Re:Evolution vs Adaptation (Score 1)

True, evolution in the modern sense is not the same as abiogenesis. However, to separate the two is way too convenient. Abiogenesis is a "logos" that unfortunately sheilds many evolutionists from having to deal with the massively imporobable nature of evolution itself. It doesn't prevent one, though, from having to connect the dots from the beginning of life on the planet to where we are now in the midst of observable biology. The fascination with evolution no doubt stems from the fascination with origin, and if evolution were ever observed the field of abiogenesis would certainly not be around for long. I think you've dismissed probability far to simplistically. For instance, if there have been trillions of permutations and as such billions of mutations over the years, we should be tripping over transitional forms in our back yard as each stage of a new, propogating transitional form would then again need to go through trillions of permutations before arriving at one new beneficial or new peice of information. Arriving at an entirely new species should provide us with such a rich fossil record that we would without question have a scientific law on our hands. Appealing to authority? I was reponding to your comments that there was basically scientific consensus on evolution. I was just countering what was your appeal to authority. If you look at evolutionary theory as it has "evolved" over the last 25 years or so, you will find there have been many flaws that require it to redefine itself as a science. As observations become more perplexing, the scope gets broader and broader. For example evolution WAS abiogenesis until our origin became problematic to explain and it became it's own logos. Evolution has always been considered a species moving forward, but since we've never observed new, usable, beneficial information being added to a species, the definition was conveniently made that evolution is ANY change at all. In order to survive evolutionary theory has had to become increasingly microscopic as the major and most obvious questions have become impossible to answer. Trust me, I've read all the critical anaylsis of the bombardier beetle on both sides, and I've come away with this: Both sides ask the other for imagination. The question is, which one is more probable to you? I simply can't conceive of non-intelligent DNA randomly "conferring," as you say, the ability to use these two chemicals as a defense mechanism. I really must say that an evolutionist trying to explain how this could have occurred is it's own form of entertainment. The creationists definitely have a leg up on this one because it frankly makes much more sense that there was a design in mind. The big bang is similar. Believing that an infinitessimally small bit of infinitely dense mass that not even time could escape from suddenly explodes into the known universe of its own accord is every bit as beleif oriented that something or someone willed it into being. Interestingly, I've had a reverse experience to yours. I was an evolutionist who, through sifting through information over the years, has discovered that evolutionary science does not come even close to a convincing argument for it's status in the scientific world. It is an incorrect statement that microbiology depends one iota on evolutionary theory. Of course much of the observations are seen through that lens, but it is no more directed by evolution than any other field of science. Observation of any kinda is never dependent on current theory; In fact, it is observation that buries them when incorrect. As far as a religious agenda, of course many do have that agenda, and one of my pet peeves are anti-evolutionists that use the Bible or Christian theology as if it were an argument. I think it's a big reason why many like yourself do not search out science on the other side, because frankly, why would you? If it weren't for creation science, however, we'd still be wondering why a human fetus appears to have gills and a tail! That being said, many scientists have as their life goal the prospect of moving evolutionary theory one step forward. Many of them have just as much emotional investment in evolution as any religious zealot does in their respective religion. If I had a dime for every evolutionist that stormed angrily out a conversation with me I'd be a wealthy man. There is a gigantic lack of objectivity on both sides now, and unfortunately it's become a war rather than a discussion.