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.