[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Its *mechanisms* are still very much in discussion, and probably will be for another couple hundred years (that's the way science works).

Evolution itself is not in question, at all, except among a tiny handful of very noisy pseudo-scientific crackpots.

Well define evolution then.

And if we aren't sure how it works? How are we sure that it is "evolution."

What if the mechanisms, when they are defined, point to ID? What then? Is it still evolution? Are you still positive you know how we came to be?


A short time ago people were CONVINCED the earth was flat. My point is, if we don't know how evolution works, how in the crap can you say that we came to be by evolution?

Just to recap.
-We know we came to be by evolution, however we don't know how.
-Everyone believes in evolution as it is presented today (aside from some nutjobs who dare opposed accepted views of today).
-We can conclude that hundreds of years from now people will still believe in evolution, although they will debate how evolution works.

I can't help but laugh at the closemindedness! You call those who oppose today's scientific views crackpots? What if no one bothered to offer up that the world was indeed a sphere? What if no one bothered to question any widely accepted views? Scary place that would be.

There is one thing about science I believe I can say with some degree of certainty, and that is that we don't know **** about ****. In 300 years they will laugh at us (as we laugh at those from 300 years ago). Keep that in mind when you argue any scientific premise.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, but the whole point of having this thing on an internet message board is so that other people can finally find out what you're thinking. I believe you refer to talking just for the pleasure of hearing your own voice as "verbal masturbation," and that's what what you just said amounts to.

I have no doubt that you think someone said that science knows everything, but in reality they didn't, because it doesn't. Your confusion arises when you confuse "science doesn't know everything" with "science doesn't know anything." The first is true, the second is most certainly not. You seem to have the mistaken sense that the second is also true, and therefore that other people who don't know anything are on equal footing with the current scientific consensus, scientifically speaking. You're wrong in that.

Again no. And yes there are people that believe Science has the definite answer to everything. And things it doesn't have, it will soon. That is all I am saying. Anything else you are arguing about you are arguing to yourself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Well define evolution then.

The emergence of novel species through the heritable differences routinely observed between individuals of a precursor species.

And if we aren't sure how it works? How are we sure that it is "evolution."
...
My point is, if we don't know how evolution works, how in the crap can you say that we came to be by evolution?

An apple falls from a tree to the ground. We aren't sure how gravity works (actually, we don't have the faintest clue), but we're still sure that gravity is the culprit. You tell me, are we wrong?

What if the mechanisms, when they are defined, point to ID? What then? Is it still evolution? Are you still positive you know how we came to be?

If the mechanisms that create variation among individuals of the same lineage turn out to be God sticking his finger into our DNA and causing specific mutations? That would really be something, wouldn't it? It wouldn't contradict any of the existing data, though, and it wouldn't contradict evolution, any more than the theory of DNA contradicted evolution by natural selection.

A short time ago people were CONVINCED the earth was flat.

When exactly do you think this was, this "short time ago?" Also, are you stupendousman? Because you took this directly from his other post, in an old thread linked to from this one. I asked him the above question in it, and he never responded. Just curious...

I can't help but laugh at the closemindedness! You call those who oppose today's scientific views crackpots?

Of course not. What makes them crackpots is that they oppose it without having even a rudimentary understanding of it. They actively reject evidence they are unwilling to review. We call them crackpots because they are crackpots.

If you came across a man who campaigned against calling the sky blue and swore up and down that the sky is not really blue, and anyone who says it is is being dishonest and doesn't really know what they're talking about, and when you ask him for details he admits that he's never actually looked at the sky but is just sure that everyone is against him out of bigotry and closemindedness... well what you have there is a crackpot, plain and simple.

There is one thing about science I believe I can say with some degree of certainty, and that is that we don't know **** about ****. In 300 years they will laugh at us (as we laugh at those from 300 years ago). Keep that in mind when you argue any scientific premise.

Yeah, read my last post. There's a difference between not knowing everything and not knowing anything.

Incidentally, have you ever gotten a vaccine?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Again no. And yes there are people that believe Science has the definite answer to everything. And things it doesn't have, it will soon. That is all I am saying. Anything else you are arguing about you are arguing to yourself.

The irony is outstanding. You're adorable.

Hey, did you happen to read ebuddy's story in this thread about how some ID proponent websites had these quotes posted from historical figures, and when ebuddy asked them to help him verify the quotes so he could convince us here of the validity of ID, the folks said that the quotes could not be verified, but "trust me, they're real." Ah, that was a fun story.

Anyway, thanks for the latest update from the Kevin school of debating. If you can't win an argument, just declare that you have won it and refuse to hear objections. Bulletproof.

[Kevin]

And when Uncle can't win he reverts to condescending ad-hominems.

[Uncle Skeleton]

More irony! I can't take it! I'm on irony overload.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Eh, it occurs to me that you might not be playing dumb, so...

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And yes there are people that believe Science has the definite answer to everything. And things it doesn't have, it will soon. That is all I am saying.

Name one. Is it someone in this thread, or even on MacNN? See, this is what a straw-man was named for: "4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical."

[mania]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And when Uncle can't win he reverts to condescending ad-hominems.

Ah don't you mean hominids?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Hey, did you happen to read ebuddy's story in this thread about how some ID proponent websites had these quotes posted from historical figures, and when ebuddy asked them to help him verify the quotes so he could convince us here of the validity of ID, the folks said that the quotes could not be verified, but "trust me, they're real." Ah, that was a fun story.

I'm glad you appreciate honesty, but "fun" kind of cheapens it. It was not to convince you of the validity of ID. I don't discount the work of intelligent people because of who is funding them necessarily. The irony in my story was that I was using a Sir Arthur Keith quote, not to convince anyone of ID, but to advise humility when talking about evolution. Bias is deep among the opinionated yet none of them... no not one, will admit it. Unfortunately, in my quest to squelch hype, I used some and it back-fired. Funny, but not fun.

Humility.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It's not my "opinion" that you are debating a scientific topic in un-scientific ways, it's merely an observation after reading all your posts in this thread.

An opinion based on observing the posts.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No. Any alternative theory can be presented, but they have to meet requirements to be considered a theory (and no, you can't just redefine the meaning of the word "theory," either): evidence, direct observation, and testing.

We've already gone over this in the other thread. I tried and tried to get a solid definition of "theory", but every time I showed that alternative theories which students are being denied access fall under all but the most purposefully exclusive defintion (that no one I know of subscribes to and doesn't mesh with any credible dictionary definition of "theory" I can find).

Again...I'll leave it to people to browse that thread. I'm not interested in drudging up the same logically fallacious attempts to justify bigotry.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

100 years ago, you might have been able to say that. Nobody with any degree of authority really doubts evolution these days, though there are still a lot of specifics left to fill in.

What kind of evolution? I know of a lot of scientists who believe that while there are some types of adaptive evolving, the origin of the species itself is the result of a higher power. We're talking Nobel Prize winning scientists.

It looks like if all you've got is an empty "appeal to authority", you're going to have to do better.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Science is not about finding absolute truth, that is what religion is for.

You're talking about "truth" in a philosophical way. "Truth"..as in, "why does this actually happen" is most certainly within the purview of science and when you disallow possibilities as to "why does this happen" for reasons based fallacious assumptions and bigotry you're really not engaged in a scientific effort. When you base your search for "why does this happen" on the unproven assumption that there is no "higher power" or that everything can be answered with currrent first hand observation, you miss the entire point of "science"

You can try to redefine words and concoct strict tests so as not to have to look at stuff which might make you personally uncomfortable or which you personally disagree with, but that's really not a scientific search. Had they taken this tact before we knew what we knew about radioactivity, scientists would still be assuring us that radioactive materials where simply tools that harnessed the power of the sun and not that the ores that had their own unique special power all to themselves. After all, at the time, that too was their best guess based on observation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

When exactly do you think this was, this "short time ago?" Also, are you stupendousman? Because you took this directly from his other post, in an old thread linked to from this one. I asked him the above question in it, and he never responded. Just curious...

No, he's not.

..and please don't assume that if I don't respond, that there's some reason. I don't have a lot of time and I skim and miss stuff, and besides, at this point I AM going to let that other thread speak for me since it made clear the less than intellectually honest effort that was being made to control a true search for "why it happens".

As for your question; why does it matter? Either at one time, based on observations, people thought that the Earth was flat or they didn't. Just a matter of years ago, scientists where sure we would soon be in a new ice age...based on scientific observation.

The point is that best guesses are nice start, but if you don't look as seriously at other possiblities you're selling the search for the facts short. Simply poo-pooing other possibilities because they don't provide the same amount of observable (but possibly coincidental) evidence to support an idea is in my opinion, REALLY bad science. But that appears to be the way many who call themselves "scientists" choose to mask their personal bias. Otherwise, you could concede that there may be some kind of yet to be proven power or energy which caused the origin of the species and continues to influence it's evolution as many scientists believe to be the case.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I can't help but laugh at the closemindedness! You call those who oppose today's scientific views crackpots? What if no one bothered to offer up that the world was indeed a sphere? What if no one bothered to question any widely accepted views? Scary place that would be.

There is one thing about science I believe I can say with some degree of certainty, and that is that we don't know **** about ****. In 300 years they will laugh at us (as we laugh at those from 300 years ago). Keep that in mind when you argue any scientific premise.

BINGO. Give that man (or woman) a prize!

I'm glad I"m not the only one who sees the hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty of some in the scientific mainstream.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The emergence of novel species through the heritable differences routinely observed between individuals of a precursor species.




An apple falls from a tree to the ground. We aren't sure how gravity works (actually, we don't have the faintest clue), but we're still sure that gravity is the culprit. You tell me, are we wrong?



If the mechanisms that create variation among individuals of the same lineage turn out to be God sticking his finger into our DNA and causing specific mutations? That would really be something, wouldn't it? It wouldn't contradict any of the existing data, though, and it wouldn't contradict evolution, any more than the theory of DNA contradicted evolution by natural selection.



When exactly do you think this was, this "short time ago?" Also, are you stupendousman? Because you took this directly from his other post, in an old thread linked to from this one. I asked him the above question in it, and he never responded. Just curious...


Of course not. What makes them crackpots is that they oppose it without having even a rudimentary understanding of it. They actively reject evidence they are unwilling to review. We call them crackpots because they are crackpots.

If you came across a man who campaigned against calling the sky blue and swore up and down that the sky is not really blue, and anyone who says it is is being dishonest and doesn't really know what they're talking about, and when you ask him for details he admits that he's never actually looked at the sky but is just sure that everyone is against him out of bigotry and closemindedness... well what you have there is a crackpot, plain and simple.



Yeah, read my last post. There's a difference between not knowing everything and not knowing anything.

Incidentally, have you ever gotten a vaccine?

You're analogies are flawed. You can see the Apple fall from the tree. You can look up and see that the sky is blue. You can experience these things you've listed. Have we experienced evidence of evolution? No, we've deduced it from digging up bones and what not. Last I checked it was still a theory under debate.

And this "short time ago" is NOTHING especially when you speak on the amount of time that evolution takes to be noticable, according to theory.

My point is, evolution is a theory constructed on logical deductions based on looking at different animals and looking at fossils and such dug up that have been dated to long ago.

No effect of evolution has been (or will be for a very long time) experienced/directly observed by anyone. Thats a huge leap from watching an Apple fall from a tree.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No effect of evolution has been (or will be for a very long time) experienced/directly observed by anyone. Thats a huge leap from watching an Apple fall from a tree.

Preposterous! Evolution is observed every day! Just because you don't understand it - or rather WANT to understand it does not make it any less true.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It's not my "opinion" that you are debating a scientific topic in un-scientific ways, it's merely an observation after reading all your posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

An opinion based on observing the posts.

Any particular reason why you left out the rest of my reply? A reply based on me observing evidence (your posts) and drawing a logical conclusion from that evidence (you don't know of the scientific method nor how it works)? It was a logical explanation of why I stated what I stated. Why did you not reply to that part as well? Why do you insist on using terms like opinion when they are applied incorrectly? If you wanted to disagree with the conclusion drawn in my post you could say that I have drawn an incorrect conclusion from the evidence observed. You could say that and then supply evidence of your own as to why my conclusions were faulty.

So, you could provide evidence that would counter my assertion you don't understand the scientific method nor the generally accepted ways in which scientific information is presented and discussed. But no, you still insist on calling logical assessments "opinions". It is very well possible I have drawn an incorrect conclusion in my posts, but you have no way shown it was incorrect. You have merely dismissed it as "opinion". It may seem like I am "attacking the messenger" but if we can't get you to argue your points in a logical fashion, then they have no merit to begin with, which means there is no "message" to discuss at all.

So, I have said my piece for the last time. If you want to continue debating scientific principles in an illogical and un-scientific manner, by all means do so. Just don't be surprised when other posters don't take seriously your posts.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You're analogies are flawed. You can see the Apple fall from the tree. You can look up and see that the sky is blue. You can experience these things you've listed. Have we experienced evidence of evolution? No, we've deduced it from digging up bones and what not. Last I checked it was still a theory under debate.

And this "short time ago" is NOTHING especially when you speak on the amount of time that evolution takes to be noticable, according to theory.

My point is, evolution is a theory constructed on logical deductions based on looking at different animals and looking at fossils and such dug up that have been dated to long ago.

No effect of evolution has been (or will be for a very long time) experienced/directly observed by anyone. Thats a huge leap from watching an Apple fall from a tree.

So, are you trying to say experiential evidence is more logically sound than scientific evidence? that experiential reasoning is more sound than deductive reasoning? If gravity is something that is confirmed by "experience", unlike evolution, then those who experience gravity should all have the same experience, correct? Let's do an experiment based on using "experiential" evidence.

Get a bunch of people together and have them drop acid and watch an apple fall from a tree. We'll have multiple "experiences" of that apple dropping and there is no guarantee that they will be the same. So, in such a scenario, it is possible--quite probable in fact--that different persons in this scenario would "experience" gravity in different ways. After such an experiment, would you be willing to claim that gravity works differently for different people, based on their "experience" of observing gravity?

I think you would have to if you wanted to be consistent. By the logic you used above about "experiencing" gravity, as opposed to it being logically deduced from direct or in-direct observation, you would have to conclude that because different persons experiences gravity differently it must be viewed as different for different people. Are you willing to make that claim? If so, please do so. If not, please explain why not?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by mania 

Ah don't you mean hominids?

They're trying to change it to hominins

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm glad you appreciate honesty, but "fun" kind of cheapens it. It was not to convince you of the validity of ID. I don't discount the work of intelligent people because of who is funding them necessarily. The irony in my story was that I was using a Sir Arthur Keith quote, not to convince anyone of ID, but to advise humility when talking about evolution. Bias is deep among the opinionated yet none of them... no not one, will admit it. Unfortunately, in my quest to squelch hype, I used some and it back-fired. Funny, but not fun.

Humility.

Agreed

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What kind of evolution? I know of a lot of scientists who believe that while there are some types of adaptive evolving, the origin of the species itself is the result of a higher power. We're talking Nobel Prize winning scientists.

It looks like if all you've got is an empty "appeal to authority", you're going to have to do better.

Name one. Your "appeal to authority" is just as shallow.

Also please note in advance that if your scientists are not biologists, or if the only biologist is Behe, it will be very funny that you brought up the appeal to authority fallacy in this context.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You're talking about "truth" in a philosophical way. "Truth"..as in, "why does this actually happen" is most certainly within the purview of science

'fraid not. Scientists never address "why" questions, only "how" questions.

and when you disallow possibilities as to "why does this happen" for reasons based fallacious assumptions and bigotry you're really not engaged in a scientific effort.

No one is disallowing possibilities that oppose evolution. Anyone is free to research those alternatives and gather evidence for them. The problem is that no such evidence has ever been found, and so those alternatives are considered incorrect.

or that everything can be answered with currrent first hand observation, you miss the entire point of "science"

What exactly do you mean by "currrent first hand observation?" Is that different from experimentation?

You can try to redefine words and concoct strict tests so as not to have to look at stuff which might make you personally uncomfortable or which you personally disagree with, but that's really not a scientific search.

Funny, that's exactly the description of the ID movement. They ignore all the evidence already gathered, because it supports evolution, and that is something they personally disagree with. And that's why they are accused of not being scientific. The reason you can't apply this description to the science of evolution is because there is no evidence for ID or against evolution, no "stuff which might make you personally uncomfortable." There is none of that to look at or decline to look at, it simply does not exist. If you think I have made this statement in error, please present some evidence either for ID or against evolution.

Had they taken this tact before we knew what we knew about radioactivity, scientists would still be assuring us that radioactive materials where simply tools that harnessed the power of the sun and not that the ores that had their own unique special power all to themselves. After all, at the time, that too was their best guess based on observation.

An excellent example. Before anything was known about radioactivity, it was not taught in schools (duh). And when hypotheses about radioactivity were formulated, they were in fact NOT rejected by the scientific community, as ID is currently rejected. Why do you think that is? Is it because radioactivity didn't threaten science with its support for religion? Or is it because the ones who came up with those hypotheses gathered scientific evidence to demonstrate their validity?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, he's not.

..and please don't assume that if I don't respond, that there's some reason. I don't have a lot of time and I skim and miss stuff

Then I urge you to answer the question now: You have spent time telling us that rejecting ID or supporting evolution is equivalent to those who rejected the then-new idea that the earth might in fact be round and not flat. Can you please tell us more about this time than simply that it existed? For example, when was it, who was involved, and can you provide any type of citation? Because from what reading I have done, the ancient greeks discovered evidence that the earth was round, and I challenge your claim that any field of science or indeed and influential individual in that field attempted to discredit the idea that the earth was round, since the time of the ancient greeks.

The point is that best guesses are nice start, but if you don't look as seriously at other possiblities you're selling the search for the facts short.

WE're not doing that. YOU are. You are the one that refuses to acknowledge the huge body of evidence for evolution, and the absolute absense of evidence against it, or for any other alternative. You're talking as if we're at the stage of coming up with possibilities for the origin of mankind on the fly in anticipation of gathering any evidence one way or the other. When in fact, we are at the stage of having gathered tons and tons of evidence, every kind we can think of, for every possibility, and all of it points to evolution. If you think there is another truth out there, and clearly there are many who think it's possible, why haven't they or you managed to find any evidence of it?

Simply poo-pooing other possibilities because they don't provide the same amount of observable (but possibly coincidental) evidence to support an idea is in my opinion, REALLY bad science.

No, coming to a conclusion as you have, without having looked at the evidence first, is REALLY bad science. Those people in the world who actually have done good science all agree that evolution is the conclusion suggested by the evidence. On what grounds do you call them wrong?

But that appears to be the way many who call themselves "scientists" choose to mask their personal bias.

You talk a lot about scientific honesty, yet for you this issue is 100% political. You have no evidence for your side, and you refuse to acknowledge the vast amounts of evidence for my side. If you were interested in the truth, you would be putting forward explanations that account for the large amounts of existing evidence. The reason you aren't doing that is because you don't really care for the truth, you have simply made your decision and the evidence be damned.

Otherwise, you could concede that there may be some kind of yet to be proven power or energy which caused the origin of the species and continues to influence it's evolution

Unidentified and unobservable phenomena are not in the realm of science, but they are certainly not ruled out by any scientific pursuits. Your statement is false. I and any good scientists concede that of course there may always be some kind of unobserved and unknown energy, but if it cannot be observed or known, it by definition does not interfere or affect in any way my experiments. It simply isn't relevant, unless it can be observed by some measure. If a force is all-powerful but declines to take any action, does it matter whether it exists or not? If it is acting constantly, but it is indecipherable from the other natural laws of the universe, does it matter if it exists or not? These are the very interesting questions raised by your post, but they are philosophical, not scientific. Science is concerned with measurements. If something can't be measured, science ignores it. That's all there is to it.

as many scientists believe to be the case.

I'm officially calling your bluff on this one. Name them, or some of them, or one of them. Put your expert witnesses up for scrutiny, or stop talking about them.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The reason you can't apply this description to the science of evolution is because there is no evidence for ID or against evolution, no "stuff which might make you personally uncomfortable." There is none of that to look at or decline to look at, it simply does not exist. If you think I have made this statement in error, please present some evidence either for ID or against evolution.

I know for a fact that bacteria have been genetically modified to produce insulin. Does that not count as evidence for intelligent design?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I know for a fact that bacteria have been genetically modified to produce insulin. Does that not count as evidence for intelligent design?

Er…huh? Is that a joke?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You're analogies are flawed. You can see the Apple fall from the tree. You can look up and see that the sky is blue. You can experience these things you've listed.

You can experience the vast amounts of evidence for evolution as well, you simply decline to do so before making your decision. What makes the crackpot in my analogy a crackpot is that he made his unlikely decision without even reviewing the evidence against him. If he had argued, for example, that the sky was really black (because it was night), or that it was grey, because he lived in San Francisco, or argued anything based on any kind of evidence he had, true or false, then he would not be a crackpot. But since he blindly takes a stance which disagrees with the consensus without even looking for himself at the evidence, he's a crackpot. And so are you, if you don't have something to say about the evidence. Do you?

And this "short time ago" is NOTHING especially when you speak on the amount of time that evolution takes to be noticable, according to theory.

You misunderstand. This "short time ago" is the time when the roundness of the earth was questioned, according to you. Do you even know when this was, or are you just taking stupendousman's word for it that this time happened "a short time ago," when he harped on this in another thread that was linked to from here? Do you know anything about this supposed debate about the earth being flat? Do you know who the participants were, what they said, or even if it really happened and when? Do you know if the "round-earthers" were ridiculed for their beliefs, if their validity was denied and their evidence dismissed, or whether they were treated as those with an equal perspective as any other scientific discipline? Do you know if they attempted to have their theory taught before they had gathered any evidence to support it?

I'll tell you right now, I don't think this supposed debate ever took place.

My point is, evolution is a theory constructed on logical deductions based on looking at different animals and looking at fossils and such dug up that have been dated to long ago.

You seem to be woefully unaware of the types of evidence that support evolution. This has come up in this thread, and you can read more here, though that site is biased it does not stop you from verifying the information independently.

No effect of evolution has been (or will be for a very long time) experienced/directly observed by anyone. Thats a huge leap from watching an Apple fall from a tree.

On the contrary, papers are published all the time which demonstrate evolution directly (one was already linked to in this thread). Furthermore, the motion of asteroids and comets around the sun cannot be experienced/directly observed by anyone, because they take too long to make an orbit. Does that mean you deny the laws of gravity outlined by Newton?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Name one. Your "appeal to authority" is just as shallow.

I don't use an "appeal to authority" in order to make my argument. I was debunking such a logical fallacy. Though the answer to your question is: Charles Townes.

Also please note in advance that if your scientists are not biologists, or if the only biologist is Behe, it will be very funny that you brought up the appeal to authority fallacy in this context.

A. I'm not the one using the appeal. I'm simply showing how even IF it weren't already a part of a logically fallacious argument, that it STILL wouldn't hold water.

B. As always, once a claim is debunked, new and more stringent criteria are set up SPECIFICALLY to remove any logical rebutal. It's like the guy who draws a line in the sand..then once crossed, draws a new one. This is the reason I gave up debating in this subject. It's useless because once you point out the flaws in the irrational arguments, the arguments change and it's a continual needle in the haystack chase to pin down what someone actually is trying to claim.

But...I feel like Al Pacino in the Godfather III...you KEEP...PULLING..ME...BACK...IN.

:lol

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I know for a fact that bacteria have been genetically modified to produce insulin. Does that not count as evidence for intelligent design?

Heh, only if ID is proposing that humans designed ourselves I've always thought that a lot of science would be easier if we would just get moving on the field of time travel. Case in point.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

'fraid not. Scientists never address "why" questions, only "how" questions.

Okay..I'll go semantical again. HOW something actually happens.

No one is disallowing possibilities that oppose evolution. Anyone is free to research those alternatives and gather evidence for them. The problem is that no such evidence has ever been found, and so those alternatives are considered incorrect.

As pointed out above, there is no direct evidence for the creation of the species via evolution. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, some of it very convincing. But never-the-less, you can't rule by circumstantial evidence in one case, then rule it out in another.

An excellent example. Before anything was known about radioactivity, it was not taught in schools (duh).

So before it was learned what caused certain ores to emit rays, the fact that the ores did emit rays wasn't discussed in schools? Not even institutes of higher learning? Amazing!

And when hypotheses about radioactivity were formulated, they were in fact NOT rejected by the scientific community, as ID is currently rejected. Why do you think that is?

Bigotry and false assumptions. The idea that the ores were harnessing the power of the sun was just a guess...a best guess, not based on any real evidence other than a simple theory. It didn't have any more or less scientific validity than the idea that some other higher power or force could have a hand in the creation of the universe, as many scientists currently believe.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't use an "appeal to authority" in order to make my argument. I was debunking such a logical fallacy. Though the answer to your question is: Charles Townes.

A. I'm not the one using the appeal.

You may not be the only one, but this certainly is one: "I know of a lot of scientists who believe that while there are some types of adaptive evolving, the origin of the species itself is the result of a higher power. We're talking Nobel Prize winning scientists."
But you'll notice that it's not a legitimate appeal to authority:
"The judgment must be within the authority's field of competence. Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize for chemistry, then later made claims that massive quantities of vitamin C would prevent cancer in humans. This claim was in the field of medicine and thus outside his field of competence.

Your man is a physicist, and as such his opinions on biology are not authoritative.

B. As always, once a claim is debunked, new and more stringent criteria are set up SPECIFICALLY to remove any logical rebutal. It's like the guy who draws a line in the sand..then once crossed, draws a new one. This is the reason I gave up debating in this subject. It's useless because once you point out the flaws in the irrational arguments, the arguments change and it's a continual needle in the haystack chase to pin down what someone actually is trying to claim.

But...I feel like Al Pacino in the Godfather III...you KEEP...PULLING..ME...BACK...IN.

I'm afraid you're not being clear. What claim was debunked?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Okay..I'll go semantical again. HOW something actually happens.

Ok, so science is about finding out how things happen. And that is done by experimentation. Things that aren't subject to experimentation (ie, the supernatural), though they may be the "absolute truth," are outside the realm of natural science. HOW is this not exactly what I said?

As pointed out above, there is no direct evidence for the creation of the species via evolution. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, some of it very convincing. But never-the-less, you can't rule by circumstantial evidence in one case, then rule it out in another.

There is, actually. From another thread:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In April the sequencing of large parts of human chromosome 2 confirmed findings that it is the product of the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes:
Generation and annotation of the DNA sequences of human chromosomes 2 and 4

The previous work:
Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes

"Humans have 46 chromosomes, whereas chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan have 48. This major karyotypic difference was caused by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 and subsequent inactivation of one of the two original centromeres (Yunis and Prakash 1982). As a result of this fusion, sequences that once resided near the ends of the ancestral chromosomes are now located in the middle of chromosome 2, near the borders of bands 2q13 and 2q14.1."

This evidence seems to support the theory that humans are related to apes, and against the idea of ID since creating extra telomeres in the sole orientation to suggest a past fusion of independent chromosomes serves no function.

So before it was learned what caused certain ores to emit rays, the fact that the ores did emit rays wasn't discussed in schools? Not even institutes of higher learning? Amazing!

Well I wasn't there, but I would assume that if they were even known about, they were discussed as a mystery. Since it actually takes a certain amount of specific investigation to even identify ores as radioactive, such as exposing them to photographic film for long periods, film which was invented what like only a few decades before then, I would guess that no one even knew about these ores. You brought it up though, why don't you tell me? Heck, maybe the theory of radioactivity was known, but no evidence for it had ever been gathered, yet even so its proponents insisted that everyone acknowledge it as equal to some alternate theory which opposes radioactivity and was supported by decades of evidence, yet for some reason none of us here have ever heard of it. Is that what happened stupdendousman? Or is what happened really that it was a simple matter for Marie Curie to gather evidence in support of the theory of radioactivity and so it was quickly accepted as a new legitimate field of study (and teaching)? Which of those descriptions is what really happened, stupendousman?

And when hypotheses about radioactivity were formulated, they were in fact NOT rejected by the scientific community, as ID is currently rejected. Why do you think that is?

Bigotry and false assumptions. The idea that the ores were harnessing the power of the sun was just a guess...a best guess, not based on any real evidence other than a simple theory. It didn't have any more or less scientific validity than the idea that some other higher power or force could have a hand in the creation of the universe, as many scientists currently believe.

Radioactivity was accepted because of bigotry and false assumptions? No, the answer we were looking for was "evidence." The theory of radioactivity was investigated for evidence, and because it turned out to be correct, the evidence was found. UNlike any alternative to evolution in the last 50 years.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You call those who oppose today's scientific views crackpots? What if no one bothered to offer up that the world was indeed a sphere? What if no one bothered to question any widely accepted views? Scary place that would be.

There is a difference between offering scientific evidence for a new theory and just plain ignoring the evidence. Not every idea is equal. You can question any views you like, but until you come up with more compelling evidence than there is for evolution, expecting your ideas to be given the same acknowledgment is silly.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You can experience the vast amounts of evidence for evolution as well, you simply decline to do so before making your decision. What makes the crackpot in my analogy a crackpot is that he made his unlikely decision without even reviewing the evidence against him. If he had argued, for example, that the sky was really black (because it was night), or that it was grey, because he lived in San Francisco, or argued anything based on any kind of evidence he had, true or false, then he would not be a crackpot. But since he blindly takes a stance which disagrees with the consensus without even looking for himself at the evidence, he's a crackpot. And so are you, if you don't have something to say about the evidence. Do you?

First of all, you assumed my position on the matter to be anti-evolutionary. A strong indication that you are indeed missing my entire point in this matter. I never stated my beliefs in the matter, I'm simply point out that there are other possibilities.

I'd also like to note that you are attacking the poster and not my post by calling me a crackpot. I've lost all respect for what you have to say. Its obvious that when someone doesn't agree with you they must be wrong, and must be a crackpot. this is exactly the kind of close-mindedness I'm trying to point out.

You misunderstand. This "short time ago" is the time when the roundness of the earth was questioned, according to you. Do you even know when this was, or are you just taking stupendousman's word for it that this time happened "a short time ago," when he harped on this in another thread that was linked to from here? Do you know anything about this supposed debate about the earth being flat? Do you know who the participants were, what they said, or even if it really happened and when? Do you know if the "round-earthers" were ridiculed for their beliefs, if their validity was denied and their evidence dismissed, or whether they were treated as those with an equal perspective as any other scientific discipline? Do you know if they attempted to have their theory taught before they had gathered any evidence to support it?

I'll tell you right now, I don't think this supposed debate ever took place.

Nice attempt at a derailment, i won't buy it. you know damn well people thought the earth was flat until columbus discovered north america and evidence appeared to the contrary. If you honestly didn't, you should consider retaking 7th grade social studies.

You seem to be woefully unaware of the types of evidence that support evolution. This has come up in this thread, and you can read more here, though that site is biased it does not stop you from verifying the information independently.

Again, you don't know what my beliefs are. You assume my views then attack me for them. I will say again that evolution is not a proven theory and to taut it as so is scientifically dishonest.

To clear up your obvious confusion on the matter

I believe we came to be by evolution, however, I'm intelligent enough tor realize that there are other possibilities and we don't know enough to say evolution as its defined today is how we came to be witha considerable measure of certainty.

On the contrary, papers are published all the time which demonstrate evolution directly (one was already linked to in this thread). Furthermore, the motion of asteroids and comets around the sun cannot be experienced/directly observed by anyone, because they take too long to make an orbit. Does that mean you deny the laws of gravity outlined by Newton?

I will again point out that at this time the laws of gravity as theorized by newton seems to explain the observations of asteroids/comets pretty well, so there's not much debate about the matter. But to accept this as absolute fact is naive. You yourself said we don't know how gravity works, so how can you say that those things weren't designed to act as they do?

I don't believe that, but again I will stay open enough to consider the possibility that soemthing beyond gravity affects those comets. As I implore you to do as well.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

you know damn well people thought the earth was flat until columbus discovered north america and evidence appeared to the contrary. If you honestly didn't, you should consider retaking 7th grade social studies.

Again, is this supposed to be a joke?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't believe that, but again I will stay open enough to consider the possibility that soemthing beyond gravity affects those comets. As I implore you to do as well.

What is the point to "staying open" to every harebrained idea on the planet? Am I supposed to stand around paralyzed all day at the vanishingly remote possibility that random objects are going to come to life and eat my brains? If an idea is shown to have some merit, then you can consider it. Intentionally trying not to disregard worthless ideas is a waste of mental energy.

[Snow-i]

I stand corrected on the "flat earth" argument/analogy. I should have picked a better one. According to wikipedia it remains a common misconception. I will pay my 7th grade teacher a visit over this one. However, my point remains.

________

But i hardly think that ID is an idea "not worthy of merit." That is, of course, an alternative to today's evolutionary theories.

f an idea is shown to have some merit, then you can consider it.

Exactly my point. But how could another idea be considered if we have already "proven" a theory to be correct?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I hardly think that ID is an idea "not worthy of merit." That is, of course, an alternative to today's evolutionary theories.

What scientific evidence exists to support the theory of Intelligent Design? That's kinda the whole point of this debate--Evolution is a scientific theory, if you want to posit other theories that would compete/contest with the theory of evolution they need to be based on and supported by sound, logical scientific evidence. By all means if you have such evidence, please put it forward for debate.

NOTE: Gaps in the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is NOT "sound, logical, scientific evidence" to support ID. Lack of evidence in one theory does not provide evidence in the affirmative for an opposing theory. That's not how science, or basic logic for that matter, works.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If an idea is shown to have some merit, then you can consider it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Exactly my point. But how could another idea be considered if we have already "proven" a theory to be correct?

Snow-i, what scientific "merit" exists with the theory of Intelligent Design? How does it explain the change-over-time of living things--using scientific principles of observation and testable evidence--better than the theory of evolution?

For proponents of ID, that is all they need to do. They need to provide a better explanation for the changes observed over time in living things--changes observed actively and via the geologic/fossil record--and their ideas will be accepted. So, show us the scientific evidence for ID that is as logically sound and tested/confirmed as that exists for evolution and we can begin a debate on which idea offers a better explanation for change-over-time of living things. But, without that scientific evidence there can be NO debate. (Well, not a scientific debate. You could still have a philosophical debate discussing the various explanations for change-over-time of living things but it would in no way have an effect on the general scientific consensus regarding the topic.)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

First of all, you assumed my position on the matter to be anti-evolutionary. A strong indication that you are indeed missing my entire point in this matter. I never stated my beliefs in the matter, I'm simply point out that there are other possibilities.

Nothing I said depended on what you believe, only what you've said, namely that there is little evidence for evolution, that there is evidence for anything else (let me put it to rest for you, there is NONE, not one tiny bit, not the first meager scrap, of evidence for any alternative to evolution, including ID), and that evolution or any other scientific theory is "proven," beyond a doubt or by any other standard.

To recap, there is a mountain of physical evidence, far beyond fossils, which supports the theory of evolution. There is no evidence for anything else. And no scientific theory is ever "proven." The only people to use that word for scientific theories (barring "proven wrong" which they can be) are you and Kevin. It's not applicable.

I'd also like to note that you are attacking the poster and not my post by calling me a crackpot.

I never called you a crackpot. I simply replied to a post of yours where you happened to mention it. Many people who oppose evolution are crackpots (which is, I assume, why you mentioned it).

Its obvious that when someone doesn't agree with you they must be wrong, and must be a crackpot.

When they disagree while refusing to address any of the physical evidence, they are. If you didn't get that then you completely missed the point.

this is exactly the kind of close-mindedness I'm trying to point out.

Right back at you.

Nice attempt at a derailment, i won't buy it. you know damn well people thought the earth was flat until columbus discovered north america and evidence appeared to the contrary.

Again, you don't know what my beliefs are. You assume my views then attack me for them. I will say again that evolution is not a proven theory and to taut it as so is scientifically dishonest.

You really do take things from stupendousman's playbook...

Dishonest? Really? Dishonest is constantly using the straw-man that scientific theories are ever "proven" (they're not). Dishonest is carrying on as if there are 2 equal sides, when one side has all the evidence and the other has exactly no evidence. Dishonest is accusing someone of "scientific dishonesty" while pretending that evidence is not important.

Tell me, son. Under what conditions, at what theoretical time in the future, would you consider evolution "proven" enough for you? At what point in the progress of human knowledge would you accept that the "race" is won? Would it be after some crucial piece of evidence is gathered, and if so what piece would that be, and how would you know if it has been already? And otherwise, is your answer that no amount of evidence could ever be convincing enough to make evolution "proven?"

The thing is, the latter is closer to the truth, because as with any scientific theory, it is only ever the best model which accounts for all the data. There is always the possibility that new data will be uncovered which invalidates any (ANY!) scientific theory, calling a need for a new one. Just like Lewis acids are a model of how acids behave (accepting electrons) and Brønsted-Lowry acids are a model of how acids behave (donating protons), and the two models are exclusive, they are both useful and are both still taught, because each has advantages when understanding the underlying chemistry. Unlike that, however, evolution has value in understanding biology, but ID (or any other alternative) does not.

To clear up your obvious confusion on the matter

I believe we came to be by evolution, however, I'm intelligent enough tor realize that there are other possibilities and we don't know enough to say evolution as its defined today is how we came to be witha considerable measure of certainty.

The fact is, though, that we can say it with a considerable measure of certainty, and that combined with the fact that you have indicated you think the bulk of the evidence comes from fossils shows that you have cast this disparagement without trying to find out what the evidence is. Without even knowing the facts, you've gone and accused the entire field of being "scientifically dishonest." That's despicable, and you should really be ashamed about that.

I will again point out that at this time the laws of gravity as theorized by newton seems to explain the observations of asteroids/comets pretty well, so there's not much debate about the matter. But to accept this as absolute fact is naive. You yourself said we don't know how gravity works, so how can you say that those things weren't designed to act as they do?

I'll spell it out for you. No one says they weren't. But there is no evidence to say they were. Science is about evidence. Without evidence, there is no reason to talk about it. Evidence is the alpha and the omega of science.

I will stay open enough to consider the possibility that soemthing beyond gravity affects those comets. As I implore you to do as well.

That is a matter of philosophy. If you implore me to consider things which have no evidence, and for which you have no expectation of gathering evidence, then I will tell you that I am a scientist and you can take that attitude to philosophy class (or cosmology I suppose). If you can tell me how to gather evidence of design, I will jump on it, because it would probably win me the nobel prize. I am in no way opposed to evidence that leads to a new theory which contradicts the status quo. That is the goal of every scientist, to be the discoverer of something new.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Exactly my point. But how could another idea be considered if we have already "proven" a theory to be correct?

By that logic, the flat earth idea should still be considered, as should all potential ideas. If the "round earth" idea is so <sarcasm>proven</sarcasm>, how could another idea ever be considered? How are the "mobius strip earth" people going to get off the ground?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I stand corrected on the "flat earth" argument/analogy. I should have picked a better one. According to wikipedia it remains a common misconception.

There's no shame in having a sub-standard education system (except the national shame we all share), but it does occur to me that there is another common misconception, and that is the one that ID has some kind of evidence for it, and its corollary that evolution is some kind of tenuous idea held together with partial fossil skeletons and "ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny." So Snowi, did your 7th grade teacher also tell you that evolution was tenuous at best, and that the only reason ID or Creationism isn't considered an equal is because of bigotry and "intellectual dishonesty?"

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're making 2 extraordinary claims here, and I don't think either of them are supported by any evidence. 1, you're saying that human ancestors from "millions" of years ago are equivalent to modern humans, in terms of culture. A million years ago we're talking about australopithecines with chimp-sized brains. Multiple millions of years ago you might as well be talking about chimps. You're basically saying that since man=chimp, men are not different from chimps. I think there is a large difference between sapiens and neanderthalensis, and even between cro-magnon and modern man. 2, you're saying that humans did not pass knowledge between generations before 5000ya simply because the oldest surviving text is that old. But surely H. erectus' ritual burials and H sapiens' skills at tool-building were taught from one generation to the next. Just because they didn't make an attempt to preserve the information for our modern benefit doesn't mean they weren't advancing technological knowledge. One might argue that the exponential increase in knowledge correlates with the exponential increase in population.

*sigh*

Alright, I've been typing these last few posts in a hurry while rushing out of the house, so I haven't exactly been concise or terrible accurate. But I'm not terribly sure what/why you're arguing, since you seem to be saying similar things as myself.

1, you're saying that human ancestors from "millions" of years ago are equivalent to modern humans, in terms of culture. A million years ago we're talking about australopithecines with chimp-sized brains. Multiple millions of years ago you might as well be talking about chimps. You're basically saying that since man=chimp, men are not different from chimps. I think there is a large difference between sapiens and neanderthalensis, and even between cro-magnon and modern man.

I said nothing about modern humans being similar to human ancestors in terms of culture; where do you get that idea? That's ridiculous. I said the exact opposite. I also didn't say anything about "men=chimps." Are you even reading my posts?? Most of this statement is a complete straw-man construction.

I'm talking about hominids, ie. human ancestors. Whether they were more like humans or chimps or had smaller brains is irrelevant; the fact is that they were a step in the evolutionary process towards humans.

What I said was that human evolution has transpired over millions of years (our bloodlines split from apes about 5 millions years ago, as I said). There is some difference between sapiens sapiens and neanderthalensis, and between cro-magnon and sapiens sapiens, but there isn't a whole lot – and some would say there is basically very little at all (as my quote showed, there has not been "significant" human evolution in perhaps 50,000 years, and I don't see evidence from your end to counter this).

2, you're saying that humans did not pass knowledge between generations before 5000ya simply because the oldest surviving text is that old. But surely H. erectus' ritual burials and H sapiens' skills at tool-building were taught from one generation to the next. Just because they didn't make an attempt to preserve the information for our modern benefit doesn't mean they weren't advancing technological knowledge. One might argue that the exponential increase in knowledge correlates with the exponential increase in population.

I said nothing of this sort. I said humans did not pass knowledge between generations in any manner than is significantly different from how "animals" such as elephants or chimps or whales or birds or countless others pass knowledge: through demonstration and/or word of mouth. I noted that just because our current rate of "progress" is so swift, it does not mean that it wasn't as "slow" as any other animal around us for most of our evolution.

You point out that things were taught from generation to generation, but this isn't something I debated at all. This is obvious, it seems to me. It is also obvious that animals around us also "teach" from generation to generation, as I pointed out. Again, I fail to see what you're arguing against. You talk about H. erectus and H. sapien rituals, but they came relatively late in our development.

Perhaps you can better clarify your argument, but I don't see your point, and most of what you're arguing against in this post has nothing to do with what I said.

greg

[Chuckit]

Human language allows for communication of knowledge in a much more flexible way than other animals can dream of. Since we developed language, our progress has far outstripped everybody — it didn't have the impact that written language did, but it is definitely significant.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Greg, I guess what I object to is your implication that somehow staking out the time between our split from chimps and today (the 5 million years you mention) is somehow significant. Here:

"it does not mean that it wasn't as "slow" as any other animal around us for most of our evolution."

In "most of our evolution" you're pulling out some segment of time as being progressy, and some other segment of time being unprogressy, but those two segments are completely arbitrary. Taken alone, I would think by "most of our evolution" you mean from the appearance of the first living thing. You seem to be referring to the time from our split with chimps, but if that then why not from our split with A. africanus or from H. habilis or from H. neanderthalensis. And since those species were defined rather arbitrarily as well (I consider it arbitrary which individuals over a 5 million year period happen to get preserved for us to find), I see no reason why we wouldn't mark a species boundary at the appearance of symbolic language as well (call it H. languigicus). Language does depend on brain structures that are novel in humans, after all. If we can believe that, then we could call "most of our evolution" as the time since our split with H. languigicus (be it before neanderthals or after, who knows), and for all we know that marked a watershed in the ability to communicate information from one generation to the next.

I think that of all the wide variety of properties which are proposed to separate us from (other) apes, symbolic language is one of the front-runners, and it seemed like you are dismissing it on shaky grounds.

Getting back to this: "it does not mean that it wasn't as "slow" as any other animal around us for most of our evolution." During this time you label "most of our evolution," I would say there is pretty clear evidence we were very much like any other animal, in nearly all of the ways in which we are now different from them, and by calling that time "most of our evolution" you imply that those transition species are a part of "us," that we are in the same group as compared to "other animals," and since this topic is about language, I would argue that that grouping is totally inaccurate. Does that make sense?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah. I think we're probably saying pretty much similar things, but I've been really pressed for time recently and I'm trying to blab out a post as fast as I can. Hence, I'm not really saying exactly what I mean to say, or being clear enough to eliminate ambiguity.

I agree with your post, anyway. So fit that within my arguments as best you can.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

um, humans are different from animals, but it hasn't always been that way, but we haven't always been this way, so....buttons. I can't make that into anything meaningful, sorry.

[stupendousman]

What with the current holiday surrounding Semi-Historical Claimed Messiah Birthday, I've been mucho busy. I'll leave the thread again urging anyone reading this one to go back to the other thread that was linked to see the desperate lengths theophobes go to in order to justify their irrational bias. Also, I'll leave with the following too good to pass up nugget:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Your man is a physicist, and as such his opinions on biology are not authoritative.

A Nobel prize winning physicist knows less about "science" than anyone in this thread and is a person whose opinion regarding the origins of life on our planet apparently are not worthy of consideration?

I think any rational human being reading this thread can see why it is I don't really bother anymore.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Oh Jeez, you can't do any better than that? The very quote that I included from the definition of the fallacy was a story about LINUS PAULING, a much more renowned scientist and Nobel prize winner, who made unfounded claims about medical science which were ridiculous and wrong, because they were outside his expertise.

A Nobel prize winning physicist knows less about "science" than anyone in this thread...

Apparently, "science" to you is some irreducibly nebulous boogeyman and anyone on the inside is an authority on anything else on the inside. It's no wonder you're so confused about evolution.

Let me try to make an analogy with something you might understand (though admittedly I don't, so it may fall flat). Do you think that any religious authority is justified in drawing conclusions about any subject matter, so long as that subject is under the heading of "religion?" Is the pope an authority on all things Islam? Is a rabbi an authority on all things Buddhist?

[Kevin]

Big fan of biogenesis myself.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And this "short time ago" is NOTHING especially when you speak on the amount of time that evolution takes to be noticable, according to theory.

No, it also deals with complexity of multicelular organisms. That is why you'll notice change in viruses and bacteria more rapidly than a dog.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

My point is, evolution is a theory constructed on logical deductions based on looking at different animals and looking at fossils and such dug up that have been dated to long ago.

... as opposed to Creation/Intelligent Design having absolutely no evidence what-so-ever.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No effect of evolution has been (or will be for a very long time) experienced/directly observed by anyone. Thats a huge leap from watching an Apple fall from a tree.

Evolution can and has been observed. As I stated earlier, it often depends on the complexity of the organism. Viruses and bacteria are much easier to observe these changes, however, evolutionary changes can be seen in even human primates as evidence of the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation and the ability to digest lactose. Fossiles are a great historical reference to changes in a single and multiple species over millions of years.