Oikoman

Or for a less abstract example, look up directed evolution of protein and nucleic acids... essentially, by applying natural selection and mutation (the toolkit of evolution) novel enzymes can be evolved from non-functional precursors.

Theres been quite a bit published on this topic, but this review can serve as a jumping off point:

Joyce GF. 2004. Directed evolution of nucleic acid enzymes. Annu Rev Biochem. 2004;73:791-836.
Abstract:
"Just as Darwinian evolution in nature has led to the development of many sophisticated enzymes, Darwinian evolution in vitro has proven to be a powerful approach for obtaining similar results in the laboratory. This review focuses on the development of nucleic acid enzymes starting from a population of random-sequence RNA or DNA molecules. In order to illustrate the principles and practice of in vitro evolution, two especially well-studied categories of catalytic nucleic acid are considered: RNA enzymes that catalyze the template-directed ligation of RNA and DNA enzymes that catalyze the cleavage of RNA. The former reaction, which involves attack of a 2'- or 3'-hydroxyl on the alpha-phosphate of a 5'-triphosphate, is more difficult. It requires a comparatively larger catalytic motif, containing more nucleotides than can be sampled exhaustively within a starting population of random-sequence RNAs. The latter reaction involves deprotonation of the 2'-hydroxyl adjacent to the cleavage site, resulting in cleaved products that bear a 2',3'-cyclic phosphate and 5'-hydroxyl. The difficulty of this reaction, and therefore the complexity of the corresponding DNA enzyme, depends on whether a catalytic cofactor, such as a divalent metal cation or small molecule, is present in the reaction mixture."

Sven

Again, are you only disagreeing with the theory of evolution (how it happened) or with the fact of common ancestry (that (macro)evolution happened)?

As Albion already explained, it is critically thought out - because no scientist simple says "Naturedidit" and is satisfied with this answer, they always try to understand the processes how something developped in detail. This is in contrast to some theists who say "Godidit" and are satisfied with this, they don't try to find a detailed explanation how he did it. This holds for the entire ID camp.

It will search for such explanation and test them to determine if they are (likely) true or false.

You don't get the point: Supernatural explanations are neither testable nor falsifiable. One can propose tens of thousands of supernatural explanations, but one will never know which one is the correct one. Thus they are simple worthless. This is the reason why science is limited to natural explanations.

This analogy of course ignores that computers don't reproduce, that there's no fossil record for computers, that there's no genetic evidence for common ancestry for computers, that computers don't have vestigial parts and pseudogenes etc. etc. etc. etc.

You can assume about the creation of the universe whatever you wish; this is entirely irrlevant to the discussion of evolution.

Hint: Shortly after the "Big Bang", the universe was highly ordered. Much more easy to come into existence that your strawman of the early universe, don't you think?

Often heard claim, but unfortunately for you false. I once saw some kind of "universe simulator" in which you could change some constants of nature and see if you still get suns - for a large interval of constants, suns can indeed exits. Sorry, I searched for a link and could not find it; hopefully I'll be able to provide a link later, I'll keep searching.

This is of course only your incredulity and no argument.

Some interesting arguments can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...sm/design.html

Sven

OK, I'll try. What about a designer (god) entirely explainable by science, that is "natural causes"?
And since it was you who asked for a naturalist explanation, it is reasonable to ask how you define it - by asking how you define the opposite, that is supernaturalism.

Asha'man

You are very lost here. You have ceased talking about evolution entirely, and have drifted into the realm of cosmology. If you wish to continue this portion of the discussion, you need to look for an astronomer/physicist, not a biologist.

Just as you appear ignorant about the evidence for evolution, you are also showing that you are ignorant of modern physics. If you wish to discuss cosmology, you need to understand Quantum Mechanics, and some of the consequences of its nature. Most important are two simple concepts: uncaused events happen all the time, and matter can be spontaneously created out of vacuum. Let me repeat them, because these two ideas tend to destroy most creationist argument very quickly: uncaused events happen all the time, and matter can be spontaneously created out of vacuum.

Now, if you want to diverge away from evolution into cosmology, we should probably start a new thread.

Oolon Colluphid

But what happens if we reverse engineer organisms, and discover that the designer was an idiot?

Evoken

How about we keep the discussion civil and profitable?

pangloss

Interesting notion.

Especially when one considers that nearly the totality of anti-evolution arguments, regardless of who is making them, are nothing BUT slamming evolution.

They seem to think it a good line of argumentation.

Then, they have nothing else to offer.

Evoken

You know..the more I look into these matters the more convinced I become of this. All of the so called "arguments" against Evolution fall along the line of : "Evolutionist are fooling us" "Evolutionists can't explain this or that" "The Evolution conspiracy", etc. And not to mention Creationist..talk about cognitive dissonance.

Jet Black

It is a valid question though. I mean what if you reverse engineered your car and found that your seat belt was actually made of what appear to be horse reins looped from an attachment point on the engine block through the side doorsround the seat and into the little lock at the side that actually looked like a modified mouth-bit? would you think "hey that's aclever idea" or would you thing "what a moron, why not just do it this way instead?

llDayo

I don't suppose you have a link with a layman's review of how this works, by any chance? I knew uncaused events happened (but never had a dumbed down explanation, and Quantum Mechanics/Physics is too hard for me :huh: ) but I didn't know matter could be created in a vacuum!