http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

The theory of evolution is a pathetic attempt to explain our origins. It is preached mainly by earth worshippers wanting to justify lifestyles contary to those we were designed to have. A two year old can see that this earth has been designed. People claiming belief in evolution make many huge assumptions. Talk about blind faith!

What a load of nonsense.Evolution has fossil,genetic,evidence,and logical hypothesis to back up it's credibility.Over a number of years,I have witnessed it in my own back yard,as birds have taken easily seen brightly coloured gold fish and the darker colours of their species have predominated.We cannot defy the logic of natural selection and survival of the fittest since each of us either see or face this reality daily.

Intelligent design has no such evidence or logic to back it's claims.

To start with freediver, please tell us what you think a theory is and what a hypothesis is. Once we get this right it might help to clear things up if you're actually interested.

If evolution is not scientific, what is creationism? Black magic and card tricks?

The theory of evolution is a pathetic attempt to explain our origins. It is preached mainly by earth worshippers wanting to justify lifestyles contary to those we were designed to have. A two year old can see that this earth has been designed. People claiming belief in evolution make many huge assumptions. Talk about blind faith!
Posted by runner, Friday, 5 January 2007 9:57:51 PM

However, I am older than 2 - so no longer think like a 2 year old.

The theory of evolution fits our observations of the earth well. Given the long time frames involved, and our brief lives, it is difficult to prove definitively on a two year old level. Briefly: All animals, and plants, are subject to occasional mutations and imperfections. Normally this is a disadavantage, and the organism dies. Occasionally, a mutation will be beneficial, and the organism will thrive and procreate preferentially, passing the mutation to future generations until it becomes the dominant 'version'. The only alternative we have now is magic.

So - which are you? Evolution or magic?

BTW I am not an earth worshipper - I am a geologist. In a way you are correct - geologists work is indeed leading to lifestyles contary to those we were designed to have - automobiles, electricity, this computer etc etc. However, in developing that, it is necessary to understand and theorise on earth processes and development. That leaves little room for magic, and more for evolution.

I think 'human origins' is a subject which should not be treated in science classes. 'Evolution' by natural selection is a valid scientific study, but not to explain the origin of life.

Due to the contentious nature of the 'origin of life' Evolution and/or Intelligent design, or outright Creationism should be taught in a more 'civics' type class.

I don't think many of us here would have the academic experience to succinctly outline the whole debate in 350 words, and anything we say will surely lead to so many side roads.

Human origins is a most important subject. I feel that the various approaches should be treated, along with the moral/ethical implications of each one.

EXAMPLES.

1/ 'God created'... thus we have His commands, ethics, and law as a basis for our own. We will limit ourselves such that we don't overstep the mark. e.g. We would not allow mob 'justice'.

2/ 'Primordial soup', we just happened by chance. Implications: Nihilism, and so today I heard on the news how scientists are producing COW/HUMAN HYBRIDS for cloning research. Cow eggs, Human sperm. From there on, its all downhill. There is no foundation for morality, ethics, we have the simple law of the jungle.

The present absence of total nihilism is a testimony to Chrisitan 'salt' preserving not to inherrent morality of man.

"Evolution has fossil,genetic,evidence,and logical hypothesis to back up it's credibility."

I didn't say it lacked evidence or credibility. I said it wasn't scientific.

"Over a number of years,I have witnessed it in my own back yard"

You are confusing it with natural selection. See the fourth paragraph.

"To start with freediver, please tell us what you think a theory is and what a hypothesis is."

This is getting into the philosophy of science a bit: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

"If evolution is not scientific, what is creationism? Black magic and card tricks? "

Creationism is religion.

"Occasionally, a mutation will be beneficial"

That's a pretty big assumption that is based on faith, not observation.

"So - which are you? Evolution or magic?"

I believe you are creating a false dichotomy: http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#false%20dichotomy

"geologists work is indeed leading to lifestyles contary to those we were designed to have - automobiles, electricity, this computer etc etc"

Wow I didn't know your colleagues had achieved so much on their own. You must be very proud to be a geologist.

"I don't think many of us here would have the academic experience to succinctly outline the whole debate in 350 words"

I've had a fair crack at it in those articles.

"'Primordial soup', we just happened by chance. Implications: Nihilism"

That doesn't mean it is wrong: http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20consequentiam

Freediver, the theory of evolution does not deny or disprove religious beliefs.No one to my knowlege has come up with better theory that matches all the fossil and genetic evidence we have before us.Why do you find the theory of evolution so threatening,when clearly it was your God who created all the rules and laws of the Universe?

"Freediver, the theory of evolution does not deny or disprove religious beliefs."

I am not claiming that it does. I agree with you.

"No one to my knowlege has come up with better theory "

That's kind of beside the point. That kind of logic would have you believing in UFO's every time someone saw a light in the sky.

"Why do you find the theory of evolution so threatening"

What makes you think I fell threatened by it?

"when clearly it was your God who created all the rules and laws of the Universe"

How do you know that?

Freediver,I'm just trying to view the world from your religious perspective.You don't have to believe in enternal existence to be religious.All you have to do is be honest,do the best for your fellow man and expect no rewards in the here after.That is the greatest sacrifice which many in our society endure with no accolades and they are not religious by your definition.

Freediver, I’ve read your three posts and ozpolitic…and I’m confused.

So a couple basic questions;

Do you believe evolution is fact?

Do you think it is not scientific because of a flawed definition of what is scientific?

“The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws.”

What about observations?

As a scientist in the field of botany, ecology, geomorphology and geology, observations count for just about everything! My science, especially the botanical side, has been centred on observations of plants within a population, between populations, in widely separated localities for entities deemed to be the same species, and between species (hybrids and intergrades).

In the plant world, I can see evolution in action staring me in the face all the time.

"Freediver,I'm just trying to view the world from your religious perspective."

Oh, what 'religious perspective' would that be?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

"Do you believe evolution is fact?"

No, it is a theory. It inspires some degree of faith in some people, but not me. My interest is more academic.

"Do you think it is not scientific because of a flawed definition of what is scientific?"

The definition is not flawed, but yes that is the reason.

"What about observations?"

Yes, those too: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

"As a scientist in the field of botany, ecology, geomorphology and geology, observations count for just about everything!"

Yes, those fields do not have a lot of theories, but there's no harm in trying. There are some very interesting theories coming out, which will need further observations. Biology has a tendency to rely on the 'natural experiment' which I guess is acceptable if that's all you have to go with, provided you acknowledge the limitations.

"In the plant world, I can see evolution in action staring me in the face all the time."

Please note the difference I pointed out between evolution and antural selection. The terminology is very important for this debate.

Freediver,
After looking at that website, I can't help but think that it throws a spot light on the short-comings of so many of the "Science" degrees available in this country. We now have Environmental Science, Forensic Science, Sports Science and Food Science. What's next Home and Garden Science? Seems that anything can be called a Science when all it really is just a prolonged examination of government policy documentation (at best). And the worthwhile disciplines like Chemistry, Physics and Maths are a pale imitation of what used to be on offer.

Some of them are 'applied science' ie applying the technology or knowledge that science has given us, but which is still new enough for the public to regard as science. Some of it isn't really science at all. However, you can apply the scientific method to varying degrees to many fields of study. Even auto mechanics employ it sometimes. The term science gets thrown around very loosely these days, and that can take away a lot of it's meaning.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

As for the predictive nature of evolutionary theory, probably the first was the suggestion that the Earth was actually much older than initially thought. For all the species on Earth to have evolved would have taken thousands or millions of years. This was not a new idea but it was before argon-argon dating was available and before astrophysics could suggest such a notion.

Other predictions include the idea that ecosystems are not static as previously thought but continually shifting in stucture and function. There have also been predictions regarding the origins and development of disease.

If there is one thing wrong with the theory of evolution it is that it is pretty cumbersome and can probably be broken into a number of different theories.
I also take exception to people asking whether I "believe" in a theory. I can accept a theory and use a theory to explain phenomena, but to believe suggests that I need to have faith in it. This is a silly notion, to have faith in an body of documented ideas.

I have just joined the forum and now when I go to post I find a limit of 350 words. I just did a word count-- about 1503, so I'll have to go thru it and do a severe precis. Should have told me up front!

You shouldn't have posted that - there is a limit on the number of posts too lol.

Go here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

There is a link at the bottom to a forum without those limits. Don't let your stuff go to waste.

Freediver, I’m still right at the most basic level of trying to understand where you are coming from.

You don’t believe that evolution is real? Or perhaps you do, but that it is just not scientifically proven and therefore not technically fact, despite overwhelming evidence?

You’ve got me stumped with your differentiation between evolution and natural selection.

From Ozpolitic: I disagree with the circumspection of science as having to be a methodology, not a field of study. Botany and geology are fields of study and they are very much sciences.

I disagree also that there even have to be hypotheses, let alone falsifiable ones.

One of my main interests in botany is data gathering - of the distributions of species, species inventories for given areas, species / substrate relationships, the differences in vigour and abundance of a given species in different ecological circumstances, etc.

This is pure science, but it doesn’t directly involve hypotheses, although they can be developed around the data.

“The term science gets thrown around very loosely these days”

Yes, but there have always been fields that are considered fully scientific without hypotheses, experiments or debate between experts as to the implications of theories or outcomes.

You shouldn't have posted that - there is a limit on the number of posts too lol.

Go here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

There is a link at the bottom to a forum without those limits. Don't let your stuff go to waste.
Posted by freediver, Sunday, 7 January 2007 4:41:52 PM

I think freediver is trying to claim that, because evolutionary theory cannot be replicated (that it only fits our observations), it is not science.

I am sorry - but much of that ozpolitic website is rubbish (although some things I do agree with). For example, much of what we 'know' about astronomy and the universe is not reproducable in on earth. But we still call it science. Like evolution, the theories are based upon our observations.

Whoever commented on geologists: Without them, and their (non-reproducable) theories developed based on observation, you would not have oil, or coal, or uranium to produce electricity. You would not have the metals and plastics to construct the computer you are posting on. And the list goes on.

Try This.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400/3#3

Zacco,

If you had read the rules before you jumped in, you would have known. You have just wasted about 40 words telling everyone that you don’t read the directions!

Another dill.

Oh, and yet more predictive benefits of evolutionary theory.
'Missing links' are not a short-coming of evolution. They are spots within a biological classification system that are yet to be filled by unknown or yet to be discovered species.

The classification system is developed based on observations and yes, evolutionary theory. As can be expected when developing a classification system, there are still blanks spaces that can be filled in later with further information. The reason why the classification system keeps changing (if only slightly) is that further information from genetic and protein analysis continues to grow.

This is exactly what happened when Mendeleev developed his periodic table of the elements. He left blank spaces because he knew that these were spots in the classification system that were still unknown. A prime example of this in biology is the Archaeopteryx.

That’s a bit of an unfortunate post Leigh.

From personal experience, directions or rules can be very easy to miss.

Welcome to OLO Zacco.

“Missing links are not a short-coming of evolution. They are spots within a biological classification system that are yet to be filled by unknown or yet to be discovered species.”

And some of these missing links have been found very recently in Liaoning province, China, such as Confuscionis sanctus, one of several new feathered dinosaurs.

Arjay said: "Evolution has fossil,genetic,evidence,and logical hypothesis to back up it's credibility."

In terms of fossil evidence, gradualism is dead and punctuated equilibrium is a tepid and unfalsifiable excuse for the absence of transitional fossils that should be theoretically innumerable. Darwin, and much later, Gould went to their graves without discovering the trade secret.

As for genetics, that's just as contentious. In order for a net evolutionary gain to occur, you need incredible amounts of new specified information to be added to the genetic code. Yet, there is no proven natural mechanism that actually generates new specified genetic information. Natural selection alone does not add new genetic information and is limited to information already resident in the gene pool e.g. the variation in the beaks of Darwin's finches, which incidentally reverted back after the drought. The lack of a developmental mechanism has led to the belief in "hopeful monsters". However, such random beneficial mutations (an oxymoron as mutations are either neutral or deleterious) require a huge leap of faith.

Ludwig,
That was my point exactly - that 'missing links' are not a failure. The site that freediver is promoting harps on about the lack of predictive benefits offered by evolutionary theory. Whoever developed that site seems to have some serious 'missing links' in their own information. It may be through ignorance (which is no excuse) or it may be deliberate, in which case they are being deliberately deceitful.

Leigh, I read the Forum Rules and saw nothing about word count until I joined up and went to post to the Forum after I had already written my post in a WP package for cutting and pasting. But did you yourself notice the second rule which stated 'do not flame'? I also read the legal notices and under 'General prohibitions' it reiterates this: 'You must not up-load, post, transmit or otherwise make available through this site any material which is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, vulgar, obscene, profane or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred of, any person.'
Shame on your abusive comment, Leigh. Thanks for your support Ludwig..

Ludwig, I got blocked from posting here again so I put my response here:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400/3#3

It looks like most of the comments since yours that were directed at me were little more than personal attacks, so I won't waste my time with a detailed response. If you aren't going to actually debate an issue why bother responding at all?

It's sad that there are still people who believe that the theory of Evolution remains a debatable point. Sure, there are many disputes within the scientific community regarding many details and 'kinks' in the theory, but the vastly overwhelming body of the entire scientific community the world over agrees on the fundamental principles.

There is no leap of faith to be taken. To suggest that the theory of Evolution is wrong is to suggest that the massive body of evidence in support of Evolution (including the fossil record, behaviour of micro organisms, and the countless ways we can observe how life adapts to its surroundings) is merely a coincidence. If this were the case, it would be the most profoundly incomprehensable coincidence mankind has ever witnessed (the odds are absolutely astronomical).

We should be past this by now. To deny Evolution as fact is to disregard science and scientific process entirely, as you are knowingly and willingly dismissing 99.9% of the scientific community (0.1% crackpot science is a given).

I don't expect this to change any deniers mind...it seems the only thing that will convince them is a miracle.

One more, just can't resist this one.

Freediver: I noticed you stated earlier on that Evolution is not falsifiable. On this you have either been misled, or you are intentionally lying. I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

Evolution is entirely falsifiable. That’s why it’s a valid and scientifically sound theory. You need to understand that the scientific community has accepted Evolution as the only falsifiable explanation for existing life on this planet for over 100 years.

Let’s call Evolution ‘A’, and the fossil record (or any other tangible evidence that fits with A and A only) we'll call ‘B’. A scientist says, ok, so for A to be true, B must exist out there somewhere. Let’s go find it. And they do. And are still discovering B to this day. And there is no other falsifiable reason for B to exist.

Another way to look at it would be to say that C = evidence, ANY kind of evidence, that exists in the world, that is NOT compatible with A. If C ever shows up, A is in trouble. In over 100 years of solid, continuous research, this has never happened.

This is how a theory becomes falsifiable. Evidence of this nature is built upon, and built upon for such a long time that there is no longer any logical or sensible reason to consider A untrue. We accept other conclusions using the exact same process as fact (such as…say, gravity for example), why then can we not accept Evolution as fact?

The answer, of course, is that we do Evolution as fact, and rightly so. The teeny minority who do not accept it are either seriously misguided, uneducated on the topic, or knowingly acting in a misguiding manner on account of a completely unrelated agenda (unfortunately for them, there is a mistaken belief that Evolution is in contradiction to their faith. It isn't).

Hope that clears everything up. We can all move on now, yeah?

Yeah.

Congats friends, a great and edfying debate. More please.
fluff4

good one Oligarch, I agree!

Quote, "In order for a net evolutionary gain to occur, you need incredible amounts of new specified information to be added to the genetic code. Yet, there is no proven natural mechanism that actually generates new specified genetic information. Natural selection alone does not add new genetic information and is limited to information already resident in the gene pool e.g. the variation in the beaks of Darwin's finches, which incidentally reverted back after the drought. ...However, such random beneficial mutations (an oxymoron as mutations are either neutral or deleterious) require a huge leap of faith."

Could someone here please demonstrate how new genetic information is added to create a more complex species from a basic gene structure of - say an omeba to form a human. Where did the new genes originate? how did the new genes enter the lower species to form a totally different species. All current demonstrations and observations show mutations (loss of genes) are the most predominant occurrence.

Freediver, in response to your Ozpolitic post…

“It [evolution] is not scientific. That is all I am arguing.”

Well, I don’t get it. The history of humanity’s awareness and development of the understanding of evolution is about as scientific as anything can be….surely.

The paragraph in the Ozpolitic article to which you referred me reads;

“Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.”

Natural selection is about as well entrenched in the realm of fact and removed from the realm of theory as anything can be. Claiming that something such as this is still in the realm of theory greatly diminishes the integrity of science, which surely holds up the same principle as our legal system; something is considered fact when proven or shown to be the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Some people refer to them as macro and micro evolution.”

Yes, but that simply means that they are evolution on different scales, that’s all. The essence of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is evolution in action, or is the mechanism of evolution if you like.

“If all you ended up with was pages of data, your research would be of little value.”

No I disagree. Data of the sort that I collect, in a good collated format, is invaluable without any further analysis, research or theorization. The sort of baseline science that I am most strongly involved with is the gathering of records of plant species so that we can better understand their distributional patterns, overall extent and with respect to officially rare or threatened species, their true rareness and threats.

This is science in its most pure form – simple, straightforward and 100% real. What I see, collect, photograph and record is what gets published, end of story.

Continued

“It is the conclusions (theories) you draw from those observations that have the value.”

Freediver, there seems to be a fundamental contradiction in this statement; theories are not conclusions! Theories are ideas about possible conclusions.

Again, the conclusions I reach are theory-free, being based entirely on hard data.

My science is a theory-free zone!

“But they are only valuable from a scientific perspective if they can be tested somehow.”

No, because others have faith in the data that I collect. No one has any reason to doubt its integrity. Therefore the data, and conclusions, are scientifically valuable without any need to test them.

However, it is all eminently testable for anyone who wishes to retrace the meanderings of the modern Ludwig Leichhardt through the wilds of north Queensland and see what they find (:>)

OK I will try to keep this brief. Those post limits are giving me the shlits. So Apologies if I appear abrupt.

Spendocrat, your first post is one big straw man, if it was directed at me.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

I didn't suggest it was wrong.

You also argue that it is widely accepted, yet even those evolutionsists who still call it science (rather than natural history) call it a theory not a law, which is what it would be if it had the accpetance you imply. It doesn't. Of course, bringing scientific terms into natural history takes away a lot of their meaning.

So, your next post, starts with an ad hominem.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

Then you start on about falsifiability, but you miss the point. In the scientific method, falsifiability implies experimentation.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

This is designed to stop group think, and the circular reasoning you displayed. For example, you claim that if you make an observation, then interpret that observation from an evolutionary perspective, you can use that interpretation as evidence for the theory of evolution. That is no more scientific than proclaiming the wonders of nature, then insisting that because it is wonderful it shows the hand of God at work.

Ludwig:

"The history of humanity’s awareness and development of the understanding of evolution is about as scientific as anything can be….surely."

History and science use different methodologies. Ultimately, what we are arguing here is philosophy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/history-modern-scientific-method.html

"Natural selection is about as well entrenched in the realm of fact and removed from the realm of theory as anything can be."

Then why do practicioners call it a theory? It is intrenched in the field of belief, or faith, but not fact. But this is beside the point.

"science, which surely holds up the same principle as our legal system"

Not sure what you are getting at here.

"Yes, but that simply means that they are evolution on different scales, that’s all. "

No it doesn't. There are fundamental differences that are not just a matter of scale. See the 4th paragraph:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

"the gathering of records of plant species so that we can better understand their distributional patterns"

These patterns are a form of interpretation. It reduces pages of data to a single page (or whatever) which is easily understood. TI adds meaning. But I agree with you that it is still science, even if it is just observations.

"theories are not conclusions!"

Yes they are. They are conclusions draw by a given person. I was not implying that the term conclusion had any well recognised scientific meaning.

If anyone wishes to discuss this in more detail, can I suggest we take it up here:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400

In response to Philo's request to show how genetic information increases from an "omeba" to a human.

No we can not actually SHOW that. However, as for an increase in new genetic information through evolution, yes there is ample evidence. For example, in the human genome there is a huge amount of superfluous material. Much of this is duplicate genes that are never translated into proteins. These duplicate genes are close copies or cousins of the actual working genes but with slight differences. At some point these genes have been copied but are no longer useful. Other less complex species than human actually have much more genetic material. There has probably been alot more duplication genes through their evolutionary history.

Also, many bacteria possess mechanisms for incorporating foreign genetic material within their own genome. These mechanisms are what have been developed into technology that is utilised in genetic re-engineering. So the evidence and the mechanisms exist and are fully known.

"Also, many bacteria possess mechanisms for incorporating foreign genetic material within their own genome."

Doesn't this contradict the theory of evolution?

Zacco,

What a tender flower you must be if you think that I have "abused" you. Was it the "dill". I still think that anyone who announces his frustration with OLO rather than expressing his view on the subject is a dill. You have done it again - more interested in what I said than commenting on the subject. We still don't know what you think about evolution even though you claim to have written 1500 words on the subject.

I do not believe that I have abused you in any real sense of the word and neither, apparently, does the editor who is sole arbiter of such things. If you had been around for a while, you would have seen me called a Nazi, a racist, ignorant and many other things. All of these things I ignore.

It appears that you have a rather thin skin and are more interested in yourself than in discussing topics on OLO.

I look forward to the time that you do get over yourself and start expressing your opinions.

Ludwig is a bit of dear who often feels the need to "protect" the innocent from such terrible ogres as I am supposed to be.

Unfortunately he cannot protect you from any insensitive brutes you might encounter as a result of your taking the opportunity to express an opinion, and you will have to toughen up. You do not, of course have to read anything I, or others of whom you disapprove, post.

Thanks for completely ignoring my posts, freediver.

Check it out: when scientists use the term 'theory', they do not use it in the same way it is used in common language, ie as a 'hunch' or a 'guess'. The term is used to describe a valid collection of facts, rather than one specific fact. Evolution is the only valid scientific explanation for the facts that are presented, and it is an extremely valid one. In this sense, scientists do consider Evolution to be factual. True story.

I'm not interested in your countless weblinks. I'm aware there are many crackpot websites around. It is the internet, after all. It does not validate your position in the slightest.

It's good that theories are constantly questioned. But unfortunately what happens is someone questions evolution in say, an article. People who want to not accept Evolution go: 'hey, yeah! look at that!' sometime later, it may be debunked with thorough and proper scientific analysis. No one pays attention to the debunking though, because thats boring and complex. The questioning is all thats remembered.

For example, 'Irreducible Complexity' was thoroughly and completely debunked some time ago. Those who do not accept Evolution don't seem to care about that. The theory of is still all over the internet, that's all that seems to matter.

Again: there is only one scientifically valid explanation for life in this world. That's the FACT of the matter, and no amount of bickering will change it. Unlike the other theories, you don't have to 'believe' in Evolution for it to be real. Life is in a constant state of Evolution, whether you like it or not.

Actually, the theory could easily be adjust to take that into account. That is the main endearing quality of the theory - it's almost infinite flexibility. Just like theological explanations, with the added advantage of a veneer of science.

Spendocrat, I did not ignore your posts. I used a considerabel portion of my daily post allowance in responding to you. Unfortunately I cannot explain it all in this short space, so you will have to read some of the links.

"The term is used to describe a valid collection of facts, rather than one specific fact."

No. The term fact is not used at all in the scientific method. Theory is used to differentiate from law. A scientific law is universally accepted (but still not a fact). A theory is not universally accepted, but is more widely accepted than a hypothesis (which anyone can come up with).

"Evolution is the only valid scientific explanation for the facts that are presented"

1) It is not scientific.

2) The fact that it is the only explanation you accept is irrelevant to this discussion.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#best%20available%20explanation

"I'm aware there are many crackpot websites around. "

Yes, but mine is not a crackpot site. It is the same as what I post here. It's just that I've already responded to all the points you make and it is easier to just post a link. The fact that there are other crackpot sites is not a valid criticism of OzPolitic.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#association%20fallacy

I think this will be my last post here for the day. Sorry if I have wasted it. For more discussion, see here:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400

Leigh me ol’ mate, you’re not an ogre! A bit of a dill occasionally? Mmmm, possibly. But a nice dill, at least compared to some (:>/

You and I have interacted on this forum for a long time now without any bad blood. Your views are valuable. But you are a bit unnecessarily gruff at times….. like many of us, including me I guess!

You’ve got to admit, straight-up alienation of someone who hasn’t even expressed a view, let alone one counter to yours, let alone expressed disagreement or had a go at you, is a bit rugged. For all you know, Zacco could be (or have been) your new best buddy in terms of holding similar views.

.
Freediver, I can’t see how you can call theories conclusions. That doesn’t make sense to me at all.

It is also extremely hard to fathom how you can still call natural selection theoretical. We long ago reached the point where the evidence and acceptance in the scientific community rendered it factual.

“Ultimately, what we are arguing here is philosophy.”

Yes it is philosophy, but that doesn’t mean it ain’t science.

I think that we just need accept that the concepts of science, and of arts, politics, economics, environment, etc, are fuzzy and overlapping.

For every person who tries to define them, someone else will come along and express different views. Who’s right? Perhaps everyone is. Or perhaps everyone except the really fringe-thinkers are. Who knows…. and who really cares.

My concepts of science are strong, and not likely to change. And that’s what matters as far as I’m concerned.

Commendable persistence in attempting to drive traffic to your website, freediver.

Anyone looking for a summary of the logical fallacies without the polemic might prefer to start here: http://web.uvic.ca/psyc/skelton/Teaching/General%20Readings/Logical%20Falllacies.htm

freediver: there's little point in this argument. The fact that you adamently claim that 'evolution is not science' clearly demonstrates your mind is operating well and truly outside the bounds of reality.

If it's not science, what is your theory as to why the entire scientific community accepts it as such? A terrible accident? Are they all under satans spell? Sounds like a good premise for a movie.

There's no hope here. It's like trying to teach a monkey (with whom we do in fact share a common ancestor) physics.

Ludwig,

I am “suitably chastened”. Walter Matthau hasn’t got a thing on me. I’m the original grumpy old man; I am not always tolerant or diplomatic, and I sometimes give someone a spray when I should simply ignore what they have posted for the sake of the forum.

You and I agree on many things, and on the things we don’t, I can’t remember being rude to you or you to me. That’s because we can communicate effectively without causing upset.

Sadly, that is not the case with some people, and I will never able to accept that their grunts and whines constitute anything useful.

I don't know where Zacco fits in, but I cannot abide a person who introduces himself to the forum by blaming it for preventing him from presenting his or her verbose opinions. I think that beats my own lack of diplomacy by a long shot.

I have given up on the original OLO where "professionals" beat their drums with articles far wordier than we are allowed, and rarely deign to respond to our criticisms.

I prefer "General Discussion" where any member of the hoi poloi can submit a topic and I will, in future, endevour to be more accomodating.

Regards

For Chr*st's sake Leigh, I joined this forum in good faith after I came across it by sheer accident. I didn't expect to be called a dill because you jumped in thinking I didn't read the rules of posting. FYI I did. As I explained previously, (which you obviously missed in your blindness to continue in your denigration) I stated I was not aware of the word limitation until I signed up, AFTER I had already prepared my reply for posting. My beef was that the site didn't explain this limitation UNTIL I was ready to join!! (an obvious oversight on the webmaster or moderator or designer of the site or whatever– it should have been spelled out before that step was entered into) So pull your head in!! I (and most likely others) don't believe 'flaming' is conducive to a good argument. I've a good mind to just drop the whole thing as a bad joke, so bite your b*m you miserable sh*it.

freethinker,
I, too, believe that the evolution theory is a science and is falsifiable.

Read this:(Source http://www.springerlink.com/content/x05n5w520g614xt1/ )

"The theory of common descent permits a large number of predictions of new results that would be improbable without evolution. For instance, (a) phylogenetic trees have been validated now; (b) the observed order in fossils of new species discovered since Darwin's time could be predicted from the theory of common descent; (c) owing to the theory of common descent, the degrees of similarity and difference in newly discovered properties of more or less related species could be predicted. Such observations can be regarded as attempts to falsify the theory of common descent.

We conclude that the theory of common descent is an easily-falsifiable & often-tested & still-not-falsified theory, which is the strongest predicate a theory in an empirical science can obtain. Theories intended as causal explanations of evolution can be falsified essentially, and Lamarck's theory has been falsified actually. Several elements of Darwin's theory have been modified or falsified: new versions of a theory of evolution by natural selection are now the leading scientific theories on evolution. We have argued that the theory of common descent and Darwinism are ordinary, falsifiable scientific theories."

Casting doubt on one theory doesn’t automatically prove another one is correct.

Intelligent Design is an attempt at a half-baked repackaging of Creationism, dressed up as pseudo-science.

A theory by definition is something that is yet to be proved, despite verifiable examples.

Consider the many accounts of insects and reptiles discovered in caves that have been cut off for long periods of time. They lose their natural coloration and sight and survive in a world of total darkness.
This suggests two possibilities – some form of adaptive evolution is at work or that these creatures exist all over the world yet only manage to survive in this unlikely and unnatural environment.

Likewise, it can be verified that we are somewhat taller and have more nasal hair than than our ancestors a few generations ago. This isn’t a dramatic example of natural selection yet is shows how subtle adaptation can be to environmental changes.

It’s also been said that “condoms and bicycles” have created a halt to human development.
Because we stop breeding at a relatively early age, the chance of beneficial mutation has decreased and the advent of long distance travel has grossly diluted the human gene pool.

The notion of space travel was also once a theory but man eventually walked on the moon because discussion of the idea was never subject to censorship.

To ban the discussion of any theory is a return to medieval thinking and is only one step away from book-burning.

If evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools because it’s only a theory, what then of the many faceted world of economics?

Drop what you like, Zacco. You are still whingeing rather than getting on with the job of expressing an opinion. Perhaps you should drop out of life altogether; you don't seem able to handle it very well.

Interesting to note that you have now resorting to swearing and blaspheming.

Porphyrin,
From your post can we now conclude that the original life form contained all the genetic information but was supressed by some condition within the species to be gradually unfolded by time?

You said how genetic information is added cannot be demonstrated. "No we can not actually SHOW that. However, as for an increase in new genetic information through evolution, yes there is ample evidence. For example, in the human genome there is a huge amount of superfluous material. Much of this is duplicate genes that are never translated into proteins. These duplicate genes are close copies or cousins of the actual working genes but with slight differences. At some point these genes have been copied but are no longer useful. Other less complex species than human actually have much more genetic material. There has probably been alot more duplication genes through their evolutionary history."

Is my hypothosis equally credible if concluded from your theory? That all genetic information is contained within the gene of the original life form and evolution is the outworking of the ultimate design of the life? If we place humans at the top of the tree then that gives humans the ultimate purpose of life. However life is not all organic chemistry; it is psychic as well, by the very fact we can evaluate our function and relationship in the environment of the universe.

Hence my point being we are designed and that intelligently, because currently human intelligence stands at the pinnacle of life, and that not merely by a series of genetic accidents.

For people interested in a Dr. Bruce Lipton video interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kHEcVNlcMQ

If you’re ‘very’ interested, then here’s a long piece by Dr. Lipton on Fractal evolution:
http://www.brucelipton.com/article/fractal-evolution
I find it quite intriguing to read what an expert in this field has to say.

Philo, since you have not provided a link to your preferred theory I took it upon myself to find a link that seems to share your viewpoint.
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html
If you have some better or more plausible articles or info feel free to share!

Charles Darwin’s theory was not based on scientific fact finding conclusion; but a philosophical assumption; that ought to be obvious.

Our closest relative under this theory is Primates, to which it is assumed we evolved; well I hate to be the one to mention that the gene count between Primates and Humans are in the vicinity of 3 million, and as everyone knows there is a very revealing natural law when it comes to reproduction, and other species; It simply will not happen.
And as for Spendocrats cell mutation theory, well it is that, a genetic mutation or corruption, simply something is not right.
The simplest; parden the reference is Nature and pregnacy.Things are not right so it terminates.
You can read Sir Arthur Keith’s Evolution and Ethics, and I would be very suspicious of investigating information primarily from the internet, you would need to read a whole lot of publications and journals in books, they go back to days when it is trendy to be a professional, not a professional idiot with {Post hock Drivel.}

It’s like the big bang theory; well if there was nothing, then what went bang?
And then nothing went Bang, what was the nothing catalyst to make it go bang = Nothing. Interesting science hypothesis.

A new Pan Creationalist of nothing, Just like Altruism; Some scientific parallels there.

And if you think that is funny, read what Post modernity attributes to the Alfa and Omega; squabbling all about nothing. How scientific.
Try explain the existence of nothing!

Wow, here i was thinking this site is heavily moderated, but I see it's just a personal attack 'free for all' like so many others. Shame on you spendocract, you started out with what sounded like a reasonable grasp of the debate.

"w"

I would be more than happy to discuss the matter in detail here, but that is clearly not possible with the retarded settings they have. Until that is fixed I will continue linking to a more appropriate forum and to complete articles.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400

Furthermore, I find it slightly ironic that someone who claims to be familiar with logical fallacies would make such an assertion to the existence of one without substantiating the claim in any way. Did you even read the articles you claimed were full of them, or did you just want to show of your skills with google?

Ludwig:

"I can’t see how you can call theories conclusions."

Some people conclude, from the available evidence, that evolution is what happened. I use the term in it's common english meaning. Perhaps you are trying to read to much into it.

"It is also extremely hard to fathom how you can still call natural selection theoretical."

What makes you think I do that?

"Yes it is philosophy, but that doesn’t mean it ain’t science."

Science is a branch of philosophy. This argument hinges on the definition of science. You cannot define science from constructs of that definition.

"I think that we just need accept that the concepts of science, and of arts, politics, economics, environment, etc, are fuzzy and overlapping."

There are some concepts which are fundamental to science and from which science derives it's power, so the debate is not as pointless as you imply.

"For every person who tries to define them, someone else will come along and express different views. Who’s right?"

That comes down to philosophy. That is, whose definition is meaningful, whose definition distuinguishes science from other fields, whose definition captures the essence of what is commonly understood to be science? Answer: my definition. I'll give you a hint, I was taught this definition in high school scinece, and have seen it used constantly since. It is the only definition with any real meaning.

"My concepts of science are strong, and not likely to change."

I think you'll find that they become more 'refined' as this discussion progresses.

Celevia:

"The theory of common descent permits a large number of predictions of new results that would be improbable without evolution."

That doesn't make it falsifiable. If you only have one reasonable theory to explain things then you cannot say that something would be improbable without that theory. Or you can, but it is meaningless, especially in a scientific context.

"Such observations can be regarded as attempts to falsify the theory of common descent."

Not in any rigourous way. A lot of the 'predictions' you give were not made until after the observations ahd been made.
"We conclude that the theory of common descent is an easily-falsifiable..."

For something to be falsifiable in a scientific context, you hae to be able to do a repeatable experiment that would disprove it if it were false.

The main attraction of the theory of evolution is it's infinite flexibility. It makes it an attractive theory, but it also makes it complete unfalsifiable. Even if the fossil record were backwards you could still explain it with evolution. Imagine it were, and the little slugs on the sea floor could talk, you would hear them exclaim "Hallelujah! God (oops I mean evolution) made it so. We are perfectly adapted, the results of billions of years of evolution. Lo! See how we have cast off the rediculous assembly of organs and appendages which our distant ancestors had to make do with"

"For something to be falsifiable in a scientific context, you hae to be able to do a repeatable experiment that would disprove it if it were false."

Hilarious. You are seriously on another planet. What you have described above is *exactly* what has been done countless times for Evolution, over the course of no less than 100 years of testing.

And don't even get me started on your last paragraph. You cant debate evolution if you don't even have the most basic understanding of what the actual theory is.

No it hasn't. What you describe is making a bunch of observations and coming up with an explanation that fits the patterns, then checking again that the patterns you observe still fit the observations. It is not an experiment at all.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

freediver - what I described is actually irrelevant, because the theory and debate surrounding Evolution is not confined to this thread on this website, believe it or not. Outside this discussion, there's actually a world of study, past and present, and believe it or not (and this is the last time I'll say it, I promise), the entire scientific community accepts the theory of Evolution and agrees it is entirely falsifiable by any common understanding of the word.

So what we say here is actually pretty fruitless, as this stuff has already been sorted out by the pros a long time ago. Read as: evolution is here to say, regardless of whether you like it or not.

PS: don't bother with the links. Not interested. 100 years of compiled scientific study and evidence vs some dinky website? Even you should be able to see the imbalance there.

"the entire scientific community accepts the theory of Evolution and agrees it is entirely falsifiable by any common understanding of the word"

No they don't. And I am not referring to the common understanding. I am referring to it's meaning within a scientific context. Theory and law have a completely different meaning in common language too.

"So what we say here is actually pretty fruitless, as this stuff has already been sorted out by the pros a long time ago. "

Which is why they call it natural history, not science.

"Read as: evolution is here to say, regardless of whether you like it or not."

I am not trying to make it go away. I am simply pointing out that it is not a scientific theory.

"PS: don't bother with the links. Not interested. 100 years of compiled scientific study and evidence vs some dinky website? Even you should be able to see the imbalance there."

Ah, the old ad hominem again:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

Freedriver, I would have thought that creationists have anxiously spent considerable time claiming that evolution has been falsified.

I also think that the theory of common descent would be quite easy to falsify. It has often been tested, hasn’t it?

I cannot believe the amount of tenacity displayed by one poster over a high-school definition that he once learned. What is science? Hmmm, a process that employs the scientific method, of course! But what is the scientific method? One that employs observation, hypothesis and experiment. Of course, the way to win an argument is to narrow your definition of experiment so that most of the major sciences cannot be included (astronomy for one). I remember reading an article fairly recently about the phenomenon that if you ask most of the leading scientists, regardless of field of study, "what is science?" you would get reasonably different answers, that is because methods differ between fields, and reasonably so. This is because most natural phenomena do not lend themselves to direct control whereby one variable can be controlled, as in freedivers strict definition. However most sciences consider the natural world to be like a giant experiment where variables are interdependent on one another. Considering this, observations of phenomena can be made, hypotheses or predictions can be made from a formulated model of how that particular phenomena occurs, and (this is the important bit) further observation (or a search) can be made for the conditions that to falsify that hypothesis (note, NOT confirm, thats also important). The most important aspect of science is not actually its explanatory power (believe it or not!), its actually its PREDICTIVE power. Now show me a creationist prediction that is consistent with their hypotheses that will hold up under a search for falifying observation and then you will have a "creation science". Until then, don't bother.

Falsifying findings in the name of a higher philosophical positioning is done frequently, by those who have an alternative agenda other than the principled existence of Truths in Science.

In some instances where the philosophical position commands compliance, and when that corrupt protocol is violated by someone who has more conclusive answers that dispel the common fallacy driven Hypothesis; are driven out of their positions or at the least; nothing will be published in the journals. Or depending of the Location and position- They may well go missing.

Then those persons of ability become vilified- Removed from position- or go missing (Now where else does that apply?)
It does take some ability to enable detection of fraudsters, and it makes it extremely hard to continue with Science when so many Academic frauds and Fakers line the positions. (Again, where else does that apply?)

You just have to learn more disciplines to be enabled to detect it when it is confronted.

Its hard- but it has to be done.

I should have included this above; Sorry.

I had forgotten this, here is an article written by the Late David Stove in reference to: “So you Think You are Darwinian” : http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/77/

(Sorry Anomie) but in context to the argument it is a necessity.

That "article" isn't a necessity at all, it's rubbish. It doesn't get to the point, picks out little bits, peripheral to the whole concept evolution, that the author disagrees with, with the authors own incorrect interpretation and then proceeds to argue they are central to the whole idea of evolution. It made my eyes bleed, it's rubbish.

Gosh Bugsy, don’t you feel that to be a little over the top;
I’m sure the whole intent was a need to embrace some points of Irony with humor; if it made your eyes bleed, then I suppose there are some specific symptoms you need to take care of.

Shheesh Lighten up.

If it was intended to be humorous, then it was indeed ironic.

""the entire scientific community accepts the theory of Evolution and agrees it is entirely falsifiable by any common understanding of the word"
No they don't."

Yes they do.

Was just browsing through an old thread that I commented on some time ago, loosely regarding this topic. What struck me was how much of a better debate it was than this one, people actually considered and researched their responses, made their positions clear were more civilised in general (aside from a couple of the usual fools). Maybe you'd like a peek at it freediver?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=164#15351

Absolutely, spendocrat.

I came across this post at Larvatus Prodeo this morning, and had the same thought:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/08/15/science-and-religion-the-stoush/

I think Freediver should be given a chance.

Obviously freediver is trying to force innocent children into being taught Intelligent Design. For those who read science Intelligent Design is laughable, ignorant occult nonsense. For the believer Intelligent Design is a point of honour. Ever since the guru of Intelligent Design Erik Von Daniken was criticised for supporting his hypotheses of Intelligent Design on environmental fallacy , ID crackpots have been smarting and sulking ever since and are never heard but always laughed at. Except when they conspire to brainwash our children into believing in Intelligent Design, then they are scorned. We should show empathy for those burdened by Intelligent Design and give them a chance to explain the proof they have that aliens in flying saucers are responsible for evolution (there is no link to god or magic so nobody in their right mind would claim a god is behind evolution ). So for once let us hear what Freediver has to say without mockery and tongue in cheek shots.

Freediver please kindly support what you are saying and show us how Erik Von Daniken was right.

"I also think that the theory of common descent would be quite easy to falsify. It has often been tested, hasn’t it?"

No. It is impossible to test it empirically.

"I cannot believe the amount of tenacity displayed by one poster over a high-school definition that he once learned."

I am not just basing this on the high school definition. I have seen it used by Stephen Jay Ghould, Robert M Pirsig and many others. Furthermore, it is the only meaningful definition of science I ahve ever come across.

"I remember reading an article fairly recently about the phenomenon that if you ask most of the leading scientists, regardless of field of study, "what is science?" you would get reasonably different answers, that is because methods differ between fields, and reasonably so."

The definition I have given is common to most, if not all fields. If you asked a historian what history is, or a mathematician what maths is, they wouls stumble for a bit and come up with something different to their colleagues. That doesn't mean that you cannot define science, maths or history. It just means that it is a question of philosophy, which they may not be familiar with. Of course, they would be better at what they did if they were.

"This is because most natural phenomena do not lend themselves to direct control whereby one variable can be controlled, as in freedivers strict definition."

I'm not sure where you got this 'strict' definition from. It certainly wasn't me:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

"The most important aspect of science is not actually its explanatory power (believe it or not!), its actually its PREDICTIVE power."

Fortunately, the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything about the future, so it evades this inconvenient 'testing' stuff that other theories get subjected to.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-no-predictive-value.html

"Now show me a creationist prediction that is consistent with their hypotheses"

How is this relevant? Is this that false dichotomy argument again?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#false%20dichotomy

"""the entire scientific community accepts the theory of Evolution and agrees it is entirely falsifiable by any common understanding of the word"No they don't."Yes they do. "

Then why do they still call it a theory, when other theories become law even though they are expected to be disproven one day (eg Newton's laws). Why do they call it natural history, rather than science?

"Obviously freediver is trying to force innocent children into being taught Intelligent Design."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

Need I say more?

"Freediver please kindly support what you are saying and show us how Erik Von Daniken was right."

Perhaps you should read what I have already posted then try explaining why it is even relevant.

More info, and discussion without these silly limits:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

Three (very simplified) examples of indisputable evidence of Evolution:

1. Comparative Biochemistry. The agreement of the biochemical evidence with the anatomical evidence illustrates an important consideration when evaluating the strength of evolutionary theory: namely that our 20th century ability to compare the biochemical similarities among species provided a test of evolutionary theory which had been mainly based on the evidence from 19th century comparative anatomical studies, biogeography and a limited fossil record. If the same overall pattern of biochemical similarities did not agree with the pattern based on anatomical comparisons, evolutionary theory would have been in serious trouble. But the patterns do agree and evolutionary theory is all the stronger because of that.

2. The Fossil Sequence for hominids is a study of the general pattern present in the overall fossil record. That pattern is that modern species are not found throughout the fossil record from top to bottom - which they should be if all species were formed at one time at the very beginning of life on this planet. Instead, what we discover is less evidence of modern species as we go deeper into the fossil and geological record - a pattern that is precisely predicted by evolutionary theory and is also the only pattern evolutionary theory allows for. The chance of this being a coincidence (especially combined with the other tests) is obscenely small.

3. Fossil Intermediates. This refers to the fact that, regardless of the mode or rate of evolutionary change, there should be evidence of morphological continuity over time in the fossil record if species are evolutionarily linked and related to one another. Is there a better classroom example one can use to illustrate this point than a fossil like Lucy with her mixture of ape-like and humanlike features?

Ref: www.talkorigins.org

Freediver evolution is a principle of nature described through science. Are you really refuting a natural process or trying to discredit science to serve a political agenda? The only conclusion that I can come to for your resons to drag science dowen to the level of superstition where we find ID and creationism is that you are attempting to discredit science. Science is not hocus pocus religion but you neglect to support your assertion. Philosophy is just soft posturing and fantasy pandering , philosophy has nothing to do with evolution. Why not do your cause and agenda service and answer my question rather than paste irrelevant links to avoid answering?

West, Perhaps you might answer how more complex biological species developed without intelligent design innate or selected latent DNA features within the gene? Is the emerging development of species designed by some intelligent influence or is it random accidental occurrences? Where does the additional DNA information come from?

Philo, I'm getting pretty tired of answering your same question again and again.

You don't get 'new DNA' from anywhere. DNA is a code. Like this:

12 pages of this: 14398571249783461345816 might get you the genetic code of a simple organism. Rearrange two of the numbers, and that may result in a mutation. If that mutation happens to provide an advantage in a changing environment, it will be more likely to be passed on, and eventually become a dominant gene.

See? No new information, just rearranging. Of course every time a new organism is born, it gets a code that has never existed before, one of billions of potential combinations of the two parents.

Your question has now been answered, so stop asking it please.

was right.
He had some good points to make West, but not very well researched, but all he was in his time; is what Michael Moore is in ours; feeding the masses what they want to hear and cashing in on it.
Opportunity seekers.

Actually, if you take some points that Daniken mentioned, and research it in depth, the findings are astonishing.

You have to give the E T Hypothesis crowd (Out side of Erik Von Daniken); 100 points; there research is very detailed and accurate, but surprised;
Similar to the biblical recall.

You should write an article on it, the mathematics involved is brilliant and revealing in what some consider The Alien Intervention.
And it is a bit like applying the handbrake whilst traveling on the Free way of Evolutionary Hypothesis.. and then go oooooow interesting.
I did love the sound track to the documentary though , I have a link to it somewhere.

This is specifically for Philo and his wacky Intelligent Design ideas:

Claim:
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.

Response:
1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
• deletion of parts
• addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system
• change of function
• addition of a second function to a part
• gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common, and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago. Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity.

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation.

2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

ref: www.talkorigins.org

Philo I challenge you to make youe claims credible by

1) Showing the missing link between evolution and a mumbo jumbo voodoo Intelligent Designer.

2) Proving magic exists as magic is the essential tool used by gods the supernatural. Supernatural meaning outside of nature meaning unnatural. Or 2b) Aliens from out of space with life creating technology.

Intelligent Design myth has no credibility without these missing links being provided first. If you wish to undermine the principle of evolution or any other process in nature with theories based on hocus pocus you have to first elevate Intelligent Design from Hoax status and prove alleged gods, magic or aliens and their technology.

Looking foward to your provision of Intelligent Designs missing links.

As a purely disinterested reader of this thread (I am no 'scientist' & am not religious either), for me Spendocrat & co have won this debate hands down. Freediver is engaging in sophistry. Even if he is semantically correct on a technicality (& I have no way of knowing), what is his bigger point? That evolution shouldn't be taught in science lessons? That intelligent design should? Neither? As a non-scientist, I go by the weight of overhwelming consensus (after all, what else can I go on?) & for me Richard Dawkins is most plausible when he said something like "it's true that evolution has not been proven 100%, but it is based on such *overwhelming* evidence that to equate creation with evolution as both being 'theories' is a miscarriage of justice."

Given Freediver talks of " the level of acceptance in the scientific community" in his opener, he might find these quotes from Wikipedia pertinent:

"Critics also state that evolution is not a fact, although from a scientific viewpoint evolution is considered both a theory and a fact"

"the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is completely uncontested within the scientific community"

"Although many religions, such as Catholicism, have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through theistic evolution, creationists argue against evolution on the basis that it contradicts their theistic origin beliefs."

That about wraps it up for me. It would be interesting to see the % of this 'community' who support evolution being taught in science lessons. I suspect it would be quite high.

Thanks everyone, very entertaining, including the sub-plot of Zacco v Leigh!

TNT as technologies such as genetic therapy to name one are dependent on the knowledge of evolution it is as it stands a process of nature and no longer a theory. However intelligent design theory (its not a theory but a myth)which was created by political thinktanks and not scientists has several missing links that ID pushers avoid explaining. The most notable of those missing links is proof of god , magic or aliens. ID pushers put the cart before the horse. ID theory is the same mentality which explains thunder as god playing ten pin bowling.

So introducing to genetic mutation, some form of deletion/ Addition, well, well, well; is this assumption that is antiquated to Metamorphoses or is it antiquated to Metaphase;
Or is Splendacrat explaining; "Metaplasia".
A lot of Meta’s, but I haven’t.
And spinning things so they sound good and from an Authority seems to be common these days.

Spin is not spin just because somebody does not understand it. Spin is to hide or distract attention to information. The audience of those who are involved with studying evolution , genetics, medicine , health , environmental management are peers of those people. There is no need for spin.

The audience for ID pushers is people who have not got the intellectual capacity to understand anything slightly complicated. Intelligent Design pushers rely on spin because Intelligent DEesign if not a joke is nothing more than a lie. The purpose of Intelligent Design is to recruit young vulnerable minds into superstition and convince the ignorant majority that science is wrong.

As Intelligent Design pushers are mocked and ridiculed it appears that ID pushers may be wrong in assuming most people are ignorant.
This is a society that owes its existence and survival to science. An example is in the Darkages when Christianity ruled people of 100 years were almost unheard of. In this world of science people of the 100 age have become relatively common.

There was no god or aliens "adding" super genes to these people.

I’m intrigued West why you consistently refer to; Christianity ruled dark ages; Surly if you applied the same scientific analogy you would realize it to be quite a remarkable assertion.

The Christian era is only 2000 years old, and we know well for fact that life goes back a lot, lot further; and if you read that book I posted, you would understand it, even if it is a probable theory. Apposed to an improbable theory.

The intent would seem to be a derogatory intention rather than scientific probability ; would you agree with that?

And to understand the premise of Scientific findings and Logic- Mathematics to Theistic Philosophy etc to rational probability in the absents of hard fact, if no other- they are attributes learnt from Hellenism ,; are they not?

Then if not Hellenism, then who was before them?

And what inspired them- and why are their similarity in languages, expressions, cultural plurality and beliefs all over the world in certain tribal beleifs, if it is not learned from the one source originally.
Even if you wish to argue dates.
A genetic Mutation perhaps.

Its one thing Not to know the complete answers, it is another to make one up as you go along.

kartiya jim:

re sensitive matters, surely you'd agree that being non-PC, epsecially on matters Aboriginal, in unis can land you in hot water. I'll bet the overwhelming research on Aboriginal problems focuses on symptoms first, also on what others can do - often couched in vague, simplistic language - eg. 'a treaty', but very little emphasis on what they can do for themselves.

"The present government refuses to make a separate Ministry to help Aboriginal People overcome their problems; this proves Howard and his National lackeys are hopeless"

Another govt dept? More Howard bashing? Heard it all before. Too simplistic. Don't buy it.

"saying Sorry for past injustices"

What exactly does 'sorry' achieve? sorry for what? how phrased? I suspect the sorry comes with strings attached. a legal land-mine? Saying sorry also does absolutely nothing to change the all important vitals. What tangible improvements do you think saying sorry would have for, say the Aborigines residing in the Todd River, Alice, often in a state of dilirium? Methinks none.

"and lack of an Internationally recognised Treaty"

treaty? with which group? the details? any thoughts? there never will be one while the Aborigines themselves are so divided. And, guessing, the more multicultural & global we become, the chances of a treaty will further diminish. We are increasingly made up of foreign born residents, & they will rightly ask: what's this treaty & apology thing with all the strings attached got to do with me?

"Many Aborigines... receive much less than they need to lift their basic health and education-vital ingredients for a fulfilling life."

Don't buy. If they spent the money they get wisely, no good reason why the vitals can't improve big time.

"All this neglect may make the "ostrich club" feel good "

All this neglect doesn't make anyone feel good. It's a blight. It's in everyone's interest for the Aborigines to become integrated into the global economy. I think the only 'ostrich club' out there is the one that thinks that by creating one more govt office, & spending more taxpayers hard-earned, that is the answer. A mirage.

Sorry, this belongs on another thread!

All the Christian "era" would be no longer than 1300 years old begining after 330. I refer to Christianity as a dark age superstition because it is a superstition constructed in the darkages and represents major slips backwards for civilisation in Europe where Christianity held power.

As far as making things up as one goes along , I leave that to theologians, ID pushers and god believers. Afterall we are discussing a group which plays a game liken to dungeons and dragons whose game has spilt over and is conflicting with the real world. I certainly would not tolerate my children to be exposed to darkage superstition just for the self gratification of the self deluded. This is the basis of what we are discussing here , immature game players who will do anything to push innocent people into that game for no other reason than self gratification.

If I am wrong you will demonstrate it by proving god exists and providing the missing links of "Intelligent Design".

West and others,
if you want to be entertained then watch these youtube video's (two very short ones and a long creationist v Evolution debate:

The Hovind debate:(It's quite long)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw&mode=related&search=

Video of a schoolaged boy talking about evolution. He says that evolutionists have credentials and creationist don’t and that people who don’t believe in evolution are misinformed.
"Very few scientists support ID/Creationism!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTY1K3KIr8A&mode=related&search=


A reaction to the boy's video.
This one would be very hilarious if it wasn’t so serious: some creationist freak trying to convince the kid that his teachers are all liars. I find this guy quite scary.
"Re: Very few scientists support ID/Creationism!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr5gs4KQqZU

Pushing a game west: I agree, some do that, and have always done that, but that is dealing in subject of neural psychology;

And as Cilivia Quotes, most scientists do not believe that rubbish; {Paraphrased}
Cilivia, you answered your own question; as a staunch atheist, you have an agenda to prove, and as you have done so, in attempts to belittle science and truth and those who think out side of a narrow passage.
A great number of professionals do actually think on the same lines as I do, but because of the ridicule and contempt displayed by contemporary society who have no room for believing in anything other than what they feel comfortable with for that moment;
That’s why most will not bother or attempt to navigate through the thoughtless nothingness of insults- derogatory commentary- because in the end that is what distinguishes free thinking minds and those that have obscured Totalitarian intent.
You can think and believe what ever you like; with in reason.
There are some of us who know.

I am wondering West with the high contempt for Christianity and the voodoo, what say you about Communism and Fascism ?
I better throw in Islam also, seeing that date corresponds to your above date line.

Communism was invented by Protestants around the Baltic hot on the heels of Martin Luther. Calvanist church structure still demonstrates their communist beginings , indeed quakers and Amish are proto-communist. For the communist , Jesus taught communism, no matter how the Pentecostals try and spin it Jesus in the New testament was preaching communism and not prosperity occult.
Communism is and has always been modelled on the protestant plan.

Fascism is an extension of the Roman Catholic Church and this is where it has drawn its symbology, style of nationalism and anti-semitism from. Everytime the postion of pope becomes vacant so many candidates are monouvered because of links with Nazis during the Third Reich. You only need to get Mel Gibson drunk or regularly read a few writers in the Weekend Australian to find the fine line between fascism and its Catholic role model.

Celivia is only stating that evolution is REAL TRUTH as it is a process of nature and that ID is fiction. All You must tolerate those who dare to be objective.The ID fight was lost before it began.

And All to a non-superstitious person such as my self I see no difference between Islam and Christianity and when Muslims bring up stupid notions like ID I say so, I am not singling out Christians. Superstition is superstition wether its a belief in prophets , messiahs , elves, gods or the magic of knocking on wood.

Wishing on a star with crossed fingers I evoke you to respond :)

Celivia thankyou for that link yes resistor was quite a threatening character but he mention the Darwinist conspiracy against white supremacy into his rant which showed where his head was at.( oh yes ALL )include white supremacy and the KKK in the list of Christian inspired political systems along with communism and fascism.

Although Celivia I had to laugh that it took a sinister image of an abusive white supremist disguised in dark sunglasses with a Confederate flag streched out behind him to bat for Jesus and Intelligent Design.

I urge all ID pushers in this thread to view Celivias posted link to see how low your argument has sunk.

West,
yeah hehehe the purpose of Resistor’s sunglasses may have been to cover his glazed-over eyes.

All,
no offence intended but evolution scientists are very willing to accept that there is a God and that all things said in the Bible are true and would even accept that the devil uses science to trick people.
All they need is evidence.
Until then: God remains a delusion, theists remain deluded, scientists will keep finding more pieces of the puzzle to discover the ‘real’ truth and evolution is to be taught in schools as a science because it involves so many branches of science and high-tech scientific equipment to measure and discover things with.

So far, scientists from several fields have agreed that evolution is the most reasonable, most reliable, most logical piece of evidence there is.
As I said, the good thing about science is that theories can be changed if new evidence turns up.
Unlike the Bible, science books are always updated.
Scientists are not out to fight for some agenda- they are out to discover the truth.

I'm not sure if West uses intelligence because he cannot grasp any intelligent design in natural sciences. Obviously he believes in the random scrambled and accidental approach to life. I happen to believe in deliberate design and predictibility designed within the nature of the atomic chemistry. I happen to believe in a progress of design that is innate in the cell chemistry that was originally and is deliberately designed by its Creator to unfold as he has designed.

West obviously denies there is any design, purpose or meaning to being. I happen to believe there is purpose to living and that beyond what we as individuals might believe is our basic instincts to survive. It is from this belief we arrive at presevation of boundaries in actions and behaviours - a moral code.

God is not a being absent from the Universe; in fact God is not a spatial being at all. He is the Holy spirit expressed through his creation. Notably through the intelligent pinicale of revelation in human life and graceous actions of people who express his pure character. However humanity is in unintelligent rebellion to the Creator God of Design. Everyone's behaviour is best in his / her own eyes, they believe my values are as goog as anyones. However there are principles for best relationships and health with the organic chemistry and each other that are abused; because we do not recognise design.

If you are speaking fact Philo then you will supply intelligent Designs missing links , you will prove god exists and everything you say of that god is true and you will show you held that knowledge before you went public with it. Otherwise all you are saying is you have a fantasy and I am stupid for not believing your fantasy is reality.

West; Wishing on a Star;

Actually west; that is a good point, and you may have stumbled on to something; and that is where the E T crowd get it from.

To display something that may be of Interest, you need to look at some of the more Ancient structures on all parts of the globe;
And as I have mentioned before, some structures in the South Americas; pre date the Pyramid of Kefu in Cairo by about one thousand years.
What I meant before by the Mathematics involved, every single structure has a unique quality and deliberate intentional Architectural property. It is that property I will not supply the answer: it is only found if you look for it. And if you are interested for some answers. Could be some almighty coincidence; But considering the structures locations on the Globe, I am very surprised that it seems to be a secret , and a well kept; but the structures still remain in full plain sight.

This is where the Cosmology and advanced physics meet ;( Out side Post Modernity) I referred before to Alfa and Omega, Apply Quantum Physics and principled findings; general Mathematical calculations even using dimensions of these structures; Exhibit; Including Stone Henge.
Still not conclusive!
But it is just a bit more than a coincidence to be by chance.
Refer to theory of relativity / Newton- Einstein Space time continuum / Quantum Mechanics; Matter / Anti matter etc.
The Anatomical structure that can have no name, commonly referred to is ; The god String – The un explainable.
And yes there is something to do with . “Gold”.
Not conclusive, but how many people know the anatomical structure that makes up and constitutes gold, and understand its properties.
The simple things are always the best.

? All?

You should have noticed it by now West. Like ants to sugar, moths to flame or flies to @#*%, this topic sure does pull 'em.

I appeal to those who believe there is a higher intelligence beyond the frailty of the human mind, that the human mind discovers by the use of consistent deduction and logic inherrent within the nature of the universe the reality of design. Human intelligence is a product of the higher intelligence and design; and human intelligence is a reflection of the wisdom of the Creator. The fact that intelligence exists in the human mind, is evidence of the presence of intelligence in the universe. Unless of course you deny intelligence or design are realities - then it is pointless trying to prove such.

You cannot prove something to exist that does not exist. That is only part of the point. The point is god is based on zero information - no proof of god, the believer elaborates great amounts of information based on nothing. Everything is claimed from what an alleged god thinks - who and why he loves and who and why he smites to magically designing and creating 'stuff'. From this we get everything from Islamic terrorism to churches protecting child abusing priests , all condoned by god except where god disagrees depending on the loyalties of the believer. God is one confused puppy , on a theological level too confused to be intelligent about anything. The bottom line is if there is no proof of god in the first place everything that follows from god is made up by the believer.

That's right.

Philo, in short: human intelligence is not a gift of a creator; it's the result of evolution.

Scientists have evidence about the development of intelligence by comparing artifacts from different timezones.
If Adam and Eve were created ready-made with a higher IQ then we have today, how come that scientists have found a collection of artifacts ranging from very primitive to more advanced artifacts?

Philo I am not writing this to criticise you, but I am interested in a (logical) explanation of this.

If you are saying that human beings such as Adam and Eve as God created them were perfect and highly intelligent and that humans are only evolving 'backwards' because they lose strength of genes or of DNA, then how come that Adam or Eve (since they had about 900 years to figure it out) didn't create anything worthwhile such as say, Bill Gates or Graham Bell did?

Although intelligence is not unique to humans, we have a so-called ‘critical mass’ of neurons necessary for the development of language. Because of that critical mass of neurons we developed language humans’ and because of language, human intelligence took an evolutionary leap forward not seen in other animals

Umm, How about a musical trip down memory lane then;
I found it West; “Erik Von Daniken” Need a Real player though.
http://www.weirdsville.com/chariotsgods.ram

Not happy Bugsy, you could have been a little more original, but now I must refer to your Eyes bleeding;
That would be a symptom of The Coalesce Virus; Rabbit.

I'm sorry "All-", it's just that you are such a wackjob, I can't help myself. It's a very bad character flaw of mine.

That could be a double edged Sward Celivia; it could also be said that some people need a lot more evolving, and have; just not made the grade yet.

Bad humor aside, People can be taught the art of Intelligence; I would disagree with other animal Intelligence motive, their primary function is to Feed and survive.

The Human is unique; it possesses a soul; or some may wish to call it something else;
And to Imagine and reproduce the pain when someone close passes away, as if some part of you had gone with them( Metaphorically)
It is that agony – the pain of your soul that is hurting, not just a chemical reaction;
It is also that part of Psychology that Witch doctors continuously attack , the human soul.

Is that wacky enough for you Bugsy bunny?

Sure, thats plenty wacky. :)

It occurs to me that there are at least two schools of thought on how to treat totally delusional people. By delusional I mean people who hold beliefs that are so far removed from the nature of reality as to be nearly considered insane, but still functional and probably harmless.

The first school thinks that we should engage them seriously and try to show them the errors in thinking that make them delusional. Then (or so the idea goes)they will join reality and all will be well. This process is very slow and probably a delusion in itself.

Which brings me to the second school of thought. This school holds that delusional people on the whole don't want to know the real nature of reality, theirs is just fine to them, thank you. Regardless of the facts, thier own hypotheses can be supported and reinforced by finding data that fits their ideas and ignoring or dismissing anything that contradicts them. And so it is very difficult if not impossible to change someones mind if they don't want it changed. And so, the second school says that we should ridicule and make fun of them at every opportunity, not to change their minds, but because its fun and far less frustrating and won't make too much difference in the long run (they won't change their minds beacuse of you no matter what you say). Guess which philosophy I hold.

Bugsy was never a bunny, no matter what goes on in your head.

It is a unique delusion Bugsy; Yes that you can actually think, you so aptly described for others what constitutes your self, how self righteous you are, and poetic.
I was wrong , and I admit it ; That’s why you can not post an Intelligent argument; You are clueless aren’t you?
And it frustrates the living hell out of you.
So if you do not have anything constructive to add or humor; why do you embarrass your self? Although I do not know or care to know who or what you are; you spiked my curiosit

At the risk of enticing you to write more, I will say that it would be a lot easier on all of us if you stopped writing incomprehensible gibberish. Then one could mount an intelligent argument about it, if only we understood what you were saying.

If you want an example of why I think some viewpoints deserve ridicule, take the gonzo who started this thread. Armed with nothing more than a definition and a dinky website that he likely wrote himself, he has argued that the Theory of Evolution is non-scientific, why he has done so still remains a mystery. But with a small extension of that argument he will have single-handedly wiped out major portions of Ecology, Astronomy, Palaeontology and Meteorology (just to name a few!). This of course will come as a complete surprise to anybody working in these fields and only serves to highlight the inadequacy of the definition, but our hero fights on undeterred.

Of course these other fields of study don't get the same treatment from him as Evolution does, so why has he done it? If it is as we all suspect, he is either a creationist or an "intelligent design" freak, there is nothing one can say to change his (/hers/its?) delusion.

And you are not much better "All-". Try something better than the old "I know you are but what am I?" routine.

When I get the 'Joe's" at my door spouting all sorts of stuff. I ask this question 'When you are born - are you born with a new spirit or is your physical being endowed with a pre-existing spirit ?'
The answer is obvious [ or is it ? ]. Whats more, proof of the answer is everywhere. :).I'll check back later to see who got it right and more importantly WHY!

Thanks Bugsy,
I have no animosity towards anyone; and as a 14 steps Professor and my protégée once told me.
“ If there is one piece of advice I could you, that you would accept; and that is keep a big smile on your face and keep moving forward, You will get there.
And there is no virtue in Ignorance”.
And , Don’t look back; only learn to move forward, always.

I have a long way to travel and reach the next 8 steps .
and I,m only a ding bat et all-

Thanks, w for that article, I was unaware that Spain had updated its laws. The more the merrier/marrier!

It’s hilarious that 38% of Spain’s Catholics are atheists!
Q “What’s your religion?”
A “I’m a Catholic atheist.”
What the?

All,
True, perhaps the whole human species need more evolving- I won’t argue with that.

“The Human is unique; it possesses a soul; or some may wish to call it something else; “
Every human being is unique, but it’s not a proven fact that people have souls; this is just a belief.

Emotions are chemical in nature. Our brain is the result of over two billion years of evolution. There are regions in the brain for compassion, empathy, altruism that can be stimulated as shown on MRI scans.

Pepper,
“'When you are born - are you born with a new spirit or is your physical being endowed with a pre-existing spirit ?' ”
First, I’d like to define ‘spirit’ as there can be many definitions of the word. What do you exactly mean by it?

Some definitions from dictionary.com:
* the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
* the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
* the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action
* an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.

In my opinion, a soul doesn't exist, and 'spirit' describes the person's character, disposition etc.

The spirit originates in a person's genes combined with their unique, individual neuro-system, hormones, chemicals, size of their brain regions and their environment.

Because the spirit cannot live on when a person dies as it depends on someone's physical body, when a person is born, s/he can not possibly be endowed with a pre-existing spirit.

There is no pre-existing spirit.
A spirit cannot live without a physical body.

Outside of cartoon culture there is only one type of spirit - Alcohol mixed with other fluids to produce beverages, fuels or polish.

Back to the intelligent design con.

The glaring fact that intelligent design is a bogus claim constructed in order to deceive people reflects on the belief of god itself. Intelligent design is proof complete that god is itself a lie constructed in order to deceive people.

I recognise that to argue in support of Intelligent design is to admit no god exists. The same is true of the Bible and Quran and all scriptures of any like because all is done so in the absence and without any shred of the support of a factual god.

Obviously such misinformations are employed to deceive and manipulate external people into becoming superstitious to reinforce the self deception of the god believer for the purpose of at the very least of self gratification and this confirms my argument that such beliefs in deities are immoral.

I for one up until three years ago would believe in what you say,
There are about four other subjects involved though, and providing answers for them is quite difficult; but that does not mean that it is to be shoved into the too hard basket, or enter into fields of total denial.
I do understand that some find it hard to understand, but the existence of what is considered paranormal phenomena needs to be investigated with an element of professionalism; some are Nut cases, but not every one falls into that category and deserve the respect of explaining in as much detail of their experience.
In a great many of these victims, they display a paradigm shift in psychology and personality; far too in depth to waffle on about it here.

You tend to take on different perspectives when it is an eye witnesses event , but when it is 2 doctors’ three nurses and 10 family members describing a certain supernatural event pertaining to a patient/ Family member ; I would have a lesser tendency to deny something on the grounds that it could not be explained for skeptical minds to understand;

There are 10’s of millions of these cases, some are a derivative of certain pathological traits; and certainly a great many are not.

So pardon me; I would have to leave that door open.

And Celivia, you can see now that we have gone full Circle with the Evolutionary theory is not science.

You pre fix your commentary by saying; “My Opinion” and then proceed to discuss the philosophical perspectives of those thoughts, just by that very nature, it has already removed the science from the intended principled theory.
Darwin’s theories, if anything may have well been the catalyst that gave formation to Genetics and D NA studies of to day; And regardless of Philosophical perspectives, do lean toward and disprove the nature of Darwin’s initial intentions; to be otherwise.

Darwin’s Hypotheses was needed to advance to the next step in science, just as it is in many fields, it needs a catalyst to spurn interest.
The one topic that seemed to fly over every ones head is the “Alfa and Omega”. That subject Celivia is the basic principled philosophy that underpins the evolutionary theory; which surprises me, I only attracted ridicule.

There is not and has never been a supporting argument for supernatural beliefs. All argument provided supporting the supernatural wether its gods or ghosts or fairies has been personal fantasy. If a doctor or a nurse testifies to "seeing" ghosts leave bodies it only reflects on their own cognitive disability.

Intelligent Design is different because it is not science , its not religion it is politics. Intelligent Design is the Christian version of Halalis women in bikinis are meat.

Both are expresions of the religious persons hatred of humanity. Deep down God believers know they are wrong, they must because everything that is ever said about god is made up and made up by them. God is a reflection of ego , self obsession. Intelligent Design and mysogeny are demonstrations of religious peoples resentment of the well adjusted community.

Call it a supernatural phenomena or an insight to the future West, But somehow, I new your answer before you thought it. And I did not mention Ghosts or Apparitions or goblins. Ha.
But it is a good sign you recognize Psychology as a parameter.
Let’s work of that theses then.

All,
I do not mean to ridicule if you feel there's ridicule- I'm merely expressing my opinion. Thing is, I cannot get over the fact that some people are so gullible to believe claims by creationists or IDers, such as that the earth is 6000 years old!

By the Alpha and Omega theory, do you mean “God’s eternity” as written in the Bible? : “God says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,” meaning that God remains from the beginning to the end of time.”
Is there anything you want or need to explain about this ‘theory’? I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
The fact that these words are in the bible do not mean they are the truth; the bible was written by people.

You know very well from previous posts that when I say ‘in my opinion’ I have based my opinion on the evidence scientists have offered as opposed to an opinion derived from legends and myths from the bible.

Scientists don’t claim that they have the only answer there will ever be; only religions claim they have all the answers.

Of course there can be no ‘proof’ that souls do not exist, just like you can’t prove to me that the tooth fairy does not exist. Does the tooth fairy therefore exist?

I chose to base my opinion on the most reasonable facts that are available at the moment and these are the ones science has come up with, not the ‘facts’ as ID and creationists are presenting without evidence to back up their claims.

The facts are that there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of a God or of souls.
All the scientific evidence point to evolution, NOT to creationism or ID, and not to the existence of a God or souls.

No Celivia, it is not intended from biblical recall, but from Aristotle on ward;
The Alfa and Omega intended is a publication for the search of the Beginning and the end of the Universe;
I have a hard drive copy of what seems to be plagiarized notes ether for or on behalf of NASSA; as the same publication appears in their book case along with some of their greater Pseudo publications;

I say that UN sparingly, because there are several / No ; A lot more Engineers and tech Support teams in the field of M O, and doctorate in Astrophysics who absolutely deny and are outraged that pseudo garbage is presented as fact;

When others lives depend on professionals, there is no room for error; so Philosophical perspectives, it has no place in Science so complex.
With or with out God.
That has to ring loud and clear in today world with Greenie pseudo science of Doom and gloom.
There is such a term now days that is simply termed Altruism; that is the catalyst that creates confusion. And it self is a religion based on Materialisms command and control center.

Here is a resent publication in the field of Alfa and Omega; It will not read anywhere near the indoctrination of these days.

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?p=378&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

And here is a link that describes Theosophy; “WARNING”, it may make some Eyes and Noses Bleed and at worst may send some into spasmodic supernatural convulsion;
So please bear with me on this one.
Ha
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/124/

ALL I would like to express I enjoy your style so even though I may sound as if I am aggressively at a polar opposite to you (and I fundementally am) I welcome your debate.

You seem to be jumping around like Spring heeled Jack (a Victorian era supernatural phenomena which turned out as to be expected a prank devised by three men in a pub). To pull out one of your 'springing'
"That has to ring loud and clear in today world with Greenie pseudo science of Doom and gloom."
Pollution falls well within the laws of cause and effect. Greenie pseudo science of Doom and gloom is an articulation that if you poison something enough it keels over.

That is not like "the end of times" "the Rapture" "the second coming of Christ" "Armaggedon" All such are Prophecies, prophecies are lies the sales staff have to add to sell the book. There has to be a percieved risk for not conforming to a set of rules for a superstition to flourish otherwise there would be no reason not to get out of bed on Friday the 13th or worship Jesus.

For those who wish to debate wether we have a soul or not, have not understood what is meant by soul. The soul is your life the living person, we do not have a part called the soul - we are a soul. It is our life, our living and the impact we have as a presence in this universe. The soul is not a part of the psyche, it is the total life expressed - the person. Who you are as a living being. The body is the chemistry through which you express who you are - who you are as a living being is you - the soul.

You make an impact in time upon the universe that remains an eternal part of history. Persons like WEST might wish to deny this because it has no chemical reality but to believers in spiritual dimensions to life there is a reckoning for a life lived - The judgment upon the soul.

Philo I really can not understand how you can not see that what you said above was based on your fantasy , what you wish to believe based on your preferences without one tiny shred of grounding in reality.

Still if we go back to the Jews before around 150 to 200 Bc , the Greeks , the Romans , many of the southern Celt cultures and others besides when the only immortals were deified heroes who became gods or the many gods themselves. Both the soul and spirit literally meant the regard the living had for the dead.

Those forgotten by the living are extinguished for eternity. When the sun expands or the oceans sink into giant aquifers , there will be nobody to remember anybody and immortality in the esoteric sense will be extinguished. Immortality is worship of the flesh, it was resisted by the Jews until it became a new age cult such as the occult magic focused pentecostalism today. If any character resembling Jesus ever existed at the alledged time in history he there would be no doubt he would have been pandering to devotees on the last waves of that flesh worshipping cult.

There was the Sumerian before the Talmud ; Have you ever read the epic Adventure of Enkido; ( Just love that name)

Judaism was shaped by Zoroastrianism (See Dr Mary Boyce) Ps the books are rare and very expensive, I could only afford two volumes. And I can’t see the Local library stocking up on them .
And Akhenaton Egyptian Faeroe (The Michael Jackson of the time) Introduced Monotheism during his reign. And scrapped when he kicked the bucket, and Egyptians returned to the worship of ?

Any way I don’t think I can shape or change minds , but I hope people understand that things are more in depth than they first thought, and more precision in studies than perhaps they are aware.

I enjoyed it too West, it gets the brain cell re aligned and “Spring” into action.
I take it you reside in The Peoples Socialist Republic of Brankstan then? {Aka or formally known as Victoria.}

All,
Zoroastrianism is dualistic and conflicting in its view of powers that control the universe (gods). This has no resemblence to Judaism, monotheism holds the Universe has one diverse function united by only one intelligence.

Principally I agree with that Philo,
But I could only imagine, and what Archaeology presents, there be a fair amount of turmoil in those times.
It is actually written, in biblical record, that Zoroastrian Margi turned up late in Jerusalem , but the principled methodology; them new in cosmology, is what made them aware of the birth of Christ; however their cosmological watches were not synchronized. But they made it; be it ever so late.
There are several references to Zarathustra, and it was the principle thought of Good Light and Dark light, that had a tendency to change some parallels with the initial Judaism theological perspectives;
Much as Christianity began, being a division of Judaism. Basic principle, but ethics were the question.
Perhaps we can see the very same these days?

The unusual part of that in Historical recent time ; is Friedrich Nietzsche spent some time trying to reverse the meaning of Good – Evil, as he seemed to think Zarathustra spoke through him.
A few marbles short; and that is explainable.
Then of course; Thus Spake Mohammad , hmmm, Evolution .hay?
Back to the bad old days again.

I wonder if anyone noticed that the UK has done the right thing and moved evolution out of the science class, where it clearly doesn't belong:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400/#7

Spendocrat:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory"

You want them to lie?

"that what is at issue within biology "

Why do you keep forgetting the topic is?

"It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. "

Doesn't that contradict abiogenesis, the foundation of the theory of evolution?

Also, this is not a debate wbout whether there is evidence supporting the theory. It is a debate about the nature of that evidence.

West

"Are you really refuting a natural process or trying to discredit science to serve a political agenda?"

Actually, what I'm doing is giving science it's due credit, by disassociating it from non-science.

"The only conclusion that I can come to for your resons to drag science dowen to the level of superstition "

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. I've got no idea where you got that from.

"Even if he is semantically correct on a technicality (& I have no way of knowing), what is his bigger point? That evolution shouldn't be taught in science lessons? "

Correct.

"That intelligent design should?"

What on earth gave you that idea?

"As a non-scientist, I go by the weight of overhwelming consensus (after all, what else can I go on?) & for me Richard Dawkins is most plausible when he said something like "it's true that evolution has not been proven 100%, but it is based on such *overwhelming* evidence that to equate creation with evolution as both being 'theories' is a miscarriage of justice.""

Is this relevant somehow?

"TNT as technologies such as genetic therapy to name one are dependent on the knowledge of evolution"

No they aren't.

"This is a society that owes its existence and survival to science."

why we shouldn't lose our understanding of what science is

Sorry Freediver I could not confirm your claim the UK is going to force Intelligent Design myth onto its students. I followed your links but they did not lead to reputable sites. I did however go to the Department for Education (United Kingdom) website and did a policy search and found no such policy. I am not surprised; deceit is the trap the intelligent design fanatic uses to capture unwary children.

I think what the main concern with intelligent design is that it is a constructed lie for Intelligent Design worshippers to control our children. I can think of no positive motive why anybody would want to teach intelligent design and since the fact that those persons have proved their dishonesty as to push such a ridiculous claim that evolution is a magic trick of a god. If intelligent design is not a pure and total lie then where is the proof of god? We can laugh and argue debate about intelligent design and all its missing links but it’s the victims of intelligent design fanatics I am worried about.

Intelligent design pushers have declared they want our children for the purpose to exploit to justify ID pushers superstitions. To me this is extremely repugnant and offensive and it is our Governments duty to control those who push intelligent design and have the threat to our children removed.

To ID fanatics, by all means go and pretend life is a Lego set, do it in the privacy of your own homes but leave children alone. Your insistence on teaching the lie of intelligent design is self serving and evil.

Read that link you posted again freediver, very carefully.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16791773/

Your take on it is complete spin and in fact, false.
It is NOT about removing evolution from the science class, it is in fact about teaching Intelligent Design in Religious classes instead of trying to force it into science. If you cannot see the difference, then there is no hope for you, especially in science.

"Sorry Freediver I could not confirm your claim the UK is going to force Intelligent Design myth onto its students."

Did you try, or are you just trying to make an issue out of every minor point here?

"I followed your links but they did not lead to reputable sites."

So msnbc is not reputable? YOu could try any of the myriad other news services it is on and stop wasting our time.

"I think what the main concern with intelligent design is that it is a constructed lie for Intelligent Design worshippers to control our children."

I'm wondering, have you bothered to check what the topic of this discussion is? Is it just impossible for some people to discuss evolution and science without bringing out the irrelevant looney conspiracy theories? At least the ID proponents are capable of remembering what they are discussing.

"Your take on it is complete spin and in fact, false.
It is NOT about removing evolution from the science class, it is in fact about teaching Intelligent Design in Religious classes instead of trying to force it into science."

And evolution. Don't forget that. That is after all what this topic is about, remember?

Rational discussion of evolution and science:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400

freediver if policies governing education in Britain contradict you then how deep is far enough? Bottom line Intelligent design is a lie.There can be noi serious debate about such a stupid concept for intelligent desgin it is a poor version of science fiction. The only real and imoportant issue is why are intelligent design pushers peaying on children? And what should be done about predators of Children that are trying to push intelligent design in schools.

I apologise for my distracted and hasty post. It should have read freediver if policies governing education in Britain contradict you then how deep is far enough? Bottom line Intelligent design is a lie.There can be no serious debate about such a stupid concept for intelligent design it is a poor version of science fiction. Intelligent design is a baseless fantasy based ob zero information. The only real and important issue is why are intelligent design pushers preying on children? What should be done about predators of Children that are trying to push intelligent design in schools.

Another perspective from a Book published in 1968 Titled; Atoms and Ancestors by: F.B Wellborn makes good reading and adds a little more to the debate;
The web Published version is here for anyone who is interested;
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/books/atoms/fred.html

The One thing that strikes me a little peculiar, although 7 thousand years is accepted but I would imagine it is a lot longer;
That there has not been a great deal of Evolution in the species from then to now; and if Evolution in perspective would indeed introduce newer features; Such as Two thumbs for modern Kids to play with their Play station Control panels; etc, or even ESP remote controls; Or Telepathic Phone Calls; I think not, so There needs to be a rethink and an Overhaul on the subject, and some realistic acceptance that it is not by some Biological chance.
Science to date proves that; and the evolutionary theory is indeed a myth as west would say.

I'm back in the Bunker; Fire away.

Im happy for you to include more myth in Intelligent Design myth All.

ROFL!

I’ve let this conversation go because it’s like talking about a fairy tale all the time and I lacked the time.

But thanks for adding a new point, All; something new added is always a good thing, even when it doesn’t make much sense (no nastiness intended).

All, this article is quite interesting, it’s about human evolution signs of the past 5000-15000 years “Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?ei=5070&en=755f148af73219e8&ex=1170651600&pagewanted=print

You should understand that evolution takes a loooooooooooooooooong time. It doesn’t happen in 100 or even 1000 years.
It’s hard to imagine for the human brain that something can take millions of years to show changes through evolving so you can imagine that th echanges over about 7000 years are bound to be extremely subtle or minimal.

There are some things that point to evolving humans though. To name a couple, I’d think of human teeth and human digestion.

According to my dentist, humans are starting to lose their wisdom teeth- some children’s xrays show that they don’t have embedded wishdom teeth at all. Perhaps in 10,000+ years there won’t be any humans left who have wisdom teeth.
Also, the study of the lactase gene point to the fact that humans are still evolving. There is evidence that lactose intolerance has a genetic basis. Suffering from lactose intolerance are:
95% of Asian people
75% of Afro-Caribbean people
50% of Mediterranean people
10% of northern European peopl

Thanks for the link Celivia, It was interesting none the less:
But;
With your thoughts on Dental evolution, technically I will need to ask my sister in-law, she is head of the dental faculty in Szeged.
But I do know that there are any numerous diseases that are a genetic malfunction, not Evolution.
Some of which do not appear to the naked eye; so I do not hold much faith in your dentists philosophical positioning.

The article does discuss as what we have discussed, that it is not based on Science.
Let me quote a part of the article:
“The four populations analyzed in the HapMap project are the Yoruba of Nigeria, Han Chinese from Beijing, Japanese from Tokyo and a French collection of Utah families of European descent. The populations are assumed to be typical of sub-Saharan Africa,( Relevance to the Book I Attached above) East Asia and Europe, but the representation, though presumably good enough for medical studies, may not be exact.”

Yes now that sounds familiar; not exact. And a rather broad based statement based on nothing; and not science other than wishful thinking.
But at least we can dispel some of the notions we are all the same, and according to that article we are of distinct racial categories;
Do you know how many arguments that will create in the Proletariat lobotomization and dumping down possess?
That conflicts with every brainwashed Ideal that exists today.

Did you think I would not read your links?
I do , I am not a box head when it comes to finding things out , and others views, but that link is very peculiar and does not promote your perspectives very well.

The next step is to find out more about the authors and contributors of the findings; I think I will find out more about them than their findings.

I do not know where the 7 thousand year time line comes from. But it is true to suggest it is a whole lot furrrrther back than that time line.

Ha ha All, is this part of your stand up routine? Keep it coming this is great entertainment.

Celivia that is interesting about wisdom teeth. Studies with monozygotic and dizygotic twins show that personality traits are also genetic. Our personalities are externalities of genetic combinations but the environment breaks down that influence through genetic damage over the course of a life time. A shy child can become extraverted. The same is the case with nearly all hereditary illnesses such as heart disease and certain cancers. An example is some people have enough genetic material to repair the lungs over 100 years so can smoke and live a long life with low risk of lung cancer. Others with less material could live to 100 without lung cancer if the environment such as smoking is not taken up by them. The person living to 100 without lung cancer if immortal would eventually succumb to lung cancer.

Genes are like value packs of batteries , once used up through over use the package is empty and what’s left of a battery will not light a torch. This is why an environment is important to our health and anti oxidants and lowering of free radicals in our system is so important.

Lactose intolerance runs in my family but hits us when we are in our teens showing that in the case of my family the lactose digesting gene combination is there at birth but it is not sufficient enough to survive our diets by the time we are adults.

You must forgive me west, but I do detect a large contribution from most; based on the Hegelian Philosophical principle;
I have yet to determine if it is actually by Natural selection or by Unintelligent Indoctrination;
and there fore a subconscious attribute that leads to the deterioration and subjective notion that what is true is false what is good is evil and Science is fiction.

Even a Ding Bad Et All- like me can tell you psychpathy is a "HEREDITORY" trait, how you conger up Evolutionary aspects is a bit of Moral inverted Voodoo on your behalf.

If I was to apply a clinical expression to explain these phenomena’s, I would undoubtedly be attacked from all sides and run the risk of being overwhelmed by your flattery.
To Explain the Hegelian Syndrome, Here is a link to help: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/131/

But what part of my post before do you not understand?
I had a slight chuckle at the Genetic package ordeal- and you accuse me of comedy sketching.
I hope you are not serious and have the basic grasp of what actually constitutes genetics and D N A; And Santa clause Juxtaposed to the tooth fairy have nothing to do with it.
Now that would be Voodoo, and an unwarranted assertion; perhaps a little bit of Hegelian mixed with Kant maybe?

Isn't the loss of wisdom teeth and lactose intolerance etc an emerging loss of genetic information, not an adding to develop a new more developed species to cope with the environment? From reports on genetics Iv'e heard, science tells of the weakening of the human genome. 1. because the majority of children are now born from older parents 2. because of male exposure to higher levels of radiation 3. because of less children born to each parent limits diversity.

The human species is weakening to invironmental conditions not emerging into a new more robust species. Perhaps those with lactose intolerance and gluten intolerance will emerge to be able to merely survive on fruit. Fruit and herbs being the original diet of humans, before grain was gathered, or animals herded or eaten. The human bowel was not designed (for West's sake has evolved) to intake meat, indicating the intake of meat for humans has not changed our bowel in human evolutionary history. However will the shortening of the bowel by continual surgical means; mean we will evolve to have shorter bowels. So many questions - so little time.

The genes responsible for lactose digestion enabled homosapiens to extend their breast feeding period in higher latitudes during the ice age. Those in that area at that time which were born with insufficient genetic coverage to digest lactose would have died.

This occurs everyday. The majority of conceptions are aborted naturally every day weeding out genetic makeup that are not compatible with the environement including the environment of the womb.

It is like indoor paint , in the interior of a building it can exist in a good state for many years but outside of a building it will peel or fade. Outdoor paint will exist in a healthy state in both indoors and out. Both are paint made by the same factory , just a different make up.

Hey Philo, check out this scientific paper:

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/PIIS109051380400100X/abstract

The title of which is: "Dairying barriers affect the distribution of lactose malabsorption" in which it is seen that extension of the expression of the lactase enzyme is seen well into gastric maturity (ie weaning) in populations of humans that have had histories of dairying and drinking milk. Whereas the "ancestral" condition is that lactase is "switched off" after weaning in other animals and populations of humans that have not historically kept dairy cattle.

Is that a loss of genetic information, or a functional gain that has helped European populations to survive? (I think I know which you will pick).

Ok West How about if I accept the Evolutionary theory, then I would submit an Hypothesis based on such principles that Nature will evolve into something else;

Well I would predict that within One Hundred to one hundred and fifty years that every living leftist (Proletariat Lobotomized) on the face of this earth;
That their offspring from hence forth will be bourn with out a brain, as Nature noted, they never used it anyway so Nature will save on genetic make up;
Hmmmmmmmm.
And yes, we better paint them with exterior paint, I don’t think the evolutionary process has caught up with Lab manufacturing yet, that is a little less complicated.
And we best get rid of that racist milk, we can not have any intolerance any more.

Evolutionary theory is fun; I like it.

West,
The longer human bowel is identified with the bowel of plant eating herbivores and is longer, unlike that of carnivors - Then why in the last 10,000 years and during the Ice age, while humans devoured mostly meat did not the bowel of humans shorten? Persons who now mostly devour a larger percentage of meat in their diets are more prone to bowel problems. Will this gene emerge to shorten the bowel - or will continual bowel surgery cause the gene to evolve change?

Philo, your information is incorrect.
Human’s stomachs produce hydrochloric acid (HCL), something not found in herbivores.
Our pancreas manufactures digestive enzymes to handle both animal and vegetable foods.

Human’s intestines are LONGER than animal carnivores and NOT AS LONG as herbivores.

Conclusion: We are mixed feeders or omnivores, much the same as gorilla’s and chimpanzees.

Human intestines are unique and flexible to adapt to a great range of basic diets. That’s why humans have survived for so long- we were able to digest the foods our environment had to offer us.

The extremely fast change in our diets over the last few decades, including high fat, highly processed, high sugar intake is a problem. Our digestive system cannot adapt at this speed. Never in history has our diet changed so dramatically and quickly. It is not surprising that food intolerance, diabetic or other digestive diseases are on the rise.

Philo you should read http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/~ALRF/giintro.htm

Anyway this thread is getting into armchair genetics. The only relevant point is nature exists and evolution has been linked to nature. There has been no god proven to exist so it is utterly ridiculous to link anything with a god.

Without prior proof of god Intelligent design is a fabrication. The most important question we should be asking what is the motivation of ID pusher who conspire to brainwash our children with the nonesense of ID?

Celivia, If you are serious I’m sure if you ask Dr Katalin Nagy ; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Szeged University. ... Hungarian; any questions you may have , she would be glad to answer them for you ; She is a wonderful lady;
I will let you track her down, but here is her profile none the less.
If anything, it will be a lesson in word not common to the ear.

Besides you will not believe me.

http://americanhungarian.org/featured_member-Katalin_Nagy.php

Good one All , now god is dependent on the opinion of one dentist.

God is dependent on the opinions of a dentist is quite ironic for three reasons. The first is the reason Celivia has already generously supplied to us. The second is God is comparable to the toothfairy , another supernatural being which requires blinkered faith. The other reason is that no faith healer, no adult touched by god can regrow lost teeth. According to the snake oil merchants god can cure cancer, cure blindness, cure the crippled but god is at a loss for regrowing lost teeth.

OUCH looks bad that a designer of teeth cannot replicate his work. Then the bumbling idiot filled sugar beets and sugar cane with sucrose , fruit with fructose and milk with lactose. Then to add insult to injury he spilt streptococci in somebodys mouth a few thousand years ago and its spread to all continents. What was he thinking designing streptococci? For a designer of life he is not hygenic at all. Secularist health officials would have closed down his operation and we are only talking teeth. Im sure in the next few centuries genetic designers will do a much better job.

I don’t know if Katalin would appreciate being called a God, but in her field in relation to the science; she is a leading and heavily sought after adviser next to none; in the world West, so if anyone could answer a question on wisdom teeth and why; then next to godly advice, she would be the closest.

“Can not replace teeth”; another good one West, well we can not do ID’s work, but mans Intelligence can help a little;
and the same could also be said for Amputee’s, or any other Surgery that may be required.
And for other phenomena’s posed by yourself out side of the tooth fairy theses, well as I said before, there are something’s we do not know and in seriousness we will never know, and anomalies and events that may evade rational explanations as we know them.

Could be where that coined expression comes from West; God only knows !. Ha

All, I am genuinely interested in the answer someone could come up with about wisdom teeth other than an evolutionist explanation so I will enquire.
Will let you know when I get a reply.
I’d like to see another explanation of the disappearing third molars or wisdom teeth. Some people (one in a few thousand) still have a fourth molar!!

Although I believe you that she is a leading advisor and sought after by the world, she may not be knowledgeable on dental evolution. There was a conference a couple of years back in Leipzig on Dental Perspectives on Human Evolution. I’d like to ask the question to one of those participants. http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/confMay2005/index.htm There are some interesting abstracts. I haven’t had time to properly read them- I just discovered this site.

Anyway, ID won’t deny micro evolution- simply because they cannot get away with denying it; it would look even more ignorant and stupid than denying macro evolution.
So even people like the Kent Hovind (I think he’s in jail for tax fraud) aren’t denying micro evolution. Simply because stories such as the story of Noah’s Ark would proof to be silly.
If Noah would have had to take two of EVERY living species in his ark (and he’d better checked that they were heterosexual, lol), this would be too ridiculos for the most fanatic theist to believe.
I still don’t get it that people belief stories like this to be true.
Have they ever thought of the HUGE food supply, fresh veggies for the herbivores, meat for the carnivores that Noah also would have to supply?
I think they were on this boat for about a year! No way. People nowadays cannot even export sheep without half of them ending up sick or dying.

So the thing that ‘really’ needs to be discussed is not micro evolution but macro evolution as this is the subject of ignorance and denial by creationists as well as ID’ers.

To be continued below

All, you are right to say that the article I provided is not scientific- I merely brought it up as a point of discussion because I find it interesting; same with the wisdom teeth. My not so good choice of an article doesn’t prove that God created the world, though.

On the point whether Human biological evolution is still happening or not, I wouldn’t really oppose a view that perhaps humans’ biological evolution has dramatically slowed down or even stopped (for a while or forever)- who knows. We don’t really have evidence to say that we are still evolving biologically; on the other hand changes can be so slow that they don’t appear in a few generations.
The gene pool is huge compared to the gene pool when most of human evolution was happening- it is bound to have slowed down.

What I do believe, and there is extensive debate on this by anthropologists and biohistorians, is that we are still evolving culturally and socially (sociocultural evolution).

West, about the creationists’ motivation, what I find amusing/annoying is that so-called “scientific creationists” (who have not a grain of evidence other than the grains of salt of the salt pillar that once was Lot’s wife) believe that people must choose between evolution and creation.
They see evolution science as an attack on the Bible because everything in the Bible should remain the truth. So they’re frantically searching for ways to attack evolutionists and ways to ‘prove’ creationism and back-paddling ‘science’ of ID.

Personally, I wonder why these theists just can’t say: “OK, let’s be real. The stories in the Bible are not ‘literally’ true. Let’s just believe that evolution is a logic and reasonable science. We can still believe that God made evolution happen.“

Some theists, it seems, are less delusional than others and have accepted this view- why can’t they all?

Celivia - even the Pope will not dispute evolution. It is completely accepted within the authorities of the Catholic Church that evolution is genuine science, and does not interfere with their beliefs.

Personally, if people want to believe that the world is mega-young and God sticky taped a couple of bones together to make people, fine. But what concerns me is this idea that there are children now being taught 'another side' of the 'story' (in SCHOOLS!), which creates the false impression that there is actual debate going on in the scientific community about ID or whatever, which is completely false, because evolution is about a proven a theory as you can get, and scientists the world over know that, because they're scientists, and they know what they're doing.

To those of you who keep asking annoying mosquito questions about evolution, and if you genuinely want to know the scientific explanations for that which you do not understand about the theory (and lack of understanding of how evolution works is clearly an issue on this thread), I recommend a one-stop location for every answer to every 'challenge' posed to evolution by creationists, ID proponents, flat earth theorists, magical flying elephant-umbrella theorists, whatever.

www.talkorigins.org

*Any* question you may have that you think disproves or discredits evolution in any way, dont ask it here. Search for it on that website. It will provide you with factual, logical explanations for your doubts and explain the position of the world wide scientific community.

But first you need to really ask yourself: Do I allow at all for the posibility that I've been wrong this whole time, and the entire science world has been right? If not, don't bother - but don't bother debating a scientific topic either, because you can't debate science if you refuse to listen to the scientific community.

Spendocrat Im glad you brought that up because I found you are right that the Vatican has rejected Intelligent design as science as this link confirms.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/18/ap/world/mainD8F7BDS03.shtml

Problematic is assertions that the vatican embraces Intelligent Design such as this link reports http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1859760,00.html

For every bible-bashing creationist diligently reading the young-earth piffle at AnswersInGenesis, there is a rabid, supercilious Darwinist scouring Talkorigins for a point by point "Idiot's Guide to Defending Darwin". Spendocrat is a germane example of the latter. His first post in this thread was to defend the absolute, incontrovertible truth of naturalistic Darwinism. To scrutinize the neo-Darwinian narrative of life was not only anti-scientific but downright ridiculous, he proclaimed. According to spendocrat, Darwinistic evolution must be true ("A fact! A fact!") because the evidence is so overwhelming than even blind Freddy can observe it. Yet, when probed a little further, he felt the need to copy and past large chunks from the apostles of atheism at Talkorigins in an attempt to demonstrate something that is, apparently, pervasively obvious.

Irreducible complexity is allegedly nonsense because talkorigins says so. No need for Darwinists to identify a biochemical pathway that can account for irreducibly complex mechanisms. Just like there was no need to sufficiently explain other evolutionary enigmas such as the existence of fully-formed fossils in the Cambrian era with no evolutionary ancestry. Spendocrat's intellectually inept retort that "no new information" is ever required for evolution to occur, "just rearranging" (from microbe to man based on zero genetic information gain...mmmm) is especially noteworthy.

As William Dembski wrote:

"The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has or is anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms. Is Darwinian theory therefore falsified? Hardly. I have yet to witness one committed Darwinist concede that any feature of nature might even in principle provide countervailing evidence to Darwinism. In place of such a concession one is instead always treated to an admission of ignorance. Thus it's not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but that we simply don't know enough about the biological system in question and its historical context to determine how the Darwinian mechanism might have produced it."

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html

Oligarch you are asserting that you do not know enough of evolutionary principles and nature is too complex for you to understand it.

I discount intelligent design not because of its testability. Intelligent design is testable all one needs to do is check wether the claimant of Intelligent Design has proof of god and magic. If they do not obviously Intelligent design is a constructed lie for the purpose of deceit. In this way every person who has claimed intelligent design has proved intelligent design is a lie constructed for the purposes of deceit.

I regard teaching intelligent design as child abuse. The fact is there is no reputable person who supports intelligent design. As a parent I can not and will not tolerate predators trying to prey on my children , to manipulate my children for the evil and disgusting perversion of using children to satisfy Intelligent Design pushers desire to pretend mindless and imature fantasies such as god exists. To all those who push intelligent design to be taught in school, go to a sex shop and buy a rubber doll. LEAVE CHILDREN ALONE!

Oligach has some good points West, I can sight several publications predating the 1950 ies, including Laboratory experiments; Important note (With out Computers,) that summaries that Evolutionary theory is that; Theory. And as far as Scientific conclusions prove such a theory to be not so scientific.
And Spendocrats assertion it is recognized within the scientific community to be a staple scientific fact, is indeed very misleading.

The Biblical writings as I have also mentioned, actually do exist within other theologies; Hinduism – Buddhist- etc (Except Islam for Obvious reasons).
It is that most people just will not bother to find out.
There are obvious translation errors- as well as over egotistical persons throughout time that saw it fit to enter some passages and alter others for propaganda purposes;
Just as our Proletariat Lobotomized today like inventing history- Re writing the language and carry on in a manor fit for Rubber room type enclosure. Out right Nut jobs.

I would be more worried West with all the indoctrination by the Useless Idiot incorporated within the education system now, and frankly compared to some of the total manure espoused by these morons; ID theory rates as a cartoon in comparison.
Priority is the key.

Like it or not, Judaic/ Christian with a touch of Hellinism and principles are why we are here today as we are, you do not have to believe in God to accept that as a Basic fact. And all the propaganda in the world can not ever change It.; as much as the Proletariat Lobotomized will try.

West said: "Oligarch you are asserting that you do not know enough of evolutionary principles and nature is too complex for you to understand it."

Stop using strawmen to misrepresent my position. It's silly. And so is dogmatically accepting a Darwinian "just-so story" (Stephen Jay Gould's words) without any demonstrable mechanisms for microbe to man. Furthermore, ruling out intelligent design a priori, irrespective of the evidence, on the grounds that it does not comply with a purely naturalistic explanation of life is inherently unscientific. Let biology speak for itself.

West said: "I discount intelligent design not because of its testability. Intelligent design is testable all one needs to do is check wether the claimant of Intelligent Design has proof of god and magic."

Again, I refer to the link I posted earlier.

"Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after Darwin's Black Box appeared remarked, "We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway." What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, "But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution.""

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html

Creationists, Intelligent design pushers, Witch doctors , mystics what ever you want to call them are too bonded to darwin. Darwins discovery of natural selection has been confirmed in the lab and in the field.

Intelligent Design invented by Erik Von Danekin has a traceable history and it is firmly based ion fantasy. There is no question that Intelligent design is deceit to serve a political agenda.

The real issue is to stop intelligent design cultists from preying on innocent children. I am gobsmacked that those who try and have ID taught to children are not locked away.

The question is why is not our government protecting our children from child predators who seek to manipulate our childrens minds with the perversion of religion?

Evolution is existence and this process is occurring at all times with respect to each electron, atom, cell, organ, organism, species, ecosystem, planet, and galaxy. What is known as intelligent design is really unintelligent and impossible. We cannot have a fixed and finite universe. May I suggest that one of the problems with such teddy magic like ID is that a pattern cannot be designed and necessary at the same time. If it is necessary then it is not designed, and if it is designed it is not necessary. Go figure.

Us students of science shouldn't forget that we're in a distinctly different position to ID proponents. While ID proponents need to win people over and constantly debate in order to give their theory validity (hasn't worked yet), we, on the other hand, really needn't say a word. The reason being is that even if no one accepted Evolution, it would still exist, because it does not require belief to function.

There are no 'Darwinists' or 'Evolutionists'. We do not 'believe' in Evolution. We accept it is the nature of life, based on testable and observable evidence.

If you do not accept evolutionary theory, you simply are yet to learn the hows and whys of its undeniable nature. Also, you're almost certainly religious.

It's hilarious when you see others say things like '..people who are gullible enough to believe evolution..', as if the entire scientific world has made an incomprehensibly large series of blunders that led to the point we're at today. It would be the most astronomically unlikely coincidence in the history of the planet. And apparently its the scientists, with all their 'credentials', who are the gullible ones.

You know there's something wrong in our society when people start thinking this way.

spendocrat,
The nature of reality cannot be denied; however in the minds of atheists they have concluded nature just happens without an original cause. We happen to believe there was an original intelligent design cause. Science does not deal with the externals only the internals of natural chemistry and design.

Correct Philo. Whats your point?

Even as an athiest, I have a spiritual side. I like to ponder the 'why' as much as the next person (recommend: psilocybin mushrooms). I don't believe in a literal creator as such, and my spiritual *considerations* (as opposed to beliefs) would take far too long to express here. But I will say I am in touch with the sense of oneness that I believe others consider to be God.

But here's the important part: I'm aware that those considerations are not science. They are a different passage entirely, and while the nature of science may be incorporated into my spirituality to some extent (based on my perception), faith has no place in science.

You can almost define science by absence of faith.

So to try to assert that ID is science, and on the same level to deny evolution on the basis that it contradicts your faith, is about as unscientific a consideration can possibly get.

You wanna talk spirituality, religion and philosophy - awsome, I'll be right there with you. But it has nothing to do with the science of evolution.

I think some people are mixing up Spontaneous generation theories of simple cells; these thoughts stem from the 18th century. As in those days, they did not know the complexities of the cell contents or of the information contained in the DNA molecules that guides the development of the smallest living organism.
Spontaneous Generation was dispelled by no other than Francesco Redi- and Louis Pasteur – Ring any bells anyone?

This became to be known as Biogenetic Law- Life only comes from life.
So I suppose they became the Daddy of the Genome experiment’s.
That became the realization period and the faltering of Darwins Theory.

I could waffle on but everyone’s eyes are glazing over; so My point is simple.

West said: "Darwins discovery of natural selection has been confirmed in the lab and in the field."

It's patently obvious that you don't know much about evolutionary biology, theory or otherwise. Here's a little insight for you - not even bible-bashing creationists deny the process of natural selection. It's observable and testable. However, natural selection in itself is not a mechanism for net evolutionary advancement as it does not increase the amount of DNA in the genome (the requirement for the specification of new functions and structures). Rather, natural selection is simply a process of fine-tuning to the environment involving genetic variability already resident in a gene pool of a species. Rather than adding new information, natural selection actually results in the elimination of certain genes in response to environmental pressures. How can the thinning out of the gene pool (information loss) result in the up-hill evolutionary development of new structures and functions?

If you had only the simplest possible life form, and there is not a gradual increase in the amount of DNA in the genome, then you'd never be able to account for more advanced life. You could wait billions of years, but without a mechanism for generating new specified information, there will be no net evolutionary change.

'You could wait billions of years, but without a mechanism for generating new specified information, there will be no net evolutionary change.'

Going in circles here.

This is a common question posed by those who lack the understanding of how Evolution actually functions.

www.talkorigins.org <--- problem solved.

"West said: "Darwins discovery of natural selection has been confirmed in the lab and in the field. It's patently obvious that you don't know much about evolutionary biology, theory or otherwise. Here's a little insight for you - not even bible-bashing creationists deny the process of natural selection. It's observable and testable. "

Oligarch you contradict yourself. How do you think creationists are aware of natural selection? Creationism is unthinking superstition at any level wether a person is franatical or not. Infact I cannot see how a creationist can be a fanatic, creationism is fringe lunacy. A person has either a grip on reality or they do not , to be a creationist a person has to deny reality , creationism is politics it has nothing to do with spirituality.

It is all beside the point Intelligent Design is deception , its a con. There has never been an honest argument supporting Intelligent design , God the missing link between magic and design has never been produced.ID pushers cant even reproduce the magic spells a god would have to use to "intelligently design ".

The real issue and the only issue is protecting children in schools from child predators who push ID.

I think you need some help West, so here is an addendum for you to read;

http://www.textaddons.com/Docs/5_06_Biology%20Concepts%20&%20Connections%202000.pdf
Worth remembering this;
the Miller-Urey experiment ; I would imagine everyone in the evolutionary circle knows who these people are then?
If not , why not?
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/

I have to track down some actual reproduced publications if I can;
I will post them as soon as I can find it ; if it exists out side of Book form.
There is about 12 other such publications, so be patient.

spendocrat said: "This is a common question posed by those who lack the understanding of how Evolution actually functions."

Are you an intellectually fulfilled atheist? It appears not. Otherwise you would have mentioned that according to Darwinism, it is the gradual accumulation of so-called "beneficial" mutations (acted on by natural selection) that provides the mechanism for up-hill evolutionary change. You need the beneficial mutations to create new specified genetic information, natural selection on its own does not do the job.

Being such an expert, I expect you'll be able to provide an irrefragable, real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new specified information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new, more complex organism. Based on the Darwinian microbe to man narrative, there should be innumerable examples. And no, examples of speciation will not suffice as we require examples of new information specifying new integrated structures and functions (speciation is a result of genetic loss/deleterious mutations).

Oligarch the issue of intelligent design has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution. Intelligent design is a lie that is utilised by predators to manipulate children. Intelligent design pushers can try and muddy the waters with ridiculous arguments and mindless slurs against science. In the end intelligent design remains a lie and the only motivation a person has to want to teach intelligent design to children is child abuse.

West said: "Intelligent design is a lie that is utilised by predators to manipulate children. Intelligent design pushers can try and muddy the waters with ridiculous arguments and mindless slurs against science."

West, I have posted comments above by Dr. William Dembski defending ID as falsifiable. Indeed, it is the Darwinian narrative that is unfalsifiable by comparison.

You assert incessantly that religious philosophy is the prime driver behind ID. Applying the same philosophical filter, who are the biggest proponents of evolution? Answer, militant atheists like Richard Dawkins. His intellectually lazy polemic is driven by his atheistic worldview, not scientific curiosity. The same arguments that are levelled at ID can also be applied to Darwinists like Dawkins.

Regardless of all the silly posturings of ID pushers. The only issue is their predetory motivation to brainwash children to bring our children under their control. Intelligent design is an excuse for child abuse nothing else.

The standard of debate in here is woeful. Oligarch, if you want to be taken at all seriously I suggest you start learning a bit about evolutionary genetics. And also start thinking at least a little critcally about what Dembski actually said.

A few points I guess i have to clear up:
1) Evolutonary biologist do not refer to themselves as Darwinists, in the same manner that physicists do not refer to themselves as Newtonians or Einsteinians. Darwin had come across an explanation of evolution that has proved useful, but the state of the science has progressed far beyond what he said about evolution.

2) The term "specified information" is also not generally used by biologists, since the term is mainly used by ID arguers.

3) There are at least several mechanisms by which a net increase in genetic information can occur with in an organism.
-One is genome duplication. In plants, it's called polyploidy eg. wheat. Modern wheat has been bred to be polyploid and would be classed as a different species from wild wheat by any definition of species and is grossly morphologically different from its ancestor.
-Another is chromosomal translocation, in humans they can cause disorders, but in other organisms they can increase the genome size.
-Yet another is retroviruses which splice their DNA into cells of the host.
-And further still we have commensal or symbyotic organisms, cellular organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts (in plants) are basically separate bacterial type organisms which have been engulfed and co-opted by eukaryotic cells. They even have their own genome and divide separately to the cell as a whole.

There are some others that are currently being investigated, but you get the idea. All of these have been observed in nature and the laboratory. Now you can shut up about it.
cont...

That Dembski article states the conditions (as do you) about ID being falsifiable. It is falsifiable, because it has already been falsified. The flagellum that you and Dembski and Behe seem so fond of has been shown to be homologous to a Type III secretory system, which contains fewer genes than the flagellum and is likely an ancestral form. ID arguers of course think that it is just a reduction of the flagellum or separate to it, but the fact remains that the flagellum system will work if some of the protiens are removed, as a secretory system, not a motile one. That is, it is not irreducibly complex the proteins can function in other ways. Try a new example, that one is going downhill fast.

Lastly, Dembski has a double standard in that he criticises evolution for not predicting anything (not true BTW), but then lets ID off the same hook of prediction by saying that it would be a "category error". I think that the category error was mistaking ID for scince in the first place!

Bugsy ID is not about science it is about the politics of power. ID pushers want to get control over our childrens minds. They are not interested in natural processes, they are interested in self gratification.

I agree with you, however some people actually believe the stuff IDers peddle and it is necessary to encourage them to learn for themselves what a wank it is.

Ummm I don’t think I can add anymore than I already have, but I think I know where some can get help from;
To explain some traits at least.

Dr Pat Santy;
http://www2.blogger.com/profile/05490927712024477670

This is her profile, you will need to enter the: “Blog entry” to find out more.
“Cover all bases”; as they say.

Bugsy I think All is the only person I have ever come across who supports ID myth as ID theory for the purpose and enjoyment of exploring the concept. The indicator is that All has included Aliens and spaceships within the explanation and has not discounted the Mad Hatter, the dreamtime serpent, songs of inverted sirens or poly-existent geometry as rivals of a god as intelligent designer. Intelligent Design afterall is a series of missing links which are no more than fantasy.

All is rare in mythological discourse. The rest are serving a cynical political agenda constructed to exploit children to artificially discredit science in order to drag the western world back into the dark ages.

In this agenda creationists are allied with Islamists. Christianity has become in most cases and is becoming in the rest of cases the political wing of Islamic terrorism.

It is striking West that even if those that claim That the Evolutionary Hypothesis has some merit, then in turn it would be a logical conclusion they have belief in other Life forms in our Universe; Yes?

Unless we are intended to be here- and on purpose; and we know how much that upsets some people.

No Aliens West, the physics are Impossibility, even using the most Flamboyant of Mathematicians corrupt equations.

A New Darwinism? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/dennett_exchange.html

Darwinian Fundamentalism http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151

And of course ; A chronology of Life elsewhere in the Universe.
The Drake equation states that:
N= R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L

Where:
N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might expect to be able to communicate at any given time
And
R* is the rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate
L is the expected lifetime of such a civilizatio

Interestingly Dr Evil just posted an Essay on :" In defense of the Truth"; http://democracyfrontline.org/blog/?p=1834
Interesting?

www.talkorigins.org <---- learn...

It appears that West is obsessed and insecure by his petty attacks ID and lacks the true mind of science - an open minded possibility ID might just explain codependent species.

I've been involved in selective genetic breeding of animals and plants under Dr Gothel during the 1960's and never once did we create a new species. For instance on several occasions we reverted back to the original wild tomato from Brazil to selectively breed new breeds because inbreeding of new breeds - hybreds failed to reproduce. However new breeds were always from the gene pool of tomatoes. Wheat was always wheat though it had different characteristics. However to introduce omega 3 for instance into a species it does not happen by selective breeding but by laboratory scientific interferrence.

That site is Scary Spendocrat; but it does help explain things a bit.
I tell you what, here is a link to Charles Darwin Bio, and if you activate his name in the top line, it will bring you to about 27 of his published works. All in Electronic book form.
That’s for a start;
I have about 40 more installments of other works.
All of which predate 1950ies.
On line web sites are very suspect; please forgive me if I remain skeptical about The Talk approach to the subject, it sounds like a rabid puppy off its leash biting everyone who does not agree or has more science than fiction to back their Hypothesis, but I do detect in some syntax of commentary where they find a particular Indoctrination approach.

If ever there is a methodology to refute ether for; or against that would be the last place that I would visit for informed opinion.
Probably look in Cambridge or Oxford Publications and Journals plus Archives.
And a few specific Professors and Doctors
Only a few of more credible credentialed opinions and scientific findings; They were not on a Mission about screwing peoples Brains up back then.
Un like Now days.
Anyway here are the Charles Darwin publications.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2010

Wow Philo, breeding tomatoes in the 60's! I am very impressed, I guess you'd know all about evolution then. So, I reckon you wouldn't be impressed at all by this then.

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n5/abs/6800432a.html

Philo ID pushers can only offer lies and myth to support ID. ID's missing links , God , Magic , a cartoon universe remains much more than dubious.

Tonight gazing at the milkyway which is crystal clear here the idea god no longer seems ridiculous but rather completely insane.

What ID pushers have said in this thread , in the media, in the gutter is not about nature. God is clearly divorced from nature, ID is divorced from nature. ID is politics , the discourse of predators , a crime , a con. ID is weird ,perverse, contorted, a deformed perception, a bondage to ignorance. ID pushers see the world like peeping toms with a stocking over their heads, getting off on the imaginary with no clear vision of their actual fetish. Lurking , stalking, hiding in the shadows, to ashamed to open up for scrutiny. ID has too much to hide.

The only relevance is that ID pushers are attempting to prey on Children. The only thing need to be said of ID is leave the kids alone!

All,
here’s the answer from Dr. Nagy to my question in this thread. She is a lovely lady indeed.

I asked whether the disappearance of the fourth molar is related to oral evolution and also the very gradually disappearing wisdom teeth.

I do believe her about the reason for PROBLEMS with wisdom teeth. But the LOSS of wisdom teeth can still be due to oral evolution.

Wisdom teeth are losing their FUNCTION perhaps due to changes in diet.
Isn’t that what happens during evolution: the function is lost so there is no need for that part of our anatomy and we lose it and won’t miss it?

Here's her answer:

"In the process of evolution the jaw has become smaller, allowing less room for the third molars and causing numerous dental problems. A major conclusion of evolution is that the human jaw has shrunk from its much larger ape size to the smaller modern human size as humans evolved. In short, evolution has produced 'an increase in brain size at the expense of jaw size.' In the process, the jaw has become too small for the last teeth to erupt which are normally the third molars, often called wisdom teeth. The result is the common assumption that most humans do not have enough room in their mouth for wisdom teeth which lack a function and only cause us much health trouble.......

Research now indicates that the reasons for most third molar problems today are not due to evolutionary changes but other reasons. These reasons include a change from a coarse abrasive diet to a soft western diet, lack of proper dental care, and genetic factors possibly including mutations.

Common past dental practice was a tendency to routinely remove wisdom teeth. Recent empirical research has concluded that this practice is unwise. Third molars in general should be left alone unless a problem develops and then they should be treated as any other teeth. At times removal is required, but appropriate efforts to deal with problem teeth should be implemented before resorting to their extraction. "
By Dr. Katalin Nagy DDS, Ph.D

Philo, I agree that a complex system cannot evolve from a simpler one, but only in case that there is no change in function.

But the function of a system can (and does) change over time.
Evolution, therefore, can lose, modify, or add parts to a system.

If the function changes, an inessential part can then be modified until it does become essential.

Anyway, that's my understanding about it.

Celivia the elements have evolved through star building since the big bang as each new element evolves the new element is more complex. This process obviously is rarer and slower than the evolution of life but complexity naturally evolves out of simple systems. A island ecosystem begins with a simple assemblage of life which builds biodiversity into complex systems. With each new actor is opportunity for additional symbiosis. Human personality is like that too , as babies we have simple reactionary systems as our brains add more information we become more complex in our thinking and personality functions.

I hope she was of some help Celivia, and I would have suggested that Dietary intake (Decedents) would have a great well to do with many Mutating genetic problems now days; Soft pasty and processed food stuffs.
As modernity has altered the Biological functioning mechanisms. And has introduced many factors that will alter Genetic Metabolic functions.
I would not conclude in any way or part to be associate with Evolutionary theory; Call it a consequence I suppose.
If you were to Meet Dr Nagi in person, her personality is very warm and extremely humble in anyone’s presence. As wells as a wealth of Knowledge.

You are a star West and that must have been a big party god had when it went bang, Ha.
That’s what I meant before about Alfa and Omega; Astrophysics and those theories do not match up I’m sorry to report; many have confused them selves. Some have been committed to mental institutions.
A link above helps explain that.
It is quite simple West; Quantum Physics Theory; Beyond that is Godliness.
I can hear you grumbling. Ha.

It would take a rainbow Serpent to create a god all. The god that god worships.