The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423
Can you give an example of a new species which was intentionally produced through human intervention? I'm at a loss to think of one. It may well happen in the future. However, at the moment, I don't think this technology is possible.

What we see in nature is divergence within a species which eventually divides into two separate species. This has been documented in plants, insects and animals. But I can't think of a new species which was made in a lab.

No need to think anymore, when there's google at your fingertips

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

In all seriousness, I wasn't even referring to what can be done in the lab as far as generating a novel species or fabricating a genome from scratch. But this should also be considered.

I'm asking why artificial selection, which is intentional evolution caused by an organism, is not considered part of evolutionary theory. Humans do this on an enormous scale. I didn't think I was asking such a confusing question.

And recall there doesn't have to be speciation to call it evolution ( at least by current definitions).

I read through the paper and did some research. Yes, you are correct - artificial methods have been used in the lab to create new species of bacteria, vertebrates, etc.

Here's the difference between evolutionary biology and laboratory-created species: Evolutionary biology is about natural evolution over time in nature. Lab-created species don't follow the same course of events as natural evolution. To be exact, artificial methods of speciation have very little to do with biological evolution because the methodology utilized is entirely different. One is a subdiscipline of the other. The method employed to create the new species of lizard followed an entirely different course of events.

In the paper that you cited, the method used to create the new species of lizard was hybridization and ploidy. Natural evolution by ploidy is exceedingly rare (as mentioned in the paper). That said, there are some experiments that demonstrate artificial natural selection similar to biological evolution - but the subject would still fall under the category of artificial, or lab-created, speciation:

Scientists create ‘artificial evolution’ for the first time

www.zmescience.com...



So to answer your question, artificial evolution as a science is a subdiscipline of biological evolution just as molecular biology is a subdiscipline of genetics. And this goes to the methods that are used in each discipline. For instance, a molecular biologist might be analyzing western blots of DNA and RNA whereas a molecular biochemist may be studying some aspect of the chemical components.

I think it just comes down to distinguishing the various methods utilized in that area of research.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423
Can you give an example of a new species which was intentionally produced through human intervention? I'm at a loss to think of one. It may well happen in the future. However, at the moment, I don't think this technology is possible.

What we see in nature is divergence within a species which eventually divides into two separate species. This has been documented in plants, insects and animals. But I can't think of a new species which was made in a lab.

No need to think anymore, when there's google at your fingertips

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

In all seriousness, I wasn't even referring to what can be done in the lab as far as generating a novel species or fabricating a genome from scratch. But this should also be considered.

I'm asking why artificial selection, which is intentional evolution caused by an organism, is not considered part of evolutionary theory. Humans do this on an enormous scale. I didn't think I was asking such a confusing question.

And recall there doesn't have to be speciation to call it evolution ( at least by current definitions).

This article appeared just today in Science Daily. It discusses how human behavior can contribute to extinction as well as evolution. I thought it was apropo to the thread:

Humans artificially drive evolution of new species
Date: June 28, 2016
Source: Faculty of Science - University of Copenhagen
Summary:

Species across the world are rapidly going extinct due to human activities, but humans are also causing rapid evolution and the emergence of new species. A new study published today summarises the causes of humanmade speciation, and discusses why newly evolved species cannot simply replace extinct wild species. The study was led by the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate at the University of Copenhagen.



www.sciencedaily.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423
Here's the difference between evolutionary biology and laboratory-created species: Evolutionary biology is about natural evolution over time in nature. Lab-created species don't follow the same course of events as natural evolution. To be exact, artificial methods of speciation have very little to do with biological evolution because the methodology utilized is entirely different. One is a subdiscipline of the other. The method employed to create the new species of lizard followed an entirely different course of events.

I definitely appreciate you taking the time to read it and comment.
But I'm not sure if we're approaching this problem the same way.
If the theory of evolution is supposed to be a truly objective account of how organisms evolve then we need to view all organisms in the same light. That includes humans, and eliminating the natural vs artificial distinction.

In this view, we have an organism that controls the evolutionary trajectories of itself, other species of organisms, and can even create novel ones. It's evolution by an intelligent cause, which by current theoretical framework, can't happen.

So is the theory technically flawed?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423
Here's the difference between evolutionary biology and laboratory-created species: Evolutionary biology is about natural evolution over time in nature. Lab-created species don't follow the same course of events as natural evolution. To be exact, artificial methods of speciation have very little to do with biological evolution because the methodology utilized is entirely different. One is a subdiscipline of the other. The method employed to create the new species of lizard followed an entirely different course of events.

I definitely appreciate you taking the time to read it and comment.
But I'm not sure if we're approaching this problem the same way.
If the theory of evolution is supposed to be a truly objective account of how organisms evolve then we need to view all organisms in the same light. That includes humans, and eliminating the natural vs artificial distinction.

In this view, we have an organism that controls the evolutionary trajectories of itself, other species of organisms, and can even create novel ones. It's evolution by an intelligent cause, which by current theoretical framework, can't happen.

So is the theory technically flawed?

In this view, we have an organism that controls the evolutionary trajectories of itself, other species of organisms, and can even create novel ones. It's evolution by an intelligent cause, which by current theoretical framework, can't happen.

Evolutionary biology doesn't say it can't happen. It only says that there's no evidence that it happened in the past. If there was a designer, a creator or a computer that caused life to begin, the evidence has not presented itself. Science can only work with evidence, not speculation.

When humans create a new life form in the lab, it's an observable event. The methods and results are reproducible. And I think it's important to remember that the methods utilized in the lizard experiment are rarely reproduced in nature. It may be impossible to reproduce what happened in nature simply because of the time periods involved. I guess if someone develops a real time travel machine, we may be able to see what happened. But right now, the evidence shows how life developed over the ages, but it doesn't show how the absolute moment of initiation occurred.

We may never know exactly what happened to initiate life. There's no doubt that we're going to encounter beings out in the universe - and then the question arises, where did they come from?

But as far as a distinction between the science of evolution on a long frame and the science of evolution that happens in the lab, I think that one is a subdiscipline of the other. Evolution in the lab is an artificial event. As you said, the design and implementation is totally controlled by humans. Evolution in nature is a natural event whose absolute origin may never be known.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Evolutionary biology doesn't say it can't happen. It only says that there's no evidence that it happened in the past. If there was a designer, a creator or a computer that caused life to begin, the evidence has not presented itself. Science can only work with evidence, not speculation.

I'm not intending to invoke a designer here, only to say that evolution can and does proceed with intent and purpose vis-a-vis human intervention. Even so, I'm not exactly sure what would constitute evidence to make the case for a designer. It's easy to say there's no evidence and just sweep it under the rug, but I'm not sure that's so honest. To assert otherwise should mean that we have an actual idea of the type of evidence we should be looking for, before we can say it's not there.

originally posted by: Phantom423
When humans create a new life form in the lab, it's an observable event. The methods and results are reproducible. And I think it's important to remember that the methods utilized in the lizard experiment are rarely reproduced in nature.

See, but you're falling into that same trap of approaching this from an anthropomorphic view point rather than a truly objective one. I'm saying we need to look at it sans the natural vs artificial distinction. Strip away that disassociation, and what are we left with?

originally posted by: Phantom423
Evolution in the lab is an artificial event. As you said, the design and implementation is totally controlled by humans. Evolution in nature is a natural event whose absolute origin may never be known.

Evolution is evolution. Intelligently guided evolution doesn't just happen in a lab (i.e. human artificial selection, breeding), and should not be precluded from evolutionary theory. But I understand the current framework — thanks in part to the establishment of the MES and a need to stamp out creationist thinking — does not allow for this type of evolution to be able to occur.

What if we discovered and observed a species of ant that was artificially selecting other organisms for its own benefit, or was somehow creating a new species — what would we call it? Would it cease to be natural phenomenon?

Or better yet, when humans colonize Mars and create a biosphere, with new ecologies of species, I wonder if history in a million or a billion years will show that life there was created by an intelligent alien race from a nearby planet?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I'm not intending to invoke a designer here, only to say that evolution can and does proceed with intent and purpose vis-a-vis human intervention. Even so, I'm not exactly sure what would constitute evidence to make the case for a designer. It's easy to say there's no evidence and just sweep it under the rug, but I'm not sure that's so honest. To assert otherwise should mean that we have an actual idea of the type of evidence we should be looking for, before we can say it's not there.

You're mixing apples and oranges. What's your point? On the one hand, you say you're not invoking a designer. On the other, you don't know what would constitute evidence, although science makes it crystal clear what constitutes evidence of anything. No one is sweeping anything under the rug. When someone presents physical evidence that can be examined, then it will be examined and reported. To date, there is no evidence for a designer. You can't beat around the bush with semantics - either there is scientific evidence or there isn't. Right now, there is none.

See, but you're falling into that same trap of approaching this from an anthropomorphic view point rather than a truly objective one. I'm saying we need to look at it sans the natural vs artificial distinction. Strip away that disassociation, and what are we left with?

The definition of evolution is change over time. The operative word here is TIME. A laboratory experiment which produces a new species through artificial means which is OUTSIDE the natural course of evolution, belongs in a different category. There's no dissociation - it's simply assigning a subcategory to evolutionary biology. Biologists certainly compare the two for similarities but the field itself is too large to include every aspect of biological evolution into a huge mix. It's impractical. Research and science education doesn't work that way. This is why you have Bio 101 through Bio 410 in university - there's too much information to throw it all together into a single pot. I don't know if you've ever studied any science at university, but if you did, you would know that it's a long, long way from dissecting a frog to understanding molecular biology and genetics. Separating biological evolution over time and artificial experiments in the lab is merely a practical way of dealing with the massive amount of information.

Evolution is evolution. Intelligently guided evolution doesn't just happen in a lab (i.e. human artificial selection, breeding), and should not be precluded from evolutionary theory. But I understand the current framework — thanks in part to the establishment of the MES and a need to stamp out creationist thinking — does not allow for this type of evolution to be able to occur. What if we discovered and observed a species of ant that was artificially selecting other organisms for its own benefit, or was somehow creating a new species — what would we call it? Would it cease to be natural phenomenon? Or better yet, when humans colonize Mars and create a biosphere, with new ecologies of species, I wonder if history in a million or a billion years will show that life there was created by an intelligent alien race from a nearby planet?

Where else does "intelligently guided evolution" occur in nature? You would have to provide hard evidence to support that statement.

In the case of the ant, that scenario is not unique. It happens all the time in nature. That's what evolution is - change over time through different means and adaptations. Utilizing another organism for your own benefit is nothing new - whatever you ate for breakfast was at one point either in part or in the whole another organism i.e. your egg, bacon, orange juice.

Whatever we discover on Mars will be studied exactly the same way as discoveries on Earth are studied. There's enough work here on Earth without speculating what the future will bring on Mars. Regardless, when and if they do find evidence of intelligent life on Mars, it will be studied the same way we study specimens on Earth.

a reply to: Phantom423
What would constitute evidence of a designer? I'm asking you directly to explain what it is. Clearly you know since you're so sure it doesn't exist.

The rest of your post I can't reply to because you're arguing points completely different from mine. I've wasted your time engaging with you, thinking you understood my point. That's my fault. Sorry about that.

Have a good evening.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Phantom423
What would constitute evidence of a designer? I'm asking you directly to explain what it is. Clearly you know since you're so sure it doesn't exist.

The rest of your post I can't reply to because you're arguing points completely different from mine. I've wasted your time engaging with you, thinking you understood my point. That's my fault. Sorry about that.

Have a good evening.

Definition of scientific evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method."
en.wikipedia.org...

When the evidence for a designer fulfills the definition of scientific evidence, then you have something to work with.
Right now, there is nothing.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that evolutionary biology and synthetic, or artificial, evolution should be treated as one in the same. They are not.

The word "evolution" is derived from the word "evolve" - to develop over time. Synthetic evolution requires practically no time and employs entirely different methods to achieve the end result. I would even argue that synthetic biology shouldn't be classified as evolution at all - but that's for another discussion.

A synthetic organism may or may not be able to continue to evolve into different species. I don't think we know that yet.

Think of GMO plants as a good example. GMO plants are the result of genetic engineering. (“GMO” stands for “genetically modified organism.”) This is a process during which the plant’s DNA is altered in a way that cannot occur naturally, and sometimes includes the insertion of genes from other species. A GMO tomato did NOT evolve naturally. It is a synthetic product. Any organism created in the lab will always be synthetic.

The science of biological evolution over time has not elucidated how the first life form was created. It could have been a designer, it could have been a unique chemical process. The evidence we have points to chemistry. But we just don't know.

There is no evidence that points to a designer. That does not RULE OUT the possibility. It only says that there is no hard evidence. Synthetic biological evolution is driven by human intervention. The methods to achieve the results are documented and reported in the literature.

If I misinterpreted your argument, please clarify your position. I don't think it's a big leap to understand that there's a fundamental difference between evolution over time and species created in the lab.

a reply to: Phantom423

The question was: what would constitute evidence for a designer? I did not mean to come across as supporting the notion that there is one, as I'm agnostic on this. I only asked because you seem to be very sure there isn't any evidence at all. To be firm on this assertion I felt that at least 2 things needed to have happened:

• There would have to be an idea of what the evidence is so we know what to look for. (For example, if we want to determine whether a fire started by arson or some other means, we know what evidence to look for to get our answer.)
  
• Someone would have had to systematically looked for the evidence. Do you know if there's actually been a scientific inquiry into this? (I'm being mildly facetious here, but more so to drive home the point)
  

If there hasn't been any actual scientific investigation into this, then how can it be said that evidence is non existent.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that evolutionary biology and synthetic, or artificial, evolution should be treated as one in the same. They are not.

Evolution is evolution. It happens over very long and very short periods of time, with and without human intervention. But why should human directed evolution be different from natural evolution if we're organisms like everything else. We're the "selective" force acting on other organisms to effect certain outcomes. We actually select! It's artificial because it's intentional, and I just don't see why there should to be a distinction.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect


Evolution is evolution. It happens over very long and very short periods of time, with and without human intervention. But why should human directed evolution be different from natural evolution if we're organisms like everything else. We're the "selective" force acting on other organisms to effect certain outcomes. We actually select! It's artificial because it's intentional, and I just don't see why there should to be a distinction.

My apologize for not addressing your earlier reply to me but with kids out of school for summer break and my PC being temporarily comatose relegating my internet access to a phone has limited my time on ATS. I think that addressing the above will also address our earlier discussion. Let's look at Homo Sapiens Sapiens longest venture in selective breeding,
Our first successfully domesticated animal and current holder of the title of "Mans Beat Friend", canines. The evolution of dogs through selective breeding and convergent evolution is included in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and studied from a paleontological aspect as well as through the lense of Anthropology.

While the focus lies primarily on understanding exactly how long ago and precisely where humans first domesticated wolves and what their initial purpose was and less so on how today's dogs have gone from Wolves to dogs more closely resembling Siberian Huskies and Akitas and on to the incredibly wide range of morphological characteristics exhibited today, the evolution of mans best friend is studied, as are the origins and precursors to all other domesticated animals like livestock, primarily by evolutionary biologists and Anthropologists. Aside from canines, I would say that the next most frequently studied animal and its millennia of selective breeding would be cattle. Going all the way back to wild Aurochs and looking into aspects of convergent evolution between dairy cattle and humans and exploring the relationship between this domestication and its subsequent convergence of evolutionary traits surrounding the gene for lactose persistence in European HSS as we try to learn more about this beneficial mutation and how our domesticated cattle managed to evolve alongside us to produce milk more easily digestible while we Simultaneously evolved the gene that allows us to digest lactose beyond toddlerhood.

In short, it isn't so much that domestication and selective breeding aren't considered a part of MES. It's more that the focus of MES is on natural biological evolution and not on selective breeding guided by human hands. It's also important to note that research of that nature isn't very exciting and doesn't get picked up by the wires whereas new developments in Anthropology relate directly to our own direct history. Look at Paleontology for example. When people, especially kids, think of this discipline they automatically think of dinosaurs. The truth of it is that paleontology covers everything from Trilobytes to Dinosaurs to Wooly Mammoths and every extinct non human organism that is now extinct.

To be clear and succinct though, selective breeding is considered a mechanism of evolution. Darwin actually discussed it and used the example of pigeons who were subject to breeding practices to enhance certain characteristics. The negative aspects of selective breeding actually get a lot of lip service. It just doesn't get a lot of publicity because it's not related to a new dinosaur or an Indonesian hobbit.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

The question was: what would constitute evidence for a designer? I did not mean to come across as supporting the notion that there is one, as I'm agnostic on this. I only asked because you seem to be very sure there isn't any evidence at all. To be firm on this assertion I felt that at least 2 things needed to have happened: There would have to be an idea of what the evidence is so we know what to look for. (For example, if we want to determine whether a fire started by arson or some other means, we know what evidence to look for to get our answer.) Someone would have had to systematically looked for the evidence. Do you know if there's actually been a scientific inquiry into this? (I'm being mildly facetious here, but more so to drive home the point)

If there hasn't been any actual scientific investigation into this, then how can it be said that evidence is non existent.

To answer your question, evidence would have to be tangible. In other words, if you're trying to prove that the tooth fairy really left that chocolate bar on your pillow when you lost a tooth, you would need a picture of the tooth fairy or a signed statement from the tooth fairy confirming that he/she was actually there. What can science bring to the table to test for a designer?

Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. How would you design an experiment to determine there was a designer if you had nothing to test?? We can certainly test things that we don't actually see like dark energy - we know something is there because we can see the effects and we can measure them.

I think your question is more philosophical. A bench scientist like myself thinks about how I would design an experiment around a question where I have something to work with, when I have something I can investigate and measure. That's really the best answer I can come up with.

Evolution is evolution. It happens over very long and very short periods of time, with and without human intervention. But why should human directed evolution be different from natural evolution if we're organisms like everything else. We're the "selective" force acting on other organisms to effect certain outcomes. We actually select! It's artificial because it's intentional, and I just don't see why there should to be a distinction.

As I said previously, one is a subset of the other. It simply comes down to the methods - evolutionary biology over time is a natural event. Synthetic evolution in the lab is a human driven event. The correlation between the two is obvious.

And yes, I would argue that synthetic "evolution" may not be evolution at all - but that's for another discussion. Hybridization, as Peter discussed in his post, is not speciation as far as I can determine - it's simply human driven mutations within the same species. The dog is still a dog and the cow is still a cow. Creating a new and unique form of life in the lab is something very different. This is just my opinion and not based on any actual research that I have done - it's not my field.

a reply to: Phantom423

To answer your question, evidence would have to be tangible. In other words, if you're trying to prove that the tooth fairy really left that chocolate bar on your pillow when you lost a tooth, you would need a picture of the tooth fairy or a signed statement from the tooth fairy confirming that he/she was actually there.

Hi

I just read this and have to jump in for a quick question if you don't mind.

The question you were answering, for clarity, is:

The question was: what would constitute evidence for a designer?

As asked by Photoneffect

Tangible evidence is a good start, and fortunately there is quite a lot of it. Not considering this tangible evidence to be proof is anyone's prerogative of course, yet tangible evidence it is.

A few examples: the material world, the emotional world, the dream world, & c.
Of course only the material world is tangible, so to expound a little, let's say oreos, penguins, and Tekken by Namco. Others have used peanut butter, but you get the point.

Why is this evidence?

Well, contrary to the tooth fairy, the creator isn't your parents roleplaying while you sleep.
Without an intelligent design, the chocolate bar you refer to, the pillow, and the tooth wouldn't be.

Of course we can always explore sound alternatives, but the soup comes alive because explosions just doesn't cut it for thinkers. Because these guys and gals have let a webcam up at night and have infra red footage of the tooth fairy black ops, and when they grew up they kept a thousand generations of fruit flies in a jar with plutonium to see if one would grow a pancreas or lay a rabbit egg (or even a spider) which they don't.

Therefore, as stated by the OP, the primary axiom of evolution is just a lie and should not in any case be taught as science, the risk being that legions of not-so-bright students think theological ramblings constitute science, which they don't.

Cheers

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phantom423

To answer your question, evidence would have to be tangible. In other words, if you're trying to prove that the tooth fairy really left that chocolate bar on your pillow when you lost a tooth, you would need a picture of the tooth fairy or a signed statement from the tooth fairy confirming that he/she was actually there.

Hi

I just read this and have to jump in for a quick question if you don't mind.

The question you were answering, for clarity, is:

The question was: what would constitute evidence for a designer?

As asked by Photoneffect

Tangible evidence is a good start, and fortunately there is quite a lot of it. Not considering this tangible evidence to be proof is anyone's prerogative of course, yet tangible evidence it is.

A few examples: the material world, the emotional world, the dream world, & c.
Of course only the material world is tangible, so to expound a little, let's say oreos, penguins, and Tekken by Namco. Others have used peanut butter, but you get the point.

Why is this evidence?

Well, contrary to the tooth fairy, the creator isn't your parents roleplaying while you sleep.
Without an intelligent design, the chocolate bar you refer to, the pillow, and the tooth wouldn't be.

Of course we can always explore sound alternatives, but the soup comes alive because explosions just doesn't cut it for thinkers. Because these guys and gals have let a webcam up at night and have infra red footage of the tooth fairy black ops, and when they grew up they kept a thousand generations of fruit flies in a jar with plutonium to see if one would grow a pancreas or lay a rabbit egg (or even a spider) which they don't.

Therefore, as stated by the OP, the primary axiom of evolution is just a lie and should not in any case be taught as science, the risk being that legions of not-so-bright students think theological ramblings constitute science, which they don't.

Cheers

A few examples: the material world, the emotional world, the dream world, & c. Of course only the material world is tangible, so to expound a little, let's say oreos, penguins, and Tekken by Namco. Others have used peanut butter, but you get the point. Why is this evidence? Well, contrary to the tooth fairy, the creator isn't your parents roleplaying while you sleep. Without an intelligent design, the chocolate bar you refer to, the pillow, and the tooth wouldn't be.

That isn't evidence. It's supposition and speculation. If you can design an experiment using the standard criteria of the scientific method, please do so. If you can't, then you have no evidence and, therefore, no science. Please fill in the blanks in the following diagram with your "evidence".

a reply to: Phantom423

That isn't evidence. It's supposition and speculation.

Yes, it's supposition and speculation, educated and field tested but yes
it constitutes the only thus best evidence of * all things past *

So sure, maybe the soup was before the explosions or something, but frogs don't make princes

a reply to: wisvol

Sorry - you get an F- on that reply - you're not thinking, you're not researching, you're not analyzing. Why ask a question or make a comment about something you have no intention of investigating - not to mention the fact that you made a STATEMENT that there was EVIDENCE. But when push comes to shove, well..... need I say more??

I like butterflies and have no proof that they won't explode into ostriches in a billion years

originally posted by: wisvol
I like butterflies and have no proof that they won't explode into ostriches in a billion years

Apparently you like straw mans as well.

So back to the main issue - Is Evolution Science

I'll agree that Inteligent Design is not a science no matter whether you give it any credence or not.

But the more I keep following this debate, and the more research I do, the more I began to question whether Evolution is
really a science ? I have found some interesting arguments saying it is not.

This one, and yes it does come from what appears to be a Creationist website, none the less it is interesting:

Can Evolution Withstand an Application of the Scientific Method?

The McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education describes the legal decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton. Out of this case came a description of science in Section 4 of the case. This section states that the essential characteristics of science are:

1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. It is falsifiable.

This declaration of what science is, defeated the Creationist's attempt to have their alternate explanation of origins be presented in the public school system under the concept of requiring a balanced treatment of creation-science along with evolution-science. We are not here to debate the issue again, but what might be more apropos, is to see if evolutionary science can meet the "science test" e.g., Overton’s science test itself. The court believed that "creation-science" as defined in Act 590 is simply not science.

Section three of this court case produced the court's definition of evolution. "Evolution-science" means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
1. Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from non-life;
2. The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3. Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4. Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6. An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life. (3)

Can Evolution-science Meet the Test of Science Using the Standards Listed Above?

"1. Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from non-life.

We are looking for a process which takes molecules found in a disordered state and allows them to become ordered in such a way that life is produced. Is there a "law of syntropy" (negative energy in living systems) which would counterbalance or reverse the "law of entropy"? We know of no such law which would allow entropy (the consequence of the second principle of thermodynamics, which states that in every transformation of energy some of the energy is lost in the environment) to be reversed. A second law, the law of biogenesis, says that life arises only from preexisting life. The experiments of Francesco Redi, and Louis Pasteur dealt with the origin of life by spontaneous generation, and this hypothesis was nullified by their experimental results. Where is this law that would give some credibility to the evolutionist's position? What experiments have been run that prove or provide any credence to the emergence of life from non-life by some naturalistic process? Evolution is a theme that runs through all of biological science, yet it fails the first test of science, a search for a process that explains the existence of life via natural processes. With regard to this Michael Behe states the problem as follows:

"1. Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature - in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books - that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculation.
2. The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds, and
3. Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds.
(4) Mutations and natural selection are the two processes described by evolutionists to account for the evolution of organisms including the emergence of new species from previously evolved species. Mutations certainly occur as well as natural selection. However, can these processes accomplish all that evolutionists say they can accomplish? The ‘molecules to man’ inferences need much more clarification in the scientific literature to be recognized as supporting these inferences as being truly scientific. Mutations are said to be random and unpredictable. But is this so? Dr. Lee Spetner has researched this area involving adaptive mutations. The following are some of his findings.............

See whole article here:
www.creationstudies.org...





“Mathematics expresses values that reflect the cosmos,
including orderliness, balance, harmony, logic, and abstract beauty.”
― Deepak Chopra

a reply to: AlienView

Not sure where you beliefs in life lie, but just a friendly word of advice - If you're going to try and put up an argument of any kind against evolution that you want people to take seriously, you can't cite creationist sites as a source. Just can't. It's an immediate kiss of death, and for good reasons. The least of which are propagandist driven agendas and not good science.

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you also believe in the flat earth too? Anti-evolution posts stem from ignorance and lack of intelligence and belong in the garbage post section.