Nobody here has ever claimed the science is rock solid and the theory is sound.

Lies. You claimed that just a few posts ago:

Evolution has been observed and proved, it’s just the macroscopic/microscopic thing now and this can easily be proved

What, you thought I forgot because it was a couple of days ago? Just because I am not so gullible that I blindly believe fantasies about spontaneous random development of organs, doesn’t mean that I am stupid. Or maybe we have to argue if “can easily be proved” is close enough to “rock solid”?

You also said,

There is a colossal weight of evidence

So now we have “can easily be proved” and “a colossal weight of evidence”. Getting closer to saying rock solid?

Besides, it’s not like dogs deviating from wolves by 0.02% of their DNA, in terms of thicker fur and such trivial bits, is any proof of the origin of species. After all their internal anatomy is 100% the same, is it not. So is the fact that we are all slightly different from our parents in eye color and such, is that another absolute proof of the origin of species? Don’t be ridiculous.

When I point out these huge failures of your so-called observed evidence, you alternate between ignoring it, and pointing out to other weak sciences:

string theory as that is wwaaayyyy more out there than evolution in terms of lack of evidence and testability

And as for,

but I am more interested in real scientists doing some real science to actually find out what happened

I am interested in that too. I guess you missed the last paragraph of my earlier post, it was more important to come up with insults?

Three points to conclude this argument:

1. All in all, you’ve now basically DEVOLVED into acting like a fanboy for the theory of evolution. This again proves my point that you see it as your faith, and you respond emotionally to any threats on your faith.

2. All I did was ask you to respect people who have other beliefs that are just as nonsensical as yours. But I guess you just can’t ask a religious fanatic to do that, can you.

3. At this point I would be content if can just admit to yourself and to me that this theory has huge holes but you still prefer it over creationism. Of course this would be an admission that you take evolution on faith and not on evidence, and then I would win the argument. Can’t have that, no sir.

let us not pretend that we absolutely know everything for sure and have all the answers.
Exactly. But then don’t bring up ‘God did it’ as if that is somehow a viable answer. Here’s the thing:

ID/Creationism belongs in philisophical/religious discussions. IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Evolution does not belong in philisophical/religious discussions. IT IS SCIENCE.

If you fail to see the distinction here and thus feel the need to somehow compare them then you are quite frankly an idiot. Sure you may believe God zapped it all into place a few thousand years ago but I am more interested in real scientists doing some real science to actually find out what happened, even if they do make some mistakes on the way. That’s the way these things work. Yet for some inexplicable reason there is a groundswell of total morons who want to ‘teach the controversy’ with utterly no interest in real science, only promoting a religious agenda.

Seeriioouuslyy…

SERIOUSLY! Has this turned into a “religion vs. atheism” discussion?

Will you PLEASE. FOR THE LOVE OF (or lack of. whatever suits ya’.) GOD. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE end this?

plus.. it’s boring to read. you’ve hit the classic spot of every discussion of this kind, where one part refuses to understand what the other part says. (goes both ways btw.)

You still don’t get that I’m not trying to prove either evolution or creationism. I am only trying to point out that there are holes in the theory, and those holes are swept under the rug by people who claim the science is rock solid.

The dog/wolf example is hardly evidence, as dogs and wolves do have the same number of chromosomes and only a 0.02% deviation in DNA. This can only prove variance happens according to chromosomes. That’s fine by me, chromosomes are real science.

But what isn’t fine is to pretend that this evidence can explain how a series of random errors while copying DNA, over millions of years, has resulted in the development of an inter-dependent and complicated network of organs. Where is the evidence to directly support such an extraordinary claim?

I am not a religious nut and I do support continued research into biology and the way reproduction systems work. But as long as that research remains incomplete, let us not pretend that we absolutely know everything for sure and have all the answers.

We’ve already established that changes in species on a short time-scale is observable, repeatable and verifiable, even in complex vertebrates. Evolution on a large scale happens over periods of time that no single human generation (or even multiple generations) can observe. And it’s not just one set of evidence – masses of evidence in countless fields shows that evolution is the most plausible method for the creation of the myriad forms of life on this rock. Have you got a better explanation? That isn’t supernatural?

“Or for simple single cells to spontaneously develop a reproductive system, and a wonderfully complex one, at that.”

Single cells just use binary fission – they split in two. You must already know that? Reproductive systems only come into play in more complex organisms. Another play from the creationists that’s wrong – people who think evolution is correct (carefully avoiding the word “believe” there – belief implies “faith” and I don’t want to go there, either) don’t think that the huge changes you’re talking about are sudden or spontaneous. It’s not a case of amoeba on Monday, complex mammal by Saturday. The changes are tiny, and take place over millions of years.

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

(My turn to make a reference to WWII.)”

The actual quote from Goebbels, including the bits people inexplicably miss out – “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

[Emphasis mine] Take that any way you want.

“1. No one pretends that string theory is absolutely right, in spite of lacking evidence.”

Even Darwin had doubts about his own theory, as all scientists should. It’s just that evolution (or natural selection if you prefer), is the most complete theory, that fits what facts we have, that we’ve got so far.

String Theory (It should really be String Hypothesis) is one of the branches of science (another is astro-physics), where scientists get a free pass to just make shit up because it helps explain something else. See “dark matter”.

Biology is not one of those sciences. Anything that’s observable under a microscope or bigger, and inside the edge of the atmosphere, no such free pass exists.

If you doubt the veracity of evolution, good for you – without scepticism, without people who will say “No, that’s not right.” we’d still be living on a flat earth that the sun orbits.

Try to come up with a new and plausible theory, then prove it. Don’t just claim there is no evidence for the theory you disagree with, simply because you say there’s no proof. Instead of simply denying the evidence for evolution, prove it wrong.

This whole storm over evolution is simply people who cannot countenance the fact that the story of Creation in the Old Testament is not historical fact. If evolution proves Creation isn’t true, it opens the door to other things in the Bible being proved untrue.

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

(My turn to make a reference to WWII.)

Where is the ‘controversy’ on string theory

Now your comeback is that if other fields of science are given a free pass in spite of little evidence, then why am I picking on evolution. That is completely irrelevant, and moreover reaffirms what I keep saying. You take evolution on faith, not on evidence.

I will point out two glaring differences though.
1. No one pretends that string theory is absolutely right, in spite of lacking evidence.
2. No one is fired for saying string theory lacks evidence and for contemplating other ideas.

I don’t object to aspects of evolution that can meet this scientific requirement. For example natural selection, specifically the aspects that are concerned with distribution of characteristics in a population. It stands to reason that if you kill all people with blue eyes, you’re going to see a lot less blue eyes in the population.

What I do object to is when people use something that is provable, like the distribution of characteristics in a population, to assert that it therefore must also be possible for individuals to do fantastic things like spontaneously develop new characterstics and new organs. Or for simple single cells to spontaneously develop a reproductive system, and a wonderfully complex one, at that.

That’s what you’ve been doing here. When you say “not saying evolution is 100% correct” or “it’s not conclusive, but at least there is evidence” you’re giving the fantastic ideas a free pass because the very basic ideas of the theory are reasonable and do stand to scrutiny.

In this respect I view your stance towards evolution as something that is based on faith, or wishful thinking, rather than a scientic approach. And this is why I equate it to a religion. You can go on with your handwaving, but it can’t change this simple truth.

Who said it was absolute proof? It’s still observable, repeatable and verifiable – which makes it “science”. It’s also another fact that fits the theory of evolution – that species can and do change over time. Evolution has evidence on its side – it’s not conclusive, but at least there is evidence.

Where’s the evidence for Creationism? “God did it” is not evidence.

“How long would you need to let bacteria sit in the jar before it spontaneously develops something as complex as the human eye?”

You do know you’re rolling out the usual cliched arguments used to try to discredit the theory of evolution? First up; “Evolution is only a theory”, then; a new take on “What use is half an eye?”, including the usual exaggerated leap from microbes to higher life forms to try to drive the point home. What’s next? “Darwin didn’t win a Nobel prize!”?

It’s not up to the supporters of evolution to prove it’s right. It’s up to the creationists to prove it wrong, and they can’t. Scientists can’t yet prove Darwin wrong.