vanna

"Punctuated equilibrium" is a theory about the way Darwinian evolution through natural selection occurred. It does not negate evolution through natural selection.

The discoveries of the past decade have revolutionised our understanding of the mechanism underlying evolution at the molecular and, yes, this does lend support to punctuated equilibrium as the main driver of speciation. See for example:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527511.400-accidental-origins-where-species-come-from.html

Always remember that evolution is science, not religious dogma. Our understanding has moved on from Darwin's time. Most scientists working in the field have probably never even read "On the Origin of the Species."

runner,

"Only the gullible or deceitful can truely call this science. With the billions spent on trying to disprove a Creator it has proven again to be a total failure and waste of money." - runner

CERN is not conducting a theological experiment, albeit might have theistic consequences. It will take time before the accelerator will reach its maximum capacity. There are issues of aligning magnetics and managing -ultimately- power at fourteen trillion electron votes. No one said simulating the Creation of Matter is easy.

Of course, it science. The physcists have made predictions about how nature's most fundamental particles will interact and they are testing it. The hypotheses are falsifiable.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6770/full/403581a0.htm

Stevenlmeyer,
Puncutated equilibrium shows that the theories of evolution are not set in concrete.

Ironically, theories regards evolution are themselves evolving.

Most scientific laws can be proven mathematically, and I have not heard of anyone that has been able to mathematically prove evolution, so evolution remains as a theory only, and is not a scientific law as some would suggest.

There is the necessity to keep an open mind regards such theories as evolution.

In fact, not keeping an open mind is actually not part of the scientific method.

Science and religion can live quite happily together, if both sides keep an open mind.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0429/Did-asteroids-bring-water-to-Earth

However I do see certain sections of the education system now tying to eliminate both religion and science out of education.

Vanna wrote:

"Ironically, theories regards evolution are themselves evolving."

It would be ironic if scientific theories did not evolve. That is what science is all about. The evolution of scientific theories is what distinguishes science from religious dogma

The Scientific American even has a podcast on the topic titled "The Evolution of Evolution"

See:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-evolution-09-01-07

Can science and religion co-exist?

It depends on the religion. Not with this kind of religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcSXwPsgLhE

Here is what the revered Muslim scholar, Al Ghazali has to say about astronomy

"Consider Imaam Ghazaali’s position on astronomy and related science. In his view, it is not permissible for all and sundry to learn astronomy. He labels astronomy as futile and trivial. He regards only limited astronomy for a select few to be permissible – such astronomy which is necessary for navigation and finding direction in the land and sea. He argues that astronomy is guesswork and blameworthy. He propagates the truth of the Hadith that it is better to remain ignorant of some branches of learning. This is a position which is unpalatable to the modernist palate soured by mental corruption. He therefore advocates: “Do not indulge in such sciences which the Shariah brands as useless.”

http://books.themajlis.net/book/print/691

Science and religion definitely cannot co-exist as long as al-Ghazali / Sarah Palin style thinking holds sway.

The article in the Christian Science Monitor contained the following:

"Why the connection to water on Earth? The collision that resulted in the formation of the moon 4.5 billion years ago would have heated Earth and vaporized any water the young planet had gathered. Comets had been a leading candidate as sources of replacement water. But the forms of hydrogen in water molecules bound in asteroids are a closer match to those found in seawater than are those found in water comets carry."

Water that is vapourised does not leave the earth. It remains in the atmosphere. When the earth cools sufficiently the vapour will again become a liquid. Neither comets nor asteroids need to be a source for replacement water as the water is still around.

Is that the level of science writing in a Christian Science publication?

davidf

what are you smoking?

'the collision that resulted in the formation of the moon 4.5 billion years ago would have heated Earth and vaporized any water the young planet had gathered.'

You have been watching to much science fiction.