All knowing one, supreme teacher on evolution, I but a peasant and gardener am.

Therefore I have not adapted to reading books on science theory and hibernating as a student. To date I assumed that man has the most advanced genome of any living species and is the most recent species of evolution.

Quote, "No more responding to Philo's points, he clearly has no idea what he is talking about and is not willing to learn."

From evolutionary theory I've heard they talk about the continual adaptation to achieve and develop new ability. Eg. A fish that kept trying to reach tidal sandbars for food adapted to survive out of water to gradually become a land based salamander. The driving force is the creature’s own desire to achieve. Quote, "There is nothing ...here that suggests evolution is a result of desire on the part of a species, and I have already tried to correct Philo."

Quote, "But ... we are by no means the culmination of evolution."
Well humans are not the culmination of gene developments to date? Then what is I ask?

Your observations are based upon perfected templates of designed species. Quote, "What worked for us didn't work for others, that doesn't make them any less evolved. Next, it is not possible to "reverse evolution", something may evolve back into a previous form but that is still a "forward" process."

Like What? I ask is going backward also going forward? This science theory stuff seems defies natural physics! It is either refining itself by adaptation to new experiences; or loosing refinement by lack of the experiences. Either the adaptation is a forward movement i.e. an intelligent design within the DNA, or the changes have no link to a forward movement and can also be random and regressive.

My proposition was we should also see the reversal of species to less complex organisms if random evolution happens accidentally.

Quote, "The loss of a trait does not equate with less genetic complexity and the lower degree of complexity would normally need to be beneficial to the survival of the species."

Philo
Try to understand. Individual animals do NOT adapt to their environment. The animals themselves do not change just because their environemnt changes. It is merely that with an environmental change certain animals are better suited to survive than others & this alters the species. Allow me to illustrate. Let's suppose that originally there were short-necked, short-legged giraffes. Food is plentiful so any baby giraffe born with a long neck has no evolutionary advantage. But the environment changes. Food becomes scarce. No it's an advantage to be able to reach up to the leaves on the trees. Long-legged, long- necked giraffes have an advantage in this world. PLEASE NOTE: they have NOT changed to suite their environment. Remember, there were long-legged, long-necked giraffes being born before the environmental change but they possessed no advantage over the other giraffes. Now they do. They prosper because of that advantage. They survive to propagate & now the species changes. The species has changed to better suit the environment.
The type of change that you seem to be suggesting Philo is individual adaptation to the environment. An idea originating with a gentleman named Lamark. Please note that NO modern scientist holds this idea.
Now if a change in environment gives one type of animal an advantage then a change back to the original environment would reverse the advantage. Does that mean that the animals are de-volving? No. Because the whole idea of evolution is the species becoming better adapted to their environment. Since the environemnt has now changed back to its original condition the animals best adapted are the original versions. This is NOT a backward step. Why? Becuase the species is still adapting to their environmant. Get the idea?

Wow… I have really enjoyed reading this thread. Love a good debate.

My little bit:
Science is about seeing a problem or mystery, coming up with an idea to explain it, investigating and then presenting as a theory, which is repeatedly tested to try to prove it false. The more it stands up to testing, the more convincing it is. But it is never ‘proven’. That’s what science is all about – because a scientist can never cover every conceivable variation to prove every conceivable circumstance, which is required to ‘prove’ a theory as ‘fact’. Science simply states that the theory seems to be true because it holds with all the tests so far. If a test came along that disproved a theory, it would either cause the theory to be modified or discarded.

Now how does ID do this? Lets look.
The problem: Where did life on Earth come from?
Idea: Intelligent Designer
Test: uummmm….. where do I look… Bible? and….. Irreducible Complexity (tested how again?)… and…. Bible…. and…. etc., etc.

Evolution’s version-
The problem: Where did life on Earth come from?
Idea: Evolution
Test: Fossils, Observable instances of change (Galapagos), laboratory fiddling, comparisons of DNA in various species, etc, etc.

Seems to me that one holds a little more water than the other, as a scientific concept.

Why the two can’t be joined (for those who actually believe in a God):
And so-eth, God-eth created the universe-eth. And then-eth play-eth with the universe-eth, evolving-eth life and all it’s myriad-eth forms…-eth.

Really, it’s a strange argument – as far as concepts go. Nevertheless, to call ID science? No, not in the same ballpark. Who suggested Philosophy though? Now that seems to fit quite well.

Philo,
Your sarcasm only makes you seem let informed than you really are. You know that’s not how scientists see evolution working. Is it that you just don’t have any evidence to support your position?

Philo, in an effort to mock us, has just become a joke. At least Yng and others are willing to listen, and maybe even learn something.

Philo: 99.9% of the entire scientific world is completely behind evolution. Do you honestly, seriously think they could all be making a mistake? That all the successful research, analysis, results, progress, evidence, testing could be one big cosmic coincidence?

Look at how the theory is actually proposed. Then look at the evidence (the fossil record, gene analysis, geology, micro-biology, on and on) that verifies it. If you still dispute it once you have really genuinely learned what evolution actually is, fine, come back and chat. Until then, stop embarressing yourself. We're trying to have a real grown up discussion here.

<Individual animals do NOT adapt to their environment. … The species has changed to better suit the environment.>

Posted by Bosk, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:10:48 PM
__________________________________________________________

My Spell and Grammar Check allows neither ID nor Creation shadows in this illogical message at all. As well as in a number of other submissions of ID/creativity supporters. I would better watch porno.

Sorry for not-English English

Umm MichaelK
I'm not an ID proponent or a creationist. Merely a run of the mill evolutionist. Hows about y'all. :)
if you're confused about how a species can be better suited to its environment without the environment CAUSING individuals to adapt please reread my previous post. Especially the example I gave about the giraffe.
Best of luck understanding my long winded post.
Bosk