Why the Theory of Evolution is not only the right answer, why it is a critical answer

[bayoubill]

Why the Theory of Evolution is not only the right answer, why it is a critical answer

stuff happened to get us to where we are today...

some folks think it look only 'bout 6000 years... 'n God was in charge...

other folks think it took 'bout 4.5 billion years... 'n mebbe God was in charge... 'n mebbe he/she/it wasn't...

myself, I don't give a flying fuck 'bout how long it took to get here... I'm just glad to be here... and am thankful to whatever force is responsible for making it happen...

 

[ScienceRocks]

The earth is very old. Can we all agree with this???

 

[flacaltenn]

The earth is very old. Can we all agree with this???

I almost could -- if you weren't so vague !!!

 

[flacaltenn]

It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...

No sir, that isn't how science works. Name a major scientific theory developed over the last 100 years that has been completely discarded. You can't, because modern scientific theories are expanded upon, not discarded. Once they get past the hypothesis stage and become a full fledged theory, that's where they stay. Very few are ever refuted. I hate to break it to you, oh dufus one, but Darwin's theory, with modifications and improvements via new discoveries, is alive and well.

Ummmm, actually it is. They're called "superceded scientific theories" and a modern example (of many) would be Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi's Steady State Theory (circa 1950) of cosmology.

As to Darwin, first it was Darwinian evolution, then it was Neo Darwin and now it is Evo -Devo, so no, Darwin is referenced for tradition, but evolutionary theory has gone way, way beyond Darwin.

I am constantly astounded by how little you actually know about science. Seeing's how you're a PhD geologist and all that

Figured out what percentage more population India has yet?

There are certain sciences that are MUCH WEAKER than others as well.
As a novice -- I know that Psychiatry has DOZENS of theories that were not only wrong -- but GROSSLY wrong..

Darwinian evolution was very useful -- and actually "lucky" considering the level of knowledge that was available at the time..

 

[abu afak]

Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.

It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...

That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.

What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.

That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.

Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`

 

[westwall]

No sir, that isn't how science works. Name a major scientific theory developed over the last 100 years that has been completely discarded. You can't, because modern scientific theories are expanded upon, not discarded. Once they get past the hypothesis stage and become a full fledged theory, that's where they stay. Very few are ever refuted. I hate to break it to you, oh dufus one, but Darwin's theory, with modifications and improvements via new discoveries, is alive and well.

Ummmm, actually it is. They're called "superceded scientific theories" and a modern example (of many) would be Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi's Steady State Theory (circa 1950) of cosmology.

As to Darwin, first it was Darwinian evolution, then it was Neo Darwin and now it is Evo -Devo, so no, Darwin is referenced for tradition, but evolutionary theory has gone way, way beyond Darwin.

I am constantly astounded by how little you actually know about science. Seeing's how you're a PhD geologist and all that

Figured out what percentage more population India has yet?

There are certain sciences that are MUCH WEAKER than others as well.
As a novice -- I know that Psychiatry has DOZENS of theories that were not only wrong -- but GROSSLY wrong..

Darwinian evolution was very useful -- and actually "lucky" considering the level of knowledge that was available at the time..

Or how about psychology? My wife is an I.O. psychologist and she will point out ridiculous studies that are STILL being referenced in new work. She is also particularly scathing in her reviews of sociology.

As she says, "these people don't know how to do decent research, hell they don't know how to do just plain bad research, they're just truly awful!"

 

[westwall]

Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.

It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...

That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.

What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.

That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.

Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`

I suggest you do some research on the subject then. For the record I am a liberal democrat, agnostic, and a PhD geologist. A real one, not like the faux geologist orogenicman. Funny how you laud Darwin yet ignore Wallace who did more research into the process than Darwin.

You are young I feel, very young. You remind me of teenagers I've dealt with.

 

[abu afak]

It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...

That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.

What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.

That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.

Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`

I suggest you do some research on the subject then. For the record I am a liberal democrat, agnostic, and a PhD geologist. A real one, not like the faux geologist orogenicman. Funny how you laud Darwin yet ignore Wallace who did more research into the process than Darwin.

You are young I feel, very young. You remind me of teenagers I've dealt with.

That's No answer Clown.
This board is here to post/debate/discuss evidence, not EMPTILY attempt to pull rank.
You lose.
(and I am not young, but older/smarter/wiser/more succesful than you goofy)

And I might add that similarly.... you two "whoring" (high-fiving with demeaning empty gossip about Darwin) with no meat on the bone is a Discredit to USMB.
Put some meat up and take your dump some place else.

(I feel another flacalteen tech link-dump/Reference/name-drop coming. It won't make Darwin Obsolete either, but it will try to seem like it does. Every time)
`

 

[flacaltenn]

Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.

It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...

That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.

What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.

That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.

Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`

Am I banished from my favorite forums? This is where I've ALWAYS lived on USMB. I didn't end up on this thread to troll.. You make the general mistake that my remarks have ANYTHING to do with religious views. This deep vendetta of yours is not my problem.

Darwin was "lucky". Because to have a theory -- you have to propose a methodology and mechanism for the observation you are making. And "survival and competition" was an adequate start to the methodology. But the vague knowledge of genetics and mutations at that time could say very little about frequencies or types of mutations or the environmental causes of them. So address the issue. Do we now know that the tree of life always grows towards DENSER DNA? Meaning more "complex" life forms? How does the fossil record assess whether a species was carrying genetic POTENTIAL to be a precursor to another?

The major fact that Darwin missed was that MUTATION is not always immediately EXPRESSED.. It may lie dormant for Eons until some enviro trigger activates it. And the tree is subject to review because of what we've learned since Darwin.. In fact -- MOST of the genome is still unknown stuff. So if competition and survival was the only determination -- everything on the planet would have huge teeth and stealth. The real competition is more likely to be DNA flexibility and the POTENTIAL to adapt -- rather than physical features.

 

[abu afak]

It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.

You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...

That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.

What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.

That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.

Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`

Am I banished from my favorite forums? This is where I've ALWAYS lived on USMB. I didn't end up on this thread to troll.. You make the general mistake that my remarks have ANYTHING to do with religious views. This deep vendetta of yours is not my problem.

No, not banished, you're more clever than most.
Just playing a transparent game. (apparent only to someone At least As clever)

Darwin was "lucky". Because to have a theory -- you have to propose a methodology and mechanism for the observation you are making. And "survival and competition" was an adequate start to the methodology. But the vague knowledge of genetics and mutations at that time could say very little about frequencies or types of mutations or the environmental causes of them. So address the issue. Do we now know that the tree of life always grows towards DENSER DNA? Meaning more "complex" life forms? How does the fossil record assess whether a species was carrying genetic POTENTIAL to be a precursor to another?

More mechanism. see the bottom of this post for Gould explaining that was Never Claimed By Darwin.

The major fact that Darwin missed was that MUTATION is not always immediately EXPRESSED.. It may lie dormant for Eons until some enviro trigger activates it. And the tree is subject to review because of what we've learned since Darwin.. In fact -- MOST of the genome is still unknown stuff. So if competition and survival was the only determination -- everything on the planet would have huge teeth and stealth. The real competition is more likely to be DNA flexibility and the POTENTIAL to adapt -- rather than physical features.

That's NOT Major, it's just more Mechanism.

And since you say you haunt this section I'm Sure you've seen this but Always Ducked it anyway. It was in an LONG Running OP
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...n-jay-gould-evolution-as-fact-and-theory.html
and then posted probably another dozen dimes partially in it and elsewhere. It could not have been missed but it wasn't addressed by YOU nor Westfail:

"....Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very Beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the Mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.
He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."..."

Gould, of course, the co-creator of Punctuated equilibrium (another tweak) and/but [STILL] a Darwinist.
`

 

[flacaltenn]

Abu_Afak:

You're quote above from Darwin only highlights how important science methods and principles were to Darwin.. Too bad we're not seeing that kind of humility in his present day worshippers (and too many current scientists for that matter) .. If you're all jazzed because you've thwarted the religious view of Creation with Darwinism -- Congrats. He agrees his work does that. You're done.

Personally, I want better answers and tools. So I've decided NOT to ignore the 150 years of science SINCE Darwin.. He wouldn't ignore it either..

 

[emilynghiem]

Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.

Science is not about proofs. It is about empirical evidence. The evidence in support of the theory of evolution is leading us towards more and more medical advancements, particularly in the field of disease prevention and cures to disease and genetic disorders. This is not merely an opinion. It is a demonstrable scientific fact.

Evolution and Creation are both going to depend on some faith.
Even if you were to document or film a single species over time
evolving into something more than just a side mutation.
People will still argue over one case vs. another not proving the whole process.

We weren't back in the days of first life created
so that will always depend on interpreting data evidence or explanation from something OTHER than our first hand witnessed perception and experience and memory.

Thus it will always be faith-based.

If we don't agree, it is because of other reasons
besides what evidence or facts we are considering. We are
not interpreting the data within the same context of our worldviews.

If that framework of reality does not align, no amount of data or arguing is going to change that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Cures for disease. For instance:

Giant leaps of evolution make cancer cells deadly - health - 23 January 2014 - New Scientist

Tumour cells take big genetic jumps called macromutations to become invasive "hopeful monsters". Treatment to block that evolution could be the next step

More at the link.

I re-read the OP to see what started this particular feud.. I couldn't agree more.. Except that Oroman should change his tagline to read --- "CREATIONISTS LOOK --- DNA"

These jumps are likely to be the reason why we've wasted so much time looking for transitional species and "missing links".. In the big timeline of evolution, there wouldn't be much discoverable evidence for periods of MASS macromutation. Especially since, it could be milleniums until these mutations manifest in physical traits.

So we face an interesting philosophical question.. Do periods of intense cosmic radiation or enviro stress from chemical and physical agents count as "acts of God"?? My insurance company might demand that they be classified as such.

 

[abu afak]

That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.

What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.

That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.

Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`

Am I banished from my favorite forums? This is where I've ALWAYS lived on USMB. I didn't end up on this thread to troll.. You make the general mistake that my remarks have ANYTHING to do with religious views. This deep vendetta of yours is not my problem.

No, not banished, you're more clever than most.
Just playing a transparent game. (apparent only to someone At least As clever)

More mechanism. see the bottom of this post for Gould explaining that was Never Claimed By Darwin.

The major fact that Darwin missed was that MUTATION is not always immediately EXPRESSED.. It may lie dormant for Eons until some enviro trigger activates it. And the tree is subject to review because of what we've learned since Darwin.. In fact -- MOST of the genome is still unknown stuff. So if competition and survival was the only determination -- everything on the planet would have huge teeth and stealth. The real competition is more likely to be DNA flexibility and the POTENTIAL to adapt -- rather than physical features.

That's NOT Major, it's just more Mechanism.

And since you say you haunt this section I'm Sure you've seen this but Always Ducked it anyway. It was in an LONG Running OP
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...n-jay-gould-evolution-as-fact-and-theory.html
and then posted probably another dozen dimes partially in it and elsewhere. It could not have been missed but it wasn't addressed by YOU nor Westfail:

"....Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very Beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the Mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.

He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."..."

Gould, of course, the co-creator of Punctuated equilibrium (another tweak) and/but [STILL] a Darwinist.
`

Abu_Afak:

You're quote above from Darwin only highlights how important science methods and principles were to Darwin.. Too bad we're not seeing that kind of humility in his present day worshippers (and too many current scientists for that matter) .. If you're all jazzed because you've thwarted the religious view of Creation with Darwinism -- Congrats. He agrees his work does that. You're done.

Personally, I want better answers and tools. So I've decided NOT to ignore the 150 years of science SINCE Darwin.. He wouldn't ignore it either..

No one would of course Ignore 150 Years of science Since Darwin,
But I have ended your and wetwall's Charade attempting Discredit/Diminish him/His Fact and theory.

It is NOT Obsolete, everything else/ALL the crap we've seen for months from 'Irradiated Fruit Flies' to your post just before you just grudgingly caved, is/Are BS. All the attempts to Diminish Darwin are spurious. My excerpt above shows he was not only brilliant in the Fact of evolution, but Prescient that future developments/mechanisms would come.
NONE of which contradict him or make His evolution outmoded.
All the nonsense/Baffle-em-with BS mechanisms you've posted NO more makes him obsolete that SJ Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium: And Gould remained a Darwinist.
Ouch! That WAS the killer/final nail.

You obviously get your jollies and some popularity from the Red State Numb-Nuts in Dissing Darwin, but now we all see -- when we don't have to deal with Trolls like S.J. or LTC or PC -- who/what prevails in a debate: Darwin's Evolution: Fact and Theory.
and again...
Your attacks (mechanisms) were just a bit better than PoliticalChic's attempt to "refute" Darwin with Gould's P-E TWEAK/MECHANISM even though Gould was a Darwin fan and knew it did No such thing.
Did you ever intervene in PC's Regular outrageous Lie Strings to correct her? Or have you Instead criticized those who have it right/basically right?
What kind of Sick Political game is that?

Now you are left with 'yeah, well, (swallow) Darwin wouldn't ignore the next 150 years'. No kidding. But he is Not Obsolete.
Game Over.
`

 

[GISMYS]

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

As scientists explore a new universe—the universe inside the cell—they are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution - Good News Magazine | United Church of God

 

[GISMYS]

Amazing revelations about DNA
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).

It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334).

Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

 

[flacaltenn]

No one would of course Ignore 150 Years of science Since Darwin,
But I have ended your and wetwall's Charade attempting Discredit/Diminish him/His Fact and theory.

It is NOT Obsolete, everything else/ALL the crap we've seen for months from 'Irradiated Fruit Flies' to your post just before you just grudgingly caved, is/Are BS. All the attempts to Diminish Darwin are spurious. MY excerpt above shows he was not only brilliant in the Fact of evolution, but Prescient that future developments would come.
NONE of which contradict him.
All the nonsense/Baffle-em-with BS mechanisms you've posted NO more makes him obsolete that SJ Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium: And Gould remained a Darwinist.

You obviously get your jollies and some popularity from the Red State Numb-Nuts in Dissing Darwin, but now we all see -- when we don't have to deal with Trolls like S.J. or LTC or PC -- who/what prevails in a debate: Darwin's Evolution: Fact and Theory.
and again...
Your attacks (mechanisms) were just a bit better than PoliticalChic's attempt to "refute" Darwin with Gould's P-E TWEAK/MECHANISM even though Gould was a Darwin fan and knew it did No such thing.

Now you are left with 'yeah, well, (swallow) Darwin would ignore the next 150 years'.. No kidding. But he is Not Obsolete.
Game Over.

Lots of claims of victory there bud -- but it's buried in contradictions and errors..
You start off by claiming that "No one would of course Ignore 150 Years of science Since Darwin," and immediately go on to call new revelations of science since Darwin -- "BS".

And then after I PRAISED Darwin for his attention to scientific rigor and humility you alter my words to "Now you are left with 'yeah, well, (swallow) Darwin would ignore the next 150 years'" --- which is the OPPOSITE of what I said..

Really not interested in your personal jihad against Red States, or other posters, or people of faith.. Not even interested in your extreme sensitivities to the history of evolution theory. I just find your motivations to be funny actually. The need to win a political debate by clinging to 150 yr old science. I'm might just be inspired to waste my time defending Michaelangelo against patent infringements !!!

We're here for different reasons I 'spose. But MOST of these "Darwin" threads are about politics and religion, and I don't learn anything from them.. And neither do you apparently.

 

[flacaltenn]

Amazing revelations about DNA
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).

It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334).

Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

Yes.. But as Emily said a few posts ago.. It takes a bit of faith to accept that scientific assertion.. Every detail of our existence is a strange and rare event in the history of the universe. The more you understand the vastly overwhelming ALTERNATE outcomes, the more faith it requires.

 

[westwall]

That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.

What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.

That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.

Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`

I suggest you do some research on the subject then. For the record I am a liberal democrat, agnostic, and a PhD geologist. A real one, not like the faux geologist orogenicman. Funny how you laud Darwin yet ignore Wallace who did more research into the process than Darwin.

You are young I feel, very young. You remind me of teenagers I've dealt with.

That's No answer Clown.
This board is here to post/debate/discuss evidence, not EMPTILY attempt to pull rank.
You lose.
(and I am not young, but older/smarter/wiser/more succesful than you goofy)

And I might add that similarly.... you two "whoring" (high-fiving with demeaning empty gossip about Darwin) with no meat on the bone is a Discredit to USMB.
Put some meat up and take your dump some place else.

(I feel another flacalteen tech link-dump/Reference/name-drop coming. It won't make Darwin Obsolete either, but it will try to seem like it does. Every time)
`

Now you're beginning to sound like that silly person, trolling blunder. Whatever, you're a pretty weak poster so I hope you further your education.

 

[westwall]

Abu_Afak:

You're quote above from Darwin only highlights how important science methods and principles were to Darwin.. Too bad we're not seeing that kind of humility in his present day worshippers (and too many current scientists for that matter) .. If you're all jazzed because you've thwarted the religious view of Creation with Darwinism -- Congrats. He agrees his work does that. You're done.

Personally, I want better answers and tools. So I've decided NOT to ignore the 150 years of science SINCE Darwin.. He wouldn't ignore it either..

That is a constant problem with these "factual posturers", as my wife calls them...they can't imagine that science has progressed beyond their very narrow area. Talk about religious dogma!