Obviously you don't know what the word "theory" means. You have your own definition of it, so without understanding what you are refering to when you say "theory" - there is no way to give your statement any validity.

Eljay, may I suggest reading the other 8 pages of discussion? You're bring up old points that have been discussed ad nauseum...such as what constitutes a theory.

actually it's you that seems to not know what a theory is or how it works.
Maybe you should look it up.
I think maybe that were the issue may be.
It's when people try to say ID is a theory when it is obviously not then we have the break down.

I don't care to convince you eljay. I don't believe in evolution. I accept it as the best theory we have for the origin of speciation, as any objective thinker should do.

And what does genetics have to do with evolution LOL!

Wow that question answers it all for me about your education regarding evolution.
Quote from a college biology text.


I will not spell out for you why evolution is the ONLY scientific theory of the origins of species (as that has already been done for you on many occasions), but I will conclude with why genetics and evolution are so closely related.

Evolution via the fossil record gives us the taxonomy. Genetics gives us a chain of events written in code changes down over the course of the history of living creatures here on planet earth that we can reference and observe the changes INDEPENDENTLY of evolution, AND INDEPENDENTLY of taxonomy. They all line up btw.

That is what is important, if as we analyze the genes of ancient bones and hair from say . . . a mammoth and say we did not find the correct sequence of genes to match up with earlier examples of mammoths, then we would know something is wrong with our understanding of evolution or genetics . . . but here is the kicker. Its right.

Every time its right it adds a new notch in the belt. There are literally thousands of notches in this belt. There are soooooooooo many examples of correlated matches that its ridiculous to not accept evolution, and if someone does so, its 100% chance from my personal experience to be becuase of a religious dogma, and belief structure that postulates special creation.

Interesting Articles I could find in 5 minutes on Science daily about genes and evolution.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320120708.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081107071822.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071214094031.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131152013.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080520203007.htm

A particularly good one for this conversation. >>>>
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080102083754.htm

Brain evolution
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080804222910.htm

Genetics and geology.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080409205136.htm

/This is no laughing matter, if you do not accept evolution then you are about 100 years behind in your understanding of biology. If you do not understand how genetics is the backbone of modern evolutionary theory then you have not even done enough reading to have an objective opinion on the matter.

http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2006040103&TYPE=V&%3Ccfif%20bhawk.Crawler%20is%20%27NO%27%3ECFID=1099119&CFTOKEN=44969504%3C/cfif%3E&bhcp=1

This is an interesting debate between a Paleontologist and a ID supporter. Notice that the main argument the Paleontologist makes is "God isn't science!" and then completely ignores that ID doesn't propose who the designer is and he ignores the obvious fact that science CAN determine if intelligence was used in the development of life. Science can walk up to the edge and say "Yes, an intelligence designed life on earth" without entering the realm of the supernatural.

I think it's clear from demeanor and facts, that the ID supporter wins. The Paleontologist makes assumptions throughout and even tries to push the debate into theology in an attempt to refute ID. It's really what we see happening here. The only way that Darwinists (there, I said it!) try to refute ID is by attacking Christianity.

I will not attack Christianity.

Tell me what has ID predicted? What has ID predicted we will find? What power to explain anything do we gain by invoking a creative intelligence? So far everything we have found in the strata and living on earth now can be explained with evolution.

How can we explain these things using ID? How do those explanations help us predict what will follow?

If ID is a theory then it should propose a path of design. Show me the path. Show me the mechanisms used to execute this design? Define the intelligence, becuase this is the mechanism, you must define the mechanism for it to be scientific. Can you?

You cannot and neither can anyone, becuase its not science, its not theory, and it does not explain ANYTHING.

Thanks.

Watch the video, I can ask the same of Evolution.

Until recently, most of DNA was considered "junk DNA" and was used as proof of evolution. Now we see that the "junk DNA" is anything but, it's highly complex and controls many of the processes in development of the organism. I have seen scientists quoted who said they don't believe we will ever understand "junk DNA", because it is so complex.

An incredibly complex series of instructions is expected from an intelligent designer.

But Evolution mislead us for decades into believing this incredibly important part of the genetic code was "junk". So Evolution has taken us down blind alleys.

As far as needing to "name the designer" for the theory to be scientific, that isn't true at all. Science is very honest that they cannot say what caused the Big Bang or what happened immediately following the Big Bang...why is that still science? Science doesn't propose to have all of the answers, it comes up with an explanation that best fits the data. Some people who believe in design believe in Pan-Spermia. Some are atheists or agnostics who are honest "We don't know who or what designed life, but it appears designed".

ID seeks to explain the origins of life. Scientists have consistently tried to trivialize and mock ID as you will clearly see in the video I linked. "We can't explain GOD!", but yet Panspermia is a theory that suggests ID but clearly doesn't conclude a "God". Richard Dawkins has said that life might have been designed, but just not by God. So his only objection to ID is that most ID proponents are Theists! It's such obvious bias that it should be shocking, but it's just overlooked.

You have still not proposed any mechanisms.
Evolution DOES propose mechanism. Can you tell me what they are? I have a feeling most people that discredit evolution do not understand its mechanics.


Junk DNA:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145056.htm
I fail to see how this explains ID . . . If anything it further supports evolution . . . Evolution predicted junk dna, before it was found . . . Predictive power says it all about a concepts use, or conversely its uselessness.


Do not try to confuse the topic trying to bring in other fields of science that do no have anything to do with Evolution.

This is a typical response.

You didn't understand my argument, so I will repeat it.

Junk DNA isn't junk. It does important tasks. It is highly complex, it even appears to be compressed data, with a single sequence controlling multiple aspects of an organism.

Evolution tells us that "junk DNA" is junk, which is left over from the evolutionary process.

ID tells us that there is no junk DNA.

Who is right? ID. Evolution led to a blind alley, by leading scientists to the false conclusion that there was "junk DNA".

EDIT:

I was pointing out the fallacy of your response by showing that science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Don't complain and cry "unfair!" when your points are refuted.

You have made no points for me to misunderstand.

You have not even demonstrated how a group of scientists making claims about something like junk DNA either supports or refutes evolution as a whole or even a single detail of evolution. You certainly have not made any kind of connection between so called junk DNA and ID other then the good ole god of the gaps argument as to why junk DNA supports ID.

Spider your arguments are pointless and you have demonstrated nothing.

I am perfectly willing to debate this topic if we use real analysis of the details of the topic to support our points and claims. Holding up something that is complex and not well understood and saying some kind of intelligence must have done it because we do not understand is not an argument from analysis where details are used to support claims, it is the argument of the god of the gaps, but just take out god, and place in intelligence. So anything we do not understand is done by a special creating intelligence . . . this is the logic of failure, if you cant figure it out throw up your hands and say god did it.

Junk DNA is only junk if it serves no purpose, if we find purpose for genes that once we did not realize had purpose, that just means we labeled that gene sequence incorrectly . . . that is it spider. That doesn't mean there is no junk DNA.

Your arguments are flaccid and show a lack of thorough research. This is not an insult, merely an observation.

My argument about the junk DNA is still eluding you, so I will point it out again.

You said "What has ID predicted we will find?"

I pointed out that Junk DNA is not junk. Evolution pointed to a blind alley, but ID was right on target. We have found no Junk DNA, so all current data indicates that there is no junk DNA.

No, we can determine if intelligence was involved. Look at the arguments for irreducible complexity.

If you see obvious signs of intelligence, then you must assume intelligence. Sorry, but computer programming doesn't appear at random, that is created by someone. You can't look at DNA so complex it reads like computer code and say "It happened by accident". That is dishonest and biased. You have to go where the evidence points, not where you want it to point.

Give me a link to your source that shows all DNA is useful. This must be some exciting research that it has found the use for all genes . . . I am surprised its not all over the net . . .
Evolution is not wrong, one postulate (not really the postulate that is in doubt more like label) by a hand full of researchers is currently in doubt. That does not invalidate the gains made for evolution. Spider was wrong on his 4th grade math quiz about one question, there for spider is always wrong . . . hmmm seems like there might be a flaw in this logic.

Junk DNA does exist spider, every time you get a nasty virus it makes changes, most of which are neutral and do not code proteins (we have a long laundry list of these changes that have occurred to humanity down through the ages. )

Do we fully understand the ramification of these things: no. Can they be label as junk, maybe not, does the fact that they exist whatever we call it still support evolution: yes. Again your knowledge falls short to even understand the details you are trying to use to support your claims.

We can see in our genes the changes made by survivors of the black plague . . . hmm what does that say?

How do computers reproduce? How does reproduction feature into the facets of evolution?

There will be a test at the end of this debate, please take notes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

Does a pretty good job of explaining what Junk DNA is and how the label applies . . .


Evolution IS a blind watch maker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

I have. The problem is that I am often pages behind from catching up with this thread because of the amount of hours I work, and I just respond as I catch up. Sorry if it seems like a couple of days go by before I can respond. I'm just not able to stay with this thread as it ebbs and flows.

I did look it up - and the idea of Intelligent Design is EXACTLY what a theory is. As is evolution. And if you look up religion - you'll find that this also tends to describe exactly what evolution is. What you will not find - is evolution fitting the description of pure science.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Genetics is merely the study of genes. These days - the main focus of genetics is on the study and breakthrouh's of DNA. Are you suggesting that Intelligent Design does not equally involve genetics as does evolution? The study of Genetics is NOT contingent on evolution being true or myth. It stands on it's own, and is mutually exclusive of "evolutionary theory" - which, as we have been discussing is not the mere changes within a species - it is taught as the origin of the species. Quoting the text that you have is an example of genetics being used to support the pretext of evolution. It's circular reasoning. It convinces one of nothing. Why bring it up.



You will NOT demonstrate this - because there is no way that you can scientifically support any theory of evolution as an origin of the species - because the premises are unaceeptable. You cannot prove a single statement you make in a laboratory - nor can you come up with any reasonable explination why I should consider the possibility of the uniformality necessary to confirm the premises of evolution as it is extrapolated back into time - when it is perfectly obvious that uniformality has not existed since the time Darwin published the "Origin of the Species". It is demonstrated though science that uniformality does not exist in our atmosphere - nor in the universe for that matter - at this time, why would we think it existed "billions of years ago" - which it would have in order to substanciate the equations that support evolutionary theory. Or have you assumed I have not studied this out?



The fossil records do not give evolution credibility. The fossil records are just what they are. Fossils. The assumptions of the age's of these fosssils, and that they are representative of anything other than a created creature are pure conjecture and nothing more. You can provide NO substancial evidence to prove otherwise without forcing me to accept a fallacious premise. But you can attempt to offer an argument - if you wish, but I would presume you will not be able to support the argument with anything but conjecture.



And what are you using to qualify the fact that one mammoth predates another? What is your evidence to demonstrate that one is in fact a predate of the other? And your choice of "ancient" is also fallacious. You know no more about the age of any fossil than you do a fallen tree in your back yard.



The idea that "things evolve" is not in quesiton here. What is in question is the assumption that one thing evolves into another - which in turn evolves into another, extrapolating that back to a species evolving into another. There is absolutely no evidence that one species has evolved into another in the age of the laboratory - what makes you think this is the case ages before the idea of laboratory science existed, and accept this as a conformation. This question arises totally independent of religious dogma - and does not in and of itself assume that the creation story is true because evolution cannot substanciate one species evolving into another. It's a red herring to even bring it up. The fact of the matter is that it cannot be substanciated that evolution is viable on any level. Be it science (which it most certainly does not) or as a religion (which is a closer explination for it than science will ever be.)
That is the mere fact of the matter. Unless you can provide a substancial proof that the evidence that claims evolution is true - and one that is not based on an unacceptable premise - you should give up trying to convince me that your not a victim of your own "religious dogma" that evolution is a "viable science".



What I understand is that scientific evidence does not contradict it's own premises - which happens everywhere in evolution. On it's very basic level - you are asking me to accept that life began from a rock. Think about that - a rock. That were I to wait long enough - my driveway would populate the world. Sound absurd?
Then please - explain to me where this is not the case. And you are right. It is not a laughing matter. Most people are not equipped to determine fallacious logic, and no evolutionary documentation will get into the details of the necessity of uniformality to support it's conjectures, as the house of cards falls upon the fact that this necessity is in fact an impossibility. The more I read on this subject - the more I discover that evolution cannot be viable. There are just too many examples of the impossibility of evolution to explain the mere structure an anatomies of species that exist today - that given an evolutionary exlpination for their existance demonstrates that the existance of the species is impossible. The butterfly being the most basic of examples. Get an explination of how the butterfly came into being from an evolutionist... If you can. Then come back to me and we'll examine the dozens of other species that simply defy evolutionary explination for their existance.

If you are going to teach the Christian creation myth you ought to teach others as well.

That makes for a well rounded education.

A theory is the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another, there are no facts what so ever in the ID idea.
It is untestible and therfore can never be concidered a theory.