[HillOBeans]

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the conclusion that evolution works?! Simply put, the scientific process is supposed to be: observe -> hypothesize -> test -> revise. If life is supposed to have arisen by purely natural processes, then the information-building, error-checking and correcting code system that is our DNA must have somehow constructed itself. I am not aware of any experiments following the scientific process that have demonstrated that such a thing is even remotely possible. Instead you have a bunch of "just so" stories about the distant past that are untestable ancient history that we are supposed to believe because we are told to do so by "people who are smarter than you". Smacks more of religion than "science" to me. And don't tell me about any experiments that demonstrate rapid speciation as evidence of evolution - that is NOT the same thing and is an equivocation I see proponents of evolution use all the time. They are instead examples of genetic isolation and information LOSS and are incapable of generating more complex, "higher" organisms. It is for this reason that some scientists have adopted the idea of intelligent design: information can only be created by an intelligent designer. I would expect a forum populated by people who write code to see that. I think that the idea of even a simple computer being able to construct AND program itself would be preposterous to most people here. And yet that is what the GTE proposes. Perhaps that points too much in the direction of a god for some people to accept, but the evidence seems to be clearly on the side of ID, IF you are truly following a "scientific" process.

[harshreality]

Indirect evidence, at least beyond the step of abiogensis, is overwhelming. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There are probably no documented examples of macroevolution that would satisfy you because what you're looking for are systemic functional changes in non-microscopic species, in the wild, which then forms a stable population as a separate species. Such changes are the accumulation of minor changes (which have been observed), but are not observable in aggregate in modern times because there has not been enough time to observe them. And if such examples were given, you'd say that's just a variation of an existing species. The perspective required to judge a separate species in your view is longer than the time phylogeny has been rigorously undertaken by scientists. You are asking for the impossible and using that to declare a theory you don't like as invalid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

The GTE as you call it is not a finished theory. There have been significant changes in the past few decades (Lynn Margulis's work on endosymbiosis, for example), and there will be more changes in the future.

Intelligent Design is not based on evidence. It is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a quasi-theory-of-the-gaps based on the assumption that the progress of evolution is too small and too slow to have resulted in humans. It ignores the mountains of indirect evidence pointing to macroevolution. ID rejects the theory of evolution on the grounds that there is too little direct evidence, or that the probability (not that anyone can calculate it properly, but Creationists pretend they can) of evolution is too low, and posits an alternate "theory" of a designer, for which there is no evidence, nothing that allows calculating a probability of such a designer, and which completely ignores where the designer came from, typically by punting and declaring the designer God, and stating that God exists inherently, which is riddled with assumptions, and regardless of whether it's true says nothing about the nature of that God or what it might want or do.

[pbhjpbhj]

>Such changes are the accumulation of minor changes (which have been observed), but are not observable in aggregate in modern times because there has not been enough time to observe them. //

Is that really true? Drosophila are used for genetic studies with a [shortest] breeding cycle of 7 days and have several ways to introduce mutations that would mimic natural mutagenic mechanisms [but accelerated] as well as being able to apply a lab version of selective pressure [which again would seem to be accelerated].

So far as I can tell we've been doing evolution experiments on drosophila since 1910 or earlier; but lets say a conservative 60 years. That's a potential 3000 generations. What's the least related variant?

For comparison the youngest Neanderthal ancestor is dated as 45000 years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morpho...) which puts it within this order of generations.

Macro-evolution isn't rigorous. For example we've long been told it's incontrovertible that 'humans developed from a common ancestor with [knuckle-walking] modern chimps', that this should be believed as a facile result of evolutionary theory and holding out on that assertion is unscientific - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morpho... is an example. Then some evidence is actually found http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091001/full/news.2009.966.ht... that disproves the assertion that was supposed to be based on sound scientific theory and evidence. But of course the theory stand unfalsified because it didn't demonstrate the result claimed at all, it was bad science in the first place.

But 'dogs definitely evolved from modern wolves though!' ... http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0117/Did-dogs-really-e....

But at least we have evidence of speciation and evolution of dinosaur features:

>"the diversity of dome shapes, and their association with boss and spike ornamentation, suggests that the domes were important for spe- cies recognition (Goodwin and Horner 2004)."

... and the following year everyone agrees that in fact that Dracorex, Stygimoloch and Pachycephalosaurus are just different aged version of the same animal (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091031002314.ht...). And there were similar results for other "species" of dinosaur.

I like this http://www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com/news/editorial/t-rex-gro... as an example of the type of thinking going on. The professor writing it is clearly holding on to the concept that you can give valid incite in to speciation and evolution based on the visual appearance of very limited fossilised remains despite the point of the article being that doing this in the past failed completely in producing truthful results.

It's seems pretty clear relying on "indirect evidence" isn't producing valid results in these cases.

On to your last para. There are enough holes in most Creationists viewpoints not to need to lie about the problems. You say creationism "completely ignores where the designer came from" but it's uncontroversial Christian theology [in common with the other Abrahamic religions] that God is eternal. 'Well who created God?' is the usual response. That, perhaps ironically, exactly mirrors one objection to the Big-Bang - the need for a prime mover. If the Big-Bang doesn't need a prime mover why does God, and vice-versa?

[HillOBeans]

The changes you refer to are examples of the equivocation I was speaking of. One cannot simply point to "changes" in an organism, micro- or not, call that evolution, and then say it must be true. And just because there are similarities evident in different types of organisms, it does not necessarily follow that they are of common descent. If they were designed by the same designer, would you not expect to find some features in common? But this does not mean there is a natural mechanism to turn molecules into a genetic code that can in turn be read by a a decoding system (after all, what good is a code without the decoder?) which can then construct an organism. Even the simplest of organisms must have intricate, complex machinery inside for it to exist. I know of no method whereby this machinery can come into existence without intelligent direction. And even this simplest of organisms has no means of improving upon itself to create a "higher" organism. You say that the accumulation of minor changes (via mutations, perhaps?) is the mechanism whereby evolution works. I posit to you that such changes are examples of broken genetics whereby information is LOST, not gained, and are incapable of building a higher organism. See works such as Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" for a more in-depth look at such changes.

To use your turn of phrase: Evolution is not based on evidence. It is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a quasi-theory-of-the-gaps based on the assumption that there is no higher intelligence that created anything, and all we see HAS to be the result of natural processes. It ignores the mountains of indirect evidence pointing to design.

My point is: we see cars, computers, planes, etc. around us all the time, but we would never dream of suggesting that they are the result of natural processes. They are the obvious result of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY, which requires some intelligence for its existence. The more we learn about the inner workings of cells, even at the molecular level, the more obvious it is that we are dealing with a SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY.

[quasque]

The problem with 'intelligent design' is that it's such an infantile way of trying to understand the world. Stating "God did it", rather than using one's brain to figure out the mechanisms of how the world works, is just lazy, regressive thinking that doesn't advance our knowledge and understanding in any way whatsoever.

[PPLwynSPFJ5p]

If the earth were as old as lots of people seem to believe, there would be adequate evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record which COULD then be observed. But the fact remains that all of the predicted transitional fossils are notably MISSING. The vast majority of fossils show no change at all when compared to their modern counterparts. I do not see how this can equate to a "mountain of evidence" for macroevolution. And that's assuming you have already got past the problem (which you have already graciously acknowledged) of abiogenesis. Doesn't all of this tell you something?

[t__r]

Evidence is not on the side of ID. ID is not a scientific theory. It cannot be confirmed or falsified. It does not explain anything. Its premise is flawed (I don't know how X happened therefore Y must be true). Believe in ID if you want but don't confuse it with science.

[iterationx]

An organism made out of 100 trillion machines? "Science" says it happened by accident. Not much point in arguing though. I'll just leave people with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE

[PPLwynSPFJ5p]

Well said, HillObeans. I would like to ask permission to quote you in my forthcoming book, Darwin's Knickers (or maybe I'll call it, Knickers to Darwin - I haven't really decided yet [see one of my earlier posts on this deliberation]). I could really learn from you. I have a lot of respect for ID people, as well as for creationists. At least they have taken the trouble to learn and understand the science they're commenting on. Unlike most others.