What!!! Gaps?? The reason is there are so many little transitional forms that you can't tell them from the non transitional forms.... that's my theory anyway.
I understand what you are trying to say, but what you view as a problem is in the nature of the scientist. If your job is to essentially develop explanations to understand our world better, it becomes unacceptable to simply say that you "have no clue." Let me clarify that I am not saying that scientists are pompous people. What I am trying to say is that when a scientist is presented with a question that he is clueless about, he may say that he has no clue, but it is in his nature to use what information he does have concerning the subject and formulate a hypothesis or present a prevailing theory. I can tell you from personal experience that if I am asked a question that I feel I should know the answer to, it will not stop bothering me until I have presented a viable answer. Otherwise, I feel like I have failed as a scientist.
So when you guys ask questions like "is there evidence for amino acids spontaneously coming together to form proteins?" The simple answer is not w/o the complex machinery of the cell. However, there is plenty of evidence of smaller molecules spontaneously coming together to form more complex molecules. One such example is how proteins enter the the membrane that surrounds cells. The proteins are extremely necessary for the cell to function properly. I am pretty sure you guys already know that a couple of "wrong" amino acids in a protein end up causing a lot of problems. (Skip the next two paragraphs if you don't want to be bored with more biology) All this stems form the fact that the way proteins function is all dependent not only on which amino acids are used to build it but also where they are located. I won't bore you with the science, but it basically boils down to the physics, chemistry and biochemistry of the interactions. These interactions are extremely important because all sorts of things depend on them. For example, a proper amino acid sequence is necessary for the protein to interact with multiple proteins that that "transport" it to the necessary location where it interacts with more proteins to attach and enter the proper location in the membrane. My point is that there is no intelligent force dictating the actions and interactions of these proteins (as is the case in a factory), it is the science of simple molecules working together. So i can say in due time, their will be a better understanding of how these prebiotic processes could have occurred. In the mean time, I would like to believe that we will eventually fill in the gaps of the origin theory, but never understand what caused that initial "spark." History tends to avoid such earth-shattering revelations!
Btw, heres an update on what going on in Austin concerning all this: http://www.statesman.com/news/conte.../27/0327sboe.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52
shastarocket, great post and I see now that the 'no clue' comment was demeaning, sorry... what I should have said is that it is OK for a scientist to say 'there is alot we don't understand' and assumptions and guesses don't need such publicity, certainly keep searching, experimenting, gather data, formulate hypothesis, seek the answers... in the case of origins, what if reality was that God created about 10,000 years ago, a unique climate change, geological change and flood took place about 6,000 yrs ago, and we have unknown problems with dating methods... would that really have a detrimental affect on science? Would it be so hard if that were absolute truth? Wouldn't it be pretty painless to adjust current chemistry, biology and geology? And wouldn't it just have a small drop in the bucket affect upon those disciplines. I mean the only real shake up would be dating methods. Leaving the God creation factor out, if the truth was we are on a young earth and there are problems we don't understand with the dating methods don't you think current science could adjust to a young earth rather easily- if the reasons were understood scientifically. I'm not trying to prove origins ( I am convinced I can't) , just saying that I don't see a problem with the amount of information we do not have yet- I think science should be more public about that- especially in education, I don't want scientists to stop searching, I don't fully understand why the need for macro evolution to be so absolute when I think from an origins perspective it is very sketchy. If scientists would be more unsure in the school textbooks I would feel alot better about the way evolution is taught. I don't see any need to teach special creation, public schools aren't designed to be places of religious training. But by my modest observations macro evolution is treated like diety in public education and I think that goes over the line as far as what science really should be certain about.
There are plenty of links between species. There are fish with small lungs, and gills, that also have little feet. Reptiles and birds are so close that it almost doesn't count, but there are dinosaurs that were lizards with wings. The list goes on and on.
Another hop into the thread: You're touching on the exact feelings I get about people believing/teaching in a (insert higher power) and being so sure of it, because they 'know it'. I think you've compared science to faith before in an older thread, which just strengthens the feeling that this isn't an accident. (And yes, this is making me look inward on my 'belief' in science. I realize I'm a hypocrite on a lot of things, so this is probably just something else to add to the pile.)
Well... I still like the idea of teaching kids the holes in evolutionary theory. Doing so gives them the information they need to go forward and seek the truth. Teaching them alternate theories should be based on the evidence backing those theories and not just because it's another possibility. They should be teaching the "problems" with alternate theories too.
I agree that you should also tell the problems with evolution theory, however I do not want ID to be discussed during Biology at School. The only thing that should be thought in biology class is scientific theories and ID is not a sientific theory. Ofcourse if you have certain classes where you teach different religions you can also discuss ID. But teaching ID at biology class is similar to teaching Evolution in Church.
I'm far more comfortable with teaching evolution in church than I am with teaching ID in public schools. I have no interest in public school teachers attempting to teach my children about God.
And this is the specific point that I am stuck on! If you end up forcing a bunch of teachers to teach something that they don't understand/don't care enough about, they will do a poor job of teaching it. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow the church to teach ID, or whatever you wish, in an expert manner in a church setting? Doing so will allow both theories to be presented in the best light. A couple of years ago I took a class called Politics of Social Policy and learned that there once was a time that schools were not used to "raise" our kids. It is only in recent history that schools have been forced into teaching such topics as drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse prevention, sexual education and origin of life. The result may be a poor job by the school to teach what is necessary and definitely takes away from valuable time that could have been spent much more wisely.
check with the scientists posting, but I believe fish are fish and reptiles are reptiles still. variation within species is significant, transition between species is non existent. You can check out the statistical analysis for the number of transitionary forms needed to go from reptile to bird by gradual evolution over millions of years, I would guess the number is like 10 to the big number power. those are the links I am looking for in the fossil record
We never talk creation at my church. At least not in the context of some debate over evolution...those issues just aren't central to my church. I would be uncomfortable with a sermon where someone got up and preached something that suggests they know exactly how creation occurred because of Genesis (i've stated my reasons for that here a lot). I have been to a presentation on ID at a church before. It was a videotaped discussion with ID-backers and ID-hatahs. It was fun. I learned some great stuff. It's just not central to me in my faith though....it's kind of a fun little side topic, but really means very little to me with respect to TRYING to follow Jesus. I think the Church has far more important things to do than argue science. My wife is a public school teacher. She is amazing. I've met many of her co-workers...some who i think are great...some not so great. I've met my childrens' teachers, as well. I have no interest in them attempting to teach my children ANYTHING ANYTHING ANYTHING about God. I'll do that. At home...at Church...at the ball field...at a restaurant over dinner...in the car...etc. I have no idea where each individual public school teacher is coming from with respect to faith. While I'm fine with him learning about faith traditions and religions...I'm not ok with having someone put their own spin on it for him. Bring in all sorts of people from different religions and let them teach about THEIR faiths...particularly when the kids are at jr. high or high schoool level. But I don't want someone cracking open a science text and reading God in during a public school lesson.
Reptiles and birds is larger than from species to species. But fish that have lungs as well as gills, and also legs is a transition between species. I'm not sure where the idea that transitions don't exist. They are everywhere. I will try and check out the number to go from birds to reptiles, but biologically speaking they are very similar. Here are some examples: These are just a few samples. There are many many transition species fossils, that clearly show the evolution. I've heard that claim before that there were no transition species. I never understood it.
