Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

Actually, what makes it easiest to ignore the existence of God is the fact that God doesn't exist. Ok, sure. I'd be a lot easier for science-minded folks to accept that God existed if he actually, in fact, existed.But that's not the universe we live in, as far as any reasonable person can tell. No, what "blots out" God's existence is the utter lack of proof that he exists. It really is that simple.

Really? Is that why you advanced an argument that essentially boils down to "assume I'm right. See? I'm right!"Look, I tried to get away with that in 7th grade math class. It didn't work then. Why do you think it would work now?Yes, if the creation account was true, scientists would believe it, and it would be the conclusion of mainstream science. But it's not true, which is why it isn't supported by mainstream science, and why science-minded folks don't believe it.

Most evolutionists would, I think, accept a definition that said something like "the development of Earth's species, past and present, is best explained by a theory that posits that natural selection and random mutation cause changes in allele frequencies in gene pools."The really important concept is that what you refer to as "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are really the same thing; a change in allele frequencies in a gene pool. Macro and micro-evolution are simply how you've decided to refer to different amounts of change.

That can't be true, though.For something to be "caused", there must be "before" - causes must preceed effects, yes?But there's no "before" before time, by definition. Therefore spacetime cannot be said to be caused, because there's no point in time avaliable for the cause to occur.Yet, we know that spacetime exists, and is does not extend infinitely into the past, so we can conclude that spacetime must be uncaused.

Er, nice post, but somehow you totally missed my point. Yeah, see, I agreed that the universe had a beginning, remember?But there's no way that that beginning can have a cause, because that beginning is the beginning of time, and since cause must preceed effect, but since there's no "before" before time, there's no way we can say that the beginning of time has a cause.Causality is local to spacetime, not above it. Spacetime cannot be caused because there's no time before time for the cause to have existed in.

The problem here is that there's, like, hundreds of different religions with different afterlives, as well as different criteria for admission.So even if your analogy is valid, you don't even accept it - if it was just a matter of hedging one's bets against the afterlife, you'd be an adherent of all religions instead of just the one you adhere to now.So clearly there's something wrong with your analogy if it isn't even enough to convince yourself.

You mean, you're an adherent of all religions?You must have a busy weekend. Friday at the mosque, Saturday at the temple, at least three churches on Sunday (where you find an Eastern Orthodox church around here, I'd like to know), and then B'hai, Shinto, and Buddism all the rest of the week.

At most, yes. Don't forget the possibility that no religion is right, though. In fact, given the finite number of religions currently, but the potentially infinite number of configurations of the supernatural, the odds that any particular religion is right is pretty close to zero. Ok, but I'm here at this board because plenty of folks on your side won't "let it be"; they won't rest until everybody believes exactly like they do, and they're willing to sacrifice the education of the nation's children to that goal.What you want to believe is fine. But if you were willing to "let it be", then why did you bring up Pascal's Wager in the first place, which is the classic example of someone saying "your beliefs are dumber than mine, and so you should think like me"?Don't come in here and tell us to "let it be" after you've tried to make atheists look like fools.

That we should be made to look like monkeys? Why would I believe that? It's not a belief, though. It's a conclusion from the evidence, a conclusion of science. Why? What on Earth gives you the right to dictate the conclusions of science? Your belief doesn't change what is, and evolution represents the most accurate model of the history of life on Earth.You may disagree, but so long as the point of schooling is to teach children about the world, evolution will be presented, because it's an accurate model of the world.If you want that to end, you need to find a better model than evolution. Replacing accurate models with inaccurate ones is not something that should be allowed in schools. Well, you sent your kids to school to learn about the world, didn't you? Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose what is true about the world. That truth includes, as far as we know, evolution. Maybe you don't like it, but that's tought shit. The world is the way it is, and that way includes evolution.If you want to teach lies to your kids, that's fine. But they won't be taught in school. If your beliefs are wrong then you have no right to expect science not to contradict them. If you can't figure out how both your beliefs and evolution can be accurate, that's your problem, not the problem of science education.It really is that simple. So long as your children and mine are in the public schools, we're going to teach them that science that is most accurate, because that's the purpose of school.You don't get to pick what's true about the world, though. The world is. Evolution is a part of that, and we're going to teach it to kids because it's an accurate, scientific model.

Why beat around the bush? Not liking evolution isn't going to make it not be an accurate model of the history of life on Earth.The universe is under no obligation to operate to your liking, or to mine.

Actually, it's proved by mathematics. Given a truly random number (or letter) generator (or a source of infinite random digits, such as the decimal expansion of pi), all finite strings will eventually be generated, given sufficient time.It's called a "random walk." It's inescapable. It's mathematically proven that the monkeys generate the works of Shakespeare, the books in the British Library, and literally every possible finite combination of letters, given sufficient time.So, no. The argument doesn't fall apart if you apply logic; it is proved by logic.

You've either missed my point, or chosen to ignore it entirely.For the best, I suppose.. your posts continue to have no bearing on the thread's topic.Why don't you open new threads for some of this stuff?

Wait, what?If the Theory of General Relativity is so simple, RR, maybe you could summarize it here? Be sure to show your work. You have 100 words.At one time, it was believed that maybe three people in the world truly understood Einstein's theory, and he was one of them. No one, particularly those accursed with the need to study it, would describe Relativity as "simple". Riverrat, individuals don't evolve. Individuals have no "transforming state."Populations evolve, and plenty of populations have been found in a "transforming state." You need to study the Theory of Evolution before you make idiotic pronouncements about what would and would not "prove" it. If they were, they all would have done it. Instead, only a small fraction of bacteria survived.That's evidence of evolution and not design. Since there's no limit to genetic change over time? Yes, it means that.

You did: For which the current, most accurate model is the Theory of General Relativity. Ergo, when you say "light and gravity", you're talking about relativity, which you said was "simple."So explain it. If relativity, which is the model of light and gravity, is so simple, you should have no trouble writing up the theory in 100 words. At the species level, perhaps. At higher taxa, the fossil record is very complete. I wouldn't describe that as "huge" gaps, but then, it depends what scale you're talking about. They would have had to be identical if evolution was not true; since all the bacteria in the experiment decended from a common ancestor, we know they must be clones (because bacteria don't have sex.)The only differences between individual bacteria can only be mutations. Which is evolution. What limit? Because time never goes backwards, and genomes have no memory. There's no "reverse" to go to. Define "same."Nothing remains in the "same" state for millions of years. Even in situations of no selective pressure, genetic drift causes change. Populations do not stay identical over time, they change.They may remain similar, but that's not "same".

I didn't make an analogy, though. Yes, I do know. I did, after all, read your statements.You made it very plain that you were referring to General Relativity, the accepted explanation of light and gravity. You don't accept the theory because we haven't found evidence that we're telling you we're not likely to find?The absence of these fossils is not significant. It's improper for you to attach falsifiying significance to something we don't expect to find. If evolution is not true, it must be. If mutation cannot happen, all decendants of that bacteria must be 100% clones. If they don't clone 100% accurate, evolution is true. Those inaccuracies are called "mutations." Since they weren't, of course I can't.You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that the only way those bacteria weren't all perfect clones of each other is if evolution is true.Since the bacteria had different capabilities, that proves they were not clones. Since they were not clones, evolution is true. It must be, and it is. Mutation is genetic novelty and represents a change in allele frequencies. Therefore, it is evolution. They don't. The vast, vast majority of life on earth is very simple. It's not even eukaryotic, for the most part.The complex animals you're thinking of represent statistical outliers and are not representative of any sort of trend in evolution. Yes.