More proof of evolution!

Scientists have unearthed the oldest child ever discovered—the fossil remains of what appears to be a girl dating back 3.3 million years.

The remarkably complete skeleton, of a child no more than three years old, offers new clues on how the early ancestors of humans blurred the line between us and the other great apes. While the child from the waist down is similar to upright walkers like humans, her upper body is surprisingly apelike, including curved finger bones almost as long as a chimp's, suited for scrambling up trees.

The girl belongs to the species Australopithecus afarensis, which is widely believed to be the ancestor of the genus Homo. This includes our own species, Homo sapiens.

continues,,,

www.livescience.com...

Ace, Lucy's daughter

I see, so instead of discussing the topic or defending evolution...

I made a comment about YECism, as part of a general discussion about evolution sparked by this story.

Your hysterical reaction to the comment (and inability to address it, instead merely trying to shout it out of consideration) is duly noted in the record.

Originally posted by JonN
I made a comment about YECism, as part of a general discussion about evolution sparked by this story.

What does YEC have to do with providing evolutionary proof or hobbit-people?

Originally posted by JonN
Your hysterical reaction

Do you see any caps or exclamation points? How are you basing my "reaction" as hysteria?

Originally posted by JonN
to the comment (and inability to address it, instead merely trying to shout it out of consideration) is duly noted in the record.

Surely you could understand why I and others would not want to repeat ourselves, especially when it does not relate to the topic being discussed. These however, are at the least in the vicinity of your comments:

Creationists...what will it take?

and/or

Creationist Confusion

There are certainly more, but I think these are a good start.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by melatonin

which is widely believed to be the ancestor of the genus Homo. This includes our own species, Homo sapiens.

Ah yes, we're back to "jumping the band-wagon" of popular belief. See, there is an issue. Science is not a belief based system. Religion is, but science is not last time I checked my science textbook (which was this morning if Ecology counts as a science).

[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin

which is widely believed to be the ancestor of the genus Homo. This includes our own species, Homo sapiens.

Ah yes, we're back to "jumping the band-wagon" of popular belief. See, there is an issue. Science is not a belief based system. Religion is, but science is not last time I checked my science textbook (which was this morning if Ecology counts as a science).

[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

I suppose this one is a deformed ape? In fact, I suppose every single transitional fossil is actually a deformed species to some. But is it a deformed ape or human, deformed whale or land-mammal, deformed fish or reptile etc etc

Seem almost like those pesky transitionals predicted by Darwin, eh?

I suppose it is much more parsimonious to have a god who keeps meddling and creating new species that give the sense of an evolutionary trend over time. He's such a joker...

Have you studied those articles yet I posted for you? The ones showing evidence of mutations and novel genes that you seem to deny?

[edit on 21-9-2006 by melatonin]

What does YEC have to do with providing evolutionary proof or hobbit-people?

Since when has it been a rule that we cannot mention rleated topics on threads? Why are you so scared by my comments that you are whining against their very existence.

Calm down dear, get a cup of tea...

[edit on 21-9-2006 by JonN]

Originally posted by melatonin
I suppose this one is a deformed ape? In fact, I suppose every single transitional fossil is actually a deformed species to some. But is it a deformed ape or human, deformed whale or land-mammal, deformed fish or reptile etc etc

Don't know, but "we believe" should not be part of a scientific paper. "It could be possible that..." or "we'd like to test to see if..." should.

Let's talk (yet again) about the Scientific Method. Quoting notes of Dr. Mahaffey of General Ecology, taken from and also found in the textbook Quantifying Ecology, we observe the following regarding this method:

"Scientific Method:
- Observation or previous work"

Let's stop there. Has evolution been observed? This is debatable. I don't believe it has. Continuing on:

"Questions"

We have plenty of those, this is the one part out of two where Evolution fits the Scientific Method.

"Hypothesis"

Part two of two that fits the method, as Evolution is a hypothesis. It's an idea or educated guess.

"Design and carry out test (gather data)"

Whoa , but chasm here, not even close. We cannot carry out tests. And, are in the infancy of gathering any sort of data. Even the data we have is under dispute.

"Analyse results (with statistical rigor)"

Can't analyse that which we cannot test nor have solid data for.

"Make conclusions
- New hypotheses, tests
- Develop and test models"

Can't make conclusions without tests, can't develop models without formulating a genetic process.

Therefore, Evolution is not a theory that follows the Scientific Method as all other theories do.

Originally posted by melatonin
Seem almost like those pesky transitionals predicted by Darwin, eh?

How do you account for the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium?

Allelic frequency shifts are an adaptation to environmental factors, this can be studied, but this does not account for NEW alleles or the disappearance of alleles.

Originally posted by melatonin
Have you studied those articles yet I posted for you? The ones showing evidence of mutations and novel genes that you seem to deny?

Again with the funny language of "scientists believe" or "we think". It's good to believe and have fantastic thoughts, but that's called science-fiction not facts.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Don't know, but "we believe" should not be part of a scientific paper. "It could be possible that..." or "we'd like to test to see if..." should.

Hi Saint,

You know... you do see this in papers from time to time, but I agree with you. In fact, when I was getting my Ph.D. and was writing a paper with my boss. I used that exact set of words... 'we believe that...' and he reprimanded me for it, and specifically said you shouldn't use that kind of language.

So me and my former PI are with you on that!

Originally posted by saint4God
Don't know, but "we believe" should not be part of a scientific paper. "It could be possible that..." or "we'd like to test to see if..." should.

That is part of the inference, a part of actual science. Also, it wasn't a quote from a scientific paper.

Let's talk (yet again) about the Scientific Method. Quoting notes of Dr. Mahaffey of General Ecology, taken from and also found in the textbook Quantifying Ecology, we observe the following regarding this method:

"Scientific Method:
- Observation or previous work"

Let's stop there. Has evolution been observed? This is debatable. I don't believe it has.

Doesn't matter what you believe. It is what the evidence suggests. We see evidence of evolution occuring, we see new species, we see changes in alleles, we see progression of evolution via fossils. We see similarities in DNA.

Continuing on:

"Questions"

We have plenty of those, this is the one part out of two where Evolution fits the Scientific Method.

"Hypothesis"

Part two of two that fits the method, as Evolution is a hypothesis. It's an idea or educated guess.

"Design and carry out test (gather data)"

Whoa

, but chasm here, not even close. We cannot carry out tests. And, are in the infancy of gathering any sort of data. Even the data we have is under dispute.

The data is continually being gathered. It is in the scientific literature. Take a look sometime.

"Analyse results (with statistical rigor)"

Can't analyse that which we cannot test nor have solid data for.

"Make conclusions
- New hypotheses, tests
- Develop and test models"

Can't make conclusions without tests, can't develop models without formulating a genetic process.

Therefore, Evolution is not a theory that follows the Scientific Method as all other theories do.

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

www.talkorigins.org...

And, of course, we have Tiktaalik. Predicted to exist and a timescale of existence by ToE. Theories in science make predictions and are falsifiable, ToE is a scientific theory.

Originally posted by melatonin

How do you account for the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium?

Allelic frequency shifts are an adaptation to environmental factors, this can be studied, but this does not account for NEW alleles or the disappearance of alleles.

What about it? It is an idealised system, migration, mutation, and selection are real.

Originally posted by melatonin
Have you studied those articles yet I posted for you? The ones showing evidence of mutations and novel genes that you seem to deny?

Again with the funny language of "scientists believe" or "we think". It's good to believe and have fantastic thoughts, but that's called science-fiction not facts.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

It's also good to actually read the evidence, but I guess denial is easier. If you have a better theory and can actually support it, there is a nobel prize awaiting you...

[edit on 21-9-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 21-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by saint4God
Don't know, but "we believe" should not be part of a scientific paper. "It could be possible that..." or "we'd like to test to see if..." should.

Hi Saint,

You know... you do see this in papers from time to time, but I agree with you. In fact, when I was getting my Ph.D. and was writing a paper with my boss. I used that exact set of words... 'we believe that...' and he reprimanded me for it, and specifically said you shouldn't use that kind of language.

So me and my former PI are with you on that!

I wouldn't worry too much. There is not much difference between "we suggest" and "we believe". As long as the evidence supports the inference, it is just semantics and preference.

I use Watson and Crick's DNA paper as a basis for how I write and suggest undergrads read it too (And Dawkins, his style is excellent). Less formal, better to read. And they had no problem using 'believe'.

"it has not escaped our notice..."

Excellent, probably the most important paper produced in the 20th century, so understated. Changed biology and also the writing style of many

[edit on 21-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
That is part of the inference, a part of actual science. Also, it wasn't a quote from a scientific paper.

How can something not be a scientific paper and yet is part of actual science? Sounds like double-talk to me. Explain.

Originally posted by melatonin
Doesn't matter what you believe.

GOOD! By jove I think you've got it! Nor does it matter what a scientist believes.

Originally posted by melatonin
It is what the evidence suggests. We see evidence of evolution occuring,

We do? Explain.

Originally posted by melatonin
we see new species,

Let's talk about the problem with classifying species (because we seem to be having difficulty in the scientific community defining what a species is):

Same notes and book:
"Are there problems defining species?

- Same species that look different
- Different species look alike
- "Open circles:species
- Ensatia eschsholtzi - salamanders. Look very different, group 1 + 2 breed, group 9 + 10 breed but 1 + 10 do not breed."
- How to define asexual species?
- Bacteria, Protists, Fungi, Plants"

The phenotypic model of taxonomy doesn't work. The genotypic model breaks down. How can we dare say "there's a new species!" when we cannot define what the heck a species is? We need to genetically map out its full potential to know the difference between allelic shift and "transpecies mutation" which so far has yet to show itself into the existance into the world of fact. Please define species, then we'll talk about whether or not we see "new" ones.

Originally posted by melatonin
we see changes in alleles,

Yes, this is adaptation. Or if you prefer to get more precise, the term, some of it is "preadaptation" that comes into play when we're discussing a frequency shift from parental to successive generations. Gregory Mendel was already identifying the facts and functions of these traits before Darwin decided to write his "biology" book based upon a geology one about erosion.

Originally posted by melatonin
we see progression of evolution via fossils.

We see different fossils. It's assumptive to say we see a "progression of evolution" via fossils. We're taking observations and applying imagination. Nothing wrong with imagination, but at the end of the day without data, imagination is wishful thinking.

Originally posted by melatonin
We see similarities in DNA.

All DNA is made of the same components. Not sure I see the point as it applies to evolution. Answer for me this question and you'll more than likely have me quiet for a long time: By what mechanism does evolutionary transpeciation occur genetically? Please describe the process in as much detail as possible. The model, the chemicals involved, etc.

Originally posted by melatonin
The data is continually being gathered.

This is a good thing, without a doubt but there's no sense at stating hypotheses as fact. This would be in error even if the hypothesis is correct.

Originally posted by melatonin
It is in the scientific literature. Take a look sometime.

Nice attempt at assuming I haven't. I've read Origin of Species, Panda's Thumb, Diversity of Life and all those other required literatures thrown at me by the University. Unless they start barking data, tests and results, I'm really not interested in what they believe/have faith in.

Originally posted by melatonin

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Has it? Look deeper. We're in a forum of skeptics, not blind sheeple.

Predictions are all well and good, but they are just predictions until proven.

Originally posted by melatonin
www.talkorigins.org...

Ah, I recognize that flock and have discussed before. I'd challenge anyone to gather the evidence, review the data (or lack there of) and think for yourself.

Originally posted by melatonin
And, of course, we have Tiktaalik. Predicted to exist and a timescale of existence by ToE. Theories in science make predictions and are falsifiable, ToE is a scientific theory.

You can say that as loud as you like, doesn't make it true. Theories are testable, able to be gotten data from, create models, etc... See discussion about Scientific Method.

Originally posted by melatonin

How do you account for the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium?

Allelic frequency shifts are an adaptation to environmental factors, this can be studied, but this does not account for NEW alleles or the disappearance of alleles.

What about it? It is an idealised system, migration, mutation, and selection are real.

Nice job skirting a direct address. It's not just an idealised system, but it's a functional model along with migration and selection...not to be classed with the non-working model of transpecies mutation.

Originally posted by melatonin
It's also good to actually read the evidence,

Which is what I'm advocating.

Originally posted by melatonin
but I guess denial is easier.

I thought science was supposed to challenge conventional thinking when it doesn't have the facts to support it. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by melatonin
If you have a better theory and can actually support it, there is a nobel prize awaiting you...

You think those who have been beaten over the head with "evolution is" especially when it is their belief system are open-minded enough to accept a different theory? I sure hope you're right. I've yet to meet a professor in person who gave me anything but a stonewall insistence at the suggestion otherwise. I'm grateful for Mattison though, he's much more advanced in study and knowledge-base than I yet sees the same problems still.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
How can something not be a scientific paper and yet is part of actual science? Sounds like double-talk to me. Explain.

Quite simple. Science relies on inference from data. What you quoted from was a news article, not a scientific paper.

Originally posted by melatonin
Doesn't matter what you believe.

GOOD! By jove I think you've got it! Nor does it matter what a scientist believes.

Scientists use actual real-world evidence to form inferences. Not the bible.

Originally posted by melatonin
It is what the evidence suggests. We see evidence of evolution occuring,

We do? Explain.

I don't need to explain. You know already, you have (or almost have) a degree in biology do you not? Genetic change over time. Show me why it can't produce macroevolution, Where is the barrier?

Let's talk about the problem with classifying species (because we seem to be having difficulty in the scientific community defining what a species is):

Same notes and book:
"Are there problems defining species?

- Same species that look different
- Different species look alike
- "Open circles:species
- Ensatia eschsholtzi - salamanders. Look very different, group 1 + 2 breed, group 9 + 10 breed but 1 + 10 do not breed."
- How to define asexual species?
- Bacteria, Protists, Fungi, Plants"

The phenotypic model of taxonomy doesn't work. The genotypic model breaks down. How can we dare say "there's a new species!" when we cannot define what the heck a species is? We need to genetically map out its full potential to know the difference between allelic shift and "transpecies mutation" which so far has yet to show itself into the existance into the world of fact. Please define species, then we'll talk about whether or not we see "new" ones.

Semantics. We have to make a defintion in some way, should we just leave it as it doesn't satisfy you? By the definition used in science, we see new species.

Originally posted by melatonin
we see changes in alleles,

Yes, this is adaptation. Or if you prefer to get more precise, the term, some of it is "preadaptation" that comes into play when we're discussing a frequency shift from parental to successive generations. Gregory Mendel was already identifying the facts and functions of these traits before Darwin decided to write his "biology" book based upon a geology one about erosion.

We also have evidence of novel genes. Do you not remember the actual scientific articles I posted for you. Then you disappeared...

We see different fossils. It's assumptive to say we see a "progression of evolution" via fossils. We're taking observations and applying imagination. Nothing wrong with imagination, but at the end of the day without data, imagination is wishful thinking.

Not an assumption. It is what we see. Phylogeny and stratiography are very highly correlated.

WARNING! Contains actual science. May be harmful to beliefs. READ AT OWN PERIL

Now, can you actually respond to my post in the other thread? Then we might move on. Suggesting that I am skirting issues is laughable...

Mattison, I would hope, would see ToE as science. He may have a different interpretation of the evidence, but the inferences made by scientists regarding evolution are supported, some better than others. When we falsify evolution, or another valid competing theory shows itself. Then things may change. Until then, it is the best we have that actually fits the data. I dislike many theories in my own field, I stop at calling them pseudoscience if they actually fit the evidence. It is for me and other opponents to falsify or provide a better explanation.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Quite simple. Science relies on inference from data. What you quoted was a news article, not a scientific paper.

My quotes are from the Professor's mouth. I'm in her class and am reading the textbook.

Originally posted by melatonin
Scientists use actual real-world evidence to form inferences. Not the bible.

Who mentioned the Bible? and what does it have to do with this topic? And I disagree per your quote on belief, that scientists always use real-world evidence to form inferences

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't need to explain.

Then why did you bother posting anything here? I ask questions looking for answer...yet you "don't need to explain". How convenient

Originally posted by melatonin
You know already, you have (or almost have) a degree in biology do you not? Genetic change over time. Show me why it can't produce macroevolution, Where is the barrier?

No mechanism. Now, show me WHY it can produce macroevolution.

Originally posted by melatonin
Semantics. We have to make a defintion in some way, should we just leave it as it doesn't satisfy you? By the definition used in science, we see new species.

What definition? That's what I'm asking.

Originally posted by melatonin
We also have evidence of novel genes. Do you not remember the actual scientific articles I posted for you. Then you disappeared...

Do you remember what I had to say about barriers of naturally occuring mutations? I apparently have not disappeared, I am here and have been for a number of years.

Originally posted by melatonin
Not an assumption. It is what we see. Phylogeny and stratiography are very highly correlated.

I have no problem with observation, I have a problem with assumptions stated as fact.

Originally posted by melatonin

Certainly you'll allow me the time to study, as I already have plenty of homework of my own. Pardon me if I "disappear" but it's what is necessary if I'm not given the courtesy of having relevant portions quoted, brought to light and discussed.

Originally posted by melatonin
WARNING! Contains actual science. May be harmful to beliefs. READ AT OWN PERIL

Hehe, there you go again. ASSUMING I'm not studying science currently.

Originally posted by melatonin
Now, can you actually respond to my post in the other thread?

Where's it at? This is a long thread. Oh! You say another thread. Which one?

Originally posted by melatonin
Then we might move on. Suggesting that I am skirting issues is laughable...

Then answer my question instead of shrugging it off.

Originally posted by melatonin
It is for me and other opponents to falsify or provide a better explanation.

It's ridiculous to say "Don't like it? Well YOU explain it!" That's a very bull-headed line of thinking. Is it because we're too afraid to say "I don't know"? Now that is a scientific answer and sparks enough curiousity to go and find the answer instead of giving a pat, popular answer because we have a belief via faith that it is true.

You've also not answered my question regarding the mechanism of transpecies evolution

Since we're assigning each other homework, it looks like a 1 pager but click on the links in the article to read the supporting conclusions:

Genetics: No Friend of Evolution


[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
Quite simple. Science relies on inference from data. What you quoted was a news article, not a scientific paper.

My quotes are from the Professor's mouth. I'm in her class and am reading the textbook.

You stated earlier that "'we believe' does not belong in a science paper". I stated; 1) what I quoted was not a science paper; 2) 'we believe' is an inference that must be supported by the data. It is only semantically different than stating 'we suggest", "the data suggests". They 'believe' the data is suggestive, if they didn't believe it, they wouldn't state it.

Watson and Crick had a belief supported by evidence. It is now a normal accepted part of biology.

But this belief is a tad different than a faith based belief, which, by definition, is a belief without evidence.

Originally posted by melatonin
Scientists use actual real-world evidence to form inferences. Not the bible.

Who mentioned the Bible? and what does it have to do with this topic? And I disagree per your quote on belief, that scientists always use real-world evidence to form inferences

I'm trying, very poorly, to show the difference between a faith-based belief and when a scientist uses evidence to state an inference.

Then why did you bother posting anything here?

I have explained this over and over, probably with you in the other thread. I get bored repeating myself eventually, but I did anyway as I'm stupid and I'll do it again below.

Originally posted by melatonin
You know already, you have (or almost have) a degree in biology do you not? Genetic change over time. Show me why it can't produce macroevolution, Where is the barrier?

No mechanism. Now, show me WHY it can produce macroevolution.

Because the evidence suggests genetic change can produce new genes. New genes can produce new variation. Variation is selected by nature. Nature shows large changes in species over time. There is no other real mechanism we know that can explain this, when another comes along, it will be assessed on its scientific merits. Do you have one?

Originally posted by melatonin
Semantics. We have to make a defintion in some way, should we just leave it as it doesn't satisfy you? By the definition used in science, we see new species.

What definition. That's what I'm asking.

We have a similar issue in psychology. Define emotion? We do it, we outline the defintion we are using, we use it. In this context, I am talking about reproductively isolated groups that share a gene pool. Yes, you'll come back with all the issues that species are not so discrete etc. Yes that is true, but the defintion is still useful.

Do you deny the existence of species? Are we the same species as chimpanzees? Is a gorilla, the same species as a chimp? We need a way to categorise the life we see around us, defining species is useful

Originally posted by melatonin
We also have evidence of novel genes. Do you not remember the actual scientific articles I posted for you. Then you disappeared...

Do you remember what I had to say about barriers of naturally occuring mutations? I apparently have not disappeared, I am here and have been for a number of years.

There are no barriers. There are correction mechanisms that, like the copying, are imperfect.

Originally posted by melatonin
Not an assumption. It is what we see. Phylogeny and stratiography are very highly correlated.

I have no problem with observation, I have a problem with assumptions stated as fact.

There is a difference between the fact of evolution and the theory. If someone states the theory as fact, then they are wrong.

Originally posted by melatonin
[url=http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/1999SystBiol.pdf#search='Assessing%20Congruence%20Between%20Cladistic%20and%20Stratigraphic%20Data ']

Certainly you'll allow me the time to study, as I already have plenty of homework of my own. Pardon me if I "disappear" but it's what is necessary if I'm not given the courtesy of having relevant portions quoted, brought to light and discussed.

Take your time. When you find you don't like it, provide an alternative explanation.

Originally posted by melatonin
WARNING! Contains actual science. May be harmful to beliefs. READ AT OWN PERIL

Hehe, there you go again. ASSUMING I'm not studying science currently.

After discussing for a while and the fact you disappeared, do not even remember the thread, did not even download the papers I posted for you because you could not use the actual reference I posted, I found it a little disconcerting.

Now you expect me to run around after your claims. Whether you like it or not, ToE is one of the most successful theories in science.

Where's it at. This is a long thread. Oh! You say another thread. Which one?

rolls eyes...

Originally posted by melatonin
Then we might move on. Suggesting that I am skirting issues is laughable...

Then answer my question instead of shrugging it off.

Ha.

Originally posted by melatonin
It is for me and other opponents to falsify or provide a better explanation.

It's ridiculous to say "Don't like it? Well YOU explain it!" That's a very bull-headed line of thinking. Is it because we're too afraid to say "I don't know"? Now that is a scientific answer and sparks enough curiousity to go and find the answer instead of giving a pat, popular answer because we have a belief via faith that it is true.

No it is not. That is the way science works, falsify and/or provide alternate.

What is the point of saying we don't know, when we have an adequate explanation that actually fits the data? We will say "the [a] current theory is and here is the evidence".

If we don't know , we actually say that. Where did the singularity come from? 'we don't know'. what was LUCA "we don't know".

[edit on 21-9-2006 by melatonin]

After discussing for a while and the fact you disappeared, do not even remember the thread, did not even download the papers I posted for you because you could not use the actual reference I posted, I found it a little disconcerting.

Now you expect me to run around after your claims.

Actually it is YOUR claim I'm wishing to see. You say I missed one of them, I only want to know where. It is possible I may have missed something somewhere, but without being pointed to it I know not which. Apologies I've disappointed you but I am, as they say, only human.

Do me a favor. Answer my questions and read my link and I'll give you the same courtesy. I'm getting the impression here that you're all for giving me homework but unwilling to defend it or do the homework I assign you as well (even though mine is much easier and shorter). You need not repeat yourself, I'm not looking to rehash old ideas, rather let's have a progressive discussion. Agreed?

P.S. Crick (of Watson and Crick) found evolution to be an impossibility, mathmatically speaking and supported Panspermia

*Francis Crick received the Noble Prize for his discovery of the DNA molecule. In his 1981 book, Life Itself, he fills the first half of the book with reasons why life could not originate on our planet—and then he proceeds to suggest that it came from outer space on rockets!

"Crick . . proposed that life began somewhere else in the universe and evolved to a much higher technical level than is now present on earth. He next suggests these life forms are now sending rockets containing primitive life forms (perhaps bacteria or blue-green algae) throughout the universe, spreading the seeds of life hither and yonder. Crick even describes the rocket's design and postulates the conditions necessary for successful re-entry into our atmosphere."—Richard Tkachuck, book review, in Origins, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1983, p. 91.

"In Life Itself, a noted coauthor of the Watson-Crick model for DNA structure embraces an origins view called "Directed Panspermia," in which it is assumed that life was originally sent to earth from outer space! According to Crick, life evolved from nonlife on some other planet, starting with the spontaneous generation of bacteria and proceeding all the way to highly intelligent beings. These gifted individuals (about whom Crick says surprisingly little in the book) then sent our own bacterial ancestors here on an unmanned spacecraft. " —George F. Howe, book review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1983, p. 190.

www.pathlights.com...

[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

After discussing for a while and the fact you disappeared, do not even remember the thread, did not even download the papers I posted for you because you could not use the actual reference I posted, I found it a little disconcerting.

Now you expect me to run around after your claims.

Actually it is YOUR claim I'm wishing to see. You say I missed one of them, I only want to know where. It is possible I may have missed something somewhere, but without being pointed to it I know not which. Apologies I've disappointed you but I am, as they say, only human.

You are claiming that the evidence we have is insufficient to account for macroevolution. Macroevolution is due to phenotypic changes, changes in phenotype can be caused by genotype changes, there is evidence of novel genes. We see genetic and physical relationships (such as redundant pseudogenes) between species (that fits the stratiography very closely in many cases). Therefore we can accept what we see as capable of explaining macroevolution. By its very nature, we do not observe it real-time.

What exactly do you want to see? A human develop a wing?

Do me a favor. Answer my questions and read my link and I'll give you the same courtesy. I'm getting the hint here that you're all for giving me homework but unwilling to defend it or do the homework I assign you as well (even though mine is much easier and shorter). You need not repeat yourself, I'm not looking to rehash old ideas, rather let's have a progressive discussion. Agreed?

Which one? The become a christian one? (only joking)

OK, we'll play the semantics game. The author talks about kinds. Define kind? What is a kind, how do we define it? Are all species with wings a kind? All creepy things? Why is man a different kind than a chimpanzee, we are very closely related genetically, why do both species have a broken vitamin C gene? Should we replace an imperfect method of categorisaton for an even less perfect system?

I also thought you denied the existence of mutations? This article accepts them, even beneficial mutations. Why can they not account for macroevolution?

So, all the genetic variation was present on day one. But why do we see fossil progression? If humans were there on day one, why isn't there a single mammal in the cambrian strata? Why do the first reptiles show up millions of years before mammals? Fish before reptiles? All those pesky transitionals sitting just at the right period?

P.S. Crick (of Watson and Crick) found evolution to be an impossibility, mathmatically speaking and supported Panspermia
[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

Einstein also went to his deathbed screaming "dice, NO!!, he don't use dice" haha, but QM is now accepted.

His maths was iffy. To calculate probabilities we need to know all variables, we have multiple trials at once, chemistry and physics are not chance. Even when we have an answer, highly improbable does not equal impossible.

I have no issue with the notion that the first life may have come from outer space. We then need to explain how that life arose. I think I have stated that if we can provide a naturalistic explanation of the origins of life, then science is doing its job, we will never prove that is exactly what occured. Science is based on methodological naturalism, we aim to provide naturalistic explanantions. But it doesn't ignore the supernatural, we see experiments on prayer etc. However, if we can't observe and test effects, then science cannot be applied.

But, of course, abiogenesis is not strictly part of ToE. We could have your creator placing LUCA on earth and ToE would still be valid.

If you want progression, then provide a viable alternative theory that actually fits the evidence we have. All created kinds on day one doesn't work. We don't even see homo species till very recently in geological timescales. I understand that you feel the evidence is insufficient, I really doubt we could ever satisfy some. If you have a preconceived idea that god created kinds, as he is the source of your personal truth via faith, mere evidence will be insufficient.

Here's the 29+ evidences for macroevolution and common descent. I find it enough, but we could always have more.

www.talkorigins.org...

As matty will tell you. ID has no problem with common descent (although they would also have no problem if it was falsified, ID fits all because the pesky designer, who we're not interested in obviously, can work wonders).

[edit on 21-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
You are claiming that the evidence we have is insufficient to account for macroevolution.

This is correct.

Originally posted by melatonin
Macroevolution is due to phenotypic changes, changes in phenotype can be caused by genotype changes,

Phenotypic changes also occur within a species. As I'd mentioned, we don't have a good definition of what a species is and phenotypic observation is clearly faulted when examing the genetic level. That's why we moved to the Biological Species Concept which reclassified the same species that is "capable of reproducing viable offspring" (assume quotes are the name notes aforementioned). Even though this definition makes better sense than phenotypic classification, it is still insufficient in fully defining that which we are observing. If we don't know what a "new" species is, how can we say it is new? Same question, different phrasing.

Originally posted by melatonin
there is evidence of novel genes.

There is evidence that we as humans can manipulate nature by the forced tearing down the natural barriers make what would otherwise be naturally incapable of occurring to occur. It's not the only thing humans have altered in the environment, nor would I expect it to be the last. (See Shetbra - crossing a Shetland pony with a zebra. Mankind overcame natural mechanisms to make it happen)

Originally posted by melatonin
We see genetic and physical relationships (such as redundant pseudogenes) between species (that fits the stratiography very closely in many cases). Therefore we can accept what we see as capable of explaining macroevolution. By its very nature, we do not observe it real-time.

A big jump in statements. It as if I'm saying I'm wearing a blue shirt, blue has historically been the color of leaders, therefore I'm a king.

Originally posted by melatonin
What exactly do you want to see? A human develop a wing?

Nope, just the the chemical, genetic mechanism of how it could be possible. If we can come to that, then we'd at least have a starting point on discussing how it may be remotely possible for it to occur in nature.

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, we'll play the semantics game.

Let's not play any games.

Originally posted by melatonin
The author talks about kinds. Define kind? What is a kind, how do we define it? Are all species with wings a kind? All creepy things? Why is man a different kind than a chimpanzee, we are very closely related genetically, why do both species have a broken vitamin C gene? Should we replace an imperfect method of categorisaton for an even less perfect system?

Now I believe you're starting to see (I hope) my frustration. Replace kind with "species" and re-read those statements. It's the same problem. BUT, science is made to define what's going on. Let's find out what a species is, then we'll discuss the possibility of changes among them.

Originally posted by melatonin
I also thought you denied the existence of mutations? This article accepts them, even beneficial mutations. Why can they not account for macroevolution?

Okay, since we're choosing to ignore prezygotic mechanisms that prevent mutated critters from reproducing, let's look at the postzygotic mechanisms:

- Sterility
- Breakdown
- Inviability

Again, we're assuming those 6 prezygotic mechanisms have magically been overcome somehow.

Originally posted by melatonin
So, all the genetic variation was present on day one. But why do we see fossil progression?

Seeing many fossils is not the same as "fossil progression". We need to establish some kind of mechanism on how this is possible before making that assumption. Phenotypic variation does not cut it. I cannot see something and make assumptions without the data, tests, and models to back it up.

Originally posted by melatonin
If humans were there on day one, why isn't there a single mammal in the cambrian strata?

Scientifically we don't know when day one is. And, not sure why you're asking me why we didn't find something. I guess the answer is that I'm not out there with a pick and shovel digging. Science is about examing the facts, not the lack thereof. Again, unless I'm missing something in that regard.

Originally posted by melatonin
Einstein also went to his deathbed screaming "dice, NO!!, he don't use dice" haha, but QM is now accepted.

Not sure what that has to do with the topic...other than you're stating the obvious which is scientists can be wrong. I'm stating two of them, Charles Darwin and Stephen J. Gould, are unsubstantiated where they think they were. So what? I'm not saying anyone should worship a scientist as one who knows all, in fact, just the opposite.

Originally posted by melatonin
His maths was iffy. To calculate probabilities we need to know all variables, we have multiple trials at once, chemistry and physics are not chance. Even when we have an answer, highly improbable does not equal impossible.

Keep clinging onto those near impossibilities . The definition he used was the mathmatic one for what "impossible" means, not what is truly impossible. I've got a statement that says nothing is impossible through one mechanism, but I doubt you'd be interested and it's off topic.

Originally posted by melatonin
I have no issue with the notion that the first life may have come from outer space.

Hey whoa! What happened to your insistence that there is no better theory? You're getting shakey on me now. Selectively choosing theories? Consider more than one and no doubt you should consider all of equal plausibility

Originally posted by melatonin
We then need to explain how that life arose. I think I have stated that if we can provide a naturalistic explanation of the origins of life, then science is doing its job, we will never prove that is exactly what occured.

Never say never...that would be impossible

Originally posted by melatonin
Science is based on methodological naturalism, we aim to provide naturalistic explanantions. But it doesn't ignore the supernatural, we see experiments on prayer etc. However, if we can't observe and test effects, then science cannot be applied.

Agreed. And thank you for seeing my point on that. Apply the same line of thinking to evolution.

Originally posted by melatonin
But, of course, abiogenesis is not strictly part of ToE. We could have your creator placing LUCA on earth and ToE would still be valid.

Hehe, no, it'd be called "denial". Is the phlogiston theory still valid then? How about spontaneous generation? I could go on...

Originally posted by melatonin
If you want progression, then provide a viable alternative theory that actually fits the evidence we have.

You're willing to accept panspermia without this evidence. Why should I then have to present evidences?

Originally posted by melatonin
All created kinds on day one doesn't work. We don't even see homo species till very recently in geological timescales. I understand that you feel the evidence is insufficient, I really doubt we could ever satisfy some.

The problem is not that I'm insatiable. Else we've be discussing many many many more topics than just one in science. I could prove this to you but that's not the topic of discussion.

Originally posted by melatonin
If you have a preconceived idea that god created kinds, as he is the source of your personal truth via faith, mere evidence will be insufficient.

What? O_o That's ridiculous for more reasons than I can count. Here are a few:

1.) God is the source of truth. If evolution is the truth, guess who the source is?
2.) Evidence is truth. One who follows God is to be pursuant to the truth.
3.) My major is what? Science. Why would I be in the field if I wasn't searching for truth?
4.) How would I get as far as I did via ignoring truth?

Ad infinitum. This is an insulting prejudice.

Originally posted by melatonin
Here's the 29+ evidences for macroevolution and common descent. I find it enough, but we could always have more.

www.talkorigins.org...

As matty will tell you. ID has no problem with common descent (although they would also have no problem if it was falsified, ID fits all because the pesky designer, who we're not interested in obviously, can work wonders).

Back to talkorigins again, eh? The bible of beliefs of the evolutionary faith... Perhaps instead of being "talk origins" they should deconstruct and rebuild as "evidence origins" starting first by gathering evidence.

Okay, to address the blanket statement, "ID has no problem with common descent". The answer is 50/50. Some ID scientists conclude it has no problem, others do not. Instead of trying to engineer peoples minds with what they should and should not have a problem with, let's stick to the facts.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Phenotypic changes also occur within a species. As I'd mentioned, we don't have a good definition of what a species is and phenotypic observation is clearly faulted when examing the genetic level. That's why we moved to the Biological Species Concept which reclassified the same species that is "capable of reproducing viable offspring" (assume quotes are the name notes aforementioned). Even though this definition makes better sense than phenotypic classification, it is still insufficient in fully defining that which we are observing. If we don't know what a "new" species is, how can we say it is new? Same question, different phrasing.

What has the defintion of species got to do with whether genetic change can result in changes in phenotype? The idea that phenotype can be changed by other factors is not at issue.

Move from your problems with definition of species. We make a defintion, it may not be perfect, but we apply it. They are useful. A cat is not a dog, a tiger is not a domestic cat.

There is evidence that we as humans can manipulate nature by the forced tearing down the natural barriers make what would otherwise be naturally incapable of occurring to occur. It's not the only thing humans have altered in the environment, nor would I expect it to be the last. (See Shetbra - crossing a Shetland pony with a zebra. Mankind overcame natural mechanisms to make it happen)

What has that got to do with evidence of novel genes?

All your saying is that if we take two related species they may produce hybrids. OK.

Originally posted by melatonin
We see genetic and physical relationships (such as redundant pseudogenes) between species (that fits the stratiography very closely in many cases). Therefore we can accept what we see as capable of explaining macroevolution. By its very nature, we do not observe it real-time.

A big jump in statements. It as if I'm saying I'm wearing a blue shirt, blue has historically been the color of leaders, therefore I'm a king.

That's a silly analogy, is there a physical barrier to other people wearing blue? Correlation does not equal causation but it is still suggestive. I asked you to provide another explanation?

We know that species have been appearing gradually over time. There is no real debate about that. We have a mechanism to explain this phenomenon.

Show me the mechanism that stops mutations producing new genes? Show me the mechanism that stops these new genes allowing macroevolution?

I add a penny to a pile every day, my descendents do the same. What restricts the size of the pile of money?

Originally posted by melatonin
What exactly do you want to see? A human develop a wing?

Nope, just the the chemical, genetic mechanism of how it could be possible. If we can come to that, then we'd at least have a starting point on discussing how it may be remotely possible for it to occur in nature.

I have already told you. Genetic change/mutation, all those things your learned in biology.

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, we'll play the semantics game.

Let's not play any games.

Good idea.

Now I believe you're starting to see (I hope) my frustration. Replace kind with "species" and re-read those statements. It's the same problem. BUT, science is made to define what's going on. Let's find out what a species is, then we'll discuss the possibility of changes among them.

Propose a defintion for kinds. What kind is a tasmanian tiger? Cat kind or kangaroo kind? How do we determine this? Can we use genetics? Morphology? How about ability to reproduce? Why don't we just use what we have already?

We know that 'species' is not always discrete. There are many examples where the definition is not ideal. There are others times it works well. It is a human-made concept of nature.

Originally posted by melatonin
I also thought you denied the existence of mutations? This article accepts them, even beneficial mutations. Why can they not account for macroevolution?

Okay, since we're choosing to ignore prezygotic mechanisms that prevent mutated critters from reproducing, let's look at the postzygotic mechanisms:

- Sterility
- Breakdown
- Inviability

Again, we're assuming those 6 prezygotic mechanisms have magically been overcome somehow.

Your own reference accepts mutations. It accepts beneficial mutations. We have evidence of novel genes and beneficial mutations.

You are ignoring the evidence. Have you even read the papers yet? Do you accept that mutations do occur and can persist? The article you posted provides some evidence.

Seeing many fossils is not the same as "fossil progression". We need to establish some kind of mechanism on how this is possible before making that assumption. Phenotypic variation does not cut it. I cannot see something and make assumptions without the data, tests, and models to back it up.

We see that life in the past is very different than today. We see species appearing, we see species disappearing. We see invertebrates before vertebrates, fish before tetrapods, we see reptiles before mammals and birds. We see early primates before humans. We see your father before you. We use DNA, the molecule of heredity, and see that the genetics agrees with the phylogeny.

We have a model, It's called the Theory of Evolution. If you have something better, the nobel prize is still available.

Scientifically we don't know when day one is. And, not sure why you're asking me why we didn't find something. I guess the answer is that I'm not out there with a pick and shovel digging. Science is about examing the facts, not the lack thereof. Again, unless I'm missing something in that regard.

It was your reference that raised it. The one you wanted me to read.

So the FACT that no mammals, not even a single tetrapod or a single land plant are present in the cambrian strata is not important? Are we to ignore it until we have checked every single millimetre of cambrain strata?

[edit on 22-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
What has the defintion of species got to do with whether genetic change can result in changes in phenotype?

If we're talking about adaptation, none what so ever. If we're talking about evolution, that is to say the change of one species to another, it means everything. Adaptation does not necessesitate the term "new species" because it is understood that we don't understand what a species is necessarily, only that different variants within a genetic sequence occurs between one extreme to another and balancing back to the middle. Hardy-Weingberg principle. Genetic boundries as explored and found by Gregory Mendel.

Originally posted by melatonin
Move from your problems with definition of species. We make a defintion, it may not be perfect, but we apply it. They are useful. A cat is not a dog, a tiger is not a domestic cat.

Fine whatever, but don't say "new species" unless you know what a new species is . That would be creative, yes, but not scientific at all.

Originally posted by melatonin
What has that got to do with evidence of novel genes?

All your saying is that if we take two related species they may produce hybrids. OK.

Understanding how hybridization functions is an integral part to understanding how one mutated individual (if it is agreed they mutate as opposed to genetic error) can "hybridize" with what is considered "normal" by the rest of the critter's population. They have very similar barriers.

Originally posted by melatonin
That's a silly analogy, is there a physical barrier to other people wearing blue? Correlation does not equal causation but it is still suggestive. I asked you to provide another explanation?

Without analogies, your statement assumes too much to be fact when it has not been established as such.

Originally posted by melatonin
I add a penny to a pile every day, my descendents do the same. What restricts the size of the pile of money?

That's a silly analogy. Correlation does not equal causation but it is still suggestive. I asked you to provide another explanation?

Originally posted by melatonin
I have already told you. Genetic change/mutation, all those things your learned in biology.

Thanks for the generalized hypothesis (heard it before). Mind providing specifics?

Originally posted by melatonin
Propose a defintion for kinds. What kind is a tasmanian tiger? Cat kind or kangaroo kind? How do we determine this? Can we use genetics? Morphology? How about ability to reproduce? Why don't we just use what we have already?

I don't care whether we use the word "species" or "kind". We need to look at the whole picture, the integral parts there of and the functioning mechanisms.

Originally posted by melatonin
We know that 'species' is not always discrete. There are many examples where the definition is not ideal. There are others times it works well. It is a human-made concept of nature.

Totally agree.

Originally posted by melatonin
Your own reference accepts mutations. It accepts beneficial mutations. We have evidence of novel genes and beneficial mutations.

I did not write that reference. It has some interesting thoughts to ponder but I'm not arriving at all the same conclusions. I have the terrible habit of thinking for myself.

Originally posted by melatonin
You are ignoring the evidence. Have you even read the papers yet? Do you accept that mutations do occur and can persist? The article you posted provides some evidence.

I agree it may be possible for a selected-against mutation to occur, but no, not persist. The papers seem to think the evolution is directional to the positive and that is NOT what Darwin says. In order for Evolution to function, according to the proposed idea, it necessitates being directionless and without a goal. Those aren't my words, got issue with that, take it up with Darwin.

Originally posted by melatonin
We see that life in the past is very different than today. We see species appearing,

What animal species do we see "appearing"?

Originally posted by melatonin
we see species disappearing.

Certainly extinction exists, who's arguing that?

Originally posted by melatonin
We see invertebrates before vertebrates, fish before tetrapods, we see reptiles before mammals and birds. We see early primates before humans.

Again, there's a difference between variety and progression.

Originally posted by melatonin
We see your father before you.

What does my father look like?

Originally posted by melatonin
We use DNA, the molecule of heredity, and see that the genetics agrees with the phylogeny.

Specific mechanism please. I studied DNA, molecules of heredity, and genetics but not where the fact of evolution exists. I've had many professors stake life's claim upon it, I've challenged it, but always fall short of the evidence. And, Stephan J. Gould contradicts himself in his own Darwin supporting book. I don't even need to interject any assessments of my own.

Originally posted by melatonin
We have a model, It's called the Theory of Evolution. If you have something better, the nobel prize is still available.

Will you get off it? I've already addressed this about five times now. Stick to science, I'm not running for president.

Originally posted by melatonin
It was your reference that raised it. The one you wanted me to read.

I appreciate your reading it despite the lack of serious consideration for it.

Originally posted by melatonin
So the FACT that no mammals, not even a single tetrapod or a single land plant are present in the cambrian strata is not important? Are we to ignore it until we have checked every single millimetre of cambrain strata?

I could raise the same point about why there are petrified trees VERTICALLY embedded into strata but is equally pointless. Let's talk about what we've found and not make assumptions about what we haven't found yet.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
Einstein also went to his deathbed screaming "dice, NO!!, he don't use dice" haha, but QM is now accepted.

Not sure what that has to do with the topic...other than you're stating the obvious which is scientists can be wrong. I'm stating two of them, Charles Darwin and Stephen J. Gould, are unsubstantiated where they think they were. So what? I'm not saying anyone should worship a scientist as one who knows all, in fact, just the opposite.

It is meant to show that however authoritative and experienced a scientist is, they still are human and make errors of judgement. Same for Crick.

Keep clinging onto those near impossibilities

. The definition he used was the mathmatic one for what "impossible" means, not what is truly impossible. I've got a statement that says nothing is impossible through one mechanism, but I doubt you'd be interested and it's off topic.

Yes, but the mathematics he used was not good. How do you know it is "near impossible"? We see life around us, we see cosmic bodies with organic chemicals. We have shown that complex organic chemicals can form spontaneously.

Originally posted by melatonin
I have no issue with the notion that the first life may have come from outer space.

Hey whoa! What happened to your insistence that there is no better theory? You're getting shakey on me now. Selectively choosing theories? Consider more than one and no doubt you should consider all of equal plausibility

Pansperimia and ToE are not mutually exclusive. A planet could have evolved basic life which was transported here on some form of meteorite. Then evolved using the mechanisms of ToE.

I doubt it. But its not impossible, it would be a natural mechanism. Although, we still need to explain how that basic life formed. I would think it more likely that building blocks of life (the complex chemicals) may have been transported here.

Originally posted by melatonin
Science is based on methodological naturalism, we aim to provide naturalistic explanantions. But it doesn't ignore the supernatural, we see experiments on prayer etc. However, if we can't observe and test effects, then science cannot be applied.

Agreed. And thank you for seeing my point on that. Apply the same line of thinking to evolution.

How do we test it? We are still waiting for ID to provide even a single slither of positve evidence. Not one experiment, not one paper. Just philosophy and talk.

Originally posted by melatonin
But, of course, abiogenesis is not strictly part of ToE. We could have your creator placing LUCA on earth and ToE would still be valid.

Hehe, no, it'd be called "denial". Is the phlogiston theory still valid then? How about spontaneous generation? I could go on...

How so? ToE provides an explanation of the origin of species by natural selection, descent with modification, common descent. No matter how LUCA arose, the mechanisms of ToE would still be valid.

You seem hell-bent on denying ToE even when it doesn't apply.

Originally posted by melatonin
If you want progression, then provide a viable alternative theory that actually fits the evidence we have.

You're willing to accept panspermia without this evidence. Why should I then have to present evidences?

You seem to confuse acceptance as having evidence and acceptance as a possibilty without evidence. Remember what I said about how different beliefs can be formed, some evidence-based, some just hot-air and possibility?

Originally posted by melatonin
All created kinds on day one doesn't work. We don't even see homo species till very recently in geological timescales. I understand that you feel the evidence is insufficient, I really doubt we could ever satisfy some.

The problem is not that I'm insatiable. Else we've be discussing many many many more topics than just one in science. I could prove this to you but that's not the topic of discussion.

But you still ignore the evidence we have.

What? O_o That's ridiculous for more reasons than I can count. Here are a few:

1.) God is the source of truth. If evolution is the truth, guess who the source is?
2.) Evidence is truth. One who follows God is to be pursuant to the truth.
3.) My major is what? Science. Why would I be in the field if I wasn't searching for truth?
4.) How would I get as far as I did via ignoring truth?

Ad infinitum. This is an insulting prejudice.

You have no evidence for god. It is faith-based, remember? You are ignoring evidence. It is your personal truth and it leads you to reject actual objective evidence.

Your problem is that you are obviously take parts of an ancient book as literal truth. True creationsim was falsified a long time ago, accept it.

Back to talkorigins again, eh? The bible of beliefs of the evolutionary faith...

Perhaps instead of being "talk origins" they should deconstruct and rebuild as "evidence origins" starting first by gathering evidence.

Nah, just can't be bothered outlining all the evidence available. You are ignoring one single article I posted, why would I bother with other evidence you'd just ignore.

Okay, to address the blanket statement, "ID has no problem with common descent". The answer is 50/50. Some ID scientists conclude it has no problem, others do not. Instead of trying to engineer peoples minds with what they should and should not have a problem with, let's stick to the facts.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by saint4God]

That's the problem though isn't it. ID will fit whatever.

The fact is that Matty will claim that ID can live with common descent and without it.

But as far as I'm concerned discussion over. If you can't be bothered reading my 'homework' or even your own links, forget it.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by melatonin]