h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'd just like to point out that the Big Bang was the begining of time and space as we know it. The Big Bang came from a singularity and the time line cannot pass through this point. Therefore, no messages from 'before' the Big Bang can be found afterwards. So the Universe which appears out of the Big Bang cannot have any relationship with anything that went on 'before'. Hence your theory, Wonko, on evolutionary Big Bangs cannot work, I'm affraid.

The current laws of physics break down at the densities and temperatures at the big bang. So the only thing we can say for sure is that we don't know. The big bang may have come from a point singularity, or it may have come from a fractal singularity. Or indeed, from an area. As yet, nobody knows.

The theory Wonko is mentioning is not new - as I think he knows. Many people have suggested it. Steven Hawking, for example, proposed a theory whereby black holes bud off into new universes, and hence universe would evolve to be the best at making black holes.

Let's talk about sex (baby).

Sex is an advantage because it allows faster mutation. You can mix genes from A and B and get C which is a lot different from A and B, but where all of the differences have been proven to work on their own in either A or B. Also, good genes can be spread twice as fast.

The disadvantage of sex is that it requires energy to find a suitable partner, energy which could be better spent on producing offspring.

As a result, sex is sometimes an advantage and sometimes a disadvantage. Hence some organisms use sexual reproduction, and some use asexual reproduction.

Some organisms use both. This promotes flexibility, but comes at the cost of maintaining both means of reproduction. Sometimes the flexibility is worth it, sometimes it is not.

Bacterial sex is odd - effectively they seem to just steal pieces of DNA from each other in a non-consensual way. This promotes fast spreading of resistance to natural and artificial anti-biotics, and has lead to the problem of 'super-bugs'.

Computer simulations have shown that in the absence of practical problems, it is best to have three genders, such that you need three-way sex to produce an offspring. In nature the practical disadvantages of this scheme have lead to it not being adopted by any species.

multi-celled organisms.

advantages: as wonko says - longer life span. you can spray salt water at them, and they don't die instantly. Single-celled creatures do.
disadvantages: complexity, size. In certain niches life is too harsh to support this level of complexity.

Hence, as with sex, there is a variety in the world today.

Evolving multi-cells. Two methods.
1: symbiosis. As seen today in algae.
2: budding. As seen today in yeast.

Wonko-the-Sane:

>>Nosretep, it gives me quite a good feeling that we've managed to talk together is this very polite way. Thank you for that!<<

Thank you as well. I personally get excited by science and by talking about it. If it paid more money...

>>So at the end we arrived at a point where it's a question of whether the propability in above or below 10^-50 (I haven't heart of that "magic" number, could someone (Lucinda?) please give a hint?).<<

I think that it goes back to the fact that you can only have enough chance. For example, you can only win so many lotterys. The chances become so impossible that we have to admit that it can't happen.

>>What we don't know is: What did Adam look like? How many bits did he consist of? What exactly was the situation on Earth right then?<<

I wonder what scientists speculate about that.

>>Evolution theory is the most possible explanation, as there is no other.<<

Right now there is no better explanation (based on our observations of the world) for how we came to exist. Science has a duty to explain things in natural terms. God cannot enter into science. If a diety is the only explanation for an event (such as the existence of thunder), then science has an obligation to say: "we don't know." This is why I feel evolution is bad science. With our current technology and level of knowledge, I believe that science is just guessing and therefore has to say: "we don't know how life began." Will science ever reach the point where it can explain how life began? Well, my faith in God says no.

Lucinda:

>>On the contrary - this works in practice - just as much as $2+$2=$4<<

Let's say that you go to the bank with 2 $5 bills. They give you 1 $10 bill. Do you have the same amount? Not really. You have spent energy and time going to the bank and they have done likewise in exchanging the money. Therefore, some value is lost. I admit that this is a bad example, but the best that I could come up with to show taht theory and practice are different.

>>actually, Wonko, the first 'Adam' may have been very small.<<

That may be a point missed by a lot of creationists. That does increase the probability of getting the first "life." But, you then have to extrapolate even more changes to get it to a man.

The chemical that you are refering to would act as a step between amino acids and the first cellular organism?

Wonko-the-Sane:

>>If the universe has a distinct beginning and end, which is needed if its not infinite, what was before or after?<<

That is a question that science definately can only guess about. Any theories about other universes cannot fit under the scientific method (as far as I know).

>>The law of physics are determined during the Big Bang according to the state the universe was in before the Big Bang. So the laws of physics are banging their way through Evolution, getting more complex and fine tuned untill they reach a level where Life on Earth is possible.<<

You explain this later, but let me just see if we agree. Most physicists who deal with the Big Bang theory say (I think correctly) that physical properties detiorate at very high temperatures and the different properties combine (as shown through recent experimentation). Once the temperatures cool down, you have the different properties "splitting" into what we see around us. Is this what you mean?

Zickalyv:

>>Hence your theory, Wonko, on evolutionary Big Bangs cannot work, I'm affraid.<<

I think that most scientists would agree here.

Lucinda:

Right now, your points seem to lead to the end of the last post, so I will only respond to that.

>>Evolving multi-cells. Two methods.
1: symbiosis. As seen today in algae.
2: budding. As seen today in yeast.<<

Is algae after symbiosis more algae or is it a new species of organism? Is yeast after budding more yeast or a new species of organism?

There was alot to respond to, if I overlooked something really important, let me know.

Algae is a symbiosis between two seperate single-celled organisms, which grow together, and survive better by leaning on each other than they could on their own.

The degree of the symbiosis is different in different species - some are really just two seperate organisms that happen to do particularly well when they grow in the same place - others blur the line to being almost multi-celled organisms. And, indeed, all stages in between - there is no hard line seperating any type - it is a smoothly evolving continuum.

Yeast reproduces by asexual reproduction, in a method called 'budding'. That is, a new yeast individual 'buds' off the original. Each bud then gets another bud, and so on. After a few generations the chain breaks up.

In this sense, yeast starts life as part of a multi-celled organism, switches to a single-celled organism, and then back to a multi-celled organism. It is fairly clear that evolving from single-celled to yeastlike, and hence to very simple multi-celled, each involve very small evolutionary jumps.

I missed one: funghi. Funghi have multiple cell nucleii, but a single shared cell wall. Funghi with weak internal cell walls also exist, and such structures lead, as with almost everything in nature, to advantages and disadvantages.

We do not know what the original path was - it may be one which was evolutionarily inferior to some later evolutionary development, and so there are no species left at various stages along the path from single-multi celled. But we know it occured because we are here now, and because the spontaneous creation of multi-celled creatures is too unlikely.

> "That may be a point missed by a lot of creationists. That does increase the probability of getting the first "life." But, you then have to extrapolate even more changes to get it to a man."

I don't understand this. All I'm pointing out is a possible mechanism for getting from amino acids to single-celled creatures. The amount of evolutionary 'work' that has to be done is unchanged.

These aren't changes that are extrapolated - we see species at pretty much all stages along the way - in the development of the eye, for example, we see species with light sensitive skin, and with various degrees of depression in the light sensitive area, then something akin to an eye socket - then the flooding with lensing type solution, and so on, and so on, all the way to the highly evolved human eye. If the intermediate steps were not evolutionarily useful in some particular niche, they would not ever have evolved - which is why they can still be found if you look in the right place.

> "The chemical that you are refering to would act as a step between amino acids and the first cellular organism?"

Yeah - though 'protein' would perhaps be a better word, come to think of it. We know that the last such protein in the chain was DNA. It is believed that the precursor to DNA was RNA. Before that... who knows - but it is likely that the chain has many members within it.

However, self-catalysing chemicals exist at smaller scales than amino acids - but they are not terribly useful. You can also get pairs of chemicals (and, presumable, proteins), each of which catalyse the production of the other chemical in the pair.

re: passing messages through the big bang. The current most popular hypothesis is that time 'starts' at the big bang. But this may not be truth - and is considerably less certain than, say, gravity or evolution. Alternative theories make predictions, and we test these predictions - and sometimes the results of these tests change what the most popular hypothesis.
My personal view is that they will find that you can send messages through a black hole - largely because the current theory seems a little to convenient and 'clean'. But that's just a gut feeling.

I think I like this three gender sex thing. Bisexual would be the normal thing, and trisexual a little bit more seldom. But it would be difficult, provided you have only two hands, to have some fun with yourself and type on the keyboard at the same time.

I'll do more on the Evolution of Universes tomorrow on the Big Bang God thread, just for the fun of it; hope you contribute, too, well educated Lucinda.

Thanks to all of you, Babys.

And you too, of course, Nosretep!

Lucinda:

>>others blur the line to being almost multi-celled organisms.<<

I will assume that you are right because I don't know. The thing is, they are still a group of algae. They help each other do cirtain tasks and join together so that their differences disappear. Are they now a multi-celled organism? Let's look at what a multi-celled organism does. The most important aspect is that it creates another lifeform that naturally divides into another multi-celled organism. This creature does not have to find others of its kind to become another multi-celled organism. What am I talking about? There is no change in the genetic structure that I can see when organisms join together.

>>We do not know what the original path was - it may be one which was evolutionarily inferior to some later evolutionary development, and so there are no species left at various stages along the path from single-multi celled. But we know it occured because we are here now<<

That is not a very good scientific statement. It seems that you are starting from a construct and developing guesses based on that construct.

>>All I'm pointing out is a possible mechanism for getting from amino acids to single-celled creatures.<<

Ok.

>>in the development of the eye<<

Do you realise how wonderful the human eye is? Can you imagine a digital camera that compensates for "black spots" or repairs itself when the lens is scratched or automatically adjusts for light level or has built-in OCR that only needs half of a letter to read it? The eye is a wonderful machine. The intermediate steps that you list show different uses of electro-magnetic radiation to animals. What good is light sensitive skin if the brain cannot interpret the signals? What good are various degrees of depression in the light sensitive area?

>>though 'protein' would perhaps be a better word<<

A protein is a very complex substance that consists of amino-acid residues joined by peptide bonds and includes many essential biological compounds such as enzymes, hormones, or immunoglobulins. That is a big leap.

All of the arguments of evolution start from the notion that everything is constantly getting better and constantly improving. This is pure fiction.

Let us first look at the "fossil record." According to evolution, new and better species are constantly appearing. Today, species are constantly disappearing. Is this solely a result of man? I believe so, but this is based on theology. Without that, the answer has to be no. While man has done alot of damage to this earth, the earth is doing alot more damage to itself. According to evolution, all of the dinosaurs died off with no human intervention. According to evolution, alot of species died off at the last ice age with no human intervention.

Lets now look at the human race. We are detiorating. All of a sudden, we have many "new" diseases cropping up. Downe's syndrome and Turner's syndrome to name a few. Now, if we are continually improving on an evolutionary level, shouldn't we have no new genetic diseases? Yet, we see natural selection making us vulnerable to new genetic diseases. I postulate that the reason we have so many new diseases continually cropping up is that human genes are deteoriating.

I see this world running down. In fact, I see this universe running down. From proton decay to star burnout, I see the second law of thermodynamics at work. Through every chamical reaction I see an increase in disorder. If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, do you see an increase in order in your everyday life? I see a man grow old and die. I see a car rust. I see a brick wall fall in age. I have never seen a man grow young. I have never seen a car de-rust (this is physically impossible). I have never seen a brick wall build itself. Do you see an increase in order?

Uhm. Where to begin?

>>Do you see an increase in order?<<

No. But then I do not subscribe to the chaos to cosmos theology of the ancient greek.

>>Lets now look at the human race. We are detiorating. All of a sudden, we have many "new" diseases cropping up. Downe's syndrome and Turner's syndrome to name a few. Now, if we are continually improving on an evolutionary level, shouldn't we have no new genetic diseases? Yet, we see natural selection making us vulnerable to new genetic diseases. I postulate that the reason we have so many new diseases continually cropping up is that human genes are deteoriating.<<

Humans are not the only species evolving. We are competing with a host of other species; the moose, the dog, the bacteria. We have defeated the moose and domesticated the dog, but we are still at war with the bacteria. New medicine equals tougher living for the micro-organisms. The fittest survive. The fittest are the ones that adapt to the new medicins and become super-bugs. That's evolution, isn't it?

About proton decay and star burnouts.. well, I don't know much about astronomy, but noone said the party wouldn't ever stop... And what has derusting and automated brickwalls to do with evolution?

Nosretep, cheer up. All will be well. Just have look at the common ground thread and what Pillowcase says. He is a true believer.

Order has nothing to do with Thermodynamics. Have a look at your harddisc. The bits are coded as small magnetic fields. They could all be one, or all zero or be complete at random. Or there could be a copy of your genes, taking about 2 gigs of space. The order would be entierly different. But the level of entropy would be the same, provided the harddisc would have he same temperature and mass.

Yes, I see an increase of order. Compare Earth with Mars, that's beautyful Evolution at work.

Evolution takes very small steps to acomplish wonderful results. That species die off (in the way that the chain of descendents suddenly breaks) has nothing to do with Evolution, but with Mother Nature being wild at times.

Viruses have played a major part in Evolution, carrying genes to organisms, so they are not so bad after all.

Just wanted to mention that I think Down Syndrom isn't a very good example for our continually deteorating genes. First of all I am not too sure that Down Syndrom is a "new" disease, well yes it was medically described as a disease of its own for the first time in 1866. But that doesn't proove it didn't exist till then, just nobody realized it as that particular disease. Some scientists believe that lots of cases of the simple so called idiocy could have been down syndrom cases (I mean nobody was able to count cromosoms at that time ).
Another thing about Down Syndrom is that the risk of having a child suffering from it increases drastically with the age of the mother. If the mother is 25 years old 1 out of 1205 children is born with Down Syndrom. Aged 35 already every 365th child has it and when the mother is 49 one out of 12 babies has the Down Syndrom. It is just a fact that lots of women are getting their babies later in our time, so it's no surprise that there are more Down Syndrom children (and don't get me wrong, I am far away from blaming any mother for having a child with Down Syndrom ) And last but not least many children wouldn't have survived in former times due to a leck of medical possibilies (so no mere survival of the fittest anymore). But I think it is not completely impossible for somebody suffering from Down Syndrom to have a healthy child (is that right?).
So in my opinion there are diseases and defects that can proove genetic deteoration in humans but Down Syndrom isn't the right example as it isn't a result of deteoriated genes.
(and btw. I know some wonderful people with Down Syndrom! )

> "There is no change in the genetic structure that I can see when organisms join together."

Reread what I was saying about bacterial 'sex'. Note that it becomes worthwhile, eventually, for one half of the pair to produce the other half.

> "That is not a very good scientific statement."

It is a very good scientific statement, because it's fact. The real world is messy and disorganised, and nobody has all the answers to everything. The exact mechanism by which single-celled creatures became multi-celled is something which I don't know, and I believe that science doesn't, as yet, know.

Maybe it will, maybe we will never know. It doesn't matter - we have a lot of evidence for evolution from elsewhere - we don't need evidence from this point here. Though it will be nice if it turns up.

> "What good is light sensitive skin if the brain cannot interpret the signals?"

Ask the cockroach skuttling away from the suns rays to hide from flying insects. Ask the plant which grows towards sources of light. Neither have a brain.

> "What good are various degrees of depression in the light sensitive area?"

Improves directionality of your light-sensitivity. Without it, your 'forward' light sensor will be activate by light from the forward-left and forward-right. At later stages, you get focussing via the pinhole camera effect, too.

> "A protein is a very complex substance..."

In general, yes. But the simplest proteins can be formed of just two amino acids stuck together in the right way. You don't spontaneously form DNA - you go via RNA and a bunch of simpler proteins.

"All of the arguments of evolution start from the notion that everything is constantly getting better and constantly improving. This is pure fiction."

It's certainly fiction - evolution just says that things evolve. Sometimes they evolve 'backwards', sometimes 'sideways'. But they always evolve to better fill the changing niches they find themselves in.

New and better species appearing is not the primary mechanism of evolution - it is more of a side effect. The primary mechanism is that individual *members* of a species are become better at filling particular niches.

The whole point of evolution is *survival of the fittest*. That means, *DUH*, that those that are not the fittest do not survive. The dinosaurs died off because they were not the fittest in the world created by a meteorite strike - other, more adaptable, species were better able to deal with the consequences.

JAR:

>>Humans are not the only species evolving. We are competing with a host of other species; the moose, the dog, the bacteria. We have defeated the moose and domesticated the dog, but we are still at war with the bacteria. New medicine equals tougher living for the micro-organisms. The fittest survive. The fittest are the ones that adapt to the new medicins and become super-bugs. That's evolution, isn't it?<<

All species adapt. Natural selection is real. The evidence is irrefutable. I will never say that natural selection does not happen. I would be a fool if I did. But, it is a small jump from one bacteria to a better bacteria. It is a large jump from a bacteria to a different organism.

>>About proton decay and star burnouts.. well, I don't know much about astronomy, but noone said the party wouldn't ever stop... And what has derusting and automated brickwalls to do with evolution?<<

I see the decay of everything around us. I do not the constant building up of everything around us.

Wonko-the-Sane:

>>Order has nothing to do with Thermodynamics. Have a look at your harddisc. The bits are coded as small magnetic fields. They could all be one, or all zero or be complete at random. Or there could be a copy of your genes, taking about 2 gigs of space. The order would be entierly different. But the level of entropy would be the same, provided the harddisc would have he same temperature and mass.<<

In both of your examples, there is a guiding force that stores and transfers the information. The guiding force of evolution is supossedly natural selection. It has not been proven that natural selection can transform one species into another.

>>Yes, I see an increase of order. Compare Earth with Mars, that's beautyful Evolution at work.<<

The Earth and Mars are seperate. Now, if Mars turned into the Earth, that would be an increase in order. I don't see that happening.

>>Evolution takes very small steps to acomplish wonderful results. That species die off (in the way that the chain of descendents suddenly breaks) has nothing to do with Evolution, but with Mother Nature being wild at times.<<

Mother Nature is wild at all times unless it has a devine purpose.

Feffi:

It has been proven that inbreeding deteorates genes. Just look at cows and the Romans (not that the Romans are cows). Therefore, how could any species last for millions of years?

Lucinda:

>>It is a very good scientific statement, because it's fact. The real world is messy and disorganised, and nobody has all the answers to everything. The exact mechanism by which single-celled creatures became multi-celled is something which I don't know, and I believe that science doesn't, as yet, know.<<

So then, science just says it happened because it obviously must have. This is a violation of the scientific method. Instead of advancing evolution, science should just step back and say "we don't know" if they indeed do not.

>>Maybe it will, maybe we will never know. It doesn't matter - we have a lot of evidence for evolution from elsewhere - we don't need evidence from this point here. Though it will be nice if it turns up.<<

We have ample evidence for adaptation within a species. What other evidence do we have?

>>Ask the cockroach skuttling away from the suns rays to hide from flying insects. Ask the plant which grows towards sources of light. Neither have a brain.<<

They have to interpret the signals somehow (I think). This (the cockroach) could be very good evidence for natural selection as the ones most willing to run away from sunlight survive. Do cockroachs not have eyes?

>>In general, yes. But the simplest proteins can be formed of just two amino acids stuck together in the right way.<<

Those proteins do not do much. You need the proteins to actually fullfil a protein. For them to do something, you need a cell. There is no reason to have a protein just sitting there.

> "It has not been proven that natural selection can transform one species into another."

That's because it doesn't. It's not the case of apes *turning into* chimps. It's the case of gradually a species of chimp becoming more and more diverse until, eventually, individuals at opposite ends of the species cannot reproduce with one-another. At this point, we now have two species.

> "what other evidence do we have"

Fossil record. Dogs & other human-selected animals. Other stuff I don't know about.

> "Instead of advancing evolution, science should just step back and say "we don't know" if they indeed do not."

It is a general rule of science to seek generality. In this case, we can see evidence for evolution occuring at higher levels of life, so we decide that evolution occured at higher levels of life. We see that evolution at lower levels of life is not incompatible with the evidence, and indeed there are detailed hints of how it may have happened. Hence we generalise.

This is the same process that causes us to generalise that, because gravity works on earth, and because it works in observable space, that therefore it works everywhere. It is absolutely standard, and past experience tells us that these generalisations tend to be accurate - though, of course, if good evidence is found which contradicts the generalisation, then it must be rethought.

All science says is "According to the scientific method, this is scientific truth". If you wish to reject the scientific method as flawed, you are entitled to do so - indeed I see you have in another thread. But having done so, don't criticise science for relying on the scientific method.

> re: cockroaches

Trust me - they don't have brains. They don't interpret the signals beyond a very simple - "while light detected on left move right legs shorter distance on each stride" - thing. It's all hard-wired in.

If I recall correctly from biology GCSE, cockroaches don't have eyes, just light-sensitive skin. Why would they have eyes? They don't have the brains to interpret what their eyes would tell them.

> "Those proteins do not do much."

They catalyse reactions. What do you want, magic?

> "You need the proteins to actually fullfil a protein."

This is a typo, I guess - dunno what for. Care to share?

> "For them to do something, you need a cell."

Tell that to the people who use proteins as catalysts on an industrial scale. They put large quantities of them in big vats. No cells in sight.

> "There is no reason to have a protein just sitting there."

Two amino acids bump together at the right time, with a few extra things hanging around - and bingo - you have a simple protein. Add a few more here and there - purely by chance - bingo: you have a self-catalysing protein. The protein doesn't care about 'reason' - it just goes around making copies of itself. Badly.

Lucinda:

>>That's because it doesn't. It's not the case of apes *turning into* chimps. It's the case of gradually a species of chimp becoming more and more diverse until, eventually, individuals at opposite ends of the species cannot reproduce with one-another. At this point, we now have two species.<<

In our experiments with corn and other plantlife, we have seen that we can manipulate it to a great degree, but there is a point where it cannot reproduce at all. This could be generalized to everything else, but you probably would say that is bad science for some reason.

>>Fossil record. Dogs & other human-selected animals. Other stuff I don't know about.<<

I have looked at the fossil record. I do not see evolution. Dogs have been bred to obey us. "Other stuff" is not hard scientific data.

>>It is a general rule of science to seek generality.<<

That needs qualification. It is a general rule of science to seek understanding. When generality helps this, it is good. When generality interferes with this, it is bad.

>>In this case, we can see evidence for evolution occuring at higher levels of life, so we decide that evolution occured at higher levels of life.<<

Evolution seen today is adaptation. Evolution yesterday was adaptation. This adaptation cannot be generally applied to corn turning into oak trees.

>>This is the same process that causes us to generalise that, because gravity works on earth, and because it works in observable space, that therefore it works everywhere.<<

We can generalize this because of Einstein's excellent models on relativity which have been proven to some extent.

>>All science says is "According to the scientific method, this is scientific truth". If you wish to reject the scientific method as flawed, you are entitled to do so - indeed I see you have in another thread. But having done so, don't criticise science for relying on the scientific method.<<

I do not reject the scientific method. Often I feel it is misused. Evolution is an example of this.

>>Trust me - they don't have brains. They don't interpret the signals beyond a very simple - "while light detected on left move right legs shorter distance on each stride" - thing. It's all hard-wired in.<<

Ok.

>>This is a typo, I guess - dunno what for. Care to share?<<

I guess I meant "you need a cell to use a protein."

>>Tell that to the people who use proteins as catalysts on an industrial scale. They put large quantities of them in big vats. No cells in sight.<<

This fulfills no cellular task though.

It *is* a general rule of science to seek generality. It is a 'metatheory' - a theory used to choose between theories, when both theories are similarly in tune with the evidence.

IE: two theories.
1) evolution is responsible for the diversity of life.
2) evolution is responsible for the diversity of life from the multi-cellular level onwards and some other unknown thing is responsible before then.

And science picks theory 1. This absolutely identical to
1) gravity is responsible for the movement of objects on earth and in the heavens.
2) gravity if responsible for the movement of objects on earth, and some other unknown thing is responsible for the movement of objects in the heavens.

Science doesn't give two figs for understanding - the sole criterion is testable correct predictions. Nobody understood quantum mechanics for years, but it made testable correct predictions, so it was accepted by the scientific method.

The metatheory 'generalise where it is not in contradiction of the facts' has proved, over the years, to be good at making testable correct predictions. So it is used.

> "In our experiments with corn and other plantlife, we have seen that we can manipulate it to a great degree, but there is a point where it cannot reproduce at all"

Specifically, we have seen that if you breed life for some property X, then as you breed for that, other characteristics Y are negatively affected. One of those Ys is reproductive ability.

If we breed for reproductive ability, then reproductive ability increases, and stays increased. There is not a point where it suddenly becomes unable to reproduce.

This is a fact which is contrary to your generalisation, so your generalisation is not valid. The theory that all manipulation of life causes sterility has made testable predictions, which have turned out to be false. Therefore the scientific method rejects the theory.

> "We can generalize this[gravity] because of Einstein's excellent models on relativity"

Newton was the first to generalise this, since you ask. It has been scientific fact since then.

> "I have looked at the fossil record. I do not see evolution."

Then you are blind or deceiving yourself.

> "Dogs have been bred to obey us"

Incorrect - get attacked by a wild dog, and you'll find out why.
Dogs are *trained* to obey us. They are bred for docility and trust so they are easier to train. And also for speed, appearance, length of ears, shagginess of coat, etc, etc, etc. Many things. Many resulting species of dog.

> "other stuff"

I've thought of another few, in case you care.
1) The diversity of life. Yes, this counts as evidence for evolution. It is also evidence for creation.
2) Tracing of genetic similarities and differences.
3) the existance of live common ancestors. Sometimes the common ancestors of different species become extinct. Sometimes they do not. Where they do not, they are living evidence.

And indeed, stuff which I don't know sufficient about to wish to bring up here.

> "This[protein] fulfills no cellular task though."

Who cares? There were no cells in the time before the evolution of the first single-celled creature. Cells are a total irrelevancy to the matter at hand. You seem to think that proteins require cells to work. They don't.

> "I do not reject the scientific method. Often I feel it is misused. Evolution is an example of this."

For those who haven't spoken to nosrestep before, other examples of the 'misuse' of the scientific method are astronomy, carbon dating, radiometric dating, etymology and linguistics.

You cannot 'misuse' the scientific method. You simply use it. If you are doing science, then you have to use it. If you wish to reject the scientific method in certain areas, you are welcome to do so - but do not criticise scientists for using it. It is their job to do so.

Lucinda:

>>IE: two theories.
1) evolution is responsible for the diversity of life.
2) evolution is responsible for the diversity of life from the multi-cellular level onwards and some other unknown thing is
responsible before then.

And science picks theory 1.<<

Even theory 1 is a generalization. It takes the adaptation within a species and applies it to a transition between species.

>>Science doesn't give two figs for understanding - the sole criterion is testable correct predictions.<<

How is evolution between species testable? Isn't the only true test observation. We cannot see evolution between species. We can observe gravity.

>>The theory that all manipulation of
life causes sterility has made testable predictions, which have turned out to be false.<<

How? I am not talking about little differences. I am talking about different species. Does this take into account great degrees of manipulation?

>>Newton was the first to generalise this, since you ask. It has been scientific fact since then.<<

Gravity has been generalised by Newton. It was revised by Einstein. It now has been revised some more (this was about 5 years ago and I don't understand how. I think it was a minor calculation change).

>>Then you are blind or deceiving yourself.<<

I do not accept the propaganda of evolutionists without examining the evidence. I see great arguments for creation and the flood in the fossil record. For example, most fossils are only found in rock which is formed underwater. This explains the preponderence of sea fossils on the earth. It does not explain evolution. It does explain the flood. If you don't see that then you are blind or decieving yourself.

>>Many resulting species of dog.<<

That depends upon your definition of species. Did you know that a poodle can mate with a German Shepherd and a dog with a wolf? A more correct term is breed of dog.

>>3) the existance of live common ancestors. Sometimes the common ancestors of different species become extinct. Sometimes they do not. Where they do not, they are living evidence.<<

What about the intermediate steps? If the changes in the intermediate organisms made then superior, shouldn't the ancestors have died? If not, why would the intermediate steps not exist today?

By the way, have you heard of the static equilibrium theory?

>>You cannot 'misuse' the scientific method. You simply use it. If you are doing science, then you have to use it. If you wish to
reject the scientific method in certain areas, you are welcome to do so - but do not criticise scientists for using it. It is their
job to do so.<<

I used the wrong word. Evolution does not use the scientific method because there is no way to test the theory.

Right now many aspects of astronomy are not testable. By the way, Einstein made some assumptions in his relativity - the Universe has no bounds, the Universe has no center, the Universe is evenly distributed. These are assumptions that I believe are false and have caused strange theories such as dark matter. Carbon dating and radiometric dating cannot be tested by direct observation (except on new vulcanic ash and new dead tissue which sometimes end up being thousands or millions of years old). Again, etymology and linguistics cannot have direct observation. A theory and a hypothosis need a testable method for them. And the testable methods need a testable method for them. Evolution is tested using untested methods. In the end, we need some direct observation that some method works to use the scientific method. The evidence in my opinion fits creation better than evolution.