Skipjack wrote:Contrary to what most people think, the scientific theory of evolution does not meet the criteria most people set for what entails a scientific theory.
BS
Punctuated Equilibrium is the name for a specific mechanism inside the proposed theory of evolution, proposed to explain the fossil record. Fact is, in debates with creationists, Stephen Jay Gould was eventually forced to admit that there is no evidence for evolution as it was being taught until that time.
False claim by creationists, has long been debunked.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but evolution was supposed to explain what we find in the fossil record and it doesn't
Wrong
You can ignore what Skippy says when he posts on this issue. As with most things, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Says the right guy here.
This evolutionary adaptation has never been witnessed and is indeed, outside the realm of observation because of the vast periods of time over which is is supposed to occur.
Again, wrong!
Why do you think there are now anitbiotic resistant bacteria?
There has never been, nor will there likely ever be an observation of this mechanism, and obviously the evidence of "transitional forms is entirely missing, so if this theory could be falsified, it would have been long ago.
Creationist BS.
As some detailed factual basis to debunk the creationist BS, consider the eye. This was long touted by creationists (whoops - let me be PC - "intelligent designers") as evidence against evolution, because intermediate forms could not possibly be viable or selected.
However fossil
and genetic research shows that eyes share many biochemical features across all animals, but that lenses have have evolved completely independently in many different living creatures! The many intermediate forms are clear and exist in the fossil record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
The details of this are fascinating. Unfortunately ID types (yes I'm not being polite, I do not feel polite about people who lie in such a pernicious way, not those who are taken in by liars and when challenged do not check facts but continue to spout easily refutable rubbish) do not like to research details, except to cherry-pick isolated facts that out of context appear to support their case.
One of the key (subtle) mechanisms in evolution, which has been validated from explicit genetic investigation, is that of switching on an off specific genes coding for traits. This allows a much greater variety of evolutionary pathway than would otherwise be possible. For example:
trait A evolves in one sub-species for purpose X
trait B evolves in another sub-species for purpose Y
Traits A and B are incompatible until well developed. however at some level of development traits A+B can approximate a solution to purpose Z. Once this happens straightforward evolutionary optimisation takes over and the trait (A+B) for putpose Z creatures adapt more and more.
Gene encoding in DNA is particularly good at this type of switching, where genes can code for proteins that allow whole sequences of other genes to express (and otherwise they would lie dormant, and inactive).
I suppose I feel so strongly about the ID people is that evolution is a truly surprising and magnificent scientific theory. It explains extraordinary complexity with great simplicity - and yet the details of that explanation are
both susceptible to investigation through genetic exploration of the biochemical pathways determining the exegesis of phenotypes from genotypes - and incredibly complex.
A lovely, beautiful, and compelling scientific theory.
So to have people, for political reasons, make false statements about it based on superficial thought is so sad. Especially when it seems they can convince much of the US population and some of its legislature.