Dissecting ID

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

I don’t understand why this is an argument.

there are 2 camps on here.

Camp one believes that we were made by God. Or that a higher power being guided us into existence. That’s pretty much it at it’s core.

Camp two believes that we were made by chance. That a we came essentially from nothing and over time developed into more and more complex beings.

In both instances there’s faith in the fact that we came from nothing. ID can’t prove their point. Evolutionists can’t either. The day we can demonstarate that all the basic elements can start to form an inkling of organic life the case will be closed.

122

[quote]Gregus wrote:

In both instances there’s faith in the fact that we came from nothing. ID can’t prove their point. Evolutionists can’t either. The day we can demonstarate that all the basic elements can start to form an inkling of organic life the case will be closed.[/quote]

You seriously do not understand evolution:

  1. It is not meant to explain the origin of the fucking universe

  2. Yes it does have massive amounts of supporting evidence.

  3. Miller-Urey found that in the presence of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen and in an environment that simulated the early stages of earth’s development, 13 of the 21 amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells were formed after 1 week. Subsequent experiments were able to reproduce this and in addition to the amino acids, were able to demonstrate that RNA and DNA bases form through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

123

Combinatory. Man, having been made the Federal Head and representative of God in His created universe, brought profound changes on all levels of existence via disobedience.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Disc Hoss wrote:
Reference Genesis. It’s the fall of man that introduced decay/breakdown into the universe. Science might refer to many of it’s attributes via the 2nd law of thermodynamics. An observable, repeatable law that is in direct conflict with the self actualizing basis of macroevolution.

So Adam and Eve where created perfect, but loss that perfection when they “fell?” Am I understanding you right? Was it an instantaneous phenomenon – they went from perfect to flawed as they stepped out of Eden – or a slow degenerative one, with each generation slowly “devolving” from perfection to our current fatassimus americanus specimen?
[/quote]

124

Back the picture up. Everything is in a state of decay. All. That is scientific as we can observe it, test it, and find it, without exception, repeatable. You’re gonna die. So am I. So will the sun. Cars rust, wood decays, rocks erode, organisms die etc… It assaults your existence as you attempt to cling to the hope that we are climbing Jacob’s Ladder on our way to “what can be”. That reality constitutes a law. In direct oppostion is the concept that, completely by chance (what a stretch of faith), and contrary to what we know, life on Earth is in a mad dash (large scale verbiage) to one up itself to create superior life forms who constantly take mutations (NONE of which provide greater survivablilty even though some have superficially appeared to do so) into a more orderly, capable genetic superior that is in a process of godlike self-actualiization. Marvel Comics couldn’t put out anything better.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Disc Hoss wrote:
Reference Genesis. It’s the fall of man that introduced decay/breakdown into the universe. Science might refer to many of it’s attributes via the 2nd law of thermodynamics. An observable, repeatable law that is in direct conflict with the self actualizing basis of macroevoltion.

From Wikipedia.org:
2nd Law (Entropy): It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work. (Kelvin-Planck Statement)

That said, the resevoir is the largely the sun (for now) and all the organisms on earth generate far less work than the sun puts out in energy. Where’s the contradiction?

[/quote]

125

Come on, man. It is as simple, logically sound, and obvious as you walking up to a Mercedes and commenting how those Germans can really engineer a car. How idiotic of you to suppose that design and complexity require arrangement and information in both composition and operation. How stupid of you to extrapolate that it took an intelligence to create order and function. Every time I look at my watch, I’m awestruck by it’s “chance” appearance on my wrist.

[quote]pookie wrote:
BigD777 wrote:
If the evolutionists think the theory is so easy to believe in and that ID is so stupid, then why are you worried if both theories are presented to our children? I mean if evolution is so obvious then aren’t you confident that children will see the “such clear truth.”

“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”
–Darwin, Origin of the species

ID is not stupid. Well the idea of ID is, but ID itself is cleverly presented. To most layman and probably to most high schoolers, ID appears to be scientific. It’s certainly wrapped up in scientific sounding lingo. It appears to reach its conclusions through reason and logic. The problem is that the “conclusion” is actually the base assumption. ID doesn’t start from objective facts and, through deduction, arrive to the conclusion that a Designer was involved in life as we know it; it starts from God and looks for flaws in other theories to use as supporting arguments.

Will children be informed that within peer-reviews biological journals, there are exactly zero articles dealing with ID? That nearly all ID publications originate from a few Christian organisations such as The Discovery Institute? We do want the kids to get all the facts, don’t we?

In that spirit, should we not also force Churches to give equal time to science during the sermons? Whenever it is mentioned that “God created man in his image”, should equal time be given for Darwin’s ideas? We could leave the choice to individual Churches, but remove their tax-exempt status from those that don’t wish to “preach both sides.” Use those taxes to fund education. Schools and teachers are generally underfunded; this plan would alleviate that problem.
[/quote]

126

[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
Combinatory. Man, having been made the Federal Head and representative of God in His created universe, brought profound changes on all levels of existence via disobedience.[/quote]

This in no way answers my question. Were the changes from perfection to our current imperfect state complete within Adam and Eve, our did the physical degeneration continue for generations?

127

Some good reading from good, well respected “idoits”. For any interested parties.

Dr. Kurt Wise (student of Steven J. Gould at Harvard) Faith, Form and Time.

Dr. John Weldon and Dr. John Ankerberg
Darwin’s Leap of Faith

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box

Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial

William Dempski, The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1998.

Jonathan Safarti, Refuting Evolution.

128

[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
Come on, man. It is as simple, logically sound, and obvious as you walking up to a Mercedes and commenting how those Germans can really engineer a car. How idiotic of you to suppose that design and complexity require arrangement and information in both composition and operation. How stupid of you to extrapolate that it took an intelligence to create order and function. Every time I look at my watch, I’m awestruck by it’s “chance” appearance on my wrist.[/quote]

Your watch has no means of reproducing itself; it does not contain it’s own blueprints, nor the means of implementing them to repair itself or produce other copies. Same with a German car. Obviously those thing were designed and created by an outside agency.

We can’t say the same about life. There is no reason to rule out the possibility that life could start out by itself, given the right condition. Unlikely, improbable? Maybe, maybe not; we don’t really know. But to conclude that it is outright impossible is a premature conclusion.

If your faith dictates that you have to accept that possibility without question and you’re comfortable in doing so, then fine. I have no problem with that. But don’t ask for that to be taught in school as science. And don’t be surprised if others consider the various possibilities and find in favor of another one; or better, wait for evidence before accepting either one as “fact.”

129

[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
Some good reading from good, well respected “idoits”. For any interested parties.

Dr. Kurt Wise (student of Steven J. Gould at Harvard) Faith, Form and Time.

Dr. John Weldon and Dr. John Ankerberg
Darwin’s Leap of Faith

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box

Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial

William Dempski, The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1998.

Jonathan Safarti, Refuting Evolution.[/quote]

Most of these guys work for the Discovery Institute (Phillip Johnson, William Dembski and Michael Behe), not really a disinterested neutral party. Might as well list Strobel’s “Case for …” books too.

Could you reference some of the articles they’ve published in peer-reviewed biology publications? I can’t seem to find any.

130

[quote]BigD777 wrote:
If the evolutionists think the theory is so easy to believe in and that ID is so stupid, then why are you worried if both theories are presented to our children? I mean if evolution is so obvious then aren’t you confident that children will see the “such clear truth.”

“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”
–Darwin, Origin of the species[/quote]

What a great post. It is unassailable.

131

[quote]pookie wrote:
Disc Hoss wrote:
Some good reading from good, well respected “idoits”. For any interested parties.

Dr. Kurt Wise (student of Steven J. Gould at Harvard) Faith, Form and Time.

Dr. John Weldon and Dr. John Ankerberg
Darwin’s Leap of Faith

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box

Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial

William Dempski, The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1998.

Jonathan Safarti, Refuting Evolution.

Most of these guys work for the Discovery Institute (Phillip Johnson, William Dembski and Michael Behe), not really a disinterested neutral party. Might as well list Strobel’s “Case for …” books too.

Could you reference some of the articles they’ve published in peer-reviewed biology publications? I can’t seem to find any.
[/quote]

Half of those kooks are actually young earth creationists who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Here’s what Kurt Wise himself has to say:
“I’m not trying to convince people of the truth of this position,” said Wise, author of Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe. "It’s not a decision of the mind but of the heart.

“It’s a decision you make with the interaction of the Holy Spirit,” he said. “It’s by faith that we understand worlds were framed by the Word of God.”

It couldnt be any more clear that their works are about as far-removed from the scientifiic method as one could get.

132

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
BigD777 wrote:
If the evolutionists think the theory is so easy to believe in and that ID is so stupid, then why are you worried if both theories are presented to our children? I mean if evolution is so obvious then aren’t you confident that children will see the “such clear truth.”

“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”
–Darwin, Origin of the species

What a great post. It is unassailable.
[/quote]

I think maybe we just don’t want religion taught in science class, actually.

133

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Actually, religion is faith based. The belief that a more intelligent power guided life on this planet doesn’t need to be based in faith any more than the belief that all life just sprang up for no damn reason out of nothingness and decided that, in a system of utter chaos, it would get more and more organized as time went on.
[/quote]

This is the point that HAS BEEN MADE several times in this thread that the anti-ID’ers seem to want to ignore. This: [quote]“the belief that all life just sprang up for no damn reason out of nothingness and decided that, in a system of utter chaos, it would get more and more organized as time went on”[/quote] takes far more faith than I.D. Far more!

But as was stated earlier, I.D. is rejected by many and macroevolution and its supporting cast of ideas is embraced because there is no where else to go. It has to be accepted by many. Those of that persuasion are forced to find the idea reasonable because the alternative (I.D.) is completely unacceptable to them for whatever reason.

It doesn’t matter that there are huge gaps in the “evidence”. It doesn’t matter that those gaps are intellectually unfeasible. Hell, it doesn’t even matter that NO evidence of macroevolution exists despite the repeated assertions to the contrary. NONE! It has never been observed in the past or present. It cannot be observed in the fossil record. It goes back to the Karl Marx quote that if you tell a lie enough times eventually enough people will believe it.

This lack of evidence is so glaring even to many hard-core, well respected evolutionists that the quantum leap theory has been taking hold over the last 30 - 40 years. That is, macroevolution is unobservable in the fossil record so therefore it must have happened very quickly and in phases and at several distinct periods in earth’s history. Again, no evidence is there but it does help rationalize the lack of evidence for the old Darwinian, slooooooowly-evolving theory.

Those of you who still believe the party line that there is buccoo amounts of evidence of macroevolution are being duped, brainwashed, proselytized, converted, fooled, and snow jobbed. I truly believe that say, 100 years from now, history will look back at the 19th and 20th century macroevolution origin of life cults in the same manner that we now look back at the pre-Copernicus era of astronomy philosophy.

It is fascinating to me that those who think themselves to be on a higher plane of intellectual thought on this subject can be the very lemmings who are knocking each other over in their mad rush for the cliff.

134

[quote]Floortom wrote:
It couldnt be any more clear that their works are about as far-removed from the scientifiic method as one could get.
[/quote]

With all due respect, in the context of my previous post, this post by Floortom is hypocritical to the point of being comical.

There is nothing more unscientific than blindly accepting a theory as fact when that theory has no evidence and cannot pass any basic scientific tests. It’s only credibility is that the alternate view is untenable to them because they are petrified of being viewed as even remotely religious.

135

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
BigD777 wrote:
If the evolutionists think the theory is so easy to believe in and that ID is so stupid, then why are you worried if both theories are presented to our children? I mean if evolution is so obvious then aren’t you confident that children will see the “such clear truth.”

“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”
–Darwin, Origin of the species

What a great post. It is unassailable.

I think maybe we just don’t want religion taught in science class, actually. [/quote]

I think maybe you just want your religion taught in science class, actually.

136

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Actually, religion is faith based. The belief that a more intelligent power guided life on this planet doesn’t need to be based in faith any more than the belief that all life just sprang up for no damn reason out of nothingness and decided that, in a system of utter chaos, it would get more and more organized as time went on.

This is the point that HAS BEEN MADE several times in this thread that the anti-ID’ers seem to want to ignore. This: “the belief that all life just sprang up for no damn reason out of nothingness and decided that, in a system of utter chaos, it would get more and more organized as time went on” takes far more faith than I.D. Far more!

But as was stated earlier, I.D. is rejected by many and macroevolution and its supporting cast of ideas is embraced because there is no where else to go. It has to be accepted by many. Those of that persuasion are forced to find the idea reasonable because the alternative (I.D.) is completely unacceptable to them for whatever reason.

It doesn’t matter that there are huge gaps in the “evidence”. It doesn’t matter that those gaps are intellectually unfeasible. Hell, it doesn’t even matter that NO evidence of macroevolution exists despite the repeated assertions to the contrary. NONE! It has never been observed in the past or present. It cannot be observed in the fossil record. It goes back to the Karl Marx quote that if you tell a lie enough times eventually enough people will believe it.

This lack of evidence is so glaring even to many hard-core, well respected evolutionists that the quantum leap theory has been taking hold over the last 30 - 40 years. That is, macroevolution is unobservable in the fossil record so therefore it must have happened very quickly and in phases and at several distinct periods in earth’s history. Again, no evidence is there but it does help rationalize the lack of evidence for the old Darwinian, slooooooowly-evolving theory.

Those of you who still believe the party line that there is buccoo amounts of evidence of macroevolution are being duped, brainwashed, proselytized, converted, fooled, and snow jobbed. I truly believe that say, 100 years from now, history will look back at the 19th and 20th century macroevolution origin of life cults in the same manner that we now look back at the pre-Copernicus era of astronomy philosophy.

It is fascinating to me that those who think themselves to be on a higher plane of intellectual thought on this subject can be the very lemmings who are knocking each other over in their mad rush for the cliff.[/quote]

Macroevolution is generally used by creationists to define “evolution that has not been observed.” In the scientific literature, it is a deliberately vague term. The deliniation between so called micro and macro evolution is one that I would be interested in having defined.

There are many of examples of speciation resulting in non-viable offspring. Will that satisfy creationists?? Probably not since they will easily change the paramteres of what they were asking for.

Here’s one: 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH ?WH - 75%
P1 ?P1 - 95%
P2 ?P2 - 80%
P1 ?P2 - 77%
WH ?P1 - 0%
WH ?P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

BTW, no matter how much energy you expend in trying to disprove evolution it still does nothing to support ID or creationism. You and your fellow church goers can spend the rest of your lives in trying to poke hoels in modern evolutionary theory and you still have done no more to make creationsim or ID scientific theories.

Most Christian biologists are able to separate their blind faith in religion from their rational mind and have accepted evolution. The only people who can give creedence to a non-scientific theory like ID or creationsim are those who cannot do so. Evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists–religious or not. Man, the cognitive dissonance and the self-deception must keep you awake at night! It’s gotta be tough.

137

Here’s another fascianting example happening right now:

Amazing! In 100 years the creationsists and IDers will be telling us that the songs of the warbler is a great example of irreducible complexity!!

Here’s another:

Assortative Mating in Sympatric Host Races of the European
Corn Borer

Thibaut Malausa,1,2* Marie-The?re`se Bethenod,3
Arnaud Bontemps,1,3 Denis Bourguet,2 Jean-Marie Cornuet,2
Sergine Ponsard1

ABSTRACT
Although a growing body of work supports the plausibility of sympatric speciation
in animals, the practical difficulties of directly quantifying reproductive
isolation between diverging taxa remain an obstacle to analyzing this process.
We used a combination of genetic and biogeochemical markers to produce a
direct field estimate of assortative mating in phytophagous insect populations.
We show that individuals of the same insect species, the European corn borer
Ostrinia nubilalis, that develop on different host plants can display almost absolute
reproductive isolation?the proportion of assortative mating was >95%?even in the absence of temporal or spatial isolation.

Science 2005, v308: 258-260.

Let me spell this out for you.

As the insects feed on different plants, they seek mates only on those plants. This ‘host plant fidelity’ serves as a wedge to separate populations, preventing gene flow between them. Once you have no more gene flow between plant-associated populations, ‘poof’ you have separate species. It’s almost as awe-inspiring as the ‘poof’ of creation in which all species were instanteously created in immutable forms…

Another:

Title:?The effect of selection on a long wavelength-sensitive (LWS) opsin gene of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes
Author(s):?Terai Y, Mayer WE, Klein J, Tichy H, Okada N
Source:?PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 99 (24): 15501-15506 NOV 26 2002
Document Type:?Article
Language:?English
Cited References: 30??? Times Cited: 11??? ?
Abstract:?In East African Lake Victoria >200 endemic species of haplochromine fishes have been described on the basis of morphological and behavioral differences. Yet molecular analysis has failed to reveal any species-specific differences among these fishes in either mitochondrial or nuclear genes. Although the genes could be shown to vary, the variations represent trans-species polymorphisms not yet assorted along species lines. Nevertheless, fixed genetic differences must exist between the species at loci responsible for the adaptive characters distinguishing the various forms from one another. Here we describe variation and fixation at the long wavelength-sensitive (LWS) opsin locus, which is selection-driven, adaptive, and if not species- then at least population-specific. Because color is one of the characters distinguishing species of haplochromine fishes and color perception plays an important part in food acquisition and mate choice, we suggest that the observed variation and fixation at the LWS opsin locus may have been involved in the process that has led to the spectacular species divergence of haplochromine fishes in Lake Victoria.

200 HUNDRED species of guppy in ONE lake! WOW…

138

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
This is the point that HAS BEEN MADE several times in this thread that the anti-ID’ers seem to want to ignore. This: “the belief that all life just sprang up for no damn reason out of nothingness and decided that, in a system of utter chaos, it would get more and more organized as time went on” takes far more faith than I.D. Far more![/quote]

There is no such thing as “a system of utter chaos.” It’s a nice oxymoron, nothing more. Any scientist would agree with you that order can’t spontaneously jump out from pure chaos. The problem is that “pure chaos” has never been present in the history of the universe as we know it.

Starting at about 1x10^-43 seconds after the big bang, the laws of physics take hold and impose order upon the universe. Anything that occurs after that is subjected to those laws. There is no “spontaneous order from chaos”; what we have is systems behaving in accordance to the laws of physics. Matter forms galaxies, stars, planets, etc. Billions of years of stellar evolution pass.

If life sprang out from some soup of elements during the life of the early Earth, it wasn’t “utter chaos” organising itself. If was elements combining according to chemical rules until a simple self-replicator appeared. The initial mechanism could be analogous to the creation of snowflakes from water vapor. A cloud of water vapor displays a lot less order than a snowflake does; but every winter, billions upon billions of snowflakes form from vapor and fall to the ground. Does an Intelligent Snow Machine make each one? Or is a more rational explanation that the laws of physics and crystal formation better explain their basic six-armed shape?

Basically, the only question remaining is: Where do the physical laws come from? What caused the Big Bang? What came before? Here, you can speculate about the existence of a God. Are the laws “fined tuned” to create a universe that would support life? Or is our known universe the only way a universe can be? It’s often said that even a slight deviation from any of the known physical constants would bring about a universe with no life; often with no stars or planets at all. Is it even possible for such a universe to exists?

This is often asked as “did God have any choice in making the universe?” Again, here too, we currently don’t know. And here too, you can jump to your favored conclusion with no supporting evidence. But just as with abiogenesis, allow for others to prefer a different conclusion (they have the same evidence as you do, which is none at all) or to withhold reaching any conclusion pending more evidence.

As to macroevolution, I’ll refer you to: Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History Basically, macroevolution comes from a long history of a lot of microevolution.

You might also want to peruse The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQs before making all the same old, already refuted arguments. Who knows, you might bring something new to the debate.

139

[quote]Floortom wrote:
Here’s another fascianting example happening right now:

Amazing! In 100 years the creationsists and IDers will be telling us that the songs of the warbler is a great example of irreducible complexity!!

Here’s another:

Assortative Mating in Sympatric Host Races of the European
Corn Borer

Thibaut Malausa,1,2* Marie-The?re`se Bethenod,3
Arnaud Bontemps,1,3 Denis Bourguet,2 Jean-Marie Cornuet,2
Sergine Ponsard1

ABSTRACT
Although a growing body of work supports the plausibility of sympatric speciation
in animals, the practical difficulties of directly quantifying reproductive
isolation between diverging taxa remain an obstacle to analyzing this process.
We used a combination of genetic and biogeochemical markers to produce a
direct field estimate of assortative mating in phytophagous insect populations.
We show that individuals of the same insect species, the European corn borer
Ostrinia nubilalis, that develop on different host plants can display almost absolute
reproductive isolation?the proportion of assortative mating was >95%?even in the absence of temporal or spatial isolation.

Science 2005, v308: 258-260.

Let me spell this out for you.

As the insects feed on different plants, they seek mates only on those plants. This ‘host plant fidelity’ serves as a wedge to separate populations, preventing gene flow between them. Once you have no more gene flow between plant-associated populations, ‘poof’ you have separate species. It’s almost as awe-inspiring as the ‘poof’ of creation in which all species were instanteously created in immutable forms…

Another:

Title:?The effect of selection on a long wavelength-sensitive (LWS) opsin gene of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes
Author(s):?Terai Y, Mayer WE, Klein J, Tichy H, Okada N
Source:?PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 99 (24): 15501-15506 NOV 26 2002
Document Type:?Article
Language:?English
Cited References: 30??? Times Cited: 11??? ?
Abstract:?In East African Lake Victoria >200 endemic species of haplochromine fishes have been described on the basis of morphological and behavioral differences. Yet molecular analysis has failed to reveal any species-specific differences among these fishes in either mitochondrial or nuclear genes. Although the genes could be shown to vary, the variations represent trans-species polymorphisms not yet assorted along species lines. Nevertheless, fixed genetic differences must exist between the species at loci responsible for the adaptive characters distinguishing the various forms from one another. Here we describe variation and fixation at the long wavelength-sensitive (LWS) opsin locus, which is selection-driven, adaptive, and if not species- then at least population-specific. Because color is one of the characters distinguishing species of haplochromine fishes and color perception plays an important part in food acquisition and mate choice, we suggest that the observed variation and fixation at the LWS opsin locus may have been involved in the process that has led to the spectacular species divergence of haplochromine fishes in Lake Victoria.

200 HUNDRED species of guppy in ONE lake! WOW…
[/quote]

Tom, Sorry but these are examples of MICRO-evolution not MACRO.

The warblers remained warblers. They did not change into bald eagles or aardvarks. Only a truly religious person (one who believes something based on faith) can extrapolate that if variations within species and sub-species can occur, then wholescale changes way up the taxonomic tree can and have happened.

Since you’re having a tough time here, let me help. As defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company:

[b]
Microevolution - Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Macroevolution - Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
[/b]

It’s not THAT difficult. The first is observable and testable and therefore a scientific fact. The second is sheer speculation without one single solitary shred of scientific evidence.

140

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
There is nothing more unscientific than blindly accepting a theory as fact when that theory has no evidence and cannot pass any basic scientific tests.[/quote]

You just described ID to a T.

No, we’re actually quite open to alternate theories, but they have to be based on scientific principles. You have something better than Evolution Theory, fine, let’s hear it. Make sure, though, that whatever new element you bring to the table to explain the difficult stuff is testable; that it can be refuted in some way, either by experiments, fossil evidence, DNA analysis, whatever. Saying “Look at this! God did it!” is not testable nor refutable. It’s not science, but faith. Ergo, it’s not a valid alternative to a scientific theory.