It doesn't matter in the slightest what hypotheses are consistent with the evidence. What matters is what hypotheses PREDICT the evidence and additionally PREDICT what will NOT be observed in the evidence. Taking point 1, that there exist many predictable intermediate forms, evolution would be falsified if we found, for example, a mammal with feathers. Your theory, on the other hand, would still work if we found a feathered mammal. Therefore, point 1 is NOT evidence for your theory as it is for evolution. Same with points 3-6; they aren't necessary for your theory, but they are for evolution. This is scientific method 101 stuff. The e. coli study is proof of concept. It shows that organisms can and do evolve complex traits in a finite timeframe. Your hypothesis, again, has no such proof of concept.
On the flip side though does religion cause doubters of Evolution to overstate the problems? That gets back to my original question of "Why Evolution?" Clearly there are some problems with Evolution but there are problems with many other scientific theories that don't generate nearly such controversy.
People (even the non-religious) are heavily invested in concepts like 'souls', 'life force', 'free will', and other ideas that give life some exceptional status above other forms of existence. Since evolution deals specifically with the science of life, it potentially steps on a lot of toes. Earth sciences, while they contradict some specific religions' creation myths, don't really challenge the deepest assumptions held by the wider population.
You're unraveling a bit now, so there's not really much point going on with this. W.r.t. this first point you said, "If that were true, there should be some sign of this designer in the body of evidence. As it happens, there is no such sign." I merely pointed out that your first statement is logically false, and I further pointed out that your second statement is factually false and that you had not attempted to support it. The rest of your post proceeds in a similar manner. Your manner of argumentation is like that of a zealot and not of someone who is interested in engaging in a reasoned, fact based, scientific, discussion. Do you see that? You've even put yourself in the position of denying an obvious alternative explanation, and all because you apparently cannot accept the possibility that evolution may not be the one and only answer. That kind of fanaticism makes evolution something very close to a religion, and this phenomenon is a main part of my point in this thread. Anyway, thanks for the discussion LSD and I’ll move on now.
And, of course, the fact that we're contemplating doing it ourselves to other planets is the obvious proof of concept.
Why it's such a hot button issue is a very good question. Clearly there are religious people who deny science based on their understanding of their religion. That's a given, but a more interesting question, imo, is why so many people come to treat evolution as a religion. As I alluded to before, I don't think you would have nearly as many of the religious evolutionists, for lack of a better term, if it weren't for traditional religion. I think for many of these people evolution as a religion is a reaction to their perception of conventional religions. I think this can be seen by the fact that creationism always seems to be brought up by these people in these discussions.
For some groups of course it does, but that's a given. The real question is, why do some people, some even the scientific community, completely lose their scientific principles over this issue. Were you around when we were discussing Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions with respect to this issue? It think it offers a partial explanation, but I'm not sure that it's a complete explanation. I'm sure some of them have had bad religious upbringings, but it's hard to believe that that could be the reason for all of them. Not having had a religious upbringing, however, that's not something I can relate to personally.
You're right about my first statement being erroneous, but the point is moot because it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution, which is only concerned with observable things. Why you chose this point to respond to and ignored the rest is quite interesting. The second statement, however, still holds until you provide evidence that your designer exists. I don't have to support it because the burden of proof for your hypothesis is on you, not me (yet another basic scientific concept you seem to have no clue about). Your hypothesis about an extraterrestrial engineer of all life on earth is "an obvious alternative explanation"?!?! Sorry, but your ad hominem rant is not a substitute for evidence. It was a better discussion before you started accusing people you disagree with of being zealots.
No, it's not at all. That would be proof of concept that we humans could have created life on earth. You still haven't shown that your designer/engineer even exists.
What scientific principles, specifically, are you referring to? You've made this same vague criticism numerous times in this thread. Don't you think it's about time you gave a concrete example? When you do, please include the principle being violated as well as the violation itself. Thanks.
First of all, we're talking about proof of concept here, not proof of theory (which there really is no such thing). The difference is that Grizzled's hypothesis is one of agency--somebody or something created life on earth. Showing that terraforming is possible is not sufficient proof of concept (though it is necessary in his particular ID variant). Intelligent design implies an intelligent agent, whereas evolution and abiogenisis require no such agent.
Terraforming wouldn't prove intelligent design, but it does open the possibility that life did not originate on earth and/or our gradual evolution wasn't a continuous chain of events that happened on earth. That difference alone is subtle given the leeway scientists are given with cell origin theories.
Isn't it fact that a meteroite about 10 miles wide hit the Earth above the yucatan pennisula about 65 million years ago which wiped out a lot of life on the planet including the dinosaurs? There is a lot of evidence that points to this, the amount of iridium(common in metorites) in the sedimentary layers globally around the 65 million year range...the fact of the metorite impact crater visible through seismic readings (as well as denser reading of Ir around the area). That's just one example, but it seems like all your reasons are based on ignorance and arrogance...hell, evolutionary scientists are arrogant too, but they're at least dealing with scientific fact and not stuff they threw together from a bunch of wikipedia stuff.
I've never fully understood that outside of a very literalist reading of scripture. Since I believe in Karmic reincarnation Evolution fits very well with that idea but I don't think it conflicts necessarily with a Judeo-Christian understanding of creation. God created man from dust so why should it seem strange that we evolved from lower animals. Perhaps what we perceive as Evolution is the process to reach humanity and the Biblical tale of the creation of man is a poetic way of describing it.
Because it was your first point? And the scientific theory of evolution is “only concerned with observable things”??? Applying your logic, if a group of scientists is exploring a remote jungle and they come across the ruins of an ancient city, because they don’t know who built it it must not have been built by anybody? Is that what you’re saying? If they don’t know who built it if can’t have been build and persuadably it must be some kind of naturally occurring ruined city??? LSD, just STOP! Never mind not making valid arguments, you’re not even making sense anymore. You’re just blurting out utter non-sense without giving 2 seconds of thought to what you’re saying. Obviously this is a very unsettling issue for you, so just back away and come back when your head is clear, or don’t come back at all. Maybe you should give some thought to why this issue is doing this to you.
Right, and if the designers wanted to wipe out the dinosaurs and yet keep much of the rest of the live on earth intact, that would have been a pretty efficient way to do it, right? One shot accomplished the whole thing. If you don't like the wikipedia page then you can always look it up on the NASA site, or is that just a "bunch of stuff" to you too? Maybe it's you who is too arrogant and ignorant?
