Originally posted by dmz
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory
Since you act like you're so knowledgable about the ways of science, here's an excellent opportunity for you to strut your stuff and explain just what it means for something to be "proven" or not.
a theory that fundamentally contradicts all known characterisitcs of the known universe.
Have you got another bogus interpretation of thermodynamics to offer us here, or something better? Just which "characterisitcs of the known universe" are all of these anyway?
There are no working models to contradict---only wishfull thinking;
Tell us what a "working model" is, and please explain to what degree TRUE SCIENCE (since you're the expert on that, apparently) requires said "working models".
blue-sky paradigms of abstract generalities.
Like a God Who snaps His Fingers and makes anything He wants to exist poof into existence?
Adaptation through mutation and natural selection is far more than a "blue-sky paradigm" or "abstract generalities". It has been observed and tested. Yes, on much smaller scales that are needed to bring a full living world into existence, but there's more than enough data from which to draw useful conclusions and with which to test and extend our models.
Do you wish to essentially rule out scientific access to anything that can't be exactly recreated in a laboratory?
Is forensic evidence that convicts a murder just so much "blue sky" until the forensic scientists recreate the same murder in a laboratory?
I propose that you have, in fact, already ruled out anything
that a scientist could possibly come up with as evidence. I'll bet that if scientists learned how to accelerate time, and did so in a vast preserve filled with nothing but raw chemical components, and came out with new life and new species, you'd simply dismiss the awesome wonder of such an experiment by saying something like "The just used their own intelligence to make it comes out that way, and they just copied God's work. They still haven't proved
anything to me."
Even if by some miracle (pardon the expression) that the above was finally enough to convince you, I feel fairly certain that you'll happily rule out anything less that this as sufficient proof.
If you think that digging in your heels and making up your mind that you'll accept nothing less than impossible-to-conduct experiments as proof makes you some sort of Champion of True Science, you don't understand at all what science is about at all.
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
You've been given the opportunity to explain what the problem is here, and haven't taken it yet. I don't know enough about whales and the kinds of food they eat to know what alterative food sources might have existed in the past, what adaptations whales might have passed through as available food sources changed, etc.
Presumably you must know something about this that makes the whale question terribly troubling and difficult to explain. Either that, or you're convinced that the question is a stumper without having even thought about much yourself.
How did life form?
---you don't have anything other than "it just did"
Developing a model of how random changes guided by natural selection can lead to adaptive complexity is more that "it just did".
Examining geological data and doing experiments to determine if the available conditions and chemical constituents needed for life were available are more than "it just did".
Making successful predictions based on the theory of evolution about what future archeological and genetic studies might prove is more that "it just did".
And by the way, the question of how the very first life formed isn't a question of evolution anyway, it's a question of "biogenesis". Evolution starts with the first cell or cells already in existence. You can insert gods, aliens, or evolution-inspired models of chemical biogenesis in here if you like, but the validity of evolution is a separate and independent issue from the matter of where the first life came from.
and please don't ask to see behind the curtain.
Your solution seems to be to jump straight to a God "behind the curtain" without bothering with any intervening steps, models, or examination of data. This is your vision of better science?
Your solution is to take a fixed, invariant story and struggle to make the data fit the story, because you already "know" the story you have is true. This is your vision of better science?
and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
This again. As I said above, tell us what a "working model" is, and please explain to what degree TRUE SCIENCE requires said "working models".
Uh.....okay, great theory, how did this happen at a DNA level?---oh and, by the way, what is the likelyhood of this happening knowing what we observe in DNA?
You already know the answer, even if you refuse to accept it as sufficient: random mutation. You simply fail to understand how "mere" randomness is a powerful thing when operating under selective pressures and given billions of years and enormous numbers (quadrillions? quintillions? sextillions? however many living beings have ever existed) of opportunities for trial and error.
I imagine that you grin a wide grin when someone trots out that old saw comparing evolution to "a tornado hitting a junkyard creating a 747". If you smugly think that silly analogy has evolution nailed, it's just another sign you don't know what you're talking about or arguing against.
This is why evolution is beginning to fade as a serious theory---you need more than complete improbability to build a worldview.
I don't see the slightest evidence of evolution fading. Among whom? Where? Have any statistics?
And by the way, how are things going at that bustling center of scientific inquiry known as the Creation Studies Institute? Are those studies that are going to rock the world just around the corner from being published now? Or are all those other bad, evil, Satanic scientists still beating down the fine God-fearing CSI folk, and persecuting them so much that they just can't get the Good Word out to a larger audience yet?
As for "complete improbability" -- just another sign that you're clueless about the very thing you're railing against. You're fighting a creationist-created parody of evolution, not evolution itself.