Genetic change is an observable fact. So what? Can the change be predicted? Is it random, or by design and plan? The theory of evolution when practiced as an "answer" for the questions about the meaning of life is faith and typically a substitute for religion when practiced with equivalent dogmatism.
Yes, change can be predicted, the fact that there will be change. and yes it is random. But don't ask me something silly like to predict what will be sitting in your chair in 10,000,000 years. There will be genetic change, there will be new species, they will have adaptive features. The underlying genetic change occurs randomly. Is there a blueprint? Can specific change be predicted. If there is design, then God knows what coming down the pike. Can you find out? There's your task, guys. Get me an answer, and get details, details, details.
You cannot prove there will be specific genetic change occuring naturally at a given point and time. You have a concept therefore that the change is random, i.e., you cannot see the real cause behind the change as to predict it. I can say the same thing about the weather a year from today.
The real cause? What do you mean by the real cause? If I discovered the real cause - God - could I predict the change. No. So what the fuck is your point if your own logic renders God completely inaccessible.
Yes, if you discovered God you could predict the change with His help. My own logic doesn't render God inaccessible, it renders God as the first cause for all effects. Logically, all effects have causes, or they are eternal situations. God is eternal by definition, and at the same time is the cause of all effects.
There are many, many problems with Neo-Darwinism. Here's one of the more recent ones that have biologist scratching their heads: Geneticists have discovered coordinating genes called homeoboxes that turn on and time certain major developmental changes in advanced life. For example, bu screwing with this gene you can cause eyes to grow on the wings of fruit flies, etc. The problem is that the homeoboxes of vertebrates of fruit flies andvertebrates are in many cases almost identical! In fact, in 1997 biologists found impressive similarities between homeotic genes in the fruitfly and a flowering plant! The list goes on and on, but suffice it to say that a lot of biologists are rethinking how evolution could possibly explain this. Think about it: you have animals that have supposedly not shared a common ancestor for 500 million + years sharing identical homeoboxes! It is difficult for neo-Darwinism to explain the appearance of these embryological coordinating genes before the emergence of the genetic systems they coordinate.. This is like hypothesizing that the blueprints for a automobile pre-dated the invention of automobiles.
Dg I will try to answer questions. The existence of God has not been proven on this thread. If evolution were proven to be true, that would not prove there is no God. If evolution were proven to be false, that would not prove there is a God. Evolution is therefore not dispositive of the existence of God. The existence of God is a theory until proven a fact. The existence of Evolution may be conjecture based upon how you define evolution. Some define it as a change in the gene pool. This seem to be fairly easily proved. One biology major confirmed that children are therefore proof that this definition is correct. ( I have decided to label this the weak theory of evolution) I think the weak theory of evolution is a fact. Others in the past and on my softball team have defined evolution as standing for the fact that humans evolved form monkeys and that every thing evolved from some non-living thing billions of years ago. ( I would call this the strong theory). No one on this board believes the strong theory to be a provable fact at this time. However, this theory is what was taught in schools as fact for a very long time and is probably believed to be fact by 99% of the (non-religious)people in this country including Penn and Teller. Finally, if I correctly read what Dgabriel has written it is argued that there is circumstantial evidence of evolution in life less complex than mammals. Since I can neither define neither species nor evolution (because what I was taught as fact was inadequate.) I therefore join you in asking others to define what species is and how it could be found to change into another species.
Here is a site that shows that that the homeobox of the mouse and Droshpelia are almost exactly identical in spite of being supposedly separated on the ancestral tree by more than 700 million years! Scroll about half was down and you can see the actual amino acid sequences: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/HomeoboxGenes.html