pollution, etc...)   There are many, many documented cases of items found next to each other or even separate tests on the same object that give a wide swing in result.

The basis behind the importance of the "old Earth" theory again is the Evolutionary Time-Line.   Dinosaurs were MILLIONS of years prior to the Human race, right?   Or not?   There is actual empirical evidence that everyone can see located in Glenrose, TX and on display in San Antonio's famous Riverwalk.   Dinosaur footprints intermingled with human foot prints.   How could that be????   This is another example of why I have not adopted Evolution as fact.

Next...  God...

You are right that the existance of an all-supreme entity cannot be proven.   The belief in God or "a" god or "the Gods" is based untirely on Faith and not "Science."   Hence there is not the Theory of God, there is the Belief in God.   In the primarily athiestic world of evolution (realizing again the Theistic Evolution camp), there HAS to be another explaination besides Creation.   If there isn't, then their complete athiestic viewpoint is blown out of the water.   But that is a discussion for another day.

I think I'm done for now... I have GOT to get some work done!

for some "Big Bang" to happen there actually has to be somthing to cause it... If that matter was already there, where did it come from? and about those "missing links" how do you know those where actuall missing links, maybe it was just some wierd-ass animal that is kinda like some of the animals we have now.

1.Evolution has'nt been proven at all. We have never seen anything evolve and we have no evidence of anything ever evolving
2.the only "missing links" that have ever been found where either dissproven or shown to be complete hoaxes.
3.Evolution goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics

I also find this rather interesting... http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/creation/chances.htm - http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/creation/chances.htm

P.S. keep in mind i dont agree with either theories of evolution or creation they're both rediculous ideas

Let me be the first to say...

I had a post worked up, but brihard beat me to it.  :)

Here it is anyway:

Sneaky:

1.  Yes, the big bang did have to be caused by something.  But what?  Science doesn't claim to know.  And that in no way undermines the observations we have of the big bang.

2.  Where did the matter come from? Tough question.  According to big bang theory, that question can't be asked.  Because there was no "before".  Time itself began at the big bang.  Therefore the matter didn't "come from" anywhere at all.

Your numbered points:

1.  Evolution has been proven plenty.  There are dozens of journals that publish nothing but articles about evolution.  There are thousands of scientists that do nothing but study evolution.  All that work has resulted in vast volumes of knowledge about the details of evolution.

Evolution has been witnessed many many times, both in a lab and outside of a lab.  The easy/obvious example is the flu virus, that keeps evolving to become immune to our flu shots.  There are numerous other examples of observed evolution, including observed speciation.

2.  Your point assumes its own answer.  EVERY link was a "missing link" until it was found.  By your statement, every fossil ever found has somehow been disproven.  Millions of fossils have been found over the years.  The vast majority of them are exactly what they purport to be.

3.  Evolution does NOT go against the 2d law of thermodynamics.  The only way you can believe this is if you do not understand the 2d law.  This is a common creationist claim, and it has been shown to be wrong again and again.  Please tell me exactly why you think the 2d law applies here, and I will explain how you are misapplying the 2d law.

As to your link - two points:  First, they are incorrectly describing abiogenesis with evolution.  As I stated above, even if you somehow disprove abiogenesis, this is irrelevant to evolution.  More importantly, however, it is bad math.  The implication is that improbable = impossible.  Yet people win the lottery all the time.  I would be more than happy to discuss probability theory (which is something I actually know about, unlike this evolution stuff).

phillll227 wrote: Care to explain multicellularity?

I presume you mean the transition from uni-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, apparently skipping 2-celled organisms?

The answer to your question is:  No.  I am not a biologist with sufficient training to provide an answer with sufficient clarity on such a specific point.  And, I presume, neither are you a biologist with sufficient training to understand the answer if I were to provide such an answer.

But - since you presumably are repeating a question that you heard someplace, I can also repeat an answer I heard someplace.  I will not claim to fully understand either the question or the answer.  That answer can be found http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB922.html - here .

More to the point, however - even if biologists were not able to explain this leap from one to many, IT IS NOT A STRONG CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.  Sorry for shouting, but that is an important point.  Saying that science can't explain 'X' now does not in any way prove or imply that science can never explain 'X'.

There are thousands, millions, of individual evolutionary pathways that science cannot explain.  This is inevitible, due to the sheer magnitude of numbers.  This is true of every scientific theory.  Every single one.  Science will never be able to explain every little sub-question.  This does not undermine the validity of the science itself.

This is probly the most intelligent conversation we've had on this forum in months...

Ok, Rico, here goes.

Rico wrote: I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything other than the perception of Evolution being fact.   The root of my irritation, as indirectly alluded to above, is the tendancy of the secular academic community to teach the Theory of Evolution not as a suggested possibility, but as 100% fact and as the only "logical" explanation for the current populace of the Earth.

There is some risk of sinking into semantics here...

Yes, the theory of evolution is not "fact" in a strict scientific/epistemological sense of the word.  However, at some point a scientific theory gains such weight and consistency that it is indeed "fact" for all practical purposes. 

Aerodynamic theory, for instance, is the theory of interaction of objects with the air.  The central points of aerodynamic theory have been proved up so much over the years that most people (like airplane mechanics) regard it as "fact" - and indeed it is, in all but the most theoretical sense of the word.  Now, there are some sub-theories on the frontier of aerodynamic science that are still being explored and refined, and those would not be "fact" by any measure, but the central points of theory are essentially "fact".

The same is true of evolutionary theory.  There are many frontiers, and much research being done.  New learning replaces old all the time.  But the central tenets of evolutionary theory have not only not changed since Darwin, but have been proved again and again and again, with independent evidence in many different disciplines.  I would venture (as would many others) that these central tenets (common origin, inherited characteristics, natural selection, etc.) are now de facto "facts" in a practical sense of the word.

Have these tenets been proven beyond all doubt?  No - and they never will be.  But they are proven much more than most of the things we teach in high school history class as "fact".

Now - I completely sympathize with your view of some teachers.  This issue has unfortunately become very politicized, and many teachers make claims that go far beyond what science can support.  Sadly, not surprising - evolutionary science is complicated, and the best scientists tend not to be teaching in high school.

There are numerous alternate explanations for the origins of species possible that I can think of without any particular effort.  LaMarckian evolution, for instance, is an alternative, as well as intelligent design.  And these alternatives are certainly open for discussion, I would think.

Now, each of these other alternatives have failed to provide any meaningful scientific evidence in their support, including LaMarckian evolution and ID.  While there are other logical theories, there are no other alternate theories that have anything approaching the level of scientific support that "regular" evolution does.  Evolution should certainly be taught as the overwhelmingly predominant scientific theory (which is true), and perhaps as "fact" from a practical perspective (since that is how it is used by the thousands of researchers that rely on evolutionary theory in their work), but absolutely should not be taught as the only possible explanation.

Rico wrote: Throughout the years there have been many "proofs" of evolution which have been proven false.   So much so that: W.B. Provine, Atheistic Evolutionist wrote: "Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed."

I have to correct you on that.  That Provine quote was in regard to outdated science text books.  The things that were wrong/changed that Provine was talking about were not in any way central to evolution - in fact, Provine was not singling out evolution, he was describing in general the changing face of science.  He just used evolution as an example because that is his field.

Yes, evolutionary theory is constantly changing, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC THEORY.  Science by its nature is constantly changing/evolving.  That does not mean that the old science was entirely wrong, it just means that more learning has been added.  In fact, it is my understanding that Provine has grown tired of being quoted out of context like this, and routinely makes a point of mentioning in speeches how the central points of evolutionary theory have not been proven wrong or significantly changed.

There has never been a significant scientific challenge successfully mounted to the central tenets of evolutionary theory.  NEVER.  Not one.  Every single one that has been raised (like Behe's efforts) has been batted down as quickly as they arise.  At the fringes, sure - there is constant battle among scientists as to whether/how bird x is related to bird y.  That's what scientists do.

(quick side note on "empirical" - it has a scientific use, which is what you described - it also has an older, more basic use, which simply refers to anything observed or observable.  This is the way in which the old empiricists - Locke/Berkeley/Hume used the term.  Look up "empiricism" on Wiki and you will see what I mean, including a different definition of "empirical".)

Rico wrote: there is no 1st hand knowledge or experimentally fortified evidence that points to Evolution as more than a guess

I have to violently disagree with this.  In fact, I am not even sure how to begin to address this, since there are thousands of people that do nothing but observe and work with evolution in action every day.  To start with the obvious Bird Flu, which we are expecting will evolve to move between humans sometime soon.  Or insects that evolve resistance to pesticides, or bacteria in labs, or - the list goes on.

And even apart from actual evolution occurring in front of a researcher's eyes, evolutionary researchers have access to the same data as all other historians and scientists.  Will you argue that it is "merely a guess" that Pompeii was buried by a volcano, simply because we weren't there to see it?  If that is your position, we should not be teaching history - I mean "guesswork" - in school at all.

All of science and history is about observing things.  Sometimes that means observing the path, not the thing itself.  If you see deertracks in the woods, is it mere "guesswork" that a deer walked by recently, just because you didn't see the actual deer?

You may choose to disregard the evidence.  You may choose to ignore the evidence.  But to claim that there simply IS no evidence is simply wrong, as a factual matter.  All of genetics is evidence.  All of paleontology is evidence.  All of anatomy is evidence.  All of bacteriology and virology is evidence.  Everything the CDC does is evidence.  There is so much evidence for evolution that you can't turn your head without bumping into evidence.

Rico wrote: the half-life of C14 being less than 6000 years, after 50,000 years there would be no measurable amount of C14.   The use of this data always confused me since based on that, if there is measurable C14, then it would be obvious to me that the object being dated would be less than 50,000 years old, not millions of years.

You should not find that so obvious.  That is in fact an incorrect conclusion.  The explanation for why that is so gets a bit more scientific/complicated than is appropriate here, but I will simply state that that is not a supportable conclusion.  If you really want a long version, I can probably find one someplace, although it was pretty messy last time I read about it.

Again, C14 is used mostly by non-evolutionary historians.  They seem to find it pretty accurate.  And again, 99% of the time it is pretty darn accurate.  You a date what appears to be a viking tool?  Lo and behold, it is 1,000 years old.  You date a similar tool in Rome - heck, it's 2,000 years old.  C14 dating is used thousands of time each year, and thousands of times each year the results are verified by other data.  There are some screwball results, most of which have been individually addressed by the researchers involved.  But even if we couldn't explain those screwball results, it would remain that the test is 99% accurate.  And 99% is pretty good.  If there is a conspiracy to pretend that C14 is more accurate than it is, then practically every historian and achaeologist must be in on the joke.

More to the point, you don't have to use C14 to date ancient bones.  You can date the rocks in which they lie encased, which requires no carbon trace.  C14 is not used by paleontologists to date dinosaur bones.  U-Th or K-Ar are methods better used for things of that age.  And again, each conclusion is supported by others.  We do not simply take one test and conclude that "that's the age" - you also look at the geology of the region, the tectonics, the surrounding flora and fauna, etc, etc.

And again, each conclusion is verified from different sources.  Nothing bugs a scientist more than an unsupported datum.  Scientists must confirm and replicate - that's what they do.  So they will do one test, and a different test, and then with a different sample, and then look at the environs, and so forth and so on.  No self-respecting scientist will reach any conclusion based on a single test or a single datum.  Everything is retested, confirmed, and replicated.

And if you look closely at those "many many documented cases" of various radiometic dating methods yielding impossible results, you will find that the overwhelming majority of them either weren't all that well-documented to begin with, or have later been identified as a lab error or testing error, and so forth.  ICR (Institute for Creation Research - my bad) in particular is a violator in this.  They routinely put forth claims that have been proved wrong again and again, yet they continue to put forth the same bold and false claims.  Very frustrating.

As to the various dinosaur/human footprints - the Glen Rose/Paluxy footprints are the best example.  Numerous scientists have reviewed these footprints, and concluded that the "human" footprints are not human.  Some of the alledged human footprints are eroded dinosaur tracks, others appear to be deliberately altered.  I am actually surprised you bring this up - most leading creationists at this point admit that the Paluxy prints are a hoax.  Even ICR no longer claims the Paluxy prints are real - they removed their Paluxy exhibit from their museum.

Similar results are found elsewhere.  At passing glance the tracks look human, but a trained paleontologist can easily show that they are not.  I saw a demonstration once - very impressive.  A quick web search for "Paluxy" should find at least some scholarly articles fully scanned and accessible.

As to god - I do not accept your dichotomy (god vs. evolution).  I do not view them as inconsistent, nor do I view them as the only alternatives.  But I agree that this is a subject for another day.

:)

Hades wrote: I have a question what happens if "God" created man through the scientific process of evolution? /Gasp~ Take that Billy Graham. Have a cracker while your at it.

Bad example, Hades.  Billy Graham does not dispute evolution, and actually holds that exact belief.

:)

NiQ-Toto wrote: Clark, how do you feel about Ann Coulter's chapter title in her book Godless that states: "Saying that apes evolved into humans is like saying Walkmans evolved into iPods." Or something similar to that.

Not quite a fair comparison, since Walkmans can't reproduce.

But I actually kind of agree - kind of hard to argue that iPods are not descended from Walkmans.

In fact, Sony has an mp3 player called " http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=332597&Pn=NWE507_Walkman_MP3_Player - Walkman "...

EDIT - bumped myself.  Brilliance on previous page.

Ken Majors wrote: Well....since my entire family since time recorded was born within 50 miles of an ocean, somewhere, sometime, my family members should begin to grow gills, webbed fingers and toes, and show an incredible affinity for the water. That is if evolution is true. Unless of course...we are de-volving.

This raises a general point - "if evolution is occurring, then why hasn't species x evolved feature y".

And the answer is simple: because evolution doesn't have a plan.  What you are describing is a version of intelligent design.  Evolution by natural selection is unguided, and doesn't always go where one might think or want.  You might think gills are "better" - but the real test is survival and reproduction.

A somewhat controversial example on this point might be human intelligence.  Most people agree that smarter is "better".  But that is "better" by our scale.  Natural selection doesn't care what we think.

In America today, smarter people are more likely to be more educated.  More educated people are likely to have fewer children than less educated people.  As a result, smarter people tend to have fewer children than less smart people.

There is an argument that in North America and Europe this is leading to evolution towards less intelligent, since being smart leads to fewer children.  This is only a (small-t) theory with no particular evidence behind it, but it elegantly explains how survival of the "fittest" may not favor the people we think are the "fittest".

I like to think I believe in natural selection but I have seen way too many people do incredibly stupid things and survive.

Hard to argue with that.

Sometimes ya just gotta have faith.

Hard to argue with that too.

Darur wrote: Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible? Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.

Two points:

1.  What you are describing is abiogenesis - life from nothing.  That theory is completely distinct and independent from evolutionary theory.  Even if abiogenesis turns out to be completely false, that is irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

2.  The numbers you quote are more or less made up - there are two many unknowns to make a meaningful estimate of exactly how likely abiogenesis is to occur at any given moment.

But (math follows):

Take event E, with probability p of occurring during any given trial.

p is a number between 0 and 1 - let's say 0.1 (rolling a 1 on a 10-sided die).

Therefore, on any individual trial, you have 0.1 probability of event E occurring on that trial.

Now let's do two trials.  The chance of event E occurring on either of the two trials (we only need one to win, in this discussion) is capital P for the combined probability:

P = 1-[(1-0.1)^2] = 0.19

Basically, you figure the chance of E not happening twice, and do the inverse of that.

How about we do 10 trials?

P = 1-[(1-0.1)^10] = 0.65

65% chance you'll hit a 1 after ten tries.

We'll generalize this formula to:

P = 1-[(1-p)^x]

where P is total probability, p is individual probability, and x is number of trials.

Now let's say we have infinite trials.  What happens?  Well, apply basic calculus.  This is a limit, with x -> infinity.

Solve for P, and you get P=1.

With infinite trials, event E is guaranteed to happen.  Mathematically guaranteed.

And here's the exciting part.  It doesn't matter what p, the probability of E, is.  So long as p>0, the result is the same - with enough trials, it will occur.

To restate in English:  Given infinite trials, every possible event will occur.  Impossible events won't occur, but every single possible event is absolutely mathematically guaranteed to occur.

So, how unlikely does abiogenesis look now?

The issue isn't how unlikely it is to occur on any single trial - the issue is how many trials there have been.  And the truth is that we don't know, and we cannot know.  There could be parallel universes, sequential universes, system resets, infinite planets all trying at the same time, time that changes speed...   the list goes on.

And, of course, the probability you listed is only for one particular event that we can think of.  There might be other ways for other forms of life to pop up that we haven't thought of (trapped as we are into our carbon-based thinking).  What if there are ten other ways that life (of some sort) could instantly be created?

I venture that any argument based on "unlikely" is not going to be successful in this particular environment.  There is a common term for really long odds, for really unlikely events, for really big numbers, for really long distances...   what is that term...   oh yeah:  Astronomical.  How apt.

Let's all just tone down the rhetoric and language a bit, please, and return to scholarly discussion...

Keep it civil.

I think evolutionists have too much time on their hands.   Unfortunately, I don't have millions of years to try to refute a theory who's only basis in truth is that regardless of the lack of empirical evidence it can't be disproved.   The other Theories brought up are in no way remotely similar to the Evolutionary Theory in that there are experiments that can duplicate the result the theory explains.

Basically, the only thing that has been proven is that there is a chance that this could have happened... it is a theory based on slim possibility that is being taught as fact.   To say that this theory is Proven is in itself a lie based on the definition of the word "Theory" itself.

For years and years since Darwin decided to write his book, all we have heard from Evolutionists is "Oh, science is getting better, we will have proof."   We still here that today.   I'm not talking about adaptation, adaptation is not evolution.   The genus of the subject does not change with adaptation.  

As I said, I don't have the time to argue every point, I fear that it would be a waste of time here anyway.   The half-way informed people will keep their opinions and the uniformed will follow the herd.  

It is a great discussion, I wish I didn't have a family to feed and could continue.   I will monitor this thread as I can, but I would like everyone in here to remember this:

No matter how intelligent any posters may sound, none of us are true experts in this area.   We get our information 3rd party from reports, magazine articles, etc... Creationists will skew information in their direction and Evolutionists will do the same.   What you "think" you know and the facts we presented are probably already out of date.

Have fun.

I think you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis, Rico.

Abiogenesis doesn't have a lot of evidence supporting it, as I have indicated.  It is still in the speculative stage.  And abiogenesis is entirely distinct from evolution.

But actual evolutionary theory has arguably more evidentiary support than any other scientific theory out there.  That's right - it may be the most supported of all theories.

Genetics - didn't exist when evolutionary theory was proposed, but completely (to a staggering degree of accuracy) confirms the predictions made by early evolutionary scientists.  If evolutionary theory were false, paternity tests wouldn't work.

Paleontology - newly discovered fossils consistently support the evolutionary chain.  In fact, no fossil ever has been found that fails to further bolster basic evolutionary theory.  Every single fossil is further evidence of evolution.

Virology - evolution in action.  All of advanced medicine is nothing but a battle against evolution.  The diseases keep evolving around our cures, and we try to come up with new cures.  Now scientists are developing cures/vaccines that will evolve themselves along with the disease.

Speciation in labs, speciation in the wild, ring species - it all supports evolution.

And more importantly, each of these fields, using different evidence, all come to the same conclusion.  Zoologist X looks at two birds of different species, compares anatomical charts, looks at his phylogenetic trees, and determines the relationship between the two, in terms of time since common ancestor.  Geneticist performs DNA test (souped-up paternity test) to determine the relationship between the two, and comes up with the exact same result.  Independently, time after time after time.

You simply cannot say that there is no evidence for evolution, Rico.  The evidence is staggeringly voluminous.  There are entire branches of science that cannot turn around without generating more evidence.  Pharmaceutical industry generates evidence for evolution.  The pesticide industry.  And so on.

Evolution is not merely "could have happened".  Evolution is "staggeringly overwhelmingly likely to have happened".

Rico's Revenge wrote: No matter how intelligent any posters may sound, none of us are true experts in this area.   We get our information 3rd party from reports, magazine articles, etc...

Excellent point, Rico, and one we should all remember.

BUT - what we as intelligent beings can do is evaluate the information and the context.

Science:  The same scientists that tell us about evolution also brought us TV, modern medicine, paintball, computers, airplanes, homogenized milk, moonflight, Skittles.

Science is wrong on a regular basis, but science DELIVERS.  And we aren't talking about one or two scientists with a wacky theory here.  We are talking 99% of biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, physicians, medical researchers, virologists, zoologists, and so forth for decades.

When these guys talk, I listen.  When the guys that invented a pill that can make my headache go away talk, I listen.  When these guys tell me that some new drug is based on decades of evolutionary research, I listen, since the drug works.  When the CDC says that the flu virus has evolved to make our flu vaccines non-functional, I listen.

Science works.  Nothing else in the history of man, no other way of thinking, has helped us learn so much and understand so much. 

Creation Science:  A minority view that has produced nothing of value.  No drugs, to TVs no moonflight.  A few interesting observations about some aspects of paleontology or microbiology, which is good, but creation science has not delivered.

So whenever something comes along that I can't understand, I look to credibility and past performance.  Science delivers; creation science does not.

"God created evolution"  end of story

cdacda -

All of those theories have been postulated at various stages.  I don't know how popular they are, but there are obviously numerous alternate theories and combinations of theories.

Intelligent Design, for instance, postulates "guided" evolution, and usually also assumes that life-as-we-know-it was created by some other being initially.

Many folks also go with the "god is fooling us" theory - the Earth is 5,000 years old, and god made it complete with fossils and genetic traces that would provide scientific evidence of a past that doesn't exist.

Bottom line - once you throw in an omnipotent being, you can have your cake and eat it too.  Many people are able to comfortably combine evolution and god, using a variety of theories.

As to alternate scientific theories to abiogenesis - I am not aware of any.  There are variations, like theories that postulate that life on earth began when spores came from other planets via meteors, but that just pushes the question of "first life" to those other planets.

Real quick... no, I was not referring to Abiogenesis.   That is not the point of this conversation.   Don't try to convolute what I am saying.   That is a completely different subject that can get wildly out of control especially when the topic goes towards the point of "conciousness."   Keep on track, as I look back through your posts I see alot of typing in 30 different directions with very little being said... unfortunately, it seems that in the opinion of most readers this makes your posts more credible.

I also am very dissapointed with your attack on Creation Science.   That was an extremely weak and foolish attempt... basically you seperated Creation Science from the rest of the Scientific world and validated your thinking on evolution based on the scientists of creationism being a minority.   

You then continue by including Evolutionary Science as being part of the "general" Science that is responsible for drugs, TV and Moonflight.   Evolutionary Science has produced no more real life results than that of Creationism and to infer that Evolutionary Science had anything to do with drugs, TV or moonflight is ridiculous.  

How often does the Evolutionary Theory change?   All the time.   It changes because there are things that the 99% of the scientists you mentioned thought was right, turned out not to be so.   But thats OK, because now they can come up with another theory as to why that is.

Dangit, I'm going to get fired if I keep spending time here.

No worries, Rico - I'm not trying to beat up on you.  You'll have to forgive me if I get a little enthusiastic.

Sorry about the abiogenesis mixup - I thought you were headed in a different direction.

As to creation science - that was a mislabeling by me.  Creation science can certainly be legitimate science, and sometimes is.  I do have lots to say about creation science, but that also perhaps belongs in a different discussion. 

Back on topic:

You say that evolutionary science has produced no real life results.  That is not true.

- Agriculture has benefited tremendously, from increased understanding of pesticide effectiveness and use, and development of newer and better pesticides.

- Evolutionary genetics has helped identify important gene pools, which has helped the global fishing industry understand fish behavior.  Some fisheries directly apply directed evolution to increase yield from their fish farms.

- Evolutionary science is central to the fight against global disease threats.  The study of HIV is centered around evolutionary biology.  Without evolutionary science, most modern anti-viral pharmacology would not exist.  Thousands or millions of people are alive today directly due to drugs developed utilizing evolutionary virology.

- Public health concerns (global AIDS spread, flu virus, malaria, and all other pandemic/epidemic issues) are entirely based in evolutionary learning.  This science guides policy and has contained innumerable outbreaks over the years.

- Evolutionary theory has been used and applied to correctly identify the origins of individual HIV outbreaks around the world, allowing those outbreaks to be contained and risk factors identified.  All of epidemiology relies heavily on evolutionary science.  The CDC could not function without evolutionary science.

- The cure to all these diseases will also be found utilizing evolutionary medicine.  Genetic mapping of humans and viruses allows us to examine the relationship between the two organisms (viruses are our cousins, after all), and understanding that relationship helps us kill one but not the other.

- Evolutionary science provides the tools to understand global and local concerns like migration, population pressures, ecosystem balance, and so forth.  Departments of Natural Resources (and equivalent) around the world rely on evolutionary learning.

And those are just direct immediate results.  The main function of evolutionary theory is to provide a unified understanding.  Without evolution, biology is just a jumble of random facts.  Combined with the glue of evolution it all makes sense.

Good grief guys, get jobs or lives or something!

Adaptation/mutation is in no way evolution as pertains to the origin of species... not at all.

Btw, it does suck being apparently the only half-informed non-evolutionist here.   Apparently the secular, left-wing, liberal school systems are doing their brainwash jobs well.

Adaptation or mutation does not change the genus of the subject.   If you breed a Hereford, Shorthorn and Brahman cattle you don't get a lizard, you get a Beefmaster which, omg, is a cow.   The basic DNA patterns are the same.

In Virilogy, a virus adapts to become what?   Another virus, not a chicken.

Adaptation is readily accepted because you can see a change, like the example of the black vs. white butterflies given earlier.   Neither the butterfly, cows or viruses have evolved into anything other than what they are.

It has long been "suggested" that adaptation, mutation and breeding have been evidence of evolution, unfortunately, until there is lab proof of a change in basic DNA make up, this is not the case.

Rico's Revenge wrote: Good grief guys, get jobs or lives or something! Adaptation/mutation is in no way evolution as pertains to the origin of species... not at all. Btw, it does suck being apparently the only half-informed non-evolutionist here.   Apparently the secular, left-wing, liberal school systems are doing their brainwash jobs well. Adaptation or mutation does not change the genus of the subject.   If you breed a Hereford, Shorthorn and Brahman cattle you don't get a lizard, you get a Beefmaster which, omg, is a cow.   The basic DNA patterns are the same. In Virilogy, a virus adapts to become what?   Another virus, not a chicken. Adaptation is readily accepted because you can see a change, like the example of the black vs. white butterflies given earlier.   Neither the butterfly, cows or viruses have evolved into anything other than what they are. It has long been "suggested" that adaptation, mutation and breeding have been evidence of evolution, unfortunately, until there is lab proof of a change in basic DNA make up, this is not the case.

It is true you are quite informed. However, you still fail to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that points against Creationism (but not always in the direction of evolution). Allowing for some gaps in the theory is easy simply because it is truly impossible to solve this question without a doubt. However, simply relying on faith has without a doubt filled no gaps nor put a wrench in this theory.

Dune, the point of this topic was not a Creationism vs. Evolution thread, it was the the Theory of Evolution is exactly that... a theory without proof... just as Creationism is.  

Also, if you will look back through my posts... I have endorsed niether point of views.  

However, as crazy as you may think it is... the "Theory of Creationism" hasn't changed in hundreds of years and the reason why is simply because the "overwhelming evidence" against Creationism doesn't exist.

You have basically fortified my point with this statement:

Dune wrote: Allowing for some gaps in the theory is easy simply because it is truly impossible to solve this question without a doubt.

That is true of EVERY theory pertaining to the Origin of the Species... and if all theories regarding this topic are in the same predicament, why is one taught as fact and the others considered "minorities" and insignificant?

Rico - I can sympathize with your plight of arguing solo.  Believe me, I can.  But if it makes you feel any better, you are doing better of it than most folks I come across.

Now.

Species - Your argument that a virus changing into a different virus isn't "evolution" because it is still a virus is incorrect.  That is what evolution does.  Evolution will not make a virus become a bird or a fish - evolutionary theory would not permit that.

A virus might eventually evolve bird- or fish-like characteristics, but it still wouldn't be a bird or a fish, because the virus/fish common ancestor was long ago, and we can't turn back time.  Evolution is descendatory.

This is why, for instance, a whale is not a fish even though it shares many characteristics of a fish.  It evolved towards fishdom, but it can never truly become a fish.

What the evolving virus has done is change.  Just a little.  And that is ALL that evolution is.  Critics like to invent a distinction between so-called "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution".  This distinction can sometimes be convenient in discussion, but it is not scientifically meaningful.  ALL evolution is "micro-evolution".  One step at a time.

Then we also have to look at what a "species" is.  A swallow and a finch, for instance, are different species, yet both are birds.  What makes them different species, in a biological sense, is a very simple test:  Can/will they breed?  Two organisms that can and will breed are deemed to be the same species.  Two organisms that can't or won't are deemed to be separate species.  Hence a doberman and a poodle are the same species, but the swallow and finch are different species.

And speciation - the evolution of a new species - HAS been observed, both in the wild and in the lab.

Mosquitos and plants are easy examples, where plants that have the same granpa can/will no longer interbreed.  Then there are fish species that live only in a single isolated lake that has only been around for a couple of hundred years.

And then of course there are ring species, my favorite.  Common Seagulls - we all know them.  They exist all across North America, Northern Europe, and Northern Asia.  If you look closely, you will see small differences between the gulls here or there - different color legs, beaks, wings, and so forth.  Here's the thing:  The gulls in England can breed with the gulls in North America.  The gulls in North America/Alaska can breed with the gulls in Northeast Asia, which can breed with the gulls in Siberia, which can breed with the gulls in Norway.  But the gulls in Norway CAN NOT breed with the gulls in England!  They live right next to each other, yet they are so genetically distinct that they can no longer interbreed, despite that they can each interbreed with the same cousins. 

Adaptation and mutation IS evolution, Rico.  It has been observed, it has been tested, it has been measured.  It has been verified with genetic testing.

These results have been replicated again and again, in thousands of settings and with thousands of creatures.

Rico's Revenge wrote: Dune wrote: Allowing for some gaps in the theory is easy simply because it is truly impossible to solve this question without a doubt. That is true of EVERY theory pertaining to the Origin of the Species... and if all theories regarding this topic are in the same predicament, why is one taught as fact and the others considered "minorities" and insignificant?

That is incorrect, Rico.  Well, kind of.

Yes, it is impossible to resolve this beyond all doubt.  But that is true of all of science.  Yet nothing else in the science book is under such intense scrutiny as evolution.  Gravitational theory has nowhere near the evidentiary backing that evolution does, but nobody wants to put stickers on gravity books.

Evolutionary theory has more evidence than most other scientific theories out there.  It is clearly and indisputably the majority view on the subject. 

This sounds a little bit similiar to the debate on Global Warming. Regardless of the evidence and that almost all of the scientific community backs the theory, people still see the gaps as a way to ignore what is most accepted as the truth.

Would you like a display of the Theory of Gravitation?

Lean back without support, you fall.   "empirical evidence"

As for gaps... you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of, discounting other theories because of their gaps.   Two-way street.

Rico wrote: Would you like a display of the Theory of Gravitation? Lean back without support, you fall.   "empirical evidence"

But that isn't the theory of gravity, Rico.  The gravitational theory deals with the attraction of masses in proximity.  Gravitational theory is explaining WHY you fall down.

Falling down is not empirical evidence of gravitational theory.

Rico wrote: As for gaps... you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of, discounting other theories because of their gaps.   Two-way street.

Nope.  I am discounting other theories because they have no evidence at all.

Creation and similar god-based theories are simply incapable of being proven scientifically.  There can never be any scientific evidence for this entire class of theories.  They are not scientific and do not belong anywhere near a science classroom.  Religion/sociology/current events class - yes.  Science - no.

And there are no other scientific theories competing with the theory of evolution. 

And gaps =/= gaps.  That is too easy, Rico.  Again, ALL scientific theories have gaps.  We can never know everything.  But a well-proven theory with a few gaps is pretty good.  A poorly proven theory with nothing but gaps is bad.  Comparing the two is not correct.

Cedric wrote: Dune, we need to see more of you. I miss having you around.

Glad to know I'm being missed. Work has kept me quite busy lately as overtime has been quite heavy. But I think I'm back to normal now.

I've skimmed throught most of the posts in these last 5 pages , and nothing I have seen so far indicates that the two theories are mutually exclusive .

Given ; Theories are unproven until science comes up with a way to measure/quantify the liklihood of truth in any given theory .(the example of Newton's theory and Einstiens is a good example)

Given ; any theory that is unproven is speculative in nature until empirical evdence is gathered to support it . EVERY THEORY !! EVERY THEORY has at some point been subject to this progression of acceptance, or progression of discovery , true ?

Its been hedged around ,in not so many words previously , but is there any "PROOF" that these two theorys are mutually exclusive , that only one can be correct ?

Where are we in the progression of "Discovery" that we can draw conclusions as to the validity of any one theory over another ? Has science learned all that it can regarding these subjects ?

I think from my question , you can tell my views , there is much yet to be discovered .

Darkside of the moon , you said

could there be a god that created life and let it evolve?  yes
could there be a god that created us and put all the other stuff to confuse and test us?  yes
could everything be explained by science and there is no god?  yes

I cant disagree with that , but its just as likely on your third point that everything could be explained by science and there exists a "God", thats what I was trying to illustrate . The two theories do not rule out the possibility ofthe other being a valid truth , that is ,if and when our science becomes advanced enough to understand what we cant in today's world .

^^ I pretty much couldn't stop laughing after that.

I hereby declare that I am done with this discussion.   Work is sucking right now and I need my brain intact for that.   Otherwise this would just go back and forth until we all evolve into Vulcans.

Nice job everyone... I enjoyed it alot.

Thanks for playing, Rico.  Good luck with work.

I am still happy to answer questions about evolution from any party.  Rico kind of focused on one particular aspect.

Anybody else have other questions on the subject?