Both or neither.

sconzey, Where does the scientific method require experiments & their results? Where does the scientific method require the inferences made from evidence to be in the present? The inferred existence of the Roman & Greek empires was made using the scientific method..... I would seem you shouldn't be here, then!Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

sconzey, Resolved. But I think you mean transitional.There are numerous examples of transitional series, fish - basal tetrapod, reptile to mammal etc. See below. Non-sequitur. That eugenics, social Darwinism etc existed in no way detracts from the scientific theory. It's like trying to debunk chemistry because dynamite can kill people. This study clearly shows a link between morphologically inferred relationships & stratigraphy. Ergo, macroevolution, no matter how you define it, is a reality. What of it? Nobody has ever shown IC could not evolve. IC is defined as a unit that ceases to funtion when one part is removed. The mammalian middle ear bones, the malleus, incus, & stapes form just such an IC unit. Yet there is a series of fossils from reptiles to mammals that show that the malleus & incus were once lower jaw bones, & the stapes was once involved in the articulation of the jaw in fishes. Furthermore, mammalian embryology shows that the malleus & incus start associated wt the lower jaw before assuming their role in the middle ear.

quote:

---

Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)

---

That's two corroborating lines of evidence showing how an IC unit evolved. How improbable would that be? Show your working. Creationism is regarded as unscientific because it doesn't meet the standards of the scientific method. Creationists start with the "truth", & then shoehorn any data they can to fit, whilst ignoring contradictory evidence. Science starts with an inductively derived hypothesis, makes predictions, & proposes falsifications. If the predictions are born out then you have yourself a scientific theory. This is why evolution is science & creationism is not.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

sconzey, Already did correct you. That evolutionary ideas were used for evil in no way detracts from the science. Do you think we should bin chemistry because gunpowder has killed people? That's where you go wrong, for your argument to be correctly analogous to evolution, the chimp doesn't have to type more than one correct letter at a time, whenever it get's it right, that correct selection is saved. It also get's many chances per event (more than one mutation per generation. This is natural selection, something that get's slightly more "correct" is saved, & can be further improved upon.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-15-2003]

sconzey, Your opinion is wrong. This is rather the point of science, isn't it? To infer things that exist/occur/have existed/have occurred that defy direct observation?Mark

sconzey, Stay on topic, your argument is with evolution, not abiogenesis.Can we assume you have no problem with evolution being taught as science, & creationism being left to the church?But anyway........ Do they? Who said proteins need to be synthesised at all by the original self replicator? Let's not, it is another strawman non-sequitur. No-one in science is postulating that a cell just sprung into existance.But like I say, you have strayed off of your original topic.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

k.kslick, Where did I criticise anything for lack of proof? The post you responded to has nothing to do with what you have written.Nothing in science is proven. I feel I have to write this so often to creationists that I'm going to write a .doc & just cut & paste the same line.Nothing in science is proven. NOTHING. Correct, but science doesn't require proof. It requires evidence that logically would be expected if any given hypothesis were true, & no evidence must be present that would contradict it. Creationism walks around with shelf miles of evidence contradicting it. Not a good place to be.You seem to be under the misunderstanding that creationism & evolution are somehow evidentially equal, so simply picking one & running with it is OK. Creationism is contradicted by evidence, evolution is supported by it, it's that simple. If you pick creationism you are doing so in spite of the evidence & not because of it.It is possible to pluck scientific factoids out of their contexts & throw them together as part of some larger synthesis & pretend it is science. But that synthesis has to be consistent with the entire body of available facts, & creationism simply isn't. The bible is a religious text, there is absolutely no empirical reason why I should accept it as being indicative of reality. None. Evolution is science, it should be taught in a science classroom. It has LOTS of evidence in it's favour, & no falsifying data exists. This is exactly the same as everything else you are taught in a science class. Why single out evolution? Because of a religious text you believe but have no scientifically valid evidence for? A bit of tortured way to think, wouldn't you say? The most polite thing you could say was that it is an inconsistent point of view. I am afraid it is very, very right.The problem with teaching evolution as part of a secondary education ie < 18 year olds, is that to properly be able to assess the evidences for evolution requires a relatively in-depth knowledge of geology, palaeontology, genetics, biology, chemistry, etc. that < 18 year olds don't have. As a result it is rarely taught & synthesised in the classroom in the way it deserves to be. Even at degree level, evolutionary theory modules tend to be among the more advanced units available.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall