The Theory of Evolution stated clearly

[Singalphile]

Having read all posts in this thread, here are my related thoughts:

1) There is no conspiracy among biologists/geneticist/etc. to hide or twist evidence regarding the common common ancestor theory of evolution. (I am not aware that anyone here thinks there is.)

2) As natural scientists, they are doing their best to theorize about how observable, testable, repeatable, natural processes have led to our current state.

3) The supernatural is not scientific. The spiritual is not scientific. By definition, the supernatural and spiritual cannot be involved in a scientific explanation. It's off the table.

4) Therefore, if the supernatural cannot be invoked in an explanation of the origination and reproduction/variety of life, then natural evolution is the best explanation (or so I hear). And since we're all here, it must have been possible.

When reading any article about singular and unrepeatable events in past eons, you can simply add "unless God involved Himself" to any proposition and accept it for that. The game is called "How Did We Get Here Assuming Nothing Supernatural?" Some people (not here) don't understand that that's the game, I think, and some people think that non-scientific (i.e., the spiritual/supernatural, namely, God) is the same as anti-scientific.

Obviously, our beef is with the natural scientist who says that there isn't anything supernatural. Science can't prove or disprove the supernatural. If science could measure or observe the supernatural, then it wouldn't be supernatural. I reckon that any thoughtful "scientist" acknowledges these things.

By the way, I am a scientist. ... a computer scientist, but a scientist nonetheless. It's in writing and everything. (Yet when I read, "Scientists say ...," I can never remember them asking me about it. ) But I know that I only know a lot, relatively speaking, about a few little areas in a huge field. Among the other "scientists" I work with, some are smart and honest, some are neither. Just like in every other area of science and study, I suppose.

There is at least some proof here that some people embrace the naturalistic theory of evolution for non-scientific reasons.

[MMathis]

I like this theory.
Not my pearls but has a grain of truth.

The ‘baseline belief’ of astronomy:
“Someday we’ll pick up a tiny,
coded signal from outer space. Then
we’ll know for certain that there is
intelligence out there, because coded
information does not arise by chance”

The ‘baseline belief’ of biology:
The precisely coded genetic information in
every cell would fill many books…
but we know for certain that no intelligence
could have created life.”
Yikes, your tax dollars at work. Public Education?

[jonperry]

Where, exactly, is the science that indicates that a transition from single-celled to multi-cellular organism ever happened, could happen, or took any imaginable course to happening? If we can't get past this hurdle, the remainder of hurdles need not even be considered, since they will never be encountered.

We don't know the exact historic events which lead to the first multi-cellular organisms but there are several ways it can happen and it appears to have happened multiple times.

When tackling this question it's helpful to think of multi-cellular organisms as colonies of individual cells (organisms) working in tight collaboration.

In the 1950s two French WWII vets (Jacob and Monod) discovered the mechanism which allows single celled organism to differentiate in function and potentially work as a team. Their research was on how individual E. coli turn their lactose enzyme genes off when lactose is not present in their environment and then back on again when needed. They won the Nobel Prize in 1965 for the discovery. This principle has now been shown to be the exact same principle used by multi-cellular organisms when producing different cell types. Here's some quick reading on their research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac_operon

Here are 3 interesting types of transitional creatures for you to look into which show what the first steps of the single-celled to multi-celled transition may have looked like:

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

Slime Molds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_molds

Sea Sponges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge

I'm giving you Wikipedia links only as a starting point. I suggest Sean B. Carroll's book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" for a more trustworthy and detailed explanation of the process. I'm a visual learner and found his diagrams and color photos very helpful.

[Paidion]

I see neither evolution or creationism as "scientific". Neither position arises from "observable, testable, or repeatable" facts. Therefore neither is "more scientific" than the other.

Both are models of what is "observable, testable, repeatable." Where both are "absolutely believed", then both are systems of faith.

A theory can be tested. If newly-discovered facts never result in abandoning the theory, but simply result in its proponent altering their theory to accomodate the newly-discovered facts, then I call the so-called theory, a "queery". Proponents of queeries will never lose faith in their queery no matter what facts are discovered.

One is able to make predictions based on one's theory. For example cosmic evolutionists predicted that there would be several feet of "space dust" on the moon. When it was determined that there was only a few inches of dust, they adjusted their theory accordingly.

Is there ANYTHING which could be discovered which would result in evolutionists abandoning evolution? Does evolution theory qualify as "evolution queery"?