Getting nowhere fast

Originally posted by MacSwain
Your own statement belies the truth. When the "theory of evolution is proven correct," it will cease to be a theory.

No, it won't. Evolution has been shown to be consistent with the evidence in many different ways, but that doesn't mean it's been "proven," or that it ceases to be a theory. A theory, in science, is an just integraged articulation of many different facts and pieces of experimental evidence. It cannot be proven, and it doesn't need to be, because it's not a hypothesis. It's just a way of describing a set of scientific principles that have been found to be true.

Great posts MacSwain.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Your own statement belies the truth. When the "theory of evolution is proven correct," it will cease to be a theory.

Oh dear. You don't even know the meaning of the (scientific) word "theory", do you?

A THEORY IS NOT "JUST AN IDEA"!

A theory is an idea which has been rigorously tested and never, ever found to be wrong. It is an explanation of an entire subject area which encapsulates and encompasses many different scientific studies (normally thousands) normally from diverse areas of study.

Evolution, for example, uses data from physiology, molecular biology, population dynamics and genetics, anthropology, geology, palaeontology, chemistry, physics, and a raft of other subjects.

[edit; theories are never proven unequivocally, although we can be very sure they are right, and they are ordinate, not subordinate, to facts]

Originally posted by josephw
Great posts MacSwain.

No they aren't.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Where does "strawman" work into our discussion? At what point in time did simply stating fact qualify as a "strawman"?

You are trying to use the creationist "missing link" strawman.

Tell me, what would a "missing link" reptile bird look like?

I BET you can't tell me.

The reason is that you are unwilling to accept anything as evidence, and will just claim it's "just another organism". And it is!! WE are transitory organisms! You just don't seem to realise it.

David L. Stern, “Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation,” Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091
“One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved…Historically, the Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutation.”

Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (January 2000): 27
“Large scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.”

Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macro evolution,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701
“A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution – whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

It should be noted that all the Scientists who wrote the articles and are quoted above are believers (as I tend to lean) in Darwinian evolution.

“Stern, for example, believes that new developmental studies of gene function will provide “the currently missing link,” (page 1079) The important part here is that the controversy has not been resolved precisely because the evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking. It is important for students to know what the evidence does or does not show – not just what some scientists hope the evidence will eventually show.”

“It is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely. Furthermore, since the scientific evidence needed to settle the controversy is still lacking, it is inaccurate to give students the impression the controversy has been resolved and all scientists have reached a consensus on the issue.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

Originally posted by MacSwain
David L. Stern, “Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation,” [b]Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091
“One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved…Historically, the Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities betwe ...[text shortened]... sensus on the issue.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118[/b]

You get your information from the Discovery Institute? The same institute that wants to install a Christian theocracy in the US?

Andrew Simons argues that there is no disconnect between "micro" and "macro" evolution - which most evolutionary biologists have been saying for years.

"Furthermore,disagreement over the relative importance of natural selection in determining trends over different time scales is eagerly distorted by anti-evolutionist groups to discredit both macroevolution as lacking a mechanism, and microevolution as being restricted to insignificant phenotypic change. The fact that the debate has not been
resolved means that a single perspective of selection consistent with both micro- and macroevolution is still needed. In this paper, I propose that no new theory is needed to attain this perspective; rather, it is attained through the broad application of an existing theory with
a previously underappreciated significance."

I guess I'd find something similar in the others too.