Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

[theHawk]

I'm assuming most of the people on this board are more than 10 or so years old. Anybody who has been alive for 30 or 40 years can see in their own American lifetime that black girls have gone from entering puberty at 12-13 years of age to much younger, sometimes 8 or 9 years. This is because they have EVOLVED to do this after only a few generations of eating too much MacDonalds and KFC.

Or maybe you think Jesus, God, Holy Ghost, Virgin Mary, Ann Coulter, Santa, Tooth Fairy and Barney have somehow "designed" this change in humanity?

Come on use your powers of observation. Evolution is visible everywhere.

Some of us don't go around looking down every black girl's shirt to check on their puberty status.





Even so, once again it is not "evolution" in that something new is being created. It isn't a result of mutations over long periods of time as has been argued that how evolution happens. In fact those changes are happening in a very short time period. Changes in environment (Diet) is not the same as mutations over a long period of time. Are you telling me that the black person of today are a NEW species than black people of 40 years ago just because of differences in their traits? Absolutely rediculous. They are the same exact race, with compatible DNA of which male and female can reproduce.

If you Darwinians believe that evolution takes happens over a long period of time, there must be some point where the species DNA changed to the point where it became a new species via mutation. Yet if that ever happens, how is that one organism that mutated going to reproduce if it is an entirely NEW species?

 

[Hobbit]

I'm assuming most of the people on this board are more than 10 or so years old. Anybody who has been alive for 30 or 40 years can see in their own American lifetime that black girls have gone from entering puberty at 12-13 years of age to much younger, sometimes 8 or 9 years. This is because they have EVOLVED to do this after only a few generations of eating too much MacDonalds and KFC.

Or maybe you think Jesus, God, Holy Ghost, Virgin Mary, Ann Coulter, Santa, Tooth Fairy and Barney have somehow "designed" this change in humanity?

Come on use your powers of observation. Evolution is visible everywhere.

For all future purposes and intents, when I say 'evolution,' I'm referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. These black girls are entering puberty well within the limits of the human genome, which allows for (though rare) entry into puberty as young as 2 years old. These girls have not grown new limbs. They haven't seperated enough to be a new species. They don't have gills. They are still, in all ways possible, homo sapiens. This no more proves that evolution is true than Kansas proves that the world is flat.

In fact, let's use the same arguments.

Kansas is flat as a pancake. You can see for miles and miles around, and you can see no such curve in the Earth's surface. You can walk for hundreds of miles and see no curve. This is because, like the rest of the Earth, Kansas is FLAT. Or do you believe that somehow it's round and we're just not perceptive enough to spot the curve?

 

[Harmageddon]

Before I reply, a quick notion to the previous post: I am sorry if I offended anyone’s belief, since belief is personal and not for me to judge. However, I get pretty upset if people try to debunk scientific evidence with thick headedness and ignorance on the subject.

Know your place, and I’ll get back to mine. That’s all.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Hobbit:
The truth that complete random chance somehow managed to perfectly orchestrate something so infinitely complex as the Earth in such a relatively short period of time without leaving so much as one fossil of a transitional phase or even a failure? You're not even worth my time to give negative rep points. Evolution is a frickin' religion. It requires just as much faith as belief in Jesus, in fact more, as there is evidence of Jesus. The only reason anybody believes it is because it allows them to disbelieve God. Personally, I find the theory of Xenu executing a massive holocaust on our planet billions of years ago more plausible.

If you refer to 3 billion years as a relatively short period of time then we are done talking. However, for now I will assume you refer to 6,000 years instead.

Second, not every creature turns into a fossil. If that were to be the case, the earth would be made of skeletons, rather than dirt and rocks. Ergo, failures in evolution die rapidly, and thus the chance of them turning into fossils is very close to zero.

Transitional phases are astronomical in number, yet you need to realize that not every step of the way is turned into a fossil – simply because these transitions may occur very rapidly (as in the Cambrian boom you mentioned, although that short boom lasted several million years), and only those successive species that grow into large numbers have a chance that several members of their species are fossilized.

Next, you need to realize that evolution is driven by selection on a species’ ability for adaptation. Adaptation to changing environments, competition amongst species (predator versus prey) and competition within species for mating are a few examples. Naturally, individual adaptation to predators or to other males that are more successful with the females is a faster drive for adaptation than climate change, which is a far slower process. However, adaptation to climate change induces a far greater selection – since the pressure is that much higher on the species as a whole.

From this it follows that adaptation is not required constantly for a species to survive – for instance, the shark is very good at what it is doing, and has been very good at it for over 500 million years. There are many different species of shark, and many are extinct, but the basic design has not really changed. However, if random changes in number of predators, climate, or whatever prove too much for a species to handle, it goes extinct.

Then there are the viruses – that may incorporate their DNA in yours. In fact, a lot of our DNA as humans is now known to derive from viral infections that kind of got stuck (since the usual cutting after the copying is not always perfect – again, this happens in a random fashion). From the replicating rate of viruses and bacteria you may understand why evolution sometimes occurs rapidly.

Then there are Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands. Over 40 species of finch on one little island made Darwin think about evolution in the first place. Most of the species could no longer interbreed (some still could) and all species adapted differently to make the most of the limited resources on the island. Some finches specialized in eating only one particular seed (which they were very good at cracking and eating) others just kind of started eating anything, from seeds to grass, and so on.

This way, far more finches could occupy the island than would be possible without adaptation. Before they adapted, there were probably vicious fights for the limited resources, and when the regular food started disappearing because of drought, they only survived because some finches started eating something else, whereas other remained at their regular diet. Most died, some survived. That’s the way it goes.

In short, evolution is far more complex than you realize. Yet its basics are quite simple:
Random change in either environmental conditions or in the DNA sequence (mutations) is the underlying cause for selection on either adaptation to the change or the change itself.
That is evolution in a nutshell.

Your notion that the theory of evolution is a religion could not be further from the truth. Religions build on fear of the unknown, and promise the existence of a gentle provider that will be there for us and which is at the same time the cause of that which we do not understand. Because the provider is gentle and loves us, there is no need for fear.
Thus, religion takes away the same fear that spawned it in the first place.

Science builds on the power of reasoning, which also dispels the fear of the unknown, by removing the unknown and pulling it into reality as we know it. And since the unknown has proven to be quite complex in nature it goes slowly. But like evolution of species, sometimes very fast. And theories that do not stand up to scrutiny are removed by similar processes, so that a sort of natural selection causes only those theories to remain that are valid.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk:
If you Darwinians believe that evolution takes happens over a long period of time, there must be some point where the species DNA changed to the point where it became a new species via mutation. Yet if that ever happens, how is that one organism that mutated going to reproduce if it is an entirely NEW species?

Good, a critical question. Why, you ask? Let me try to clarify.

A single mutation does not make a new species. Several consecutive ones may do so. However, mostly this is not yet a species that can no longer reproduce with its original species – if this happens to be the case, it will seize to reproduce, it will thus go extinct, and since there is only one member of this species, the chance that it is fossilized is roughly zero.
If it IS able to reproduce with its original species, the children from this mating may have none, some, or all of the new species’ traits. If it is a successful mutation, one that gives an advantage (better camouflage, longer tongue, more efficient muscles, or anything really) the mutation will become more present in the group. This way, the entire group of animals may eventually end up with the mutation – and if this goes on and on, the entire group may eventually evolve into a new species.

But what about the old species, you ask? Where’d it go?

In most cases, there is more than one group of a certain animal. And although some adventurous types may roam free as nomads and visit other groups, most members never meet the group that lives elsewhere. Thus they may remain the original species, or evolve into a species that is better adapted to their local environmental challenges (predators, climate).
In short, there are many groups of the same animal, which spread over a habitat that may be as large as the entire planet. But not all animals of this species will roam across the earth all the time – thus, the basis for speciation is containment of groups (as well as mutation, adaptation, etc.).

 

[theHawk]

If it IS able to reproduce with its original species, the children from this mating may have none, some, or all of the new species’ traits. If it is a successful mutation, one that gives an advantage (better camouflage, longer tongue, more efficient muscles, or anything really) the mutation will become more present in the group. This way, the entire group of animals may eventually end up with the mutation – and if this goes on and on, the entire group may eventually evolve into a new species.

But if it can reproduce with its 'original species', how can it be considered a new species? Its like suggesting that African humans and whites are separate species, just because they have vastly different traits. But they are not, we know they are of the same species.

 

[theHawk]

Before I reply, a quick notion to the previous post: I am sorry if I offended anyone’s belief, since belief is personal and not for me to judge. However, I get pretty upset if people try to debunk scientific evidence with thick headedness and ignorance on the subject.

Know your place, and I’ll get back to mine. That’s all.

I don't think your offending anyone.
I certainly do not know how everything was created or how the history of animals on our world played out. I was raised with the believe of Evolution thanks to our school system. I have always believed it. But now the more I read about it, the more questions seem to pop up.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk
But if it can reproduce with its 'original species', how can it be considered a new species? Its like suggesting that African humans and whites are separate species, just because they have vastly different traits. But they are not, we know they are of the same species.

It cannot be considered a new species from that point – it is still the same species with maybe a different trait or different traits resulting from adaptation to local environmental challenges (like whites and blacks and Asians). But when this process continues for millennia, and local selection stimulates more and more the possession of these new traits, there will be a point where this species can no longer procreate with its original species that lives in a different place. Only from there on, they are recognized as different species.

The horse and the donkey are a good example of this process. They look like roughly the same species, and they can actually procreate (they produce mules). However, mules cannot procreate amongst themselves, and therefore donkeys and horses are considered different species. Horses and donkeys only separated as different species roughly a dozen million years ago. That has been sufficient to cause them to separate.

Humans have caused speciation on purpose with most other domesticated animals as well: if you look at all the different species of dogs for example, some may still reproduce, whereas others that have been separated long enough may not.

As for humans, we have not been separated from one another long enough to differentiate into separate species. Humanity has been quite mobile throughout its existence, either for the purpose of trade or war. Both acts have led to procreation every time between the different groups involved. And as this process becomes ever more global, there is no chance that humans will ever give rise to a new species.

Originally posted by theHawk:
I don't think your offending anyone.
I certainly do not know how everything was created or how the history of animals on our world played out. I was raised with the believe of Evolution thanks to our school system. I have always believed it. But now the more I read about it, the more questions seem to pop up.

Ok, I just thought I might have, since it was a rather harsh post on my behalf.

Evolution is not a simple subject. Although the basic mechanism that was proposed by Darwin is rather simple, it is far from easy to come to grasps with all the chemicala and physical processes behind it. That said, it is far easier to see it in terms we humans are familiar with ourselves - i.e. creation.
The notion of random chance and selection upon it makes it somewhat depresssing at first - it's like all the magic of life is taken away.

But if you dig further into the intricate details, to me, it makes it even more admirable and wonderful than the idea of a creator could ever hope to be.
As with a creator, evolution places us in the perspective that we are only a part of the whole - that there are bigger forces at work.

The debate about whether this is a loving, intelligent force, or a purely chemical and physical force that is utterly neutral in nature will probably be raging for many a year to come.

To me personally, that has no impact on the fact that I believe Jesus, Ghandi or Nelson Mandela were good people and that their collective wisdom should be the way towards a better world for us.

 

[Hobbit]

If you refer to 3 billion years as a relatively short period of time then we are done talking. However, for now I will assume you refer to 6,000 years instead.

Not, I'm referring to the 3 billion. That's a very short time when you consider how many gene sequences would have to mutate in exactly the right way to make a human.

Second, not every creature turns into a fossil. If that were to be the case, the earth would be made of skeletons, rather than dirt and rocks. Ergo, failures in evolution die rapidly, and thus the chance of them turning into fossils is very close to zero.

If life turned into new species by random mutation, the failed fossils should far outnumber the successful ones. Before we ended up with a working nose, there should have been millions of animals with non-functional noses, noses in the wrong place, noses you can't breathe through. Considering the millions of gene sequences required for a nose and the millions of different combinations, there should have been trillions of failed noses. Saying they all just failed to fossilize is like saying, "Teacher, the Earth ate my homework." And that's just the nose. There should be trillions more for arms, eyes, tongues, etc.

Transitional phases are astronomical in number, yet you need to realize that not every step of the way is turned into a fossil – simply because these transitions may occur very rapidly (as in the Cambrian boom you mentioned, although that short boom lasted several million years), and only those successive species that grow into large numbers have a chance that several members of their species are fossilized.

Last I heard, there had been only a small handful of transitional fossils ever found, and that most of them had been dismissed as transitional fossils, since they didn't fit the timeline. One such example is the famous horse progression that was on display at a few natural history museums. Upon further examination, the fossil timeline they had set up was out of order. Another such example was that dinosaur with feathers. Other feathered animals weren't seen for millions of years after the last of those fossils.

Next, you need to realize that evolution is driven by selection on a species’ ability for adaptation. Adaptation to changing environments, competition amongst species (predator versus prey) and competition within species for mating are a few examples. Naturally, individual adaptation to predators or to other males that are more successful with the females is a faster drive for adaptation than climate change, which is a far slower process. However, adaptation to climate change induces a far greater selection – since the pressure is that much higher on the species as a whole.

Yeah, this has been observed, but never to an extent that would produce new species. All of these adaptations observed have been well within the original limitations of the species. It's just that one trait, being more preferable, becomes more prominent. It's a beautiful system...that's incapable of producing anything other than variations within a single species.

From this it follows that adaptation is not required constantly for a species to survive – for instance, the shark is very good at what it is doing, and has been very good at it for over 500 million years. There are many different species of shark, and many are extinct, but the basic design has not really changed. However, if random changes in number of predators, climate, or whatever prove too much for a species to handle, it goes extinct.

Right, and how does this lead to higher forms of fish? How does it turn cartlidge to bone? How does it grow an air bladder?

Then there are the viruses – that may incorporate their DNA in yours. In fact, a lot of our DNA as humans is now known to derive from viral infections that kind of got stuck (since the usual cutting after the copying is not always perfect – again, this happens in a random fashion). From the replicating rate of viruses and bacteria you may understand why evolution sometimes occurs rapidly.

Care to give an example? Last I checked, viruses killed the cells they occupied in order to reproduce.

Then there are Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands. Over 40 species of finch on one little island made Darwin think about evolution in the first place. Most of the species could no longer interbreed (some still could) and all species adapted differently to make the most of the limited resources on the island. Some finches specialized in eating only one particular seed (which they were very good at cracking and eating) others just kind of started eating anything, from seeds to grass, and so on.

Yeah, I know about Darwin's finches. People have pointed to their changing beak shape as evidence of evolution. However, the finches are just the same as they were when he was there. The famous shapechanging beaks have been going back and forth between the same two shapes, depending on how wet the season, since Darwin was there. Nothing new, here.

This way, far more finches could occupy the island than would be possible without adaptation. Before they adapted, there were probably vicious fights for the limited resources, and when the regular food started disappearing because of drought, they only survived because some finches started eating something else, whereas other remained at their regular diet. Most died, some survived. That’s the way it goes.

Then we should see this happening all the time. We've never observed other birds picking up a new diets long term. If there was such vicious competition for the same food, that food should have also adapted enough defenses to keep it alive, as well. How come the finches that 'still' have to eat their original diet don't have to fight off poisonous plants to get their food? How come we haven't observed other animals picking up new diets and 'evolving' elsewhere.

I'd also like to know how they supposedly formed new species. If they all evolved in the Galapagos, there would be no reason they couldn't still interbreed with each other, as they'd never be seperated frome each other.

In short, evolution is far more complex than you realize. Yet its basics are quite simple:
Random change in either environmental conditions or in the DNA sequence (mutations) is the underlying cause for selection on either adaptation to the change or the change itself.
That is evolution in a nutshell.

Random mutations have never been demonstrated to give anything other than bacteria a beneficial trait. Everything other adaptation you speak of stays within the original limitations of the species. Even if random mutations did give something beneficial here and there, how do you explain complex organs that require the precise coordination of millions or even billions of gene sequences just to work at all? Mutations of any kind are rare. Do you want to know the odds that even 1000 gene sequences mutated in the correct way in a single organism?

Your notion that the theory of evolution is a religion could not be further from the truth. Religions build on fear of the unknown, and promise the existence of a gentle provider that will be there for us and which is at the same time the cause of that which we do not understand. Because the provider is gentle and loves us, there is no need for fear.
Thus, religion takes away the same fear that spawned it in the first place.

That's a definition of a cult, not a religion. A religion is a series of beliefs based on faith that attempts to explain the world. There's no scientific evidence for evolution. It's based on faith. Those who question it, even with valid, scientifically grounded questions are ostracized for what amounts to heresy. So far, all you've told me there's all this evidence for evolution, but all you've presented are conjectures...which are pretty hard to swallow, by the way. You also allude to evidence, but where is it? Habeus corpus, man. Show me the evidence.

Science builds on the power of reasoning, which also dispels the fear of the unknown, by removing the unknown and pulling it into reality as we know it. And since the unknown has proven to be quite complex in nature it goes slowly. But like evolution of species, sometimes very fast. And theories that do not stand up to scrutiny are removed by similar processes, so that a sort of natural selection causes only those theories to remain that are valid.

Evolution doesn't stand up to scrutiny. All of the explanations of the harder to believe things in evolution, like how an eye came from a random mutation, are conjectures that are based first and foremost on the assumption that evolution is true. The reason evolution is so widely believed is not because it's unimpeachable fact, but because you can have your life ruined by saying otherwise. There's no evidence for it. The idea that it could happen is outlandish, and any time somebody tries to offer any sort of alternative, whether religious or not, the ACLU, Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State, and the Smithsonian move in and ostracize them, just like they did to Richard Sternburg. Anyone who dares question the state religion gets dismissed as a religious zealot.

I say life looks designed. You say it's more probable that it appeared through random mutation. I say your theory is overly complex and cannot happen, given what we know about life. You say that it's the only explanation because there's nobody to design life. Neither has just a whole lot of evidence, so why can't the ones who support evolution just admit that their theory is scientifically flimsy and just go on believing it as always, just like everybody else who believes something that cannot be proven?

On a side note, Harm, this is probably the most civilized evolution debate I've ever had. Most evolution proponents I've seen just dismiss anyone who doesn't believe it. I've seen the arguments for it, and I think the whole thing's outlandish, but at least you're trying to debate like a human being rather than talking to me like I think shaking a stick at the sky will make it rain.

 

[bobn]

Not, I'm referring to the 3 billion. That's a very short time when you consider how many gene sequences would have to mutate in exactly the right way to make a human.

Given mutation rates and the nucleotide changes required, there is no apparent time problem.

If life turned into new species by random mutation, the failed fossils should far outnumber the successful ones.

No, because the mutation mechanism of evolution is not as dramatic as you are thinking. The mutations that guide evolution represent subtle changes which are hardly noticable from one generation to the next.

This is by necessity because big dramatic mutations that cause a lot of genetic change will tend to kill the organism before it can reproduce and therefore will not get passed on.

Before we ended up with a working nose, there should have been millions of animals with non-functional noses, noses in the wrong place, noses you can't breathe through. Considering the millions of gene sequences required for a nose and the millions of different combinations, there should have been trillions of failed noses.

You seem to be thinking evolution is like a mr potatohead model where different body parts are pulled out of a hat and randomly put into a shape and this continues until a configuration that works comes about. Evolution is absolutely nothing like that. Evolution slowly adapts existing structures to have new function. At all stages you have to have a working part because parts that are functionless are not going to be retained by selection and will be overwritten by mutations (whale hind limbs for example). Most of the evolutionary change is caused by selective pressure to make a part more efficient at it's job. For example the evolution of legs involved an existing structure (fins) bring used for a new function (crawling) which they were very inefficient at, and so selective pressure caused that structure to adapt to be more efficient at the new function. There is no situtation there of animals appearing with legs on their heads or half legs on their tails or any mr potatohead model kind of stuff. It's simply modification of the fins into limbs capable of crawling efficiently. All stages work and there won't be "failure" fossils lying about with weird configurations.

Last I heard, there had been only a small handful of transitional fossils ever found, and that most of them had been dismissed as transitional fossils, since they didn't fit the timeline. One such example is the famous horse progression that was on display at a few natural history museums. Upon further examination, the fossil timeline they had set up was out of order.

The issue was over linear evolution vs tree evolution. There are horse fossils transitional between ancient and modern types on the tree. A question nags me here - isn't evolution of one horse species to another simply adaptation? Changes to the bone shape, fusion of the toes, isn't that just small adaptation over a long time? I don't understand why you are opposed to it. In fact some evolution skeptics have told me that horse evolution is a non-issue because it's simply microevolution (despite them being different species of horses)

Another such example was that dinosaur with feathers. Other feathered animals weren't seen for millions of years after the last of those fossils.

The last of those fossils were birds.

Yeah, this has been observed, but never to an extent that would produce new species.

New plant species have been observed. Remember that it is humans who define species groups - there are no barriers inherent in nature. Lions and tigers can occasionally produce fertile young for example even though they are such different species that anyone can tell them apart. In some species you even have the bizzare situation that two extreme ends of variation cannot interbreed successfully with one another.

All of these adaptations observed have been well within the original limitations of the species.

Some species can only be told apart by experts, and to most people they look almost identical. Some species are only differnet in coloration. So why can't color change happen and go beyond the "limitiation"?

Right, and how does this lead to higher forms of fish? How does it turn cartlidge to bone? How does it grow an air bladder?

Again you are thinking of some kind of mr potatohead model which an air bladder suddenly appeared. Evolution doesn't work by growing things that aren't useful until they have formed. It works by adapting existing structures and at all stages the structure is useful even if it's role switched over. Air bladders evolved from the primitive lung of early fish (not to be confused with lungs of land animals). Where did the primitive fish lung come from? It evolved from adapted air pouches in the intestinal tract of fish. At all stages you have working systems which change over time by adaptation. This is what is meant by lots of small adapatation adding up to a big change over time.

And cartlidge becoming bone sounds like another adaptation.

Yeah, I know about Darwin's finches. People have pointed to their changing beak shape as evidence of evolution. However, the finches are just the same as they were when he was there. The famous shapechanging beaks have been going back and forth between the same two shapes, depending on how wet the season, since Darwin was there. Nothing new, here.

It was never proposed as anything else. It's an example of natural selection.

I'd also like to know how they supposedly formed new species. If they all evolved in the Galapagos, there would be no reason they couldn't still interbreed with each other, as they'd never be seperated frome each other.

Rather than saying "if" they all evolved in the Galapagos think about what would need to happen for that to be wrong. It would require that several finch species independently flew to this island, while many other families of bird don't even have one species that made it. this isn't the only example. Life on such remote islands are generally lopsided with lots of species of a certain class, but no species of another. Plus the finch species on the galapogas are found nowhere else in the world. So the evidence suggests that they did evolve on the galapogas from an original founding species. Your question is valid but it represents something that isn't known, not something that shows they didn't evolve there.

Random mutations have never been demonstrated to give anything other than bacteria a beneficial trait.

Many evoluton skeptics deny even that. In fact I have heard many argue that bacterial resistance is not a beneficial trait. Seriously.

Evolution doesn't stand up to scrutiny. All of the explanations of the harder to believe things in evolution, like how an eye came from a random mutation, are conjectures that are based first and foremost on the assumption that evolution is true.[/qutoe]

That evolution is true is based on other evidence. Evolution would only not stand up to scrutiny if it could be disproven or faulted with a strong argument. Simply saying you don't understand how an eye could evolve is not an objection against the theory. Noone understands 100% how that happened.

The reason evolution is so widely believed is not because it's unimpeachable fact

It's precisely that. The reason most biologists accept it is becuase it explains the basics of the natural world extremely well. For example how species are distributed around the world, and the pattern of the fossil record. I think it's more to do with how well the natural world supports what evolution requires when it doesn't have to if evolution weren't true. If certain things existed, such as rabbit fossils in the cambrian, or native elephants on hawaii then evolution would be disproven. There are many such things and so people are simply thinking it's a bit too coincidental that none of these are found.

All the objections you raise about the ACLU and steinberg and the like are US issues. The theory of evolution is accepted by biologists in countries worldwide.

 

[Hobbit]

Given mutation rates and the nucleotide changes required, there is no apparent time problem.

Given the combinations of nucleotides possible...hardly.

No, because the mutation mechanism of evolution is not as dramatic as you are thinking. The mutations that guide evolution represent subtle changes which are hardly noticable from one generation to the next.

This is by necessity because big dramatic mutations that cause a lot of genetic change will tend to kill the organism before it can reproduce and therefore will not get passed on.

You seem to be thinking evolution is like a mr potatohead model where different body parts are pulled out of a hat and randomly put into a shape and this continues until a configuration that works comes about. Evolution is absolutely nothing like that. Evolution slowly adapts existing structures to have new function. At all stages you have to have a working part because parts that are functionless are not going to be retained by selection and will be overwritten by mutations (whale hind limbs for example). Most of the evolutionary change is caused by selective pressure to make a part more efficient at it's job. For example the evolution of legs involved an existing structure (fins) bring used for a new function (crawling) which they were very inefficient at, and so selective pressure caused that structure to adapt to be more efficient at the new function. There is no situtation there of animals appearing with legs on their heads or half legs on their tails or any mr potatohead model kind of stuff. It's simply modification of the fins into limbs capable of crawling efficiently. All stages work and there won't be "failure" fossils lying about with weird configurations.

I get it. Given fins, you arrive at legs. Given light sensitive cells, you arrive at eyes. The problem is that you're missing that saying 'given fins, then legs' is like being trapped on a deserted island and saying 'given a rowboat...' How did we get fins? Where did they start? What about the light sensitive cells that supposedly evolved into eyes? How come fins have never been found in odd places? Even these simplist of structures involves millions of gene sequences, all of which would have to mutate simultaneously to be in the least bit useful. And if there's so little difference between generations, how come there are no fossils of animals with anything between fins and legs? Fish have fins. Amphibians have legs. Where's the in between? A fin requires mutations to form a flap of skin to begin with, the mutation of cells capable of moving it, and the mutation of cells capable of sending signals to the movement cells. Each of these things requires millions of precisely ordered gene sequences and each mutation is completely useless without the others.

The issue was over linear evolution vs tree evolution. There are horse fossils transitional between ancient and modern types on the tree. A question nags me here - isn't evolution of one horse species to another simply adaptation? Changes to the bone shape, fusion of the toes, isn't that just small adaptation over a long time? I don't understand why you are opposed to it. In fact some evolution skeptics have told me that horse evolution is a non-issue because it's simply microevolution (despite them being different species of horses)

I don't think it's a non-issue because, like I said, the fossils were out of order. The fused hoof did not come from a toed foot, as was previously thought. All the steps from foot to hoof were completely out of order. When put in the carbon-dated order, it looks almost random.

The last of those fossils were birds.

Let me spell it out to you. Here's the timeline.

[that one dinosaur with feathers everyone says evolved into birds][millions and millions of years][birds]

The last of those were not birds. The last ones of those fossils were still dinosaurs with feathers. The first time anything else is seen with feathers is millions of years later. Are you telling me that millions of years worth of these things simply failed to fossilize?

New plant species have been observed. Remember that it is humans who define species groups - there are no barriers inherent in nature. Lions and tigers can occasionally produce fertile young for example even though they are such different species that anyone can tell them apart. In some species you even have the bizzare situation that two extreme ends of variation cannot interbreed successfully with one another.

Like you said, that's a human catagorization. Despite the fact that a few species can inter-breed. Nothing new has been formed. This interbreeding never leads to new features. It never leads to anything actually different. Ligers and tigons have all the same features as lions and tigers, with a median appearance. Mules are still just another equine with nothing new about it. Why haven't we seen, for example, bees that can sting twice? That would certainly be advantageous. Speaking of which, how did bee stingers evolve. A bee that stings, dies, preventing it from passing on its genes. How about animals that are only poisonous enough to make a predator sick? Sure, it benefits the species as a whole, but the ones with those genes must die before the benefit is realized. How did that become a preferred gene?

Some species can only be told apart by experts, and to most people they look almost identical. Some species are only differnet in coloration. So why can't color change happen and go beyond the "limitiation"?

I'm not sure how they classify species anymore. I was taught that it was a new species if it couldn't interbreed with any other, but it seems that isn't always true. Nonetheless, what I mean by this is that, for example, in the case of peppered moths (which turned out to be a hoax), dark peppered moths had always existed. The Galapagos finches with the different beak shapes have always existed. The difference is that one becomes favored and more of the species exhibits that. No new species is formed. No new feature is formed. It's just a variation on the same.

Again you are thinking of some kind of mr potatohead model which an air bladder suddenly appeared. Evolution doesn't work by growing things that aren't useful until they have formed. It works by adapting existing structures and at all stages the structure is useful even if it's role switched over. Air bladders evolved from the primitive lung of early fish (not to be confused with lungs of land animals). Where did the primitive fish lung come from? It evolved from adapted air pouches in the intestinal tract of fish. At all stages you have working systems which change over time by adaptation. This is what is meant by lots of small adapatation adding up to a big change over time.

And cartlidge becoming bone sounds like another adaptation.

Cartilage and bone are quite different. It requires quite a leap from one to the other. And once again, you're skipping the most complicated step. You say 'this feature evolved from that feature.' Well, how did the first one get there. Once again, millions of gene sequences must mutate simultaneously as each one seperately is completely useless. This is called 'irreducable complexity.'

It was never proposed as anything else. It's an example of natural selection.

It wasn't at the time. Darwin seemed to believe that there'd be 41 species there sometime int he near future. However, they've remained unchanged since he was there.

Rather than saying "if" they all evolved in the Galapagos think about what would need to happen for that to be wrong. It would require that several finch species independently flew to this island, while many other families of bird don't even have one species that made it. this isn't the only example. Life on such remote islands are generally lopsided with lots of species of a certain class, but no species of another. Plus the finch species on the galapogas are found nowhere else in the world. So the evidence suggests that they did evolve on the galapogas from an original founding species. Your question is valid but it represents something that isn't known, not something that shows they didn't evolve there.

It's yet another hole in this 'airtight' theory. The whole thing is holes.

Many evoluton skeptics deny even that. In fact I have heard many argue that bacterial resistance is not a beneficial trait. Seriously.

Well, that's kinda dumb. It doesn't really change into a new species, but it's like dark skin in humans. Those that don't have resistance are killed en masse while those with resistance split into more with resistance. That's one of the easiest ways to observe adaptation by natural selection.

That evolution is true is based on other evidence. Evolution would only not stand up to scrutiny if it could be disproven or faulted with a strong argument. Simply saying you don't understand how an eye could evolve is not an objection against the theory. Noone understands 100% how that happened.

Then admit it's just a pet theory. If there's evidence...where is it? I've been getting evolution this and evolution that crammed down my throat for 10 full years. However, everything I've ever been taught about it has been a conjecture with no factual evidence except that which had already been debunked (such as the piltdown man and peppered moth).

It's precisely that. The reason most biologists accept it is becuase it explains the basics of the natural world extremely well. For example how species are distributed around the world, and the pattern of the fossil record. I think it's more to do with how well the natural world supports what evolution requires when it doesn't have to if evolution weren't true. If certain things existed, such as rabbit fossils in the cambrian, or native elephants on hawaii then evolution would be disproven. There are many such things and so people are simply thinking it's a bit too coincidental that none of these are found.

But most scientists don't buy the theory of evolution. It's failed every test it's been put to. Scientists can't even get fruit flies to adapt to not eat poison.There's even a global coalition of biologists and other scientists...of all faiths including atheism...that's collecting signatures to prove that evolution is not believed by the majority of the scientific community. The reason so many pretend they buy it is because, like I said, anybody who doesn't stand by the status quo of evolution is excommunicated from science and publicly ostracized.

All the objections you raise about the ACLU and steinberg and the like are US issues. The theory of evolution is accepted by biologists in countries worldwide.

See above.

If evolution was fact, there'd be evidence by now. In fact, as some scientists have said, "Evolution has either been disproven or it cannot be." Even in this thread as so many people claim evolution is fact and that it cannot be questioned, I have questioned it again and again, backing my arguments with facts and research done by many scientists. However, all the evolutionists have offered in return is more conjecture and theories based on assumptions that I have already called into question. Let's see some actual, concrete, physical evidence of evolution, not just more theories being passed of as absolute truth.

 

[MissileMan]

I don't think it's a non-issue because, like I said, the fossils were out of order. The fused hoof did not come from a toed foot, as was previously thought. All the steps from foot to hoof were completely out of order. When put in the carbon-dated order, it looks almost random.

You have alleged this several times now and I have as yet seen you provide a link that supports your position. To the contrary, when searching "evolution of horses", I cannot find any that show any proof that what you are saying is true. Please provide a link.

But most scientists don't buy the theory of evolution. It's failed every test it's been put to. Scientists can't even get fruit flies to adapt to not eat poison.There's even a global coalition of biologists and other scientists...of all faiths including atheism...that's collecting signatures to prove that evolution is not believed by the majority of the scientific community. The reason so many pretend they buy it is because, like I said, anybody who doesn't stand by the status quo of evolution is excommunicated from science and publicly ostracized.

More made up Hobbit shit! Post a link where even half, let alone most scientists don't buy evolution. You'd have made a stellar sage circa 5000 BC...what you have no knowledge of, you make up, then purport it as fact. You might have fooled a few folks 7000 years ago, but noone here is buying your bullshit.

 

[bobn]

Then admit it's just a pet theory. If there's evidence...where is it?

I going to respond to this question first as it is clearly the key problem here. I claim there is lots of evidence but you don't accept there is any, and ask where is all the evidence.

You imply that you would happily accept evidence for evolution if only it were there. Ie you imply that there is evidence that you would accept if only it was found.

But are you bluffing? Here's the test:

What kind of fossil find would you accept as evidence for evolution? What kind of features would it have?

Really you should be able to come up with at least 5 examples. Otherwise no wonder you don't see any evidence for evolution - because literally you will accept nothing presented as evidence.

 

[Hobbit]

I going to respond to this question first as it is clearly the key problem here. I claim there is lots of evidence but you don't accept there is any, and ask where is all the evidence.

You imply that you would happily accept evidence for evolution if only it were there. Ie you imply that there is evidence that you would accept if only it was found.

But are you bluffing? Here's the test:

What kind of fossil find would you accept as evidence for evolution? What kind of features would it have?

Really you should be able to come up with at least 5 examples. Otherwise no wonder you don't see any evidence for evolution - because literally you will accept nothing presented as evidence.

And here's where most people expect me to say something like "I'll know it when I see it." That's because lots of people think proving/disproving evolution would (in)validate their faith. However, I'm not that petty. If evolution were true, I would simply think it another beautiful mechanism created by an omnipotent God. I just don't buy it because I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. Here's a few examples of what would lend evolution a bit more credibility to me.

- Early Cambrian/late Pre-Cambrian fossils showing transitional stages between sponges and anemones to the more complex, multi-organ systme animals that seem to have suddenly appeared at the dawn of the Cambrian era.

- Direct observation of an organism developing a new organ, organ system, or specialized cell that has never before been observed in that species, even if said organ, system, or cell is not beneficial (i.e. a dog with gills or a bird with sonar, to name a couple of extremes)

- The direct observation of the emergence of a new species which has DNA incompatible with the DNA of its 'parent' species. (i.e. if chiuahuas became so different from the rest of canus domesticus that they couldn't even artificially inciminate between them and other dogs)

- A series of fossils showing these small, slow steps between species rather than the huge leaps shown in existing fossils. (i.e. I mentioned the feathered dinosaur. If they found fossils between those and birds that slowly became less lizardlike and more birdlike rather than just a blank, multi-million year long gap between them and birds, I would rethink my world view)

- Fossils of creatures with unfavorable traits that no longer exist. Not all extinct creaures count. I want to see the fish with legs that just didn't hold up, or with fins that didn't move them very well. I'd like to see a cell with a non-working flagellum or maybe a turtle with a shell that inhibited movement too much to be beneficial. Something like this should be somewhere.

- Demonstration that every mutation (or at least most of them) leading to something irreducably complex (such as spots of light-sensitive cells) is independantly beneficial.

While I might not come over immediately, any of these things would help me rethink my position.

Ok, your turn. What evidence could I produce that would, in your mind, disprove evolution?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

And here's where most people expect me to say something like "I'll know it when I see it." That's because lots of people think proving/disproving evolution would (in)validate their faith. However, I'm not that petty. If evolution were true, I would simply think it another beautiful mechanism created by an omnipotent God. I just don't buy it because I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. Here's a few examples of what would lend evolution a bit more credibility to me.

- Early Cambrian/late Pre-Cambrian fossils showing transitional stages between sponges and anemones to the more complex, multi-organ systme animals that seem to have suddenly appeared at the dawn of the Cambrian era.

- Direct observation of an organism developing a new organ, organ system, or specialized cell that has never before been observed in that species, even if said organ, system, or cell is not beneficial (i.e. a dog with gills or a bird with sonar, to name a couple of extremes)

- The direct observation of the emergence of a new species which has DNA incompatible with the DNA of its 'parent' species. (i.e. if chiuahuas became so different from the rest of canus domesticus that they couldn't even artificially inciminate between them and other dogs)

- A series of fossils showing these small, slow steps between species rather than the huge leaps shown in existing fossils. (i.e. I mentioned the feathered dinosaur. If they found fossils between those and birds that slowly became less lizardlike and more birdlike rather than just a blank, multi-million year long gap between them and birds, I would rethink my world view)

- Fossils of creatures with unfavorable traits that no longer exist. Not all extinct creaures count. I want to see the fish with legs that just didn't hold up, or with fins that didn't move them very well. I'd like to see a cell with a non-working flagellum or maybe a turtle with a shell that inhibited movement too much to be beneficial. Something like this should be somewhere.

- Demonstration that every mutation (or at least most of them) leading to something irreducably complex (such as spots of light-sensitive cells) is independantly beneficial.

While I might not come over immediately, any of these things would help me rethink my position.

Ok, your turn. What evidence could I produce that would, in your mind, disprove evolution?

Others will undoubtedly answer your questions, but I have another one for you.

Why is there a double standard amongst creationists when it comes to science? There is infinitely more proof for the Theory of Evolution than there is for the Theory of Gravitation (after all we have observed one, we are still mystified as to what even causes the other). Why is evolution put under the magnifying glass beyond belief. Why do you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented to you, yet you acknowledge that Gravity exists on only the evidence that something appears to be acting?

Evolution has a well described cause and effect relationship in the science. If you would educate yourself on it, you might come to realize that. Gravity only has an observable effect. We have no idea what causes it or why. Yet when asked between the two, a creationist will vehemently deny one, and acknowledge the other one as science, even though the former has a significantly larger body of evidence for it. Why is this?

 

[Nuc]

Even so, once again it is not "evolution" in that something new is being created. It isn't a result of mutations over long periods of time as has been argued that how evolution happens. In fact those changes are happening in a very short time period. Changes in environment (Diet) is not the same as mutations over a long period of time. Are you telling me that the black person of today are a NEW species than black people of 40 years ago just because of differences in their traits? Absolutely rediculous. They are the same exact race, with compatible DNA of which male and female can reproduce.

If you Darwinians believe that evolution takes happens over a long period of time, there must be some point where the species DNA changed to the point where it became a new species via mutation. Yet if that ever happens, how is that one organism that mutated going to reproduce if it is an entirely NEW species?

Evolution doesn't necessarily have to result in a new species with every adaptation. The classic evolution study is of the moth in England which got darker in response to pollution during the industrial revolution. Or the Galapagos tortoises.

How do you think new species come about? Do you think supernatural beings sit around "designing" slightly different versions of the same animal?

 

[Hobbit]

Others will undoubtedly answer your questions, but I have another one for you.

Why is there a double standard amongst creationists when it comes to science? There is infinitely more proof for the Theory of Evolution than there is for the Theory of Gravitation (after all we have observed one, we are still mystified as to what even causes the other). Why is evolution put under the magnifying glass beyond belief. Why do you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented to you, yet you acknowledge that Gravity exists on only the evidence that something appears to be acting?

Evolution has a well described cause and effect relationship in the science. If you would educate yourself on it, you might come to realize that. Gravity only has an observable effect. We have no idea what causes it or why. Yet when asked between the two, a creationist will vehemently deny one, and acknowledge the other one as science, even though the former has a significantly larger body of evidence for it. Why is this?

My point is that you tell me there's just sooooooo muuuuuuuch evidence and if I'd just accept it, I'd believe evolution. The problem is that I have reviewed EVERY page of this thread. Nowhere is there any actual evidence, just allusion to it. If you have evidence, present it and we'll discuss. Until then, I'm not going to believe it's there just because you say it is. Do you think a man could be found not guilty if his entire defense was "There's lots of evidence that I'm not guilty," yet none of it was presented at trial? Habeus corpus, man. Show me the stuff.

Evolution doesn't necessarily have to result in a new species with every adaptation. The classic evolution study is of the moth in England which got darker in response to pollution during the industrial revolution. Or the Galapagos tortoises.

The peppered moth was a hoax. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, they rest on the underside of branches. Saying they adapted to blend in with the tree trunks is like claiming a snake adapted to blend in with clouds. The famous peppered moth picture was of two dead moths that had been glued to the tree.

http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_station/station_detail.php?PRKey=9
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/peppered_moth_evolution_kit

I've never heard of Galapagos tortoises being used to support evolution and Google turned up nothing. Could I have a link?

How do you think new species come about? Do you think supernatural beings sit around "designing" slightly different versions of the same animal?

If you could design your own life forms and watch them grow, wouldn't you? In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember a video game based on that concept. I think it would be fun.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

My point is that you tell me there's just sooooooo muuuuuuuch evidence and if I'd just accept it, I'd believe evolution. The problem is that I have reviewed EVERY page of this thread. Nowhere is there any actual evidence, just allusion to it. If you have evidence, present it and we'll discuss. Until then, I'm not going to believe it's there just because you say it is. Do you think a man could be found not guilty if his entire defense was "There's lots of evidence that I'm not guilty," yet none of it was presented at trial? Habeus corpus, man. Show me the stuff.

Go pick up any biology textbook, theres tons of evidence in there. Talkorigins.org has a plethora of articles confirming the evidence for evolution. Go find any peer reviewed journal, Nature, Science, etc., they all have papers regarding evolution in them. Its not my fault that you would fail a college biology class. But then again, its probably all a giant conspiracy right?

Let's just cut to the chase. Nothing we ever show you will satisfy your ridiculous standards for proof. How about this. You prove to us that a designer is responsible for life on Earth today. If you can do so, then I will concede that evolution is false.

 

[Hobbit]

Go pick up any biology textbook, theres tons of evidence in there. Talkorigins.org has a plethora of articles confirming the evidence for evolution. Go find any peer reviewed journal, Nature, Science, etc., they all have papers regarding evolution in them. Its not my fault that you would fail a college biology class. But then again, its probably all a giant conspiracy right?

Let's just cut to the chase. Nothing we ever show you will satisfy your ridiculous standards for proof. How about this. You prove to us that a designer is responsible for life on Earth today. If you can do so, then I will concede that evolution is false.

I took college biology and made an A. I read through the entire textbook. Just as was presented here, it's all conjectures. They state a lot of 'facts' but with no evidence to really back it up. The say dinosaurs turned into birds, but the only thing they have to support that is that one feathered dinosaur that went extinct millions of years before the first birds. I looked at talkorigins, too. Same thing there. Is it so hard for you to believe that I can look at the so-called evidence for evolution and still not believe it? Actual, factual, confirmed evidence that even suggests evolution doesn't amount to a pile of beans and people are so desperate to prove it that such things result in the Piltdown man, the peppered moth hoax, and that drawing of primitive man based solely on a fossilized tooth that later turned out to be from a pig.

Now, I may not be able to prove to you that there's a designer, but I at least admit that it's a theory instead of being an unimpeachable fact. I challenge that nothing I say can possibly disple evolution for you.

I ask you again, what would it take to prove to you that evolution was false? I also want you to prove to me that there's no designer.

 

[Harmageddon]

As the debate continues, and additional members provide questions and answers alike, I will not attempt to solve all of them. There are simply more questions than answers. However, I will try and weed out the details and get to the core of the subject at hand:

Is Intelligent Design/Creationism a better or worse explanation
for the diversity of life than the theory of Evolution?​

This is a very wide question, that I would like to break down into parts.

First, both Intelligent Design and Evolution are at present beliefs. Beliefs are limited to subjects that we do not know the answers to. When we do, they seize to be beliefs, and become (common) knowledge. Hence, beliefs are subjects of discussion – since they can be challenged. However, evolution is also a subject of science, contrary to Intelligent Design.

This is because science works to unravel the mysteries of life by examination and experiments that need to be verified for them to be accepted as a workable theory in the first place. There is no such place for Intelligent Design in science, since GOD (or Allah or other names for a creator) cannot be subject to verifiable experiments. GOD is simply unfathomable.

Now, I’d like to try and identify the key principle that mystifies most evolution sceptics.
SELECTION
Selection might seem like a force that has a purpose – yet in biology it is recognized as not having any purpose whatsoever. That is I think the most difficult part to understand. Why would random selection favour increasing complexity instead of decreasing complexity? Why would there not be equal numbers of simpler forms that possess just the right amount of DNA to do whatever is required? I mean, why drag a large pile of useless DNA with you that needs to be copied along with the useful DNA all the time? It takes up way more energy, so in a sense increasing complexity is not increasing efficiency. And more efficiency is what seems to be required – it gives you a selective advantage over those that spend more energy to obtain the same goals. *

This apparent contradiction is just that: apparent.

The idea is that sexual selection became one of the largest drives for selection to act upon, when sex arrived on the scene (because before that, there were only asexual beings like bacteria that could just copy themselves). Asexual reproduction is more beneficial to a successful member of a certain species, because it gives its entire DNA to the offspring, which will be equally successful. However, asexual reproduction is dangerous for the species at hand, when selective pressure suddenly changes. Sex makes that the traits of both parents are mixed in the offspring – in random fashion. This is thought to be advantageous for the offspring for a number of reasons, but most importantly: increased adaptation.

Let’s take a bacterium that lives in the sea and reproduces asexually. It is good at what it is doing; growing to large numbers and all seems fine. But this bacterium has over generations eventually weeded out sections of useless DNA to increase its efficiency (again, random: weeding out useful sections of DNA happens but kills the creature). It now copies itself faster, thus it is doing swell compared to its fellow members of the same species.

If after many a year, the challenges of the environment suddenly change (warmer climate) this hypothetical bacterium cannot cope with the new challenges anymore – it has weeded out those sections of DNA that might come in useful for these new challenges. Thus, it is very likely to go extinct. With luck, another bacterium of the same species lives someplace further up the ocean in warmer waters, and may recolonize the now empty space of water, because its DNA is geared for warmer waters. However, it starts from scratch again.

Sexual selection and thus random mixing of two strands of DNA, with one parent good at surviving extreme heat, whereas the other may be good at surviving extreme cold, will give these two traits to some of their offspring. Some offspring will gain both traits, some will gain none, others only one of these traits. When the climate then changes, several offspring will be able to cope with it, and the species continues – and not from scratch, but with DNA that may now cope with the previous climate as well as the present one.

In short, by carrying large amounts of currently useless DNA (that may have served a purpose in your ancestor’s lives) sexual selection provides a built in safety that prevents a possible total annihilation of the species in question.

Science is just beginning to unravel the genetics behind evolution:

We now know for a fact that DNA replicates and gives rise to proteins. We know now that the DNA transcriptional/translational machinery is far from perfect. We know that protein misfolding is the basis for most neurodegenerative disease, and that cancer is the result of uncontrolled DNA replication. We know that most life contains DNA, and that bacterial DNA is fundamentally different from eukaryotic DNA in that bacteria have DNA floating around in their cellbody, and that eukaryotic cells possess a nucleus (core compartment) that contains the DNA.
Other differences are that eukaryotic cells have a different DNA translational/transcriptional mechanisms, and they possess organelles ("cellular organs" besides the core). For example, mitochondria (batteries), Golgi apparatus and ER (distribution centres) and even complex outer structures such as a flagellum (whiplike tail).
[cells with "organs"]
There you have the first real milestone in evolution (besides speciation among bacteria): cells with "organs". This milestone took evolution 2 billion years to accomplish - 2/3 of the total time of the existence of LIFE on earth (which is thought to have originated ~ 3 billion years ago.
From a single cell with "organs" template, multicellular organisms evolved.
Humans are also eukaryotes (= we are made of cells with cores).

We know that some life contains no DNA and only RNA (for example retroviruses, such as HIV). They seem to have “devolved” from DNA viruses, although science is not sure as to the origins of their existence. Besides, it may be they are just more efficient since RNA is single stranded, and the replicating mechanism should be that of the host anyway.

I am omitting the details here, but the point of all this is that everything about DNA replication generally fits with Darwin’s theory – and Darwin did not know about the existence of DNA. Mutations in DNA are real and they are the source of Darwin’s proposed evolution. Science does not just accept Darwin’s theory because it sounds fancy, but because it can be subjected to new discoveries (such as DNA). And as the core structure of Darwin's idea – mutation, selection, evolution – remains firmly standing amidst the onslaught of new scientific data at the present pace, scientists tend to start to accept it as factoid theory - although it is still "just a theory" at present.

It is used in fact by scientists around the world to study the influenza virus H5N1, or bird-flu, that is now roaming the earth. As a virus, it has a very fast replication and thus a very fast mutation rate. If it cross-mutates with a human influenza virus, it may become very deadly, as happened with the Spanish flu (that mainly killed young, healthy individuals, because their immune-system was working in highest gear – in a sense, they killed themselves).

How intelligent is that? In my opinion, it cannot be described by the term “intelligent” but just utterly random. Even if there is intelligence behind it, it seems malevolent in nature. This brings us to the next subject: INTELLIGENT or RANDOM+SELECTION

Which is a later post. As a final remark, I would like to give thumbs up to supporters on both sides of the issue to the fairly high standards of both wit and curteousy in this discussion so far.

* Viruses have found a very interesting place in evolution: they are the most efficienct of all life. Viruses have by random mutations dumped as much DNA as possible without perishing. Selection drove this process to near perfection. They now possess just the right amount of DNA or RNA to infect more complex organisms in which they insert their own, viral DNA and thus make the host do the copying for them.
The battle between host defence mechanisms (our immune-system, which adapts itself to viral infections) and virusal attack modes, is at present in their favour. Science seeks to understand them and to learn about evolution and genetics in order to be able to prevent another Spanish flu like epidemic.