Evolution and the Big Bang theory are two different things.

Bingo, Tex...Which is why evolution and ID are not parallel theories.

Good article...I am enjoying the discussion.

It doesn't take a "lot" of faith to believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory. Some of its proponents try to pretend it's fact but it's not. It's simply a theory on how species evolve into other species. It does not argue how life began. It does not say there is or isn't a god. It simply argues that a series of mutations big and small along with adaptions that living things make to their environments, over time, result in new species. Evolution, for example, does not mean that God or some other super being did not create life in the first place. It makes no suggestion of how life began. There are some significant holes in evolution that are difficult to explain. But presently, it is, at worst, a hypothesis, and at best a very plausible theory. But it is not a religion any more than the big bang theory is a religion.

I agree it is just trying to describe life changing, but I think it does a lousy job in that regard too. Have they observed one creature turning into another one? Or figured out the mechanism for which something with X number of chromosomes can turn into something else with Y? Until then, I am not seeing the proof.

Good article...I am enjoying the discussion.

Ditto!  I wish I could contribute more, but then the posters seem to be covering all the bases.

much prefer to believe I was created intentionally than was just some kind of cosmic boo-boo

you mean Modman that you don't subscribe to.......the goo to the zoo to you theory?

but then the posters seem to be covering all the bases

huh? Am I missing a link? (pun intended)

Religion? No, it isn't. A theory based upon observed data taken to absurd extremes? Yep, I believe so.

Darwin observed microevolution and somehow this expanded into a theory of macroevolution for which there is still no hard evidence at all but which schools are in fact teaching as fact.

I believe schools should teach accurate science and in teaching about evolutionary theory should be far more honest about it and not present macroevolution as if it's a proven fact but instead present it as a theory which may explain the diversity of life on our planet but as of yet has has no hard evidence to support it.

Have they observed one creature turning into another one?

Yes. Most flour bought in shops is made from a single specific genetic variety of wheat. There is no variation. That's because only one variety was allowed to breed or whatever it is that wheat does to make new wheat.

The same thing with lab rats. They can be bred for certain genetic traits. That this can be done at all suggests that evolution or something very much like it is possible.

#37 by cactoblasta Sat, June 24, 2006 9:09 PM Have they observed one creature turning into another one? Yes. Most flour bought in shops is made from a single specific genetic variety of wheat. There is no variation. That's because only one variety was allowed to breed or whatever it is that wheat does to make new wheat. The same thing with lab rats. They can be bred for certain genetic traits. That this can be done at all suggests that evolution or something very much like it is possible.

Examples of microevolution which nobody is contesting. When was the last time a lab rat was bred into a vulture?

Examples of microevolution which nobody is contesting. When was the last time a lab rat was bred into a vulture?

Certain kinds of lab rats today have very little in common with their ancestors, and could in fact be considered a different strain of rat. Could a genetic tendencies towards a particular kind of skeletal deformation be bred towards wings? Who knows? I think it would take a long time to find out, even with the short lifespan of rats.

But when you can dictate the colour, size, weight, tendency towards cancer and all the rest and then breed those traits into becoming near uniform in that kind of rat, I don't think it's out of the question that there's wiggle room for webbed feet and legs (a la sugargliders). I think a rat capable of gliding would be different enough to suggest macroevolution is possible, even if you don't accept it's plausible.

Maybe not vultures - birds are drastically different animals. It would probably take serious gene therapy to make a rat with hollow bones. You'd want to find a presumed common ancestor if one still exists and then work from that base. God only knows how long it would take though.

The point is, they are still rats. They did not evolve or be bred into a completely different species. They were, are, and will remain rats. According to macroevolution they should be able to evolve or be bred into a totally different species and that simply does not happen and there is no solid evidence that it has ever happened.

Link

#41 by Içonoçlast Sat, June 24, 2006 11:20 PM

Extrapolation does not evidence create. There is no solid evidence that one species has ever evolved into a completely different species. It's nothing more than sheer speculative theory without a shred of solid evidence to back it up.

Yeah, I think everyone has been making my point. I am not looking for slightly different rats, I am looking for monkeys to humans, lizards to birds, single-celled to multicelled, etc. The drastic changes that evolution says should happen if everything came from common ancestors.

It takes as much faith to go from what we have seen to what the theory of evolution says should be able to occur as it does to believe in most things religion puts out. It's not a religion, but people defend it like it is, and take just as many leaps of faith without any evidence.

It takes as much faith to go from what we have seen to what the theory of evolution says should be able to occur as it does to believe in most things religion puts out.

Really? Macroevolution is simply an expansion of microevolution to a logical end. There is little in religion possessing that basis in demonstrable science. I think it takes a little less faith than religion personally, most of all because it doesn't promise salvation. It's an explanation, not a reason for being, and in having that aspect it greatly reduces the personal commitment to be an believer or at least sceptically accepting.

Macroevolution is simply an expansion of microevolution to a logical end

But it isn't logical. That's the problem with it. No such thing has ever been observed and there's no real evidence that it has ever happened. It's simply taking an observed natural adaptation to changing conditions and carrying it out to an absurd and unsupported extreme.

Science is all about empirical data, not fanciful imagination. So far at least, there has been no empirical evidence to directly support the macroevolution theory. Perhaps some day it will be uncovered, but until it is schools should not teach macroevolution as if it's a proven fact instead of the fanciful theory it actually is.

Whether macroevolution turns out to be proven through solid evidence or not, at this point in our stage of learning it is not directly support by evidence and is not in any way shape or form even remotely demonstrated to be factual beyond the extrapolation of observed microevolution. Simply saying "Ok we can see this happens, so that extreme must also happen" even though no evidence supports that extreme happening is not good science.

I'm not saying macroevolution has or has not happened in the past. Frankly, I don't know. My point is, neither does anyone else and there has never been a shred of evidence to say that it has and to operate under and teach the concept as a fact is dishonest and very poor science.

And please don't try to claim that it isn't taught as if it's a proven fact because I know better as the schools and universities I attended all taught macroevolution as if it were a proven fact and I know they aren't the only ones. It shouldn't be that difficult for science educators to change their teachings to acknowledge the fact that macroevolution is a plausible theory but so far unsupported by solid evidence. It's called honesty and good science.