Evolution Science and Naturalism

Neitherextreme,


A very lengthly post, most often people do not respond well to something with a great many points to deal with. I will say this though, you infer the universe to be a closed system, I do not believe it is. I do not believe that the scientific community has made that judgement, on what basis would such an assertion be made. A closed system would infer a totality, which would thus be relative to nothing. I do not believe there is such a state. Perhaps you have news for me however, I am all ears!! Edit: Sorry, seems you do not believe the universe a closed system. I shall give it a better read and get back to you ---------later!!!!:eek: boagie

I know, and that's quite understandable. That's why I tried to break it up... It is quite a long post though, but once I started writing, it took a long time to stop. I partially just enjoyed putting all these thoughts in writing, since they've been floating around in my head for a while. Hopefully it doesn't bother anybody, and any critiques more than welcome...

Thanks for bearing with me.

Thanks for this interesting post, NeitherExtreme. It contains so many challenging points that it would be impossible to do the whole thing justice - at least at one go. So I will cofine myself to commenting on one or two issues.

Naturalism and the Closed Universe

Surely it is the case that the universe is a self-contained system by definition. This follows if you define the universe as "everything which exists." The trouble with a phrase such as "closed system" is that it invites us to think of one system being closed against something else, because that is how we use the term in normal dialogue. In this sense the phrase "closed system" is misleading when applied to everything which exists since, by definition, there can be nothing to contrast it with, nothing to isolate it from. This exemplifies a general problem which arises when we try to apply empirical concepts to the universe as a whole: our language and thought have evolved (or, if you prefer, developed) to deal with the situations we encounter in daily experience. We have no means of judging whether or in what way they may apply to the universe as a whole.

We need to disabuse ourselves of assumptions such as "everything can be explained by science". Science is not a body of belief but a means of investigating phenomena by validating theory against experience. This implies a piecemeal, progressive process. There will never be a time when science will explain everything. A particular scientific theory or law is the best explanation which is available at present, but as further facts become available, new theories will be developed to explain them. The classic example of this, of course, is Newton's theory of gravity being supplanted by Einstein, but the same thing applies to the second law of thermodynamics. This law provides a useful framework for understanding the behaviour of energy as we know it at present, but it is a safe bet that at some stage it will undergo a refinement analogous to that provided by Einstein to the then current understanding of space and time provided by Newton. The crucial requirement for any development of our current understanding of thermodynamics is that it should be empirically testable and should withstand repeated attempts to falsify it, and should explain more observed facts than our current knowledge.

Falsification of Evolution

The notion that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not open to falsification has been around for a long time but was undermined almost as soon as it was stated. Evolution could be falsified, replied JBS Haldane, by "fossil rabbits in the precambrian." As Richard Dawkins states it in "The God Delusion" (p127) "evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water."

It is important to remember that science works by falsification rather than confirmation. There will never be a time when all the gaps in the fossil record have been plugged simply because fossilisation is a relatively rare process. Most skeletons do not fossilise. Thus to expect fossils to appear just before and just after a crucial change is unrealistic. What we should be looking for is rabbits in the precambrian - and, significantly, noting their absence.

Copies are Always Imperfect

Photocopying is a poor analogy for evolution. We observe that copying leads to deterioration only because we are judging the copies by standards which we ourselves impose - legibility,contrast, neatness etc. As Darwin notes in the first chapter of "The Origin of Species", improvements in animal stock had been engineered by breeders for their own profit. This is one clear example of the copying process leading to improvement. In this situation, success was defined not as fidelity to an original but as improved yields of meat, milk, wool etc. Indeed it is noticeable that agricultural stock such as cattle are not found in nature in their present state.These very species have been created by the breeding activities of early mankind. Darwin's flash of insight was to realise that what had been accomplished by breeders could also be effected by competition for food and habitat. In these cases "improvement" is not defined a priori by any outside observer imposing his/her criteria, but by the objective standard of survival.

Just some thoughts on your stimulating contribution.

Peter

Hi all,

Actually to point out that our biologically based terms for what we do not entirely understand or what is not really of our experience is just a natural limitation, and cannot be any other way. We know of nothing which is closed, to speculate a close universal system is beyond the imagination. I think we agree on this point -----yes? To speak of copies of things in evolutionary process is misleading, there is no platonic ideal to which a copy must have ambitions toward. Life is, relative to the physical world fluid, and takes on the physical characteristics dictated to it by the physical world, in turn these characteristics on a smaller scale go on to influence the physical world, which defines again, lifes structures-------lol!! Copies indeed are never copies but are new orders to be tested, copy does infer sameness, and any new production is relative to its changeing context/environment, sameness would be stagnation on the part of organism/environment alike, it would be decay.

Just getting use to this idea of falsification. In my own understanding, this would itself be a comfirmation of sorts, something without any basis or foundation in reality would be without falsification or comfirmation----------------Christianity, never mind, I shall get a handle on it. just winging it here folks!!

Hi Boagie,

You are right when you say that there is no endpoint towards which evolutionary changes are headed and that natural reproduction does not lead to exact copies. Every individual is different because of the random reallocation of genetic characteristics inherent in the reproductive process and also because of genetic mutations. Most of the resultant changes in the offspring are insignificant; of those that are significant most are deleterious leading to disease or some other maladaptation to the environment; but a very few lead by chance to a more productive interaction with the environment, enhancing the survival and reproduction of the organism. It is on these few helpful mutations that the process of evolution depends.

"We know nothing that is closed...A closed system is beyond the imagination." Speaking personally, I find that there is a group of ultimate questions and concepts : the universe as a whole, why is there something rather than nothing? etc, which I find simply baffling, well beyond my feeble imagination at least, and capable of inducing deep feelings of awe. But it remains true that if you define the universe as "everything that exists", then you cannot, with logical consistency, go on to talk about what exists or happens outside it.

The point about falsification is this: During the first half of the Twentieth Century there was a group of influential philosophers of science, the Logical Positivists, who argued that the propositions of science are meaningful and true because each one can be observed and verified directly. They believed that the general statements of science (ie laws and general theories) could all be traced back to specific observable facts. To take a simple example: you heat several jugs of water, you observe that each one boils at 100c; this leads you to formulate a general law that water boils at 100c, and you can always check this law by heating the odd pot of water if you feel like it.

Later Karl Popper pointed out that this is not actually how science works. You can never boil all the water there is to boil, so you cannot prove the general empirical statement by this means. The laws of science are always provisional: they are maintained only until an observation proves them to be untrue ie until they are falsified. In the case of boiling water, this leads to the observation that under some conditions water in fact boils at a higher temperature - when the atmospheric pressure is higher as in a pressure cooker. This falisifies the simple rule that water boils at 100c and leads to a more complex statement relating the boiling point to atmospheric pressure. Falsification has been generally recognised as the distinctive mark of scientific reasoning ever since: a statement or theory is scientific if it possible to falsify it by observation.

As Haldane and Dawkins point out, evolution woud be falsified by a single fossil turning up in the wrong geological stratum. The continuing absence of such finds maintains the theory as the best explanation of the development of life forms which we have.

Peter

Thank you both for your thoughtful responses.

I think from Peter's first response (about livestock improvement), I must have failed to make my main point very clearly... Perhaps it was muddled by a long post. I agree that a species can "improve" or "change", but to an obviously limited extent: Through breeding we can get big cows, brown cows, long haired cows, good milk producing cows, etc. All the genetic "material" was in the cows in the first place, we simply make one feature more or less prominent based on which cows we choose to breed. But nothing new could be added... A poor example, but one that gets a point across would be if we decided we wanted to breed cows that could breath underwater (had gills). How could we start breeding in that direction? (I realize that random nature doesn't have a set "direction", but that really means we ought to have more influence than nature, not less) Could we ever end up with a cow with gills? No, because the DNA "programing" simply isn't there in the first place.

Here I've tried to restate my main points in a much condensed (and hopefully clearer) version:

The natural laws, including natural selection, can not produce anything new or of increased complexity. The nature of DNA rules out any big "genetic leaps" happening in one generation, even the DNA coding for the most simple organ is too complex to occur by random chance. Also, no complex coding can be added to the DNA by slow mutations that do not provide a significant advantage in the first generation. There is no foresight or intellegence behind natural selection, so any tiny mutation, even if it could have an eventual positive outcome, will not be kept any more than the much more numerous neutral and negative mutations. The net result of random additions to the DNA can not be positive. At best the net result will be neutral (maintanence of DNA integrity), but logic actually suggests that it would be slightly negative (what Boagie called decay).

There is no scientific explanation for how such an illogical and improbable thing (new positive DNA programing) could happen even once, let alone so many times as to create life as we know it. Neither has science shown good evidence that it has happened. All mutations that have been observed (and an incredible amount have been observed) have been neutral or negative, none positive. This follows the line of logic that I presented. Honestly, I think that for science to present evolution as authoritatively as it does, it ought to have both a "how" (reasoning), and good empirical examples (remember in science there ought to be more than one confirmation). As far as I can tell, they have neither...

The only "evidence" that is presented is the same that is presented for the abiogenesis problem: "Complex life exists, therefore it must have evolved." Needless to say, I don't find that to be very convincing logic... As I see it, considering the fact that complex life exists (as well as order in the universe in general), and that natural laws can't explain them, the only logical conclusion is that something outside of Nature has had significant influence on nature. And there is no way to prove that it is impossible (or even unlikely) that something exists outside of Nature as we know it. And even though this idea is not empirically provable, based on the logic presented above, I think it is the rational person's "best guess".

Hope that helps, and thanks for the responses- please keep them comming...

Edited to add: I think I painted a bit to small of a picture... There are two more responses to the problem that I find logical and reasonable to some extent: A rational person could adapt an agnostic view (I/we can't/don't know). Or they could adopt a "hopeful naturalist" view, saying that they believe that there is a natural explanation, but that there is no current reasonable theory to explain complex life and order. Personally, the agnostic view is very tempting. But in the end I find it to be a cop-out, not helpful, unfullfilling, and emotionally based on the idea that the truth is not worth seeking (which is an assumtion I'm not willing to live by).

PS- Peter, if science has indeed followed the ethic you described of "one contradictoy piece of evidence disproves the theory", then I have missjudged them, and a genuine Kudos! to them. Of course, you've probably noticed that (for better or worse) I currently trust my ability to reason more than I trust the honesty or self-awareness of the evolution community. And personally, even if all the empirical evidence that they have collected has been accurate, I don't find that it in any way outweighs the logical and scientific flaws I've stated above. Nor would it make up for the fact that they don't have any conclusive empirical examples of "new or added complexity" in present observation or of intermediate fossils.

Hi, NeitherExtreme,

I saw the humour in your observation that we will never be able to breed cows with gills! The truth, of course, is that cattle are complex organisms, adapted for living on land not only by their breathing processes but by their physiology, digestion, reproductive processes and other factors. They are so specialised in land-based existence that if the whole earth were to flood over completely, they would not be among the survivors. Some simpler organisms, on the other hand, may well be able to make the change to a marine environment, especially if the process of inundation were not too sudden.

When considering the process of evolution, we have to think in terms of timescales which are almost beyond our imagination. That is why we will never witness a process which is recognisable as mutation. All we will ever see is a still frame from a much longer movie. Those amphibious fishes of the present day, for example, which struggle across beaches to lay their eggs may be in the process of evolving into land creatures, or they may not. We will never know because we only have one still shot of the process to go by. Perhaps if we were able to return in 10,000 years we would have definite evidence one way or the other.

The only exception to this limitation of our knowledge that I am aware of is the development of bacteria and viruses. Because of their very short reproductive processes, these organisms mutate quickly. New viruses develop, familiar bacteria mutate into new forms - often in response to human attempts to exterminate them by antibiotics. Microbes are perhaps the only example of an evolutionary process which is fast enough to be observed by humans.

As Richard Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene, "survival of the fittest" is only one instance of a more general law, survival of the stable. Stable things exist in nature because atoms tend to collect themselves in the most stable patterns available to them. These are called molecules, and they in turn gravitate towards their most probable and stable form of existence ie joining with other molecules in combinations which we call compounds. Those compounds known as amino acids and proteins which form the basis of life are no exception to the general rule in nature that what is most stable survives. Chemists have replicated the chemical conditions of the early earth, combining primeval substances with sources of energy such as radiation (as from the sun) or electricity (as from lightning). What happens in these experiments is that after a few weeks molecules appear which are more complex than those originally put into the mix. Amino acids, purines and pyrimidines - the building blocks of DNA - have been found to develop spontaneously in these experimental situations. These are further examples of the general rule that atoms and molecules tend to coalesce into their most stable states and combinations.

When it comes to explaining the origins of life, it seems clear to me that the naturalist approach of evolution faces a simpler and more manageable task than is faced by creationist theories. Evolution only has to assume the emergence of the life-process once (and, as indicated above, we have a partial understanding of how this could have come about.) Once life is established, evolution provides a convincing and detailed account of the amazing hand-in-glove fit which always exists between an organism and its natural habitat. Creationism has to explain the origin of life in millions of separate instances, and offers no particular insight into the close correspondence between organism and habitat.

The theory of evolution is also consistent with our knowledge of the development of other complex forms such as cultures and language. There was a time when it was generally thought that God had created each language separately and that comtemporary speech was a degenerate form of the Divine linguistic creation. Fortunately we know better now.

Peter

Peter, once again thanks for you well thought out response.

Unfortunately, though, I don't think huge timescales don't make problems go away. I still think that it has to work on an individual level to work on a species level, but I guess this might be a difference in the way we see things... Out of curiosity, would agree that if my premise of "it must work for the individual" was true, that evolution could not naturally explain life as it is? (Based on the "Jump" and "Slow" scenerio problems I've already described)

The "stability" concept you brought up is an intersting one. In fact I have pondered that basic idea before one as a possible explanation for natural evolution, though I don't think I've heard anyone else describe it before. It is a more abstract idea, more difficult to say "yea" or "nay", and kind of dances around my proposed problems based on the individual. In the end though, I can't get away from those same problems... Viruses change a little and become resistant to old drugs, but does that mean that they have introduced anything "new or of increased complexity"? I don't think so; they are no closer to becoming anything other than viruses, even if the new version is more "stable". And of course the "stability" concept still falls on it's face when it comes to the major jumps along the "evolution chain": How could the "Lipid & RNA Bubble" develope organelle? How could a single cell organisim become a multi-cell organism? How would assexual organisms become sexual? All three of these situations (and I think many more) fail to be possible, as my "jump" or "slow" slow arguments show. IMO, no amount of time will get around those problems. (And if I may be so direct, but don't feel that you have to, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on those three scenerios.)

And I think it would probably be to the benefit of this conversation if I would tell you that I am not opposed to the idea of Theistic Evolution. Though it's not the exact scenerio I expect to be true, it would not offend me or throw off my beliefs if that turned out to be the reality of history. My most basic point that I see logically is not that evolution didn't happen (I am obviously in no position to say that), but that it couldn't happen through the laws of nature.

Just to head down an entertaining new path for a bit (and if you're willing to play along)... What would you think if sometime down the road we discovered that there was a section of genetic code in all animals that gives long term (over many generations) ability or direction to elvove (mutate postitively). I have thought that in the case that large-scale evolution does account for life today, that there would probably be some genes that we don't yet understand that are what is driving it. Maybe kind of like pangenesis, or maybe more like a preset direction; something other than natural selection (or long-range stability) to make it happen. If such a gene were found, would you assume that it came to be through natural laws (natural selection or stability), or would it suggest to you that there was design behind it? To me it would have to mean design, since it is not a significant benefit to the individual, and it would be a very complex gene indeed, and not one that could have appeared by chance. Just currious how our world-views would affect a hypothetical situation...

Thanks for these thoughts, NeitherExtreme.

It seems to me that scale does in fact make a huge difference. It answers your objection that we never observe the actual origin of a new species. Take the case of our contemporary amphibious fish. Here we may be witnessing the origin of a new species - or we may not. The two centuries or so that mankind has been systematically observing life-forms is massively too short to decide one way or the other. Because of the importance of scale, it is difficult to imagine what would count as observing the origin of a species. How would we recognise it? We certainly would not be aware of any movement or change occuring in a species within any timescale which, to this date, has been open to our awareness.

Regarding sexual reproduction and multi-cell organisms, symbiosis is a familiar concept in biology, with plenty of illustrative examples. The plant lichen is a symbiosis of a fungus and green algae; there is evidence that our mitochondria are products of a symbiotic relationship between a bacterium and our original materials. Since there is ample evidence of single cell and simple organisms joining together in a variety of ways, it is not difficult to imagine the process by which single cells would combine to form a simple multi-cell organism. The biological advantage would be an increase in survival rates and this if what would cause the union to be preserved and replicated. Sexual reproduction would originate when simple organisms, joining as described above, find advantage in exchanging genetic material.(The original mixing of genetic material would happen as a result of the natural variability of behaviour and functioning of organisms.) Once initiated, sexual reproduction would be expected to flourish since it greatly enhances the variability of offspring and therefore multiplies the chances that a particular line of descendants will be able to mutate in ways that promote survival.

A sequence of genes with the ability to evolve positively (not by natural selection)? The difficulty I have with this concept is that it implies that the gene has foresight, that there is an ability on the part of the gene to survey the life situation of the organism and come up with a creative solution to the problems which the organism faces in coping with its environment. This would require high functioning abstract intelligence which only exists in the most complex arrangements of cells (brains) in the highest functioning of mammals. Some gene-enthusiasts have been criticised for personifying the gene or ascribing human characteristics to it (eg selfishness), but no writer on genes has ever suggested that they posses abstract intelligence or foresight. So I have problems envisioning how this would work.

I can readilly accept the posssibility of genetic arrangements which throw off radically novel developments which are then put to the test of survival. A fraction of these novelties would confer biological advantage and would therefore be repeated. This avoids the contradiction of attributing foresight to an entity which is not conscious. In fact, a very good way of acheiving such radical developments is the very process which we discussed earlier - the great increase in variability of offspring conferred by the process of sexual reproduction.

Peter

Thanks again Peter,

If nothing else, you are forcing me to refine my arguments and think this whole thing through from new perspectives. For one thing, I've realized that it is simply too much to try to argue that evolution both didn't happen AND couldn't happen naturally at the same time. So, since I am not really certain that it didn't happen (I simply have my doubts), for the moment I will concede that it did. So my point that remains is that evolution could not produce life as we know it through all natural occurrences.

[ A brief aside to finish a few thoughts on whether or not it happened: The fossil record seems to be the only good evidence one way or another IMO. And that is definitely a "connect the dots" sort of endeavor, with intelligent and well educated Evolutionists, Creationists, IDists, and Theistic Evolutionists each claiming that their own is the correct interpretation. And since they all seem to claim that the best interpretation just happens to line up with their pre-assumed beliefs, I have a hard time believing that any of them are genuinely unbiased. But whatever the interpretation of what did happen, fossils certainly tell us nothing that could help us decide between your position (natural evolution) and mine (can't be natural evolution). ]



So we are reduced to logic, simply to see which one seems better to us personally. And I still hold to my arguments: Natural selection can not produce anything new, positive, and of increased complexity. DNA is too complex to "jump", and it can not build slowly without a significant benefit to each generation or the mutations will simply be mixed back in with the more numerous neutral and negative mutations. Anything else would require foresight and intelligence. The stability idea (while interesting) is still not a method for introducing new complex DNA programming. And while your explanations (and those of Evolutionists in general) affectively make slow transitions sound like a plausible idea, IMO the nature of DNA is the cold hard fact that is never dealt with in such explanations. The difference between a single cell organism (no matter how symbiotic) and a multi-cell organism requires a complex change in DNA, one that could not happen by nature. And even though evolution science seems to be able to "muddy the water" surrounding the need for anything new, I still think it is obvious that there has to be some point where any new organelle, organ, limb, etc, must genetically "begin", and even the simplest beginning is too complex of a jump in DNA to happen naturally. And that is logical to me, and to assume otherwise for the sake of mantaining a theory seems seems to me to be un-scientific. Then of course I don't have a problem with something existing outside the laws of nature... If I did, I guess I'd have to accept the best alternative explanations that came along, and those would be the most logical to me (even if they were not altogether logical).

So IMO it all starts with belief: a world-view that is either willing or unwilling to accept the possibility of something outside our natural laws. I think that it is only logical to accept at least the possibility, as we can obviously not empirically prove or logically deduce that it can not. And based on what we know of the natural laws and life, I think it is logical to say that the laws appear to have been broken for life on earth to exist. So (IMO of course) if a person is willing to accept the possibility, then the "evidence" is there.

I just want to point something out. Creationism and intelligent design are not science - they cannot be tested. The scientific community has debates about evolution, about some of the more complex mechanics of evolution, but there is no real debate as to evolution's validity.
The notion of evolution is not grounded in pre-existing beliefs, it's grounded in careful observation. That observation is comprised of, in part, the fossil record.

Thanks, and for the most part I agree. (I would say that the fossil record appears to be debatable, but then I'm not a paleontologist, so I can't give any expert interpretations.) So, assuming evolution has occured, my point would simply be to say that I see no viable way for it to have happened naturally. The "natural" explanations seem quite far fetched IMO, and apear to me to be accepted too authoritatively as a defense of the naturalist belief system. I am actually not opposed to someone holding to such beliefs- I just wish that it would be more generally accepted that there is no objective scientific explanation for life currently available. Sometimes it is mindboggling to me that a scientist defending naturalism can be so self-unaware that he doesn't realize that his own world-view affects his own interpretation of facts, and that this is true for everyone everywhere.

Of course that is my opinion, and affected by my world-view, but it seems logical enough to me...

The beauty of science is that, even though our own beliefs can give us a bias, observable facts are difficult to contest, especially if they are observed over and over. For example, if someone voraciously denied gravity, despite their opinion, objects would still fall to the earth.

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to accept that the process of evolution is natural. As yet, scientists have found no evidence of anything supernatural influencing evolution. Are there any aspects of evolution which are unnatural?

I agree with your first paragraph, I would simply not put piecing together the origins of life out of the few clues we have in that category. Have you ever seen anything evolve to a higher state of complexity?

What I find unnatural about evolution (or life in general) is that it exists in a natural universe only capable of entropy, and life is extremely complex- to the point of needing foresight and intellegence for it to come about. In particular, I see this in the fact that nothing new or of increased complexity could ever be added to the genetic code (DNA) of an animal by chance. Even the simplest "somthing new" that would give a significant advantage to one organism (to the point that it would out-reproduce its competition) would have a DNA coding that is too complex to happen in a single genetic "leap". At the same time, nothing complex can be added over many generations because each tiny mutation, since it is not complex enough to add a very siginificant advantage, would be cycled back into the gene pool along with the much more numerous negative and nuetral mutations. The net result could not be positive, and in fact logic would suggest that the net result would be negative over time due to the fact that mutations are much more often negative than positive. The math simply doesn't add up. As far as I'm concerned, if evolution is natural it is due to some law or something that we have yet to discover- but not because of anything described by current science or logic.

In short form, here's my logical problem:
Natural Selection + Lots of Time = Decay

But it's not "a few clues", it's every shred of evidence we have collected on the matter. To answer your question: no. But I must ask: so what?

You are trying to argue that life cannot become more complex naturally, yet science disagrees entirely. I'm no expert with DNA or any other scientific concern, but when every credible expert in the field agrees on something, an appeal to authority is entirely logical.



Criticisms of science aside: we can certainly agree that instead of a decay of life, we have seen life become more complex and varied. We also agree that a great deal of time has passed. The debate is over natural selection. Well, if I were to say 'okay, scrap natural selection' what would you suggest in it's place?
You speak of "foresight and intellegence" as being necessary for the development of life, but there is no evidence of this. Nor could there be evidence of such a thing, unless there is some being with unimaginable ability to alter physical reality at will.

When asked why there aren't good fossilized examples of intermediate forms, many evolutionists would tell you it is because we have such a small percentage of life recorded in the fossil record. But then they turn around and claim that the record is so complete that it is not debatable... Tough to argue with that.


Objective science is best when it studies what it can observe and test.


First, you have defined science as "evolution science", and you have obviously defined "credible" to mean those that agree with evolution... IMO there is a logical flaw somewhere in there.
Secondly: There have been very educated and intellegent scientists (including athiestic) that have disagreed with the theory ever since it was introduced. As far as appealing to authority: First I'd point you to my first post in this thread, and though it is quite long winded, the section titled "History of evolution" and "More reasons I don't trust..." might give you a give idea of why I don't find the evolution science community to be very credible themselves.
And thirdly, if I am simply going to appeal to an authority rather than use my head, I could appeal to the authority of the ubiquitous human instinct that has been with us since pre-history which assumes the supernatural. (Something I don't throw out as easily as others might...)


Yes. Maybe (But I'll concede this for now). And close, but not quite... The debate is over wether or not nature can produce complex life, through natural selection or any other acceptable scientific theory. And obviously I don't think so, though of course many others would disagree with me.


In science, a hypothesis does not need a replacement to be scrapped. If there is no logical explanation, than an honest scientist would say "I don't know."


Lets say you got to use a newly designed super-telescope, and were able to look at planets that are in far a way solar systems. On one planet you find the word "HELLO" perfectly etched into the landscape, would that be evidence of foresight and intellegence, or of a random act of nature. While there is no clear scientific line to draw (that I know of), there are levels of complexity that should only be explained by intellegence. To me, the complexity of DNA (even it's simplest program) is clearly in that category.


Umm... Yes. I have a much better time logically accepting that scenerio than one that is built on laws which it ignores. (Naturally explaining increasing complexity in a nature that is only capable of entropy.) Edit: An alternate scenerio would be that a designer designed DNA to include genetics that enabled long-term evolution. These genetics could not get there by chance though, as per my previous arguments. I have no idea how such genetics could work, it's just a shot in the dark. Of course what I am suggesting is not science... But I'm not claiming it to be either.

I hope I don't sound antagonistic. I actually enjoy this, and appreciate your interactions very much.

Also, if you want to see someone much more educated than I find fault with both evolution and creationism, this is a neat sight I just found:

(dealing with evolution problems)

(dealing with evolution and creationist problems)

(dealing with earth's timeline)
And there's a lot more... I was surprised to see that he argues some of the same issues that I have with evolution, but does it better IMO. I haven't read it all, but I've been reading a piece at a time. My point in showing you that site is not so that you will agree with him (I'm not even sure if I do yet), it is simply to demonstrate how I think there are multiple ways to peice the facts together, and that none of these versions it should be called Objective Science. (At least not at this point.)

I'm not sure what the problem is. You ask for intermediate forms - are you unfamiliar with, for example, cromagnon (pardon my spelling errors)? Or neanderthal? The neanderthal is particularly interesting - a human like form that died out due to competition and interbreeding with cromagnon, a species very close to modern human, the precursor of modern man.



Well, just because I have not seen anything evolve before my eyes into a higher state of complexity does not mean that such a thing is not observable. Evolution is not observable on such a small frame of time as my lifetime. Adaptation, however, is, and that has been seen. Reminds me of the moth in England - prior to the industrial revolution, this particular moth was white. Once England industrialized, due to the soot, the moths adapted to a dark grey. Now that England has introduced environmental standards, the moths are returning to white.
Evolution is still observable and testable.



No, you have only assumed so much. The fact of the matter is that the scientific community is agreed on the mater of evolution.



This may be, but their postulations have been rejected in the face of evidence. You will always have someone here and there disagree, but once you move past the fundamentalists who substitute theology for science, the field of people standing in opposition is terribly thin.



You should lookup the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. The benefits would be twofold: one, you would see why this particular appeal is valid and two, you would realize why what you call "ubiquitous human instict" does not fit the bill.

As for your links at the bottom of the page, this page reeks of the misinformation well intentioned God fearing people put out. This sort of clap trap is everywhere.
Take for example this gem: "The world that existed before the Cataclysm does not exist now, so we have no direct evidence of what it was like."

Except that we have rocks dated to well over 3 billion years.

I'll say this again for reinforcement: the scientific community is in agreement that evolution is, by far, our best and most complete theory regarding the origin of life.

Well, it looks to me like our biggest difference really lies in how much we trust the modern evolution based scientific community. And I don't know of any way to work that one out... I've tried to express some reasons that I question them, but if they don't hold true for you, then we might be at an impass on that one...

As far as logic goes- my problem is with something new, not something "adapted", or simply keeping something that was already there.

As far as the fossil record goes, like I said I'm no paleontologist. But alternate interpretations abound, so this goes back to who we trust.

As far as the website- I don't take it as any extreme authority, I just find it interesting to see what other people think. And something interestin: you found it very easy to through out the whole site (again, I'm not saying it's all good) based on a few problems you had with it. Can't I do the same with evolution? Especially if my problem with it is the very thing it is based on?

As far as appealing to authority- I obviously missed the specific definition that you were using, and that's my mistake, and I see what you are saying. But again this one will go back to the trust issue...

So all in all, I guess I trust my reasoning more than the authority in this case... And you are perfectly allowed to chose the authority over my reasoning.

Got to go now, but I'll try to reply to any more comments you have later.

What do you mean by new, then? Even new physical qualities are just reorganizations of what has already been.



My point was to show the website was anything but an authority, or even a source worth considering. The organizers of the site obviously have trouble with science in general, and not just evolution. That's why I chose that example - it had no relation to evolution.



An appeal to authority is one of many logical fallacies. A fallacious appeal to authority would be something like - "My dad says that pigs can fly, therefore pigs can fly". A non-fallacious appeal to authority would go something like "Dr. Jonh Q Professor, leading T-Rex expert, says that T-Rex was a bad mama-jama".