Runner (20feb,7.02pm) requires correction:

(1) New genes have arisen to provide resistance to antibiotics not previously existent. Insect resistance to novel synthetic compounds is similar. The divergence of the crucifers into closely related
species and into a couple of additional genera is more than adequately documented.
Given that most evolution *is* over extended time frames, it is disingenuous to suggest that it can be "observed" in the same manner as watching birds fly. This counts as "honesty" for you fundies? Lots of excellent science (and other critical examination) is done after-the-fact, reconstructing events from the evidence. Try telling a geologist he doesn't do science (then run away), or an astronomer for that matter. Engineers investigating crashes do it all the time.

(2) It is tested in the same way as many studies. Having established a robust hypothesis from half the data, test on the rest. It is tested by every new finding, the vast majority of which fit into the existing framework. We expect to find species with broad genetic and phenotypic spread (like dogs) that still interbreed, separated species that almost interbreed (horses and donkeys), and species that have diverged and have lots of co-existent relatives, some which can (others not) interbreed (crucifers, Darwin's finches and *everything else*). Which paleontologist? Go ask pastor, *again*.

(3) The fossil record *does* back it up, what is your problem? There are thousands of excellent fossils and many more to come. Does your quote-mining make you feel smart? Did Johanson *really* say that? Given the clear fit of Lucy with other hominid fossils, you should give the proper reference for such criticism of Lucy's reconstruction. Then we can critique it, your methods, and your intent.

You adhere to a cult which detracts from the efforts of qualified, diligent, honest scientists who *do* enhance man's life. You're willing to accept dishonest reflections of science that suit your own view. The bible you claim to adhere to forbids this.

Two thousand years after joshua, and yet more after moses, your lot *only* have stories to tell, usually cribbed from other writings of the day.

Rusty

Hi Suzeonline

You say

“Scientists through the ages have discovered many cures for many diseases and illnesses, as well as immunizations to protect us.

They discovered anaesthetics, antibiotics, surgery, prosthetics, and chemotherapy.

All these are concrete, measurable discoveries.

They have come up with ideas to make our lives safer and longer.”

Can’t argue with any of this, but I would also like to point out scientists have also done dreadful things: weapons of mass destruction for starters, some people aren’t too impressed with genetically modified food and so on.

Likewise whilst religion can do terrible things, no question, it is responsible for wonderful things, think of all the church aid agencies down the ages dedicated to the relief of poverty, ill health. The church (denomination) I belong to has people in many very poor nations working their butts off for a pittance out of love for God and love for the people they serve.

You also say,

“Yet we are asked by creationists to throw out anything scientists say about evolution because their unseen God apparently 'says so'.”

Well some creationists might say so, but I don’t see the Bible outlawing evolution. My opposition to evolution is based on scientific and philosophical grounds. The whole notion of the survival of the fittest is laughable when we consider how much care and protection was needed for the pregnant women and the safeguarding of the newly born child progressing thro’ the early years of great vulnerability way back (and especially) when nature was red in tooth and claw. If evolution is such a great theory please explain why the human race has always devoted so much resource to priests, medical persons and police, all operating in contradiction to the onward and upward evolutionary process.

No, I object to evolution on philosophical and scientific grounds.

David Palmer

Like many you confuse the meaning of survival of the fittest as to mean the strongest. If that were the case, we would not have the diversity of creatures and plants that are neither strong or powerful. In fact it is the human practice of nurturing their young (as do other primates) that enables our survival.

An easy to follow definition is to be found at Wiki, whicc should explain 'natural selection' adequately for you.

"Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape" [4]. Hence, it is not a scientific description,[5] and is both incomplete and misleading."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Runner I can only conclude that your accusations of me as being either deceitful or delusional as projections of your own short-comings onto me. I have presented my posts to the best of my knowledge and ability - this does not make me a liar, that I may learn and understand more than I do now is to be hoped for, as it is for all inquiring minds if they are not to remain mired in dogma.

Severin,
There are some pretty harsh words going back and forward between you and Runner. He calls you deceitful and delusional after being offended by some of your adjectives. According to you, he’s part of the of dogmatic, fundamentalist, la-la-la group who mock scientific research.

Okay, Runner used the four letter word, ‘crap’, but his post seemed an honest response (to someone else), and didn’t include or deserve the disparaging tone that he was met with in your post. The golden rule (do unto others ...) probably applies.

However, I do appreciate your last sentence (‘I have presented my posts to the best of my knowledge and ability - this does not make me a liar, that I may learn and understand more than I do now is to be hoped for, as it is for all inquiring minds if they are not to remain mired in dogma.’)

For a long time, I have had to put up with others accusing me of being a liar, or other choice adjectives, when they have had difficulty responding to what I have said in a civilised manner.

All this reminds me of what Michael Zimmerman said in the original article that set off this discussion. He said he wanted to ‘to raise the quality of the dialogue on this important topic’ and get beyond the name calling. Unfortunately, just a few paragraphs later, he himself set the tone of his own discussion by describing some people in derogatory terms as narrow and fundamentalist.

By the way, Runners point, to which I agree, is that today’s technology has nothing to do with and owes nothing to Neo-Darwinian theory. Neo-Darwinism, or the alleged common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, is a theory of history, empty of any benefits to biology that theories of design cannot apply more beneficially.

Another quote for Rusty

'The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there is no laboratory models: hence once can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.'

"We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been helpful." Richard E. Dickerson, Ph.D. (physical chemistry) Professor California Institute of Technology), 'Chemical evolution and the origins of life'. Scientific America, vol 239(3) September 1978, pp.77 and 78.

inconvenient facts seem to be consistently ignored by evolutionist. No wonder the gw 'experts' got their fairytales so wrong. Most of them are no doubt evolutionist who are use to ignoring inconvenient facts.

Dan S de Merengue: "By the way, Runners point, to which I agree, is that today’s technology has nothing to do with and owes nothing to Neo-Darwinian theory."

Which makes both runner and yourself wrong.

In my field, which is computers, genetic algorithms are regularly used to search for optimal solutions better than any designer has found. In fact there are a number of techniques lifted directly from watching how biology does it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

And here we have a more topical treatment of the subject:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

In biology there is much wider application. There is some solid mathematics behind evolution. For example, if you assume that resistance to drugs is accurately modeled by random variation and survival of the fittest, then it naturally follows resistance will develop much more slowly if two anti-viral are introduced simultaneously to one, followed by the other when the first becomes ineffective.

Dan S de Merengue: "In reality, and in short, the debate concerns the true nature of the origins of life on this planet."

There is no debate where it matters for people like me Dan, which is to say in the peer reviewed literature published biological journals as opposed to say a journal on theology.