Why does evolutionary science seem to be

Jagz,Do you want to see a recreation in the lab of three billion years' worth of evolution? Well, sorry, that's not possible. It's also not possible to show you the Battle of Antietam, or the Earth revolving around the Sun. However, the process of inference from observations certainly does tell us what happened and is still happening.The mechanisms and processes involved in evolution (the hereditary system of DNA, embryology, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) are verifiable, testable, and falsifiable. This site will provide you with some falsifiable points related to evolutionary theory. These points are what science is all about, and what separates theory from guesswork.I'm second to no one in my sense of wonder at the amazing development of life on Earth. If that's what you mean by religious, I agree. But I'm facing up to reality, and the scientific basis of our knowledge. I can't say the same for people who deny that species evolve, regardless of their reasons for closing their eyes to reality.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Jagz,Does it make you laugh that one cell can become a multicellular creature? It happens every time an egg is fertilized inside a mother and grows into a baby. I'm amazed at how complex and unlikely the process of embryology is. And it's determined by the genetic functions of the DNA system alone.Sure, it's amazing and unlikely that life has developed on Earth the way it has, but there's no use in denying reality and calling upon magical thresholds like the 'bounds (or bonds) of heredity' you mention. The processes of DNA replication and natural selection are nothing short of miraculous in and of themselves. The more we understand about them the more impressed we are with the reality of Nature.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Typical. Hitchy gave you a very good run down of the species concept, then you ignore him and keep harping about your barriers and boundaries.The theory of common descent argues that we should expect that the likelihood of two organisms being able to reproduce is inversely proportional to the amount of generations between them and their most recent common ancestor. Is this or is this not what we observe in nature? Do you have any better explanation for the reproductive 'boundaries' you seem so fond of but cannot define?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

You may not have received the answer you wanted, but that doesn't make it a bad answer. The only difference between interfertile organisms and those who cannot reproduce with one another is the amount of genetic change that has taken place since the organisms' last common ancestor lived. Evidently you can't tell me whether this is what we observe in nature or not.The fact that modern species are derived from previous populations makes it by definition completely arbitrary to draw a magic Jagz Beach line separating the 'old' species from the 'new' one. This is the difference between Darwinism and creationism. You, my friend, want us to believe there are magic barriers and boundaries, but you can't tell us what they are or why they're there.Come on, Jagz, you tell us why we're wrong about this common descent thing. We're waiting.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Jagz,Answer my questions. We've all taken turns explaining things to you, now you explain yourself. What do you propose to explain species, and what useful theory do you have to explain the relationships among organisms?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Jagz,Fine, then what are the facts as you see them? What is your explanation for the relationships among species? Tell me what the scientific facts tell you.{edited to add:}
Since we're talking facts, I repeat: the theory of common descent argues that we should expect that the likelihood of two organisms being able to reproduce is inversely proportional to the amount of generations between them and their most recent common ancestor. Is this or is this not what we observe in nature?[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-12-2004]

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall