Theory of Evolution

[Fox McCloud]

I've heard Ron Paul, in 3 totally separate speeches, at 3 totally separate times say "in our 6,000 year history" or "6,000 years of history", etc....it cannot be concluded whether or not he means history itself or the age of everything.

With the video on him commenting on evolution (I've seen the full one), his other comments,and this most recent article, I think it's safe to conclude that he's either (A) a Creationist (B) A "ID"er.

he seems to learn more towards A, but also acknowledges that there is a little evidence for B.

It doesn't really matter...whether you believe A, B, C, D, or even X...it's not going to affect your legislation that much....after all, most of you forget that Ron Paul is a confessing believer in Christ.

 

[evadmurd]

Irrelevant and a matter of personal faith, no different than any other.
That is why they call it a theory. There is plenty of science both ways, and there are plenty of less than scientific impressions both ways also.

We really need to get over this. It just doesn't matter.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Written history started in about 4000 B.C. + 2000 A.D. = 6,000 years.

 

[Kade]

Written history started in about 4000 B.C. + 2000 A.D. = 6,000 years.

Why are there so many people on these forums who are just wrong!?

Holy crap kid, the Jiahu script alone dates back to 6600 B.C.

2,000 years is not a minor error.

 

[therealjjj77]

Do you believe in the theory of gravity?

What exactly does that mean to you?

Most people are as ignorant of the scientific theory of evolution as they are of the scientific theory of gravity.

The only reason they have a negative reaction to the one and not the other is because gravity doesn't contradict their religious beliefs.

So far no one has seen evolution occur. They have simply speculated that it has.

However, everyone has seen the effects of gravity. It is something you can reproduce in a laboratory again and again.

Evolution hasn't been produced in a laboratory once.

The "theory of gravity" is not a debate over whether it exists but what causes it. The "theory of evolution" is a debate over whether it is reality or not. At one time the academia of the world believed in the "flat earth theory". However the Bible indicated a round earth:

Luke 17:34-36
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

This is dealing with the Lord's return which shall be as fast as "the twinkle of an eye", and if you look closely you will see that some are in bed at night while the others are doing work that is only done in daylight.

Either he knew about electricity(light bulbs) or he knew the earth was round(or both =P).

Also:

Isaiah 41:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,...

The "religious nuts" of the day held to a round earth because they believed the Bible.

Anyways, when you can repeatedly show people evolution in a laboratory, and also show why and how it occurs(instead of just speculation) then it will no longer be a theory.

 

[gracebkr]

This is stupid.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Here's an argument I keep running into (note! this is not my argument; this is not a troll! I want to hear alternate opinions on this):

a) Ron Paul doesn't "accept" the theory of evolution (although he sees evidence for it).

see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/01/30/72165243

b) The attitude is not rational. Important decisions should be kept
out of the hands of the irrational when they have the potential to fuck over
hundreds of millions or even billions of other people.

c) therefore, Ron Paul is irrational and not fit to be President.

I'm having a hard time with this one... I have to admit I'm a little surprised that being a medical doctor w/scientific training Ron Paul objects in any way to the current theory of Evolution. A lot of people see this as a litmus test of rational thought and basic understanding of science.

The Theory of Evolution is a rehash of Epicurean philosophy from Ancient Greece with a dash of political ideology of Lucretia of Rome. It's entire premise starts from the idea that there is no such thing as order in the universe, only the appearance of order due to perception by human reason. Darwinian theory is inherently dogmatic and atheistic, therefore anyone who is a professed Christian does not believe the Atheistic aspect of Evolutionary theory, which is what that pompous ass Dawkins and his army of eugenics supporting clerics *cough*, I mean scientists proselytize.

The Catholic Church and most mainline Protestant Churches teach MICRO-evolution, which is the aspect of evolution dealing with the development of plant and animal cells, as well as a general acceptance of all that was taught by theistic and atheistic Greek Philosophers thousands of years before the current crop of fifth rate Epicureans, not to mention being studied in the Catholic Church under a different name before Darwin lived. Ron Paul would have to understand and believe in this in order to practice medicine, and even though Fundamentalists profess that they reject all evolutionary theories, they rarely take the time to even try to interpret the bible and instead simply quote certain passages as mantras. What the Churches do not teach is what is known as MACRO-evolution, which is the belief that the entire universe is made up of random atoms simply bouncing up against each other and magically meshing together and forming intelligent life after a few billion years.

Of course, these self-important pseudo-enlightened fools reject the idea that their scriptures are based mostly upon coincidental elements, and instead insist that their logic is beyond question while throwing out a series of higher mathematical equations to hide a basic belief that order arises out of chaos by mere default. Try to ask a MACRO-evolutionist where they get the concept of the universe defaulting to a sense of order and you'll either be jeered at as some sort of kook or shouted down for questioning their perfect order.

P.S. - Most of the Scientists espousing MACRO-Evolution are Logical Positivists, and the founder of the Philosophy of Positivism was Auguste Comte, who spent a couple of years in a mental asylum and believed that humanity need to create a religion based upon human worship with scientists as the political leaders. Granted, most scientists today are so parochial about philosophy that they only read the parts of Ancient Greek philosophy that fit the Darwinian template, which conveniently excludes Plato, Aristotle and a few others.

 

[Nathaniele]

re

Science is the art of formulating and testing explanatory hypotheses to account for the features and phenomena of the world. The hypotheses examined must in principle be capable of being tested. This limits science to natural forces and processes, since supernatural processes are outside the realm of testability. (If they could be tested, they would automatically be reduced to the status of natural processes.) When observations and tests yield results contrary to those expected by an hypothesis, the hypothesis must either be corrected or rejected, or it must be shown that the anomalous results are either in error or involve factors not fully included in the hypothesis being tested. Science is a self-correcting, self-improving system.

Science seeks to explain the unknown in terms of the known (or at least, in terms of the better known). Thus, Benjamin Franklin explained lightning in terms of electricity, a parlor-trick phenomenon with which he and his friends had had considerable acquaintance. Previously, lightning had been explained to be a consequence of the wrath of Thor, Zeus, or Yahweh: the unknown had been explained in terms of the even less known - the principle of ignotum per ignotius. In addition, science accepts the principle of parsimony known as Ockham's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem - entities (basic assumptions) should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Dissenters From Science
Not everyone, however, agrees with me as to what science is, or how it should be done. There is a vocal group of Christian fundamentalists which claims science is not at all what I have described. Styling themselves "creation scientists," they have banded together into several organizations devoted to finding ways to get the public schools to teach theo--biology instead of real biology. They pretend to be practicing a form of science which probes the origins of humans and the natural world. Curiously, the "science" practiced by these would-be scientists is done exactly backwards from the way science is done by all other scientists in the world.

Whereas real scientists do not know for certain how an experiment will turn out until it is performed, and cannot be sure what they will find in nature until they have looked, creation "scientists" think they can start their "research" with the conclusions desired, then look for possible supporting evidence - almost as an after-thought.

Where's The Science?
It is extremely rare for a creationist debater explicitly to state the claims of "creation science." Almost always, an attack on evolutionary theory is launched instead, and most creationists take care to prevent their opponents from attracting any attention to the nonsensical claims of creationism. The reason for this is simple: "scientific creationism" is religion, and the creationists know it. They know that even a casual examination of their would-be scientific system would convince practically anybody that there is no science in "creation science."

Frank R. Zindler
The Probing Mind, April, 1990
Full article: http://www.atheists.org/evolution/reversing.html

 

[WilliamC]

So far no one has seen evolution occur. They have simply speculated that it has.

However, everyone has seen the effects of gravity. It is something you can reproduce in a laboratory again and again.

Evolution hasn't been produced in a laboratory once.

Oh ye of little knowledge.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=directed+evolution&btnG=Google+Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Directed evolution is a method used in protein engineering to harness the power of selection to evolve proteins or RNA with desirable properties not found in nature.

A typical directed evolution experiment involves three steps:

1. Diversification: The gene encoding the protein of interest is mutated and/or recombined at random to create a large library of gene variants. Techniques commonly used in this step are error-prone PCR and DNA shuffling.
2. Selection: The library is tested for the presence of mutants (variants) possessing the desired property using a screen or selection. Screens enable the researcher to identify and isolate high-performing mutants by hand, while selections automatically eliminate all nonfunctional mutants.
3. Amplification: The variants identified in the selection or screen are replicated manyfold, enabling researchers to sequence their DNA in order to understand what mutations have occurred.

Together, these three steps are termed a "round" of directed evolution. Most experiments will perform more than one round. In these experiments, the "winners" of the previous round are diversified in the next round to create a new library. At the end of the experiment, all evolved protein or RNA mutants are characterized using biochemical methods.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083652.htm

The St Bernard dog – named after the 11th century priest Bernard of Menthon – is living proof that evolution does occur, say scientists.

Biologists at The University of Manchester say that changes to the shape of the breed’s head over the years can only be explained through human-directed evolution through selective breeding, an artificial version of natural selection.

The team, led by Dr Chris Klingenberg in the Faculty of Life Sciences, examined the skulls of 47 St Bernards spanning 120 years, from modern examples to those of dogs dating back to the time when the breed standard was first defined.

"We discovered that features stipulated in the breed standard of the St Bernard became more exaggerated over time as breeders selected dogs that had the desired physical attributes," said Dr Klingenberg.

"In effect they have applied selection to move the evolutionary process a considerable way forward, providing a unique opportunity to observe sustained evolutionary change under known selective pressures."

http://www.ideationtriz.com/DE.asp

Directed Evolution™ provides a means not only to predict but to direct future technological achievements in a given time frame with a specified level of support. Most of the innovations that will appear over the next 20 years will be based upon scientific and technological knowledge existing now. The difficulty lies in identifying what knowledge is of real significance. With hindsight, what seems obscure today will be remarkably clear tomorrow. The role of Directed Evolution™ is to evaluate today's knowledge systematically, thereby identifying what is achievable and, more particularly, how one technological advance, perhaps in conjunction with another, could fulfill a human need.

http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14437/1/GeardWiles2007.pdf

Biological development is a complex process that mediates between genotypes, to which mutations occur, and phenotypes, on which selection acts. Properties of development can therefore have considerable impact on evolution. However, in many existing simulation models of development, the developmental process itself is difficult to recover and/or analyse. We have previously introduced a model of development in which the developmental process is represented as a cell lineage. Here we use this model to further explore the control of development, and the influence that development has on shaping an adaptive landscape.

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/2/840

Laboratory Evolution of Escherichia coli Thioredoxin for Enhanced Catalysis of Protein Oxidation in the Periplasm Reveals a Phylogenetically Conserved Substrate Specificity Determinant*Formula

Thioredoxin exported into the Escherichia coli periplasm catalyzes the oxidation of protein thiols in a DsbB-dependent function. However, the oxidative activity of periplasmic thioredoxin is insufficient to render dsbA– cells susceptible to infection by M13, a phenotype that is critically dependent on disulfide bond formation in the cell envelope. We sought to examine the molecular determinants that are required in order to convert thioredoxin from a reductant into an efficient periplasmic oxidant. A genetic screen for mutations in thioredoxin that render dsbA– cells sensitive to infection by M13 led to the isolation of a single amino acid substitution, G74S. In vivo the TrxA(G74S) mutant exhibited enhanced catalytic activity in the oxidation of alkaline phosphatase but was unable to oxidize FlgI and restore cell motility. In vitro studies revealed that the G74S substitution does not affect the redox potential of the thioredoxin-active site or its kinetics of oxidation by DsbB. Thus, the gain of function afforded by G74S stems in part from its altered substrate specificity, which also rendered the protein more resistant to reduction by DsbD/DsbC in the periplasm.

In reality, evolution is a scientific theory applicable not only to naturally occurring biological systems ( i.e. living organisms) but to biochemical components such as enzymes, DNA sequences, and even entire viruses, to artificially created life forms such as bacteria with synthesized genomes, and even to non-biological systems such as computer software and industrial processes.

Evolution is simply a dynamic process that happens when an information-containing system capable of reproduction interacts with its environment in a way that leads to either the survival or destruction of the system, with the caveat that the information system must be capable of mutation or inherited changes.

As this process occurs over multiple generations those systems which are better able to reproduce and transmit their information within a given environment will out-compete those systems which are less able to reproduce.

Of course there are enormous complexities within even simple living systems that separate the information (DNA and RNA molecules and the 3-dimensional organization of the cellular cytoplasm, the genotype) from the aspects of the system that are directly acted upon by the environment (the physical traits or phenotype).


Evolution is as observable as gravity, you just have to know what you're looking for.

The "theory of gravity" is not a debate over whether it exists but what causes it.

So what does the theory of gravity mean to you then?

The "theory of evolution" is a debate over whether it is reality or not.

Not among scientists, who regard it as "real" as the theory of gravity.

Among the uneducated, yes.

At one time the academia of the world believed in the "flat earth theory". However the Bible indicated a round earth:

Luke 17:34-36
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

This is dealing with the Lord's return which shall be as fast as "the twinkle of an eye", and if you look closely you will see that some are in bed at night while the others are doing work that is only done in daylight.

Either he knew about electricity(light bulbs) or he knew the earth was round(or both =P).

Also:

Isaiah 41:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,...

The "religious nuts" of the day held to a round earth because they believed the Bible.

Is the Bible capable of being proven false?

Anyways, when you can repeatedly show people evolution in a laboratory, and also show why and how it occurs(instead of just speculation) then it will no longer be a theory.

Well there you go. Evolution occurs in the laboratory every day.

 

[Brutus]

Just so I'm sure I understand this, Dr. Paul is on the hot seat for not swearing fealty to evolution, but every other candidate is some form a totalitarian and that DOESN'T reflect on their decision making ability (or their sanity)? Ron Paul has the effrontery to say there is a God, but the other candidates actually think that they ARE God, and it is Ron Paul who needs to be explained.

If someone can listen to Ron Paul's message (run your own life, make the government stop cheating us and everyone else) and compare it to Hillary's or Obama's or McCain's or Romney's and SERIOUSLY question who is for individual liberty then their "scientific objectivity" is seriously in question.

 

[Brutus]

So, in short, I think that the people the OP runs into are being dishonest with him and this is their excuse for voting for someone that they think will continue to rip off others for their own benefit, which is pretty much all elections are anymore.

 

[WilliamC]

Just so I'm sure I understand this, Dr. Paul is on the hot seat for not swearing fealty to evolution, but every other candidate is some form a totalitarian and that DOESN'T reflect on their decision making ability (or their sanity)? Ron Paul has the effrontery to say there is a God, but the other candidates actually think that they ARE God, and it is Ron Paul who needs to be explained.

If someone can listen to Ron Paul's message (run your own life, make the government stop cheating us and everyone else) and compare it to Hillary's or Obama's or McCain's or Romney's and SERIOUSLY question who is for individual liberty then their "scientific objectivity" is seriously in question.

I don't understand it either. Ron Paul's religious beliefs are of little concern to me given his 30 years of integrity in supporting the Constitution. That's what politics is about for me.

 

[therealjjj77]

Oh ye of little knowledge.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=directed+evolution&btnG=Google+Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083652.htm



http://www.ideationtriz.com/DE.asp



http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14437/1/GeardWiles2007.pdf



http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/2/840



In reality, evolution is a scientific theory applicable not only to naturally occurring biological systems ( i.e. living organisms) but to biochemical components such as enzymes, DNA sequences, and even entire viruses, to artificially created life forms such as bacteria with synthesized genomes, and even to non-biological systems such as computer software and industrial processes.

Evolution is simply a dynamic process that happens when an information-containing system capable of reproduction interacts with its environment in a way that leads to either the survival or destruction of the system, with the caveat that the information system must be capable of mutation or inherited changes.

As this process occurs over multiple generations those systems which are better able to reproduce and transmit their information within a given environment will out-compete those systems which are less able to reproduce.

Of course there are enormous complexities within even simple living systems that separate the information (DNA and RNA molecules and the 3-dimensional organization of the cellular cytoplasm, the genotype) from the aspects of the system that are directly acted upon by the environment (the physical traits or phenotype).


Evolution is as observable as gravity, you just have to know what you're looking for.



So what does the theory of gravity mean to you then?



Not among scientists, who regard it as "real" as the theory of gravity.

Among the uneducated, yes.



Is the Bible capable of being proven false?




Well there you go. Evolution occurs in the laboratory every day.

First, that's RNA, not DNA. Second, do any of the results involve changes to move an organism from one species to another? I wouldn't argue that there is wiggle room within organisms in the "softcode" (as in eye color, skin color, hair color, etc.) but can you show me an example of changes that have resulted in such diversification(and repeatable in a laboratory) that the new species cannot reproduce with the old?

 

[WilliamC]

First, that's RNA, not DNA. Second, do any of the results involve changes to move an organism from one species to another? I wouldn't argue that there is wiggle room within organisms in the "softcode" (as in eye color, skin color, hair color, etc.) but can you show me an example of changes that have resulted in such diversification(and repeatable in a laboratory) that the new species cannot reproduce with the old?

You obviously didn't read the links. DNA, RNA, proteins, viruses, bacteria, dogs, software, industrial processes, all have been the subjects of experimental evolution.

Have you ever see a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua mating?

Do you think that, in a natural setting, these breeds could ever reproduce?

What would happen if St. Bernard sperm were used to impregnate a Chihuahua female?

Do you think she would survive the pregnancy?

Again, what does the theory of gravity mean to YOU?

 

[Kade]

First, that's RNA, not DNA. Second, do any of the results involve changes to move an organism from one species to another? I wouldn't argue that there is wiggle room within organisms in the "softcode" (as in eye color, skin color, hair color, etc.) but can you show me an example of changes that have resulted in such diversification(and repeatable in a laboratory) that the new species cannot reproduce with the old?

You are evidence that we have a serious educational crisis in this country.

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.




I've got plenty more. Please. Willful ignorance is inexcusable. Real questions, and serious inquiry only please...

 

[WilliamC]

You are evidence that we have a serious educational crisis in this country.

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.




I've got plenty more. Please. Willful ignorance is inexcusable. Real questions, and serious inquiry only please...

Oh come on now, you know plants and flies aren't evidence of anything that can happen to real animals, much less humans

Yes, the evolution of reproductive barriers which is the defining characteristic of a species can be quite rapid and is subject to experimental verification.

As for evolution and speciation in humans?

Here's a simple thought experiment, NOT to be confused with ANY desire on my part to see something like this actually happen! Suppose that everyone with Downs syndrome, (which is caused by the abnormal genetic inheritance of an extra copy of chromosome 21) were forced into exile on a large island, big enough to provide a sustainable environment. Suppose everyone else were forced off the island. Suppose the two populations were kept separated for, say, 1000 generations (about 20,000 years, a VERY short amount of time in an evolutionary sense).

Do you think that the descendents of the Downs syndrome founders would still be the same species as normal humans? Specifically do you think that they would still be able to interbreed and produce viable offspring?

Another thought (and this is somewhat relevant since Dr. Paul is an OBGYN and undoubtedly has dealt with this all too often) the frequency of spontaneous miscarriages is thought to be as high as 1 in 3 pregnancies.

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

Why does this happen? Is it because god hates the unborn or "bad" parents and wants to kill so many babies? Or perhaps because humans are still evolving and many conceptions naturally fail to produce a viable fetus?

 

[gracebkr]

Oh come on now, you know plants and flies aren't evidence of anything that can happen to real animals, much less humans

Yes, the evolution of reproductive barriers which is the defining characteristic of a species can be quite rapid and is subject to experimental verification.

As for evolution and speciation in humans?

Here's a simple thought experiment, NOT to be confused with ANY desire on my part to see something like this actually happen! Suppose that everyone with Downs syndrome, (which is caused by the abnormal genetic inheritance of an extra copy of chromosome 21) were forced into exile on a large island, big enough to provide a sustainable environment. Suppose everyone else were forced off the island. Suppose the two populations were kept separated for, say, 1000 generations (about 20,000 years, a VERY short amount of time in an evolutionary sense).

Do you think that the descendents of the Downs syndrome founders would still be the same species as normal humans? Specifically do you think that they would still be able to interbreed and produce viable offspring?

Another thought (and this is somewhat relevant since Dr. Paul is an OBGYN and undoubtedly has dealt with this all too often) the frequency of spontaneous miscarriages is thought to be as high as 1 in 3 pregnancies.

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

Why does this happen? Is it because god hates the unborn or "bad" parents and wants to kill so many babies? Or perhaps because humans are still evolving and many conceptions naturally fail to produce a viable fetus?

Are you serious? Down's syndrome cause sterility in males, there is only 3 known cases where men with Down's could have children and 1/2 of the offspring from female Down's are affected. So your scenario, the Down's people would die off.

 

[therealjjj77]

This certainly is a fun exchange.

Let's work together to get Ron Paul the presidency and then we can come back here and debate more on this(before the 1st amendment is taken away too).

 

[gracebkr]

Oh ye of little knowledge.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=directed+evolution&btnG=Google+Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083652.htm



http://www.ideationtriz.com/DE.asp



http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14437/1/GeardWiles2007.pdf



http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/2/840



In reality, evolution is a scientific theory applicable not only to naturally occurring biological systems ( i.e. living organisms) but to biochemical components such as enzymes, DNA sequences, and even entire viruses, to artificially created life forms such as bacteria with synthesized genomes, and even to non-biological systems such as computer software and industrial processes.

Evolution is simply a dynamic process that happens when an information-containing system capable of reproduction interacts with its environment in a way that leads to either the survival or destruction of the system, with the caveat that the information system must be capable of mutation or inherited changes.

As this process occurs over multiple generations those systems which are better able to reproduce and transmit their information within a given environment will out-compete those systems which are less able to reproduce.

Of course there are enormous complexities within even simple living systems that separate the information (DNA and RNA molecules and the 3-dimensional organization of the cellular cytoplasm, the genotype) from the aspects of the system that are directly acted upon by the environment (the physical traits or phenotype).


Evolution is as observable as gravity, you just have to know what you're looking for.



So what does the theory of gravity mean to you then?



Not among scientists, who regard it as "real" as the theory of gravity.

Among the uneducated, yes.



Is the Bible capable of being proven false?




Well there you go. Evolution occurs in the laboratory every day.

lol, if it does why are they still testing it? Why have millions of generations of fruit flies only produced, more fruit flies? Who cares if they change a little, that's like saying I evolved when I got my shots this year, sorry, that does not count as we share a common ancestor with modern day monkeys. How do you feel about homohabilis and homoerectus being found living together? How do you feel about a "70 million year old" dinosaur still having tissue and red bloods cells? How do you feel language began if we examine feral humans and see that if they don't learn to talk by a certain age, they never do? There is a metaphysical part to humans as well, and only considering the physical is not scientific. At least that's what Darwin's mentor Adam Sedgewick told Darwin.

 

[WilliamC]

Are you serious? Down's syndrome cause sterility in males, there is only 3 known cases where men with Down's could have children and 1/2 of the offspring from female Down's are affected. So your scenario, the Down's people would die off.

Again, suppose you put everyone with Down's syndrome on an island. Within those individuals there is variation in fecundity. Now, assuming that there isn't 100% sterility (which you already say there isn't) then there will be some viable children being born and raised. The population would suffer huge die-offs but could still survive.

Give it 1,000 generations and they would not longer be Homo sapiens sapiens.

Heck, from a purely genetic point of view they already aren't, they have a different chromosomal makeup than "normal" or "wild-type" humans. Doesn't mean I think they should have any less rights though.

This is one of the main ways that evolution can occur rapidly, by populations producing chromosomally distinct individuals that still have some capacity to survive and reproduce. Given the right environmental conditions these individuals can form a new population that is reproductively isolated from the original one, and from then on they are different species.

Again, why do you think the natural rate of misscarriage is so high?