questions for science( let's hear your answers)

[Gman]

You seem not to be interested in much beyond the fact that orphan genes are enigmatic. I did a 30 second search on Google and linked you to articles that provided clues about their function, origin (transposable elements) and the fact that many genes labeled orphan genes may simply be the product of incomplete gene sequencing. And this was a 30 second search. I am certain that if questions about their function, origin and purpose genuinely interested you as much as it appears to interest the scientists that study them, you could find much more. But the fact that you can't explain their existence does not mean that science cannot or has not.

“Clues” about their function? “May” simply be the product of incomplete gene sequencing? Again, these are simply arguments… This is exactly what I was saying to you before. If scientists knew their parents then they wouldn't be calling them ORFans. Plain and simple.. Again these ORFans have no matches… Of course there are ideas on how they came to be, but nothing is certain… That is why scientists call them ORFans… Trust me, if they knew their parents, they would NOT be calling them ORFans.. Also we have only a tiny portion of the domain of Common Descent that has been searched… And the percentage of genes in every genome that has been sequenced that are orphans are remarkably high… Again, we have just begun to scratch the surface of the data being presented…

I've done my due diligence here.

More like shooting yourself in the proverbial foot… Sorry…

No, not everything is theoretically possible. In fact many experiments have been modified or rejected for being inconsistent with conditions that existed on the Earth 4 billion years ago. The steps that are consistent and have been shown to occur in conditions modeling ancient Earth have been advanced. What science has shown is that it is possible to go from inorganic molecules to molecules that are capable of being modified by natural selection. And subsequent studies have shown that given a whole bunch of strands of RNA that are self replicating and variable - that over short periods of time only a few, most successful variants are left (which is exactly what you would expect from evolution). So the notion that the Marx brothers did it is not theoretically possible.

More dictations?? I thought you said earlier that presumably these steps did occur. Now you say that they have been shown to occur… So where is your proof? Show me the evidence and we will take it into consideration. But if you bring up words, possibly, might, could, etc.. I'll raise the red flag.

It seems that you are not reading my links so I'm going to have to spell it out for you… There are only two possibilities for the existence of life:

1. Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

I believe that a creator made it and you believe that life spontaneously arouse from chemicals by chance. That is the discussion we are having here… They are belief systems, philosophies and the like.. No one knows how life originated.. We don't even know where natural selection came from. What is it going to select to get life started? Itself?

I am afraid this is untrue. First of all, you have not yet defined macroevolution, so I'm not sure that we can agree on when it occurs.

Ok, that is completely untrue… Earlier you asked me, in your exact words, “Could you be a little more specific in what areas you think evolution needs?” I clearly replied, "It depends on what type of evolution you are talking about" and then provided you a link to the topic General Rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution. If you would have looked at the link I provided you, would have read this.. So since you won't open it, here it is…

“It is important to first define what is meant by the word "evolution." There are actually two major theories of biological evolution:

•Microevolution - Unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies. Includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc.
•Macroevolution - Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc.

Therefore, I accept microevolution as a scientifically reliable theory, which describes the intelligent design with which organisms were endowed by their Designer. However, in contrast to the reliability of microevolutionary theory, macroevolution is not supported by the record of nature or current scientific research. Even evolutionists admit these major problems in the scientific journals (although you are unlikely to find these admissions in textbooks or popular books on evolution):”

So there you have it… Is it clearer now??

Second, I have used the example of endosymbiosis to explain how not witnessing an event does not render the events beyond the reach of science to explain (and in fact the methods of inquiry used to explain them are totally consistent with the scientific method). By your definition, Africa and South America were never joined, black holes do not exist, Asian peoples did not cross a land bridge into North America, atoms are figments of our imagination, the Hawaiian Islands could not have formed and the entire fossil record is useless. So much for science. No wait - there are evidences and methods we can use to examine these phenomena. No one witnessed Pangea, but we have theory that explains it (plate tectonics) which effectively says that small, gradual observable geological changes will result in large scale continental changes. Sort of sounds like evolution... And of course there are geologic evidences that should and do exist if Africa and South America were once joined. In the case of evolution, we have a mechanism (natural selection), the genetics are well understood, we have phylogenetic evidence, we have deep time (3.5 billion years of organic evolution), we have an abundant fossil record that documents change over time, we have witnessed speciation events - the list goes on. In their totality, they not only make macroevolution probable, they virtually render it an absolute certainty ... as much as it is a certainty that SA and Africa were once joined. Again, you don't seem to grasp the significance of the fact that the historical sciences follow the same rules as experimental science in the methods of inquiry.

Africa and South America were once joined? What on earth does this have to do with our discussion? What does plate tectonics have to do with macroevolution? I'm attacking macroevolution… I do not believe in it.

Endosymbiosis? Maybe you should read our article on that here…

“Endosymbiosis model of mitochondrial origins questioned
For over 100 years, the prevailing evolutionary theory for the origin of mitochondrion (the organelle of the cell that "powers" the cell's energy needs) has been thought to be endosymbiosis - the idea that an parasitic bacterium somehow got incorporated into an early cell, eventually losing its ability to exist extracellularly and becoming completely dependent upon the host cell. However, new data, from a group of little-known protists (unicellular eukaryotes) has challenged this hypothesis. The problem for evolutionists is similar to that seen in other areas of evolutionary theory. Mitochondria are extremely complex organelles that are fully integrated into the functioning of the cell. Some of the genes that code for mitochondrial components come from a small mitochondrial genome, whereas most come from the nuclear genome. Of those genes that come from the nuclear genome, the informational genes are similar to those found in archaebacteria ("ancient" bacteria that have been in existence for billions of years) and the operational genes are similar to those found in eubacteria (bacteria that make up the vast majority of species in existence today). The assumption has been that a primitive eukaryotic cell (with a nucleus, but no mitochondria) acquired a primitive bacterium that evolved into mitochondria. However, there is recent evidence from a primitive, previously little-studied group of protists (Archezoa) that the theory is probably incorrect. These protists do not have mitochondria (unlike any other eukaryotes), but code for these proteins in their nuclear genome. In addition, the diversity among eukaryotes (especially with regard to mitochondrial genes) is so great that no single theory can account for the existence of all living eukaryotes. The evolutionists' solution to the problem can be summarized by the following statement:

The possibility has been raised more generally that the earliest branchings of the eukaryotic tree may all be suspect for similar reasons (34, 53), with both "early" and "intermediate" branchings actually collapsing to an unresolved radiation (polychotomy) (54). The emerging revisionist view of eukaryotic evolution is a scenario characterized by a massive and virtually simultaneous radiation (big bang) at the base of the eukaryotic tree, involving virtually all extant eukaryotic phyla (34).”

Gray, M.W., G. Burger, and B.F. Lang. 1999. Mitochondrial evolution. Science 283: 1476-1481.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evol1999.html

I am not wrong. I teach biology and I have taught courses on evolution, so I know what is taught. No mention of evolution is ever made in my biology class until our unit on evolution which is 4 chapters out of 50. In contrast, my evolution class was called "evolution", the textbook was called "Evolutionary Analysis" and the entire semester was devoted to a study of the ToE. Now, if you are suggesting that the ToE is considered the cornerstone theory in biology and is used to interpret and explain patterns, observations and phenomena, and as such is a vital part of any class on biology, then you're right. But by that logic, we should teach biology according to evolution and biology according to ID for every biology class offered in high schools. But the latter would be 2 class periods long - both devoted to an explanation of what ID is. Since it currently offers no explanation for the origin, existence or function of various structures, the rest of the year would be downtime.

Hey ARWallace.. How long are you going to push this on me? Again, I never said “devoted” in meaning in a separate class… Those are YOUR words… Again… I said that DE is totally engrained into science.. It's the philosophical glue or belief that holds the scientific beliefs together, so why can't ID be another alternative? Again, I have told you many many times that I do NOT think that ID is ready for school yet. I said that ID will most likely naturally arise in biology classrooms whether design is mandated or not since the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it did with Darwin. That is what I said..

Again, I have never said that ID is a religious idea (I have suspicions, but my opinion doesn't matter). I have said, repeatedly, that if it is found to be a religious idea, then it will be banned from public schools for the same reason YEC is. That is a certainty.

Let's be honest with each other… There are times when ID might insinuate a belief system or the supernatural behind it.. Sometime it may, sometimes not.. The point I'm trying to make with you is that atheism is ALSO a religious belief system as well.. Again, I would say what we are talking about here are differences in philosophies… Not pertaining to science at all.

Yes.

Macroevolution is testable? Again I have to repeat myself… It should be noted that evolution itself has also found it virtually impossible to chemically produce the basic molecules required for any living system as well. Evolution has never been witnessed to chemically produce life either.. If you have the evidence, show it.. So there…

That's a rather bold statement coming from the anonymity of a web discussion board. Without knowing anything about me, you are essentially accusing me of lacking critical thought. Is this what you meant?

What I'm saying to you is that you are wearing the ToE sunglasses on your head. So of course everything to you is going to look like the ToE (or shady). How about taking those shades off and seeing what the real world looks like? Just a thought…

I have spent a great deal of time examining ID and read as extensively as time permits. The subject intrigues me. While I have an opinion, it is not from lack of thought and careful consideration. And I have been exceedingly careful with my wording so as not to be misunderstood - for example, I have tried to state clearly that ID has not yet produced any IC structures; and this does not preclude the possibility that it might. In other words, the verdict is not in in my mind, but the evidence against it (until such time as it does bear fruit) is overwhelming. Moreover, I will happily embrace a scientific replacement for the ToE if one exists. That's how science is.

Again, the evidence for macroevolution exists in only one place.. On paper… Also ID supporters do not seek to totally reject evolution. Many proponents believe that biological structures may have resulted from a combination of both design and evolution. They accept microevolution for the most part but only question the bigger macro evolutionary changes. We can't totally prove that evolution happened or it didn't. Again, I'll state it again word for word.. It's beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty on either side. And if we performed the same rigorous tests that we could on ID with macroevolution, macroevolution probably wouldn't pass the test to be classified as science either.

How is this relevant? Philosophical materialism, which is the philosophy governing the way science is conducted, does not require belief OR disbelief in the supernatural. It simply requires that they do not credit them with intervention in their explanatory systems.

And since when does philosophical materialism account for all changes in body designs?

Respectfully, no this is not all I have been saying.

Yes you have…

How is this evidence of ID? I thought that they were concerned with IC structures as proof of design. How does junk DNA figure in? Is it IC?

Again are you reading the article? It tells you in the beginning.. Here is is again..

"In the All the DNA contained within species of organisms, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genomes of The classification of living organisms that are characterized by a membrane-bound nucleus in which the DNA is housed.eukaryotes has been used as an argument against intelligent design (and the role of a Creator) and as an argument for the random process of evolution.

Basically the junk dna argument backfired on scientists against ID..

You didn't answer my questions: where in the Edwards ruling do they reference design? Didn't the use of the word "designer" supplant "creator" following the Edwards trial in most texts? Did they Dover case use the Edwards case as legal precedent?

Wikipedia Edwards v. Aguillard… In their ruling at Dover, they referenced the Edwards v. Aguillard case against ID as being a form of creationism. If you seem to think that ID could be taught in public schools when it came out in the early 90's I would love to see this…

Yes, I do understand. I have tried to explain to you that science is not a polite democracy of ideas. Only those that make it through an extensive review process and show promise make it. This happens day in and day out in science. If ID can't produce what it says it can produce, why should it be taken seriously? The idea is being pursued vigorously by many scientists, but the idea has yet to gain any traction in the scientific community because it has not yet done what it set out to do. The fight is definitely not rigged since it is the same fight that happens every day in science.

Again, my argument is that scientists can't replicate macroevolution either.. It's practically based on faith… There is no fight, you have already declared the winner because you are looking through the lenses of ToE.. So everything looks like the ToE to you..

Again, healthy debate does exist in science, and lots of ideas are abandoned because they don't work, have no support or simply look good on paper but have no value in the real world. ID, to date, meets all three of these criteria.

And by your many many statements, macroevolution doesn't work either.. It's an idea that has a legal backing.. That's the only difference.

Well, the skeptic in me says there's a good reason for this.

Likewise in me too.. In fact, I even feel better for going through this discussion. You have helped my beliefs even more…

I have not brought up the argument over the identity of the designer, so it is interesting that you did. I have heard this argument before, and I think that it is a little disingenuous for a Christian and biblical literalist (not necessarily you - just in general) to embrace ID and then say "yeah, but the designer could be from outer space".

That's a funny one… ID does not seek to thwart evolution from the classrooms but only stir up the controversies surrounding it.. But when you start invading my space and say that how we got here is through random chance mutations, I've got a problem with that.. Like what Byblos said earlier, ID arose mainly to counter ToE's claims of undirected, chance (or godless) creation and what that entails. So if you push philosophical ideologies, I'm going to push back..

Again, I have not brought this up - you did. And I am rather disinterested in debate over the possible theistic connections to ID. But it is worth pointing out that this is not what they found out about the ID proponents in the Dover case. It was, in that case, a rather thinly veiled version of creationism.

Again read the article Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory? and tell me where you see a supernatural agent.. Here is the section on it..

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

Cheers...

[ARWallace]

Gman -

I may have to limit my participation in this thread for a variety of reasons; first, this is quickly snowballing into something that is taking huge amounts of my (and your) time. Not that I am disinterested in dialogue - only that this discussion has grown past the point that I can respond to all queries and do them justice at the same time. Second, we seem to be going in circles on some issues, and we don't seem to be getting anywhere. Third, you seem to be getting upset with me, and that has never been my intent. I have tried to be respectful and consistent with board policies (particular in light of the fact that I am a dissenting voice on a board moderated by opposing views). So I do not want to upset you further. That said, I'll take a quick crack some of the points you raised and see where it gets us.

>>“Clues” about their function? “May” simply be the product of incomplete gene sequencing? Again, these are simply arguments… This is exactly what I was saying to you before. If scientists knew their parents then they wouldn't be calling them ORFans. Plain and simple.. Again these ORFans have no matches…

And again, you seem to lack any genuine curiosity about ORFans besides the fact that they are enigmatic. They are a recent discovery, and so of course little is known about them. Many of them have already been shown to be artifacts, and scientific explanations regarding the origin and function of others have been posited. And if you were really interested in these genes, you could do an exhaustive search of PubMed and see what has been published on them recently. And I hasten to add that publications on these newly discovered genes represents precisely the sort of information you think would be subverted in order to preserve the ToE...

>>More dictations?? I thought you said earlier that presumably these steps did occur. Now you say that they have been shown to occur… So where is your proof? Show me the evidence and we will take it into consideration. But if you bring up words, possibly, might, could, etc.. I'll raise the red flag.

You are conflating 2 different ideas here; I said that all of the steps necessary to go from inorganic molecules to short, heritable, self-replicating molecules capable of being acted on by selection have been shown to be possible in conditions believed to exist on ancient Earth (experimentally). I said further that whether these are the exact steps is a matter of some debate - and that we may never know. But what science has shown is that the steps necessary to get basic organic molecules produced from inorganic precursors into a form that could be acted on by evolution have been shown to be possible.

>>It seems that you are not reading my links so I'm going to have to spell it out for you…

Thank you. I truthfully do not have time to read through link after link - if there is a specific point you wish to make, make it and reference the source. Thanks.

>>1. Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals 2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

OK - one is a scientific alternative. The other is not. We have evidence that abiogenesis is possible. What scientific evidence is there for option 2?

>>•Microevolution - Unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies. Includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc. •Macroevolution - Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc.

This is exactly why scientists tend not to use the terms - they are too subjective to be of any use. These definitions do not provide any useful information on knowing when micro stops, and macro starts - they are not biologically useful. We have observed instances of speciation which automatically falsifies your distinction by this definition. Ignoring this - at what point does micro end and macro start? Can you define this so it has biological relevance?

>>However, in contrast to the reliability of microevolutionary theory, macroevolution is not supported by the record of nature or current scientific research.

It actually is - I provided a short list of evidences that indicate that large scale changes can and do exist. Ignoring them or simply stating that they don't exist doesn't mean they don't exist...

>>Africa and South America were once joined? What on earth does this have to do with our discussion? What does plate tectonics have to do with macroevolution? I'm attacking macroevolution… I do not believe in it.

The comparison is apt. I even explained how it was relevant to our discussion. Again, microevolution (in some general sense) is small changes - and the sum of lots of small change adds up to large scale (macroevolutionary) change. We have a mechanism that drives it (selection). We have evidences that support it (the genetic bases, phylogenetic patterns, twin nested hierarchy of life, etc). And we have observed both the small scale (antibacterial resistance) and large scale (speciation, the fossil record) changes that resulted. The notion that SA and Africa were once joined together is a hypothesis just as humans and chimpanzees sharing common ancestry is. In the former case we have a mechanism that drives it (plate tectonic theory), evidences that support it (fossils of the same type in the same strata on both continents), we have observed the small scale changes (small tremors along plates) as well as large scale changes (Hawaiian islands forming, earthquakes) that occur as a result. The sum of lots of small scale changes coupled with deep time give rise to large scale macro changes (species forming, continents pulling apart). And in both cases, the scientific method can and does reveal the events that took place. So saying you don't believe in macroevolution is like saying you don't believe in Pangaea.

>>Endosymbiosis? Maybe you should read our article on that here…

Actually, it appears you should have read the article that you linked. I actually went to the original article in Science. And surprise surprise, they don't discredit serial endosymbiosis. They refine it based on new evidences. Just what you would expect from the scientific method. If you would like to review the entire article and explain specifically how it rejects the notion of serial endosymbiosis, I can send it to you.

>>I said that ID will most likely naturally arise in biology classrooms whether design is mandated or not since the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it did with Darwin. That is what I said..


Well, if that is what you said, it is a rather bizarre statement. What do you mean "arise"? Popularize? Begin? And theological cradle? I don't follow. Darwin did not introduce his idea to public schools and hope it took off - he presented them to the British Society. I really don't follow; sorry.

>>Let's be honest with each other… There are times when ID might insinuate a belief system or the supernatural behind it.. Sometime it may, sometimes not..

I think there is a little more to it than that. I think all references to a creator were whitewashed and replaced with an ambiguous designer specifically because creationists realized that the specific references to the Judeo-Christian God in YEC would always prevent it from being taught in schools. But what I think doesn't really matter to the courts.

>>The point I'm trying to make with you is that atheism is ALSO a religious belief system as well..

Sure it's a belief system. But it ain't religion. And how is this at relevant to evolution?

>>Macroevolution is testable? Again I have to repeat myself…

You didn't say macroevolution. You said evolution. But yes - macro is testable too.

>>What I'm saying to you is that you are wearing the ToE sunglasses on your head. So of course everything to you is going to look like the ToE (or shady). How about taking those shades off and seeing what the real world looks like? Just a thought…

I was born and raised as a Biblical literalist. I was once a fervent advocate for YEC. I have since rejected these beliefs. So yes, the sunglasses have been off. Moreover, I consider myself one who thinks critically. I don't just accept things on face value. I have read widely on ID because I wondered whether there is anything to it. I have read as much Behe as I have Miller. So your criticism is unfounded.

>>Also ID supporters do not seek to totally reject evolution. Many proponents believe that biological structures may have resulted from a combination of both design and evolution.

Convenient.

>>And since when does philosophical materialism account for all changes in body designs?

Again, how is this relevant? Your comment was about atheism being a belief system. My response was that science doesn't require belief or disbelief in god(s), just that they aren't used in their explanatory systems.

>>"In the All the DNA contained within species of organisms, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genomes of The classification of living organisms that are characterized by a membrane-bound nucleus in which the DNA is housed.eukaryotes has been used as an argument against intelligent design (and the role of a Creator) and as an argument for the random process of evolution.

Can you point me to articles that use DNA as evidence against YEC or ID? More specifically, can you explain the relevance to junk DNA to ID? My question again is whether it is an IC structure? After all, isn't that what ID is all about? Finding IC structures? Or are you saying anything that looks like God had a hand in it is part of ID?

>>Wikipedia Edwards v. Aguillard… In their ruling at Dover, they referenced the Edwards v. Aguillard case against ID as being a form of creationism.

Respectfully, I went to Wikipedia - and several other sources. I could not find anything in Edwards that mentioned design - at least in the court decision. Do you have information I don't? And where in the Dover case did they reference Edwards? Again, I am not being combative, I just was surprised that Dover used Edwards as a legal precedent.

>>If you seem to think that ID could be taught in public schools when it came out in the early 90's I would love to see this…

Well, unless I am wrong (and there's a good chance I am - I am not a legal scholar) there was no legal precedent precluding the teaching of intelligent design - at least in the religion-free form that emerged in the 90's.

>>And by your many many statements, macroevolution doesn't work either.. It's an idea that has a legal backing..

No! By my many, many statements, macroevolution isn't just likely, it is virtually inevitable and certain. It is not an idea that has legal backing (where this came from I am not sure) - it is a valid, scientific idea. Because you don't accept it does not render it unscientific...

>>ID does not seek to thwart evolution from the classrooms but only stir up the controversies surrounding it..

I think you're off here - ID does not seek to do this. ID is an effort to identify certain biological structures thought too complex to have arisen by chance. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, anti-evolutionist ID advocates may seek to stir up alleged controversies, but that's not what ID is.

>>But when you start invading my space and say that how we got here is through random chance mutations, I've got a problem with that..

Terribly sorry. I wasn't aware that I was "invading your space". I was trying to respectfully offer responses to your questions and queries. You're a board moderator. If you seek to censure or ban me, than so be it. But note that it would not be because I had violated any of the board policies. Simply because you disagree with me.

>>So if you push philosophical ideologies, I'm going to push back..

Again, I wasn't aware that I was pushing. Merely explaining.

>>Again read the article Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory? and tell me where you see a supernatural agent..

The question wasn't whether I thought ID was religious. I simply pointed out that in the Dover trial, there was overwhelming evidence that the ID proponents were advancing ideas about ID that were found to be religiously based.

Cheers
Al

[ARWallace]

>>Actually, nice try but I do not have that book Exploring Evolution....

It wasn't actually a "try". Merely an observation. But quote mining on both sides of the debate is not a very useful or productive manner for making an argument.

Well it was a wrong observation.. Sorry.. Mining? And you are not providing/mining links to your arguments either?

I am not offering partial quotes of scientists in ways that may misrepresent what they are saying. I can't and won't speak for you - maybe you did read the entire article you cited and thought that to be a provocative sentence. Or maybe you got it from some other person who found it to be provocative. But the book that I referenced did seem to deliberately misrepresent the authors of the paper using the same quote (as the link I provided suggests). By using that one sentence without the sentences preceding and proceeding it, the context changes quite a bit. That's quote mining.

Here's where I am coming from: in technical scientific writing, it is very uncommon to quote other scientists. Instead, we tend to describe the results or conclusions of another scientist and cite the paper. this way there is no risk of taking things out of context, and the reader can always go to the primary source to see if they agree with the author's assessment of the other study.

And I have seen far too many instances of people on both sides of the debate taking partial quotes to deliberately misrepresent another individual and advance their own agenda.

I am sorry if I offended you or mischaracterized you.

Al

[robyn hill]

To both Al and Gman, you have both certainly taught me so much through this discussion, so it was not in vain and I appreciate it as I am sure many of the other readers do. You could probably publish it.

[Gman]

To both Al and Gman, you have both certainly taught me so much through this discussion, so it was not in vain and I appreciate it as I am sure many of the other readers do. You could probably publish it.

Do you see what problems you caused for us? One little question..

[Gman]

I may have to limit my participation in this thread for a variety of reasons; first, this is quickly snowballing into something that is taking huge amounts of my (and your) time. Not that I am disinterested in dialogue - only that this discussion has grown past the point that I can respond to all queries and do them justice at the same time. Second, we seem to be going in circles on some issues, and we don't seem to be getting anywhere. Third, you seem to be getting upset with me, and that has never been my intent. I have tried to be respectful and consistent with board policies (particular in light of the fact that I am a dissenting voice on a board moderated by opposing views). So I do not want to upset you further. That said, I'll take a quick crack some of the points you raised and see where it gets us.

First of all I didn't say that I was upset with you… If anything it seems to me that you are the one being upset with the information that doesn't line up with your ToE.. You then make accusations against what I post, saying that I'm conflating the issues, accuse me of mining, or that I'm simply wrong… Well, sorry, maybe you are the one who is wrong or is conflating the issues or mining here.. I then try to correct your understandings and now you try pulling the “upset” card into the lot.. Listen, if you are going to post something, don't be surprised if it doesn't line up with your science/philosophy… I'll correct you anytime I feel needed..

And again, you seem to lack any genuine curiosity about ORFans besides the fact that they are enigmatic. They are a recent discovery, and so of course little is known about them. Many of them have already been shown to be artifacts, and scientific explanations regarding the origin and function of others have been posited. And if you were really interested in these genes, you could do an exhaustive search of PubMed and see what has been published on them recently. And I hasten to add that publications on these newly discovered genes represents precisely the sort of information you think would be subverted in order to preserve the ToE...

I've looked at various publications, including PubMed, and I'll rest my case on what scientists are calling the ORFans. And that is "The origin of many such "orphan" genes remains unknown." If scientists knew their parents then they wouldn't be calling them ORFans, plain and simple.. Now I'm not saying that ORFans are evidence for ID (not anyway yet)…. ID is nothing more of a possibility than saying that they MAY have relatives, but we haven't sampled enough genomes yet. That is the case I'm presenting to you… We simply do NOT know, so it is not a slam dunk for either side.. Let's just examine the scientific evidence and be truthful about it.. Clearer?

You are conflating 2 different ideas here; I said that all of the steps necessary to go from inorganic molecules to short, heritable, self-replicating molecules capable of being acted on by selection have been shown to be possible in conditions believed to exist on ancient Earth (experimentally). I said further that whether these are the exact steps is a matter of some debate - and that we may never know. But what science has shown is that the steps necessary to get basic organic molecules produced from inorganic precursors into a form that could be acted on by evolution have been shown to be possible.

No.. I'm not conflating the two… I'm just going by what you posted before. I'm just trying to point out that you are simply making assumptions. Where is the proof? Again your last statement here… “But what science has shown is that the steps necessary to get basic organic molecules produced from inorganic precursors into a form that COULD be acted on by evolution have been shown to be possible. Again, could , should, may, possibly and again simply assumptions… Nothing more nothing less..

Thank you. I truthfully do not have time to read through link after link - if there is a specific point you wish to make, make it and reference the source. Thanks.

Ok, so you are not going to apologize to me for saying that what I said earlier was true?

OK - one is a scientific alternative. The other is not. We have evidence that abiogenesis is possible. What scientific evidence is there for option 2?

How about any information that option 1 can't fully explain? We do not have enough evidence for abiogenesis... Look at the scientific facts here.

This is exactly why scientists tend not to use the terms - they are too subjective to be of any use. These definitions do not provide any useful information on knowing when micro stops, and macro starts - they are not biologically useful. We have observed instances of speciation which automatically falsifies your distinction by this definition. Ignoring this - at what point does micro end and macro start? Can you define this so it has biological relevance?

Ok, then why do you often refer to macro evolutionary changes? I've been seeing you use the terms macroevolution regularly… Not much on the mirco. I think the better question is how can someone refer to macro and then not refer to the mirco changes? They go hand in hand like microeconomics compared to macroeconomics.

It actually is - I provided a short list of evidences that indicate that large scale changes can and do exist. Ignoring them or simply stating that they don't exist doesn't mean they don't exist...

Again I would argue that these are merely assumptions based on the past… I would agree with the micro changes we see in life all the time. But if you are insinuating that microevolution leads to macroevolution, where have you witnessed this? I guess I'll have to repeat myself… If a scientist performed that same test using gradual evolutionary standards perhaps it would be even harder to falsify since natural selection requires a much longer time or a greater population base of parts to produce life.. There really isn't much more to say on this…

The comparison is apt. I even explained how it was relevant to our discussion. Again, microevolution (in some general sense) is small changes - and the sum of lots of small change adds up to large scale (macroevolutionary) change. We have a mechanism that drives it (selection). We have evidences that support it (the genetic bases, phylogenetic patterns, twin nested hierarchy of life, etc). And we have observed both the small scale (antibacterial resistance) and large scale (speciation, the fossil record) changes that resulted. The notion that SA and Africa were once joined together is a hypothesis just as humans and chimpanzees sharing common ancestry is. In the former case we have a mechanism that drives it (plate tectonic theory), evidences that support it (fossils of the same type in the same strata on both continents), we have observed the small scale changes (small tremors along plates) as well as large scale changes (Hawaiian islands forming, earthquakes) that occur as a result. The sum of lots of small scale changes coupled with deep time give rise to large scale macro changes (species forming, continents pulling apart). And in both cases, the scientific method can and does reveal the events that took place. So saying you don't believe in macroevolution is like saying you don't believe in Pangaea.

I'm not sure why you are bringing this up.. First, the theory of Pangaea does NOT fly in the face of an intelligent designer. The land could have been in one solid mass back then, (actually the Bible says that too) and still an intelligent designer could have formed life from it… Second, it's still technically a belief.. No one was there witness it, although it is a widely accepted theory…

Actually, it appears you should have read the article that you linked. I actually went to the original article in Science. And surprise surprise, they don't discredit serial endosymbiosis. They refine it based on new evidences. Just what you would expect from the scientific method. If you would like to review the entire article and explain specifically how it rejects the notion of serial endosymbiosis, I can send it to you.

No.. If you read the title is says very clearly.. Endosymbiosis model of mitochondrial origins questioned. The whole point of the article is that endosymbiosis is being questioned.. Not discredited, not rejected, simply questioned.. Again speculation...

Well, if that is what you said, it is a rather bizarre statement. What do you mean "arise"? Popularize? Begin? And theological cradle? I don't follow. Darwin did not introduce his idea to public schools and hope it took off - he presented them to the British Society. I really don't follow; sorry.

Why will ID most likely naturally arise in biology classrooms whether design is mandated or not? Because the question of origins is a philosophical question. No one was there to witness the past so technically macroevolution and ID are the presuppositions or conclusions based on the beliefs of the investigator… A belief... Are we understanding each other yet?

I think there is a little more to it than that. I think all references to a creator were whitewashed and replaced with an ambiguous designer specifically because creationists realized that the specific references to the Judeo-Christian God in YEC would always prevent it from being taught in schools. But what I think doesn't really matter to the courts.

Well to be fair to our secular world, I don't want the Judeo-Christian God taught in our public classrooms. Of course I would want that (Bible to be taught), I don't think it is fair with a country with so many beliefs, and then ask them for tax money.

Sure it's a belief system. But it ain't religion. And how is this at relevant to evolution?

Because if you say that life arose by chance, without any supernatural involvement, then you are making a theological/philosophical statement… Also Atheism is a protected "religion'' under the First Amendment.. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case Kaufman v McCaughtry. “A Wisconsin prison inmate tried to form an atheist discussion group. Prison authorities refused and Kaufman sued. The court ruled that Atheism is a religion for "legal purposes". Google it sometime..

You didn't say macroevolution. You said evolution. But yes - macro is testable too.

And your proof?

I was born and raised as a Biblical literalist. I was once a fervent advocate for YEC. I have since rejected these beliefs. So yes, the sunglasses have been off. Moreover, I consider myself one who thinks critically. I don't just accept things on face value. I have read widely on ID because I wondered whether there is anything to it. I have read as much Behe as I have Miller. So your criticism is unfounded.

My criticism? That's pretty funny ARWallce.. And in the same sentence you claim that you consider yourself a critical thinker like anyone that doesn't think the they way you do doesn't.. Well I'm a critical thinker too.. I don't accept things at face value either which is why I rejected macroevolution and YEC as well.. So ToE forced you to reject the Bible and God? Interesting..

Respectfully, I went to Wikipedia - and several other sources. I could not find anything in Edwards that mentioned design - at least in the court decision. Do you have information I don't? And where in the Dover case did they reference Edwards? Again, I am not being combative, I just was surprised that Dover used Edwards as a legal precedent.

The Edwards case was directly involved with creationism. Look it up.. ID was simply seen as another form of creationism.. From 1968 through the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts repeatedly declared that anti-evolution laws and balanced-treatment laws ran afoul of the Establishment Clause.Again, ID, creationism, are just other ways that involve design…

Well, unless I am wrong (and there's a good chance I am - I am not a legal scholar) there was no legal precedent precluding the teaching of intelligent design - at least in the religion-free form that emerged in the 90's.

Are you saying that it is legal to teach ID in schools? Where?

But let's ask this question... What difference does it make to say that it was possibly ID that accounted for life or saying that macroevolution perhaps accounted for life? What difference does it make? Again I fail to see why this has become such as huge issue..

No! By my many, many statements, macroevolution isn't just likely, it is virtually inevitable and certain. It is not an idea that has legal backing (where this came from I am not sure) - it is a valid, scientific idea. Because you don't accept it does not render it unscientific...

No… Earlier you agreed with me that it wasn't certain, now you are saying that is certain. Which is it? These are the same fights I have with my girlfriend.. Sorry... Macroevolution is not a valid science… It just isn't. It's pure speculation…

I think you're off here - ID does not seek to do this. ID is an effort to identify certain biological structures thought too complex to have arisen by chance. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, anti-evolutionist ID advocates may seek to stir up alleged controversies, but that's not what ID is.

Not exactly… It's explained beautifully here.. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1181

Terribly sorry. I wasn't aware that I was "invading your space". I was trying to respectfully offer responses to your questions and queries. You're a board moderator. If you seek to censure or ban me, than so be it. But note that it would not be because I had violated any of the board policies. Simply because you disagree with me.

If I ban you it would be for other reasons… You completely misunderstood what I was saying. Invading my space? We are talking about in the context of a public setting. We are talking about the teaching of ID in a public setting. I have no idea what you are talking about now except maybe trying to play the victim here…

Again, I wasn't aware that I was pushing. Merely explaining.

More like dictations… Hardly anything to do with science. This is more of a philosophy debate for me..

The question wasn't whether I thought ID was religious. I simply pointed out that in the Dover trial, there was overwhelming evidence that the ID proponents were advancing ideas about ID that were found to be religiously based.

Again please show me where the ID advocates have ever went to court or made a court case for the cause of ID…

[Gman]

[I am not offering partial quotes of scientists in ways that may misrepresent what they are saying. I can't and won't speak for you - maybe you did read the entire article you cited and thought that to be a provocative sentence. Or maybe you got it from some other person who found it to be provocative. But the book that I referenced did seem to deliberately misrepresent the authors of the paper using the same quote (as the link I provided suggests). By using that one sentence without the sentences preceding and proceeding it, the context changes quite a bit. That's quote mining.

That is baloney.. Again the scientists are looking at life through the lenses of ToE. So everything looks like ToE to them, so of course they are going to look at things and say well we don't know what this is but we will assume it is this or that because it has to line up with the ToE. Of course they are going to have contradictions in their science because they are simply reporting the facts... That is what I'm pointing out to you.. Again this is not really science... These are simply beliefs of a fixed presumption...

Here's where I am coming from: in technical scientific writing, it is very uncommon to quote other scientists. Instead, we tend to describe the results or conclusions of another scientist and cite the paper. this way there is no risk of taking things out of context, and the reader can always go to the primary source to see if they agree with the author's assessment of the other study.

And I have seen far too many instances of people on both sides of the debate taking partial quotes to deliberately misrepresent another individual and advance their own agenda.

We? I thought you said you were a biology teacher... And taking things out of context? Again, are you really reading and understanding the papers given? All they say is that they think this or they think that... Nothing is written in stone here.. Nothing. That is what they are reporting here.. No one simply knows... But it HAS to align with ToE, we know that much. Fine....

I'm sorry to be so abrupt, but the evidence you have shown and I have read reveal that nothing is exclusive here... It's guesswork at best...

[BGoodForGoodSake]

“It is important to first define what is meant by the word "evolution." There are actually two major theories of biological evolution:

•Microevolution - Unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies. Includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc.
•Macroevolution - Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc.

I do not accept this definition.

Microevolution is a process which has been observed in lab conditions.
It is change which occurs in a population which can be observed within a span of an experiment.

Macroevolution describes what may occur over longer periods of time.

Obviously we cannot go back in time and observe evolution over millions of years.
But what we can do is notice the types of changes which occurred in the lab and see how they compare to cases where evolution suppposedly occurred over millions of years.

That is how we test evolution. We say if such and such species are related and were once a single population then we should expect this and that to have taken place.
We then see if that is indeed the case.

For example. We see a cave in africa which contains salt. We see that elephants each year journey into the cave and dig salt out from the far end. We watch as an elephant carves out a small portion of the cave.
We then theorize that the entire cave was carved out by elephants! We can make predictions based on this theory. The cave at no point will be too narrow for the elephants to traverse... etc.

If the observations do not conflict with the theory then it has been shown that it was possible that the elephants did indeed create this cave. Now it is possible that other factors went into making this cave. But the conclusion that the cave is a result of the ongoing burrowing habits of elephants is a scientifically sound one.

So in science we have observation, hypothesis and then conclusions.

The "microevolution" is an observation.
The "macroevolution" was a hypothesis.
The conclusions are found in every scientific journal.
More observations are now available in the form of genetic data etc.
With the number of observations and amount of analysis conducted it is scientifically sound to assume that macroevolution has occurred.
Notwithstanding the vast amount of data coming in.

For example the theory of gravity was a well estabilished scientific theory, and Newtons formulas still stand the test of time. Currently there are massive amounts of data becomming available to science through a series of experiments set up to detect micro gravity. This does not mean that we need to put the theory of gravity on hold.

The massive amounts of genetic data coming into the gene bank does not invalidate the vast amount of research already put into estabilishing the theory of evolution.

[robyn hill]

I, for one, think Al and G should start a call in radio show and call it "Al-G... where'd it come from?"

[ARWallace]

>>First of all I didn't say that I was upset with you…

You didn't say it; it was becoming evident from your posts. I apologize.

>>If anything it seems to me that you are the one being upset with the information doesn't line up with your ToE..

I am not upset. I have been consistently apologetic when it seems that I have upset you. What you have posted is not inconsistent with the ToE, so what reason do I have to be upset?

>>You then make accusations against what I post, saying that I'm conflating the issues,

In several instances, you have conflated what I have said. I have been careful to point out when and where.

>>Well, sorry, maybe you are the one who is wrong or is conflating the issues or mining here..

I am sorry if I have. I have sought clarification of your posts when I wasn't sure what you were saying, and I haven't tried to misrepresent your remarks in any way and I certainly haven't been quote mining. But I am not going to be passive when you say something about science that is untrue; and I am not sure how else to say besides "I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong".

>>Listen, if you are going to post something, don't be surprised if it doesn't line up with your science/philosophy…

I'm sorry, but nothing I have posted has been inconsistent with science or my philosophy.

>>I've looked at various publications, including PubMed, and I'll rest my case on what scientists are calling the ORFans. And that is "The origin of many such "orphan" genes remains unknown."

And again, I'd say that you're being remarkably simplistic about this issue; they're a new discovery, so little is know about them. Yet recent discoveries have revealed that many of these are actually artifacts, and scientific explanations for their origins, function and relevance exist.

>>Now I'm not saying that ORFans are evidence for ID (not anyway yet)…. ID is nothing more of a possibility than saying that they MAY have relatives, but we haven't sampled enough genomes yet.

Why should they be evidence for ID? Are they IC?

>>Let's just examine the scientific evidence and be truthful about it.. Clearer?

Yep.

>>No.. I'm not conflating the two… I'm just going by what you posted before. I'm just trying to point out that you are simply making assumptions. Where is the proof?

No, I am not making assumptions. Assumptions are parts of the models and hypotheses, and you're free to examine those and rebut them if they interest you. The only assumption I am making is that naturalistic explanations exist for abiogenesis - in other words, I am assuming that science has an explanation. It's an assumption you make every time you practice science. Your assumptions seem to be that science doesn't have an answer and that the theological explanation is right. So it seems we'll have to agree to disagree - but this certainly doesn't mean that naturalistic explanations for how life could have arisen through natural means don't exist; just that you reject them.

>>Ok, so you are not going to apologize to me for saying that what I said earlier was true?

I'm not sure an apology from me is needed, although I have been repeatedly apologetic from the get go. In fact, I have resisted the urge to request apologies from you. Nevertheless, I simply pointed out that I do not have the time nor energy to sift through articles trying to find the salient points you are trying to make. Make your point and reference and article - it's that simple.

>>How about any information that option 1 can't fully explain? We do not have enough evidence for abiogenesis... Look at the scientific facts here.

Again, if you have a specific point to make, make it.

>>I've been seeing you use the terms macroevolution regularly… Not much on the mirco. I think the better question is how can someone refer to macro and then not refer to the mirco changes? They go hand in hand like microeconomics compared to macroeconomics.

You have been really evasive on this - you provided 2 definitions that have no biological relevance, so how would you know when micro ends and macro starts in the real world? You reject one and accept the other, but seem not to have a clear, biological and genetic definition to be able to recognize them in nature. I have been using the term because you have been using them - I have stated that they are ambiguous which is why they are usually not used in the scientific literature. Nevertheless, we have ample evidence that small, measurable population-level changes add up to large scale changes.

>>Again I would argue that these are merely assumptions based on the past…

No, they are not assumptions: we have seen and measured population level genetic changes, we have witnessed speciation events, we have phylogenetic analyses at every level that confirm the branching patterns that are predicted to exist, we have a fossil record which reveals large scale changes over time, we have patterns that exist in nature that should only exist if evolution is true. These are not assumptions; they are data. They are evidence.

>>But if you are insinuating that microevolution leads to macroevolution, where have you witnessed this?

What is your definition of micro and macroevolution? How would you know when we have witnessed it if, in fact, it did occur? You seem to be working from the negative here - that you disbelieve an idea and therefore there are no evidences that could exist to support it.

>>If a scientist performed that same test using gradual evolutionary standards perhaps it would be even harder to falsify since natural selection requires a much longer time or a greater population base of parts to produce life..

I don't follow.

>>I'm not sure why you are bringing this up.. First, the theory of Pangaea does NOT fly in the face of an intelligent designer.

I never claimed it did. I'm not sure how I can be clearer about this: both evolution and plate tectonic theory explain large scale changes as the product of small scale phenomena. Both have observable evidences to support them, both use observations in the natural world from events that occurred in the past to reconstruct patterns that exist today. You logically should reject the notion that Pangea existed if you are going to reject the notion of descent with modification leading to large scale organismal changes.

>>No one was there witness it, although it is a widely accepted theory…

So you reject the evidences suggesting SA and Africa were once joined millions of years ago, but accept the general notion that they were because it is consistent with Biblical text?

>>No.. If you read the title is says very clearly.. Endosymbiosis model of mitochondrial origins questioned. The whole point of the article is that endosymbiosis is being questioned..

You didn't read the article, did you? That is not the title of the paper, it is the title of a 1 paragraph blurb from the God and Science website that reviewed the article. The validity of serial endosymbiosis is not being questioned in the paper that was linked to the paragraph you referenced. If you aren't going to read the papers that you provide as support for your claims, then why should I (although in this case I thank you because I had missed this and found it intriguing)? I again extend my offer to email you a copy of the paper if you're actually interested in reading it.

>>Because the question of origins is a philosophical question.

If you refine this a little, I will agree. The "why" question of our origins is a philosophical question. The "how" is an entirely scientific one.

>>No one was there to witness the past so technically macroevolution and ID are the presuppositions or conclusions based on the beliefs of the investigator…

I am not certain how many ways I can explain this - historical science is still science!!! You can use the scientific method to understand events of the past based on evidences they left behind. You waved your hand and dismissed serial endosymbiosis without addressing a single evidence that has been used to support the theory. That does not mean science can't explain the origin of eukaryotes. When no one was around to witness a murder, we don't simply throw up our hands and say "oh well, I guess we'll never know whodunnit". We use evidences and logic to recreate the crime and identify the culprit. It's the same thing!

>>Of course I would want that (Bible to be taught), I don't think it is fair with a country with so many beliefs, and then ask them for tax money.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. It would be illegal.

>>Because if you say that life arose by chance, without any supernatural involvement, then you are making a theological/philosophical statement…

No I am not. The way in which science is conducted precludes the involvement of any supernatural entity. What I said is no more theological than saying apples fall for natural reasons or that god has no part in why we get sick. These are natural phenomena that beg natural explanations.

>>Also Atheism is a protected "religion'' under the First Amendment.. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case Kaufman v McCaughtry. “A Wisconsin prison inmate tried to form an atheist discussion group. Prison authorities refused and Kaufman sued. The court ruled that Atheism is a religion for "legal purposes". Google it sometime..

What does atheism have to do with science? Belief in god has nothing to do with how science is conducted.

>>And your proof?

Proofs are for mathematics. But since you asked - find vertebrate fossils in PreCambrian rock.

>>My criticism? That's pretty funny ARWallce.. And in the same sentence you claim that you consider yourself a critical thinker like anyone that doesn't think the they way you do doesn't..

That is not at all what I said. You accused me of having a biased perspective - something about sunglasses on my head - and I provided evidence that I have not reached my conclusions without a great deal of introspection, and even once believed things that I now firmly reject. I never, ever accused you of lacking critical thought just because you don't agree with me.

>>So ToE forced you to reject the Bible and God? Interesting..

Um. Where did I say that?

>>The Edwards case was directly involved with creationism. Look it up..

I did look it up. In several places. And you're right, it did deal with creationism. But that is not what you originally said - you said that "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that any form of design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion." This does not seem to be the case.

>>From 1968 through the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts repeatedly declared that anti-evolution laws and balanced-treatment laws ran afoul of the Establishment Clause.Again, ID, creationism, are just other ways that involve design…

I am not disagreeing with your assessment of court trials vis-a-vis creationism. But you have not provided any references to any court cases prior to Dover that ruled ID was another form of creationism despite your repeated claims to this effect.

>>Are you saying that it is legal to teach ID in schools? Where?

No, I am saying that it is not illegal. Presently.

>>What difference does it make to say that it was possibly ID that accounted for life or saying that macroevolution perhaps accounted for life? What difference does it make? Again I fail to see why this has become such as huge issue..

It depends - if ID is another form of creationism, then it would be illegal to teach it. If it is not, then fine. What evidences does Design Theory have that "account for life"?

>>Macroevolution is not a valid science… It just isn't. It's pure speculation…

I can see why she fights with you. I guess you'll just have to believe this despite the fact that it is valid science.

>>Not exactly… It's explained beautifully here.. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1181

again, if you have a specific point to make, make it and reference the article. I don't have to time to wade through this to try and figure out what point you're trying to make...

>>You completely misunderstood what I was saying. Invading my space?

I am not playing the victim. These were your words "But when you start invading my space and say that how we got here is through random chance mutations, I've got a problem with that.." It sounded like I upset you, and this was not my intent. I am sorry (again) if I misunderstood you, but those were your words.

>>More like dictations… Hardly anything to do with science. This is more of a philosophy debate for me..

I am not dictating. Explaining, yes. If this seems like a philosophy debate to you, I submit that it is partly because you do not appear to fully understand (or at least accept) science.

>>Again please show me where the ID advocates have ever went to court or made a court case for the cause of ID…

Again, I never said they did.

Cheers
Al

[cslewislover]

I, for one, think Al and G should start a call in radio show and call it "Al-G... where'd it come from?"

And does it wash off easily?

[ARWallace]

>>We? I thought you said you were a biology teacher... And taking things out of context? Again, are you really reading and understanding the papers given? All they say is that they think this or they think that... Nothing is written in stone here.. Nothing. That is what they are reporting here.. No one simply knows... But it HAS to align with ToE, we know that much

1. I am a biology teacher. However, I have 2 graduate degree in biology, worked with scientists and published my research. And scientists rarely directly quote other scientists in published research papers.

2. It would seem that you sometimes don't read the papers that you cite.

3. You seem to be lampooning the way that science is conducted. When an idea has reached the status of theory, it has been through intense scrutiny and has broad explanatory power. That's what theories are. And by definition, a working theory has to be used to understand the phenomena it seeks to explain. You use it as a lens through which to understand things. This is no different in evolution than it is with germ theory, atomic theory, quantum mechanic theory and so on and so on. If the theory is wrong, then lots of things can't be explained by it - but just because something new isn't fully understood doesn't mean you reject the theory. Until they're well understood, ideas are considered hypotheses and are tentative explanations. So yes, the scientific literature abounds with "is possible that" or "seems consistent with". That's just the way science works. But the bottom line is, the ToE is used to understand phenomena - so what? So is every other theory.

[Byblos]

So yes, the scientific literature abounds with "is possible that" or "seems consistent with". That's just the way science works. But the bottom line is, the ToE is used to understand phenomena - so what? So is every other theory.

Why then is it taught as an undeniable fact?

[ARWallace]

So yes, the scientific literature abounds with "is possible that" or "seems consistent with". That's just the way science works. But the bottom line is, the ToE is used to understand phenomena - so what? So is every other theory.

Why then is it taught as an undeniable fact?

It's not - at least not in my class. Let me elaborate a little - the theory of evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt in science. So are all theories. They are simply so well supported that they are considered scientific truths. Now, hypotheses (tentative explanations) are not. They are in the process of being tested and they may or may be supported by empirical data. These are the sorts of things Gman is referring to. So, the ToE is considered to be true beyond reasonable doubt, and is taught as such. If it is true, than we can use it to explain patterns in nature. We can generate hypotheses within the framework of evolution to examine why, for example, some population of fishes have reverted to asexual reproduction or why Barn Swallow females prefer males with longer tails. Several hypotheses have been generated to explain these, and since they are provisional explanations, you will see statements like "should" or "could" or "might" as part of the hypothesis or in discussing results.

And of course saying a theory is true beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the possibility that it might be wrong. Only that so much evidence points to it being true that we accept that it is and move on. Similarly, we say someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and pass a sentence, but that doesn't preclude the possibility they are innocent. But at some point, you have to make up your mind based on the evidences that you have at your disposal.

Cheers
Al

[Byblos]

So yes, the scientific literature abounds with "is possible that" or "seems consistent with". That's just the way science works. But the bottom line is, the ToE is used to understand phenomena - so what? So is every other theory.

Why then is it taught as an undeniable fact?

It's not - at least not in my class. Let me elaborate a little - the theory of evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt in science. So are all theories. They are simply so well supported that they are considered scientific truths. Now, hypotheses (tentative explanations) are not. They are in the process of being tested and they may or may be supported by empirical data. These are the sorts of things Gman is referring to. So, the ToE is considered to be true beyond reasonable doubt, and is taught as such. If it is true, than we can use it to explain patterns in nature. We can generate hypotheses within the framework of evolution to examine why, for example, some population of fishes have reverted to asexual reproduction or why Barn Swallow females prefer males with longer tails. Several hypotheses have been generated to explain these, and since they are provisional explanations, you will see statements like "should" or "could" or "might" as part of the hypothesis or in discussing results.

And of course saying a theory is true beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the possibility that it might be wrong. Only that so much evidence points to it being true that we accept that it is and move on. Similarly, we say someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and pass a sentence, but that doesn't preclude the possibility they are innocent. But at some point, you have to make up your mind based on the evidences that you have at your disposal.

Cheers
Al

I could probably live with your definition that evolution is not a fact, but true beyond a reasonable doubt. It is at least an attempt at intellectual honesty by leaving room for correction, and more importantly, for alternative theories (the latter as yet to be seen).

Alas, many (most) of your colleagues in the scientific community are not so forgiving. Here's a sample from talkorigins.org:

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.

(emphasis mine)

Many textbooks for example include discussions on the origin of life (the Miller-Urey experiment to be specific) within the framework of evolution, even though scientists deny that the origin of life is an evolutionary matter (sample text books: Campbell, Reece and Mitchell's Biology (5th Edition, 1999), Mader's Biology (6th Edition, 1998), Starr and Taggart's Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th Edition, 1998), Schraer and Stoltze's Biology: The Study of Life (7th Edition, 1999) and on and on). Why do they do that if not as a deliberate attempt at misleading students into thinking evolution is an undeniable fact, responsible for the origin of life even? There are many other examples like this: homology (being a so-called proof of common ancestry), similarity (or lack thereof, rather) of vertebrate embryos, doctored pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks as evidence of natural selection, etc, etc. (most of the above excised from here.