quote:
You side claims it takes too long to "see" evolution and that's why it is hard to demonstrate it scientifically
Evolution is demonstrated by the fossil record, biogeography, morphology, developmental biology and genetics among other things. The only theories that fit the facts are evolution and some form of creation that looks
exactly like evolution. Without any scientific evidence for creation, or a creator, and no obvious need for one science prefers evolution.
We don't need to understand the mechanism to be sure that evolution has happened. This discussion is NOT about whether evolution has occurred.
quote:
you claim your theory can make predictions but don't know what they are
who said that?
quote:
you claim the mechanisms for all of the variation are still not clearly know yet you are sure they are random
I don't think it's fundamental whether they are truly random or not. I wouldn't be surprised if we find more mechanisms whereby organisms selectively increase mutation under some circumstances. I also wouldn't be surprised if we find some elements of Lamarkism. There's nothing to rule out changes to genetic material based on life experience. Why does that matter particularly?
However it's impossible for a cell to 'choose' specific mutations- there is no way a cell could know that a given change will have a particular effect.
quote:
, you say you don't know how it all started but are working on that
Correct. But not relevant (for the hundredth time) to evolution
quote:
For a scientific theory that wants to preclude consideration of all other ideas, its not much of a theory. Or I am just arguing from incredulity again?
[off topic]
Scientists don't want to preclude discussion of other scientific ideas. They do want to preclude discussion of religious ideas dressed up as science. People who believe these things for religious reasons cannot properly discuss the evidence for and against evolution, and nor can they be scientists because they MUST believe that evolution is not true, whatever the evidence says.
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to drop evolution if a better theory came along, with powerful evidence to support it, and I'm prepared to bet that most scientists would too. Why wouldn't we? What we 'believe in' is the process of science, not the content.
[/off topic]