Is evolution proven science or theory

[PRB]

Gents,
I still see no scientific explanation in support of the Darwinian theory....since so many accept this as 'science' you'd think there was more than postulation.
I think we all get the micro in species evolving...but that is a totally different deal that new species creation from another.
What I've noted so far, and in other discussions, is the micro evolution process
( dna replication/stacking and dna mutation within a specific species) to support the theory that new additional dna (not duplicate of existing parent dna and including new HOX creation) is possible ergo macro evolution or new species creation exists. That is a great leap scientifically....and not scientifically proven...postulating at best.
The 'charts' we've all seen of apes walking to manhood etc are of the same genre.
The 'assumption' is 'they kind of look like us' have similar dna (as does a pig btw) so it follows we developed from them. The dna barrier/mutation/natural selection process in that high order of developed species would argue directly against that.
The barrier/mutation/nat selection process is observable and quantifiable....there is no species jumping dna in that catagory....none.
The charts also rely on 'time testing' that is very 'objective' extremely so as stated in "The Anthropological Journal of Canada" R. Lee, radiocarbon, Ages of Error comments
"The troubles of radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious....half of the dates are rejected...there are gross discrepancies...accepted dates are ""selected dates"".
So whomever made the monkey chart lined his primates up in order to support his thesis time wise and that is not science but science fiction.
The 'geological column' has also proven to be about as scientific as the date it was first put forward...the late 1700's.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by PRB

Gents,
I still see no scientific explanation in support of the Darwinian theory....since so many accept this as 'science' you'd think there was more than postulation.

Nope. No different than global warming.

[PRB]

Trapper J...that was some heavy stuff you ref. A bit much for me so I had my wife read it. She has a Biology degree from Boston U, she use to teach the subj and a Dr. of Pharmacy degree...after her run thru she said there was no direct linkage to any Darwinian theory except on wanting to believe there was...again some serious extrapolation. Her opinion only.

[GratefulCitizen]

It all comes down to one question:
What is the specific chemical mechanism through which new genetic information is created?

Once that question is answered, the mechanism can be tested against known physical laws.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

What is the specific chemical mechanism through which new genetic information is created?

Once that question is answered, the mechanism can be tested against known physical laws.

Boy + girl = new genetic information.

Don't they teach nuttn' in school these days?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by MR2

Boy + girl = new genetic information.

Don't they teach nuttn' in school these days?

Reassembly of information.
Not new information.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Although I know that it does happen, I don't know the chemical explanation.

Anybody find that yet? Curious.

Not sure about the downstream mechanism, but the initial mechanism (getting life's building blocks in the first place) has some problems.
It has implications for the downstream mechanism as well.

John R. Baumgardner did some math to illustrate the scope and scale of the problem.
An excerpt from one of his articles:

(All of the estimations and shortcuts are generously in favor of evolution)

Can random molecular interactions create life?

Many evolutionists are persuaded that the 15 billion years they assume for the age of the cosmos is an abundance of time for random interactions of atoms and molecules to generate life. A simple arithmetic lesson reveals this to be no more than an irrational fantasy.

This arithmetic lesson is similar to calculating the odds of winning the lottery. The number of possible lottery combinations corresponds to the total number of protein structures (of an appropriate size range) that are possible to assemble from standard building blocks. The winning tickets correspond to the tiny sets of such proteins with the correct special properties from which a living organism, say a simple bacterium, can be successfully built. The maximum number of lottery tickets a person can buy corresponds to the maximum number of protein molecules that could have ever existed in the history of the cosmos.

Let us first establish a reasonable upper limit on the number of molecules that could ever have been formed anywhere in the universe during its entire history. Taking 10^80 as a generous estimate for the total number of atoms in the cosmos, 10^12 for a generous upper bound for the average number of interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (roughly 30 billion years) as an upper bound for the age of the universe, we get 10^110 as a very generous upper limit on the total number of interatomic interactions which could have ever occurred during the long cosmic history the evolutionist imagines. Now if we make the extremely generous assumption that each interatomic interaction always produces a unique molecule, then we conclude that no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe during its entire history.

Now let us contemplate what is involved in demanding that a purely random process find a minimal set of about 1,000 protein molecules needed for the most primitive form of life. To simplify the problem dramatically, suppose somehow we already have found 999 of the 1,000 different proteins required and we need only to search for that final magic sequence of amino acids which gives us that last special protein. Let us restrict our consideration to the specific set of 20 amino acids found in living systems and ignore the hundred or so that are not. Let us also ignore the fact that only those with left-handed symmetry appear in life proteins. Let us also ignore the incredibly unfavorable chemical reaction kinetics involved in forming long peptide chains in any sort of plausible nonliving chemical environment.

Let us merely focus on the task of obtaining a suitable sequence of amino acids that yields a 3-D protein structure with some minimal degree of essential functionality. Various theoretical and experimental evidence indicates that in some average sense about half of the amino acid sites must be specified exactly. For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then in the order of 20^100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1,000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therefore sheer irrationality for a person to believe random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities.

In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity. This line of argument applies, of course, not only to the issue of biogenesis but also to the issue of how a new gene/protein might arise in any sort of macroevolution process.

Biology is ruled by the laws of chemistry.
Chemistry is ruled by the laws of physics.
Physics is ruled by the laws of mathematics.

The numbers just don't work out for evolution.

[PRB]

Biology is ruled by the laws of chemistry.
Chemistry is ruled by the laws of physics.
Physics is ruled by the laws of mathematics.

The numbers just don't work out for evolution.

I agree, nor does the genetic science we know as supportable today under write it.
IOTW, Darwinian evolutionists rely on faith with anecdotal reference to a micro same species evolution process that is widely understood.
That is simply a huge leap of faith.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...

The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.

What is the best scientific explanation for the process we observe to be evolution, species differentiation, and adaptation, then?

Chance? A strict Mendelian process?

Support for evolution always devolves (pun intended) into attacking religion.
Religion is supposed to be off-limits for this thread.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...

The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.

What is the best scientific explanation for the process we observe to be evolution, species differentiation, and adaptation, then? The explanation of why our bodies are machines for the propogation of the genes that built them?

Chance? A strict Mendelian process?

I didn't mention religion at all....accepting a theory rift with postulation can only be done on faith....Darwinian evolutionists are simply the faithful....not the scientists they purport to be.

[plato]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...

The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.

Chance? A strict Mendelian process?

Watching the Model T evolve into today's jeep, plants evolving into being hybrid and drought/insect resistant, and similar events can do that to a fellow.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...

The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.

What is the best scientific explanation for the process we observe to be evolution, species differentiation, and adaptation, then?

Chance?

Although I would agree, Doc, let's not bring up the question of intelligent design in this or any other thread. That will lead to an impossible conundrum, IMO.

I think it is important to explore the driving forces (natural laws) that led to the origin of life in the first place. That was the point of the previously posted references, not to provide evidence supporting Darwin's theory to explain the diversity of species. So, PRB, the wife is correct, but that is not why I referenced these references. Simply put, I want to begin to understand the driving forces that led to life. And, NO, I did not discover the origins of life

GC: Dr. Baumgardner's analysis, although statistically correct, is highly misleading and not germane to this discussion because the self-organization of the fundamental building blocks of life is not merely a statistical problem. The initial conditions and the laws of thermodynamics profoundly alter the statistical probabilities. If that were true all chemical reactions could be predicted by statistical analysis. Rarely is this the case. I have attached a seminal paper on the subject of self assembly of biological molecules by one of the premier chemists George M. Whitesides. (My Whitesides trumps your Baumgardner ).

Kozy, et al., the origin of the building blocks of life are not established by the Miller-Urey experiment, although academically interesting, just not likely a realistic explanation. Recent evidence suggests that preformed amino acids, nucleic acids, and key intermediates may have been delivered to the early earth in comets and meteorites. See the following link from NASA and the PNAS paper also attached.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsyst...eteorites.html

All- I realize that none of this directly addresses the question of Darwin's theory. What I have tried to do is put forth the natural basis for the origin of life. What is amazing to me is that it appears that given the right conditions life will emerge. Even on this earth we find life in places that were previously thought to be incompatible with life e.g., the geothermal vents at the convergence of tectonic plates on the ocean floor. Thus it would not be surprising that we ultimately find evidence that life once existed on Mars - all of the right conditions once existed there as on earth.

I believe the foregoing has established that multi-cellular life will happen given the right conditions and thanks to Lynn Margulis, we can even see how the two major Kingdoms arose.