Principia

Tell me Keith, is this a picture of something complex?

Principia

Or is this complex?

Which is more complex of the two?

Keith

But you must know that there are lots of people who call the TOE a fact. They imagine that since moths can change colour, finch beaks can vary in size, and bacteria can develop resistence to antibiotics, the TOE is a proven fact. I don't doubt that there is some noticable variation within species, but I don't think it logically follows from these things that mice can evolve into bats, for example. I think people who believe in macroevolution, do so by faith. But again, I'm getting off my topic.

Keith

Principia

Keith, I recommend to you this essay. It addresses this concern. EDIT: think about the following: Gravity is a fact -- you experience its effects directly, empirically. Gravity is also a theory -- theoretical physicists have yet to explain its nature fully.
Once again you misuse the word "believe." Scientists affirm, test, and even modify the theory of macroevolution, but it does not require "faith" on their part. Macroevolution can be dealt a fatal blow with the right evidence, but that evidence does not yet exist. So, I ask again. Have you reviewed the scientific evidence, Keith? Or are you here functioning as a Priest of the Cult, trying to save our souls?

Doubting Didymus

Another casualty of the travesty that is the terminology of 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.

Seriously, keith, for your own sanity, forget that you ever heard those terms. They don't mean anything. Really, just pretend they don't exist.

Keith

If all that is meant by "evolution" is the fact that finch beaks can vary in size, bacteria can develop resistence to antibiotics and so on, then I don't have any problem with it. But I still have seen no evidence that humans came from ape-like creatures, or that all mammals originated from single-celled organisms.

I'm still rejecting the notion that evolution is capable of producing great complexity without an intelligent blueprint (design or algorithm). This part has still NOT been shown.

I always cringe when people say "given abiogenesis, evolution is hardly a problem." It's a bit like saying "given 100 million dollars, I can easily make a few million dollars every year."

Keith

Keith

I could even put the theory of pink unicorns to rest with the right evidence. Somehow I doubt it will happen any time soon. How would anyone go about disproving TOE? Is it falsifiable? I don't want to get off-topic. Maybe TOE is basically sound. I have no way of knowing. My point is that even if TOE is quite correct, it is truly miraculous.

Keith

Principia

Exactly my point, Keith. Find a pink unicorn and we can dispense with this chat. BTW, that's how some people feel about the verifiability of your God. Impossible to "put to rest with the right evidence." Anyway, as for macroevolution.... Yes. In fact, I recommend this other article, which addresses this very concern. A point to remind you is that an absence of evidence that falsifies evolution does not mean that it is not falsifiable. There is no law that says contrary evidence to a theory must exist. Science is nowhere nearly as mysterious as your God. You have a way of knowing: Start by reviewing the evidence. If you want a conversation on evolution, you at least owe people that you are talking to that much knowledge. And that would be your belief, Keith, since by scientific standards, there are exactly zero ways to demonstrate it objectively. One only needs a counterexample in fact to show that this is mere opinion. In fact, I don't find evolution to be miraculous at all. So there, what we have achieved? :P An argument of personal incredulity is worthless. See the difference, now, between your belief and science?

Doubting Didymus

I asked you to please point out exactly what your problem with the arguments you have been given is. Please do so, as to attempt to deliver the entire evolutionary theory together with its accompanying evidence would require considerably more than a small library of text. Allow me to narrow the problem down for you.

Where do you draw the line:

1. Populations are variable.
2. Traits in populations naturally increase in frequency if they are beneficial. (observable in bacteria, for instance)
3. This phenomenon can permanently alter the features of populations.
4. This permanent alteration can increase complexity. For example: a simple jellyfish consisting of a few unspecialised cells could gradually evolve an internal pouch with specialised internal cells for use as a stomach. (if you do not agree that this is possible, please suggest something that might prevent it from happening)
5. Because populations can change in this way, it is possible for one breeding population to diverge into two, slightly different populations that cannot interbreed. (speciation, as seen in galapagos finches. Remember that speciation has been observed many times.)
6. These small, permanent alterations and the phenomenon of speciation can account for the origins of a rudimentary biodiversity.
7. there is no limit to the amount of change that these processes can affect in populations. (if you disagree with this, please enlighten us where the limits are, and what causes these limits.
Finally 8. That this, in fact, happened, and it accounts for life on earth.

Principia

Sure there is. Try this link. Someone should put up scigirl's challenge here. But for the moment, take a look at a comparison of chromosomes:
[Here is the legend: H = human (note there's only one), C = chimp, G = gorillla, O = orangutan]
Now, how would you, Keith, go about researching why these banding patterns are so similar? Furthermore, if you accept variations in finch beaks, why would you have a problem accepting variations in chr. 5 as illustrated above?

This is once again an argument by shifting goal posts. Who said that you have to observe a "production of great complexity" in order to demonstrate that evolution is true? Let me put you down gently: chances are you won't observe evolution producing what you call "great complexity," because

• you won't think it is all that "great."
• the "great" part comes after you die, or before you were born.

But the evidence is there. Try this great compendium of information increase.

Cringe away Keith. The rest of the scientific establishment doesn't seem to have an issue. So either you are not open-minded enough to ask them why you ought to relax your face muscles, or you are afraid to learn and understand the evidence