read more into your post than you meant me to.
The fact that it was a controlled environment is immaterial;...
To ME this is not immaterial. It is important to KNOW how the experiment was conducted. There absolutely is legitimacy to the idea of contamination. Though I am not disputing the results of this articles contention of natural selection it did NOT identify any new genetic material that was not possibly already in existence in the DNA of the bacteria nor. It also does not in any way prove macro evolution. It only proves my already agreed to stance that there is natural selection. I do not deny that there can be beneficial mutations.
1) there must be new genetic information introduced to an existing species
2) It must occur through random natural processes.
You discount the modern science which has disproven both 1 and 2. I refer you to Farmerman's above posts for excellent research you can do to learn the facts about this research.
I again see no science DISPROVING 1 or 2. The whole premise of evolution requires both!!!...
Are you saying the science has PROVEN that Random Natural Processes are NOT required for evolution to occur? If it is not random then it is ordered and designed! If it is not natural then how? Supernaturally. Please show me this evidence cause that would seem to prove my point without any doubt.
First, there are very few scientists who disagree with modern evolutionary theory at all. There is just too much evidence on the side of the theory and very little on the converse side.
There are thousands of species labeled as 'transitional' forms which you apparently are unaware of. It is not 'a few.' There are a few famous ones, but a lack of research into this issue on your part does not provide proof that they don't exist.
For example, let us take the modern horse. We know of hundreds, if not thousands, of precursors to this modern mammal; we can watch the Hoof evolve over time on these animals. I would suggest spending some time in Natural History museums looking at skeletons and measuring their change over time if you want to see the gigantic variety of transitional forms out there.
There may be fewer over all but the truth is there are many who are silent out of fear for their jobs.
And like I said before Scientific consensus has been wrong on many other issues in the past. Shouldn't all alternatives to scientific consensus be examined? I mean come on. We have a huge growth in Scientists and climatologists who are saying that the consensus on "man caused global warming" are wrong. Should we strip them of their intellectual credentials simply because they support scientific theory that opposes the consensus.
True science would NEVER accept a theory as established FACT just because the consensus said so. It has been those who have dared to go against the consensus that have changed science forever.
There are 9 planets.
Neanderthals were our direct ancestors.
The existence of phlogiston.
The atom was the smallest particle in the universe.
Tectonic plates were the idea of a bunch of loons.
I fully agree that there are changes within species. One human couple has the genetic ability to create over a trillion completely unique offspring. But not one of them will ever be spider monkey. NEVER. Nor will any of the offspring ever "evolve" genetic material to become a spider monkey.
If you want to be technical every species is transitional within itself. Americans tend to be taller than Americans 200 years ago, but none of us are evolving into. I agree with natural selection. The larger stronger healthier Americans are living and the smaller weaker die out. Thats logic. But there are no interspecies transitions that as far as I have seen are absolutely declaratively interspecies. Most if not all can be explained as extinct species of their own.
You guys can theorize that reptiles became birds and humans were apes all you want but to this date you have not proven it.
In that case, you will stop using the terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory' in respect to Intelligent design. These are very well-defined scientific terms which imply certain things not testable or provable when it comes to the 'supernatural.' Intelligent design has nothing to do with science whatsoever, is not a 'competing theory' with evolution, and has no place in any classroom discussing science at all. It is antithetical to the idea of science itself.
I don't think you have the authority to tell me that I "will stop". I will do as I please. Your comment was about applying scientific standards to Religion. That is very different from Intelligent design. Intelligent design does not declare anything more than life on this planet appears to have purpose and design and therefore must have a designer. If that designer was a scientist from the planet Kolob who seeded this planet with life forms then so be it. But I reject the probability and liklihood of such complexity and design occurring from random natural processes.
Even many scientists who support evolution admit that the statistical probabilities of the creation of even the first living cell are so astronomical it is beyond miracle status.
H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK):
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it."
Prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power.
Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power.
Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 10 to the 50th power is in the realm of metaphysics.
Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. "
I. L. Cohen is a mathematician, researcher and author -- a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.
"...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail -- no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process.
...after all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
"...every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. "
"...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
I agree with these men on these points.
The scientific community has made Evolution its religion and Darwin its god. It opposes any criticism of its theory and quickly hushes any who point out its weaknesses.
Even in your closing paragraph, you make basic mistakes re: the nature of evolution and the evolutionary process, for what you have written above is clearly untrue
It is not a mistake nor untrue. Even among your bacteria experiment article you support that only one strain of Ecoli developed the new ability. I claim that should I spray generation 20,000 with Lysol that would never occur. The supposed time of life creation on this earth was not very hospitable. Absolute perfect balances had to be in place and just ONE bad day one bad Season and the whole process COULD have been ruined. Then you apply that possibility to every mutation, going forward and the statistical improbability rises higher and higher.
At the very least, the quality of your argumentation is sure to rise.
As always I continue to grow and learn. And I look forward to scientific studies such as those going on with RNA right now. However I see no quality issues with my point of view. I have not expectation that your mind will change. But your arguments are not convincing me any more than mine do you.
G'day all! I'm out.