virozuru,

You don't have to worry about that. I linked to the talkorigins archive because it's far easier to have your sources close at hand than to delve into my books. This debate already took far too much of my time - luckily we're at a slow period at work, so I do have some time.

I've got works by Richard Dawkins (Evolutionary biologist, Oxford University, inventer of the concepts selfish gene, extended phenotype and meme, the most important populariser of the evolutionary synthesis - the symbiosis of genetics and evolutionary thought), Zimmer (arguably the best science writer in the US, maybe in the world), Sean B. Carroll (one of the driving forces of Evo-Devo), Daniel Dennet (philosopher, studied philosophical and social impact of Darwinian thought on culture) and Pinker (neurolinguist at MIT) that form the background of my argumentation.

layi:

@nferyn
Is there a thread on that already? Obviously can't be debated here. I'm happy you are not too busy to debate. I obviously am (school) but i'll create time (even if i have to sleep late).

layi, you really don't have create time for that. It's probably a waste of your precious time, unless you really can make a convincing positive case for creationism, which I doubt. For me, it's a bit of a slow period at work, so I do have time (for the moment)

layi:

Lets do some intellectual wrestle. I'm enjoying every bit of it.

It's a fun pasttime. It helps me sharpen my debating skills.

layi:

I'll also want to know if www.talkorigin.org is authentic enough to speak for evolutionists.
Would be back

Actually, www.talkorigin.org doesn't speak for proponents of evolutionary thought at all. It's a creationist front to mislead people looking for www.talkorigins.org and leads to http://jcsm.org/ , Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
And yes, www.talkorigins.org is definitely a good reference for evolutionists, all contributers are well versed in biology and almost all of them are researchers.
If you look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/awards/ you will see that the site really represents the mainstream, accepted scientific community

@Virozuru, I commend you. It means you research a lot. However, if you are talking about plegiarism, kindly note that I did mention my sources of information and since these are scientific postulations, I doubt very much that plegiarism comes to play here. I did also mention a site where some of the reasonings originated from. This is aside the Urey's thesis on Abiogenesis which I used freely. Plegiarism is stealing from one, reasearch is stealing from many. What I did was not and is not plegiarism. If some of the postulations or portions of it i posted on a website, it is ok.

Most of the text I posted is taken from the journal of the ISGEC (International Society for Genetic and Evolutionary Computation). Did you notice that I did not potray them as my personal thoughts or findings? What I did was attempt to answer Layi's question based on the materials available from the ISGEC. You will definitely notice that I did not define life or Abiogenesis, wont you agree. I even offered to send the material and others like it to Layi. Do you still call that plegiarism?

I am intending to post a longer explanation for layi's benefit tommorrow from the same ISGEC journal which I believe will help answer his question.

*

All these articles look like scholarly argument rather to philosophical spat.

I would like to contribute but wouldn’t know where to start.  I have personal believes in evolution to creationism.  You couldn't say we all looked like this last millennium and the last and the last.  It would be such naive to acclaim such a penchant.

I believe the being the Christian world regards as their Omnipotent, has leaved here billions of years ago and has left on realising the faith that faces earth another billion year to come.  When the sun will detonate all its plasma energy to engulf our beautiful solar system and start a new life the scientist refer to as big bang.

sbucareer you're really confusing me here

Sbucareer, are you saying there would be another "big bang"? Could you please attempt to make your response more understandable? It sounds like greek from where I am sitting. Layi, I should be in Lagos on thursday the 9th at Sofitel the moorehouse in Ikoyi, in case you would like to meet in person and take some materials as well as carry this debate further (If that is to your liking). Nferyn, could you please PM what address you want the materials sent to? (Mind you there are over 9,000 pages of essays, theories, and postulations).

elbaron:

Nferyn, could you please PM what address you want the materials sent to? (Mind you there are over 9,000 pages of essays, theories, and postulations).

Oops. I wish I had the time to go over that, but that won't be the case in the foreseeable future. I won't press you to go through the hassle to send anything. Thanks for the offer anyway, maybe later.
Another question: is abiogenesis your field of expertise by any chance?

Sorry, I have corrected most of my earlier reply, the spell checker changes my words to its prefer ones. I will provide prove of Big Bang and the nemesis that we face in billions of years to come.

I am busy at the office today, I am giving presentation to my department and are working on my powerpoint. I will soon be back with my own academic theory about Big Bang

Nferyn, Abiogenesis is a field I have very deep rooted interests in. My active field is Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics Engineering, but I dabble in other fields as well.

elbaron:
Nferyn, Abiogenesis is a field I have very deep rooted interests in. My active field is Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics Engineering, but I dabble in other fields as well.

I know little about Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics, I was wondering the current state of these field in African and the propagation of problems we face today in ourland without Fourth solution from these academic research area.

Must we live on fossilized fuel? Is there anyway we can produce vast amount of heat (Plasma) to power of homes and mechanical technologies?   What are the achievements of these research field in African?

Sbucareer, can you start another thread on the questions you posed? I believe this thread is about Layi's case against evolution

Dear readers of this thread. If you are still with us to this point, it must mean that you are intrested in the evolution-creation debate.

An argument that is constantly used by creationists in favor of creation is the watch analogy. The Theologian William Paley used it in his very influential book Natural theology.
From Natural theology:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...) There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation

Now this argument, basically the assertion that every complex thing cannot possibly come into existence by natural forces, it must have a maker, a designer, is thoroughly debunked by Richard Dawkins [/i]in his book [i]The Blind Watchmaker.

Yesterday, I found the full online version of the book by accident. So, for all of you who have been courageous enough to sit through this debate up to this point, I give you the link:
http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/dawkins_blindwatchmaker_1996_full.pdf

Enjoy

I'm downloading the book already, though I wouldn't mind a two or three paragraph summary for the sake of those who won't be able to set aside some hours to read this 4.4mb pdf

I'll quote from the back cover of the book (I have a hard copy here in front of me):

A brilliant and controversial book which demonstrates that evolution by natural selection - the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process discovered by Darwin - is the only answer to the biggest question of all: why do we exist?

An enchantingly witty and persuasive neo-Darwinist attack on the anti-evolutionists, pleasurably intelligible to the scientifically illiterate

- Hermione Lee in Books of the Year, Observer

It's really no use to give a synopsis. The links I provided before, especially http://evolution.berkeley.edu/, have essentially the same information, only Dawkins is a master storyteller and goes into far more detail.

I'm just interested in knowing how he debunks the idea that the universe is too complex to have happened without the aid of an intelligent designer. Just that aspect of the evolution idea. That one debunking!

Seun, evolutionary theory [b]does not deal [/b]with the origin of the universe. Have you read this thread? That's a typical creationist distortion for which I've gone through great lengths to debunk. Evolutionary theory deals with life, starting from the first replicators. It illuminates the process by which all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor.
It explains that there is absolutely no need for a designer/creator to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth. As for the complexity of the universe, compared to life, it is not complex at all. If there is no need for a designer to explain the complexity of life, why would there be a need for a designer to explain the less complex non-life?

And even if the universe were horribly complex, a designer of that universe would necessarily need to be even more complex, as he would need to conceive that complexity. How then do you explain the designer. Inserting a designer in the process solves absolutely nothing, it only makes thing less intelligible.

I am yet to see a fully satisfactory argument proving the Non-existence of that Intelligent designer.
Science is a 'revealing' phenomenon. Its dynamic and changes as findings arise. We have hitherto believed that we only had a universe but scientist now tell us that our universe is just 1 of a complex multiverse.
Like nferyn always say "its the absence of evidence and not the evidence of absence". I tend to believe that more because its rational.
Saying there is no creator (with full conviction) is laughable cuzz we are only trying to explain a universe in which we found ourselves. We are yet to fully comprehend this universe multiverse. It would be premature to assert the origin.
This creator could have been the puppet master triggering the evolution by creating the 'common ancestor' if actually all life forms evolved from such.
The common ancestor phenomenon is unclear to me anyway because i wonder how plants and animal (both, life forms) originated from the same ancestor.

Layi,

I'm not saying that ultimately there is no designer, only that a designer is unnecessary and there does not seem to be any point where there was an intervention of that designer in the earth's history.
You can introduce Ockham's Razor in this context (from: http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html)

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

But there are are theories which have the very same predictions and it is here that the Razor is useful. Consider for example the following two theories aimed at describing the motion of the planets around the sun

* The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance.
* The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.

Since the force between the planets and the sun determines the motion of the former and both theories posit the same type of force, the predicted motion of the planets will be identical for both theories. the second theory, however, has additional baggage (the will of the aliens) which is unnecessary for the description of the system.

If one accepts the second theory solely on the basis that it predicts correctly the motion of the planets one has also accepted the existence of aliens whose will affect the behavior of things, despite the fact that the presence or absence of such beings is irrelevant to planetary motion (the only relevant item is the type of force). In this instance Ockham's Razor would unequivocally reject the second theory. By rejecting this type of additional irrelevant hypotheses guards against the use of solid scientific results (such as the prediction of planetary motion) to justify unrelated statements (such as the existence of the aliens) which may have dramatic consequences. In this case the consequence is that the way planets move, the reason we fall to the ground when we trip, etc. is due to some powerful alien intellect, that this intellect permeates our whole solar system, it is with us even now...and from here an infinite number of paranoid derivations.

For all we know the solar system is permeated by an alien intellect, but the motion of the planets, which can be explained by the simple idea that there is a force between them and the sun, provides no evidence of the aliens' presence nor proves their absence.

A more straightforward application of the Razor is when we are face with two theories which have the same predictions and the available data cannot distinguish between them. In this case the Razor directs us to study in depth the simplest of the theories. It does not guarantee that the simplest theory will be correct, it merely establishes priorities.

A related rule, which can be used to slice open conspiracy theories, is Hanlon's Razor: ``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity''

nferyn u big geek, lol dude lay it down for me what is evolution pls be consise n precise , ye newayz the cave man eveolved to us. so i heard but still i dont believe in evolution and i am open to ideas

If the universe is too complex to have happened and evolved, then it is more than impossible for an intelligent designer to exist. Also if life is just too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating all these complex living things (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created.

MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION
Pope John Paul II

Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution for It Involves Conception of Man
Message delivered to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 22 October 1996
To the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in plenary assembly:
It is with great pleasure that I send my cordial greetings to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I send my particular best wishes to the new members of the Academy, who come to take part in your work for the first time. I also wish to recall the members who have died in the course of the past year; I entrust them to the Maker of all life.
1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the re-foundation of the Academy, it gives me pleasure to recall the intentions of my predecessor, Pius XI, who wished to bring together around him a chosen group of scholars who could, working with complete freedom, inform the Holy See about the developments in scientific research and thus provide aid for reflections.
To those whom he enjoyed calling the Scientific Senate of the Church, he asked simply this: that they serve the truth. That is the same invitation which I renew today, with the certainty that we can all draw profit from "the fruitfulness of frank dialogue between the Church and science." (Discourse to the Academy of Sciences, October 28, 1986, #1)
2. I am delighted with the first theme which you have chosen: the origin of life and evolution—an essential theme of lively interest to the Church, since Revelation contains some of its own teachings concerning the nature and origins of man. How should the conclusions reached by the diverse scientific disciplines be brought together with those contained in the message of Revelation? And if at first glance these views seem to clash with each other, where should we look for a solution? We know that the truth cannot contradict the truth. (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus) However, in order better to understand historical reality, your research into the relationships between the Church and the scientific community between the 16th and 18th centuries will have a great deal of importance.
In the course of this plenary session, you will be undertaking a "reflection on science in the shadow of the third millennium," and beginning to determine the principal problems which the sciences face, which have an influence on the future of humanity. By your efforts, you will mark out the path toward solutions which will benefit all of the human community. In the domain of nature, both living and inanimate, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new inquiries. The Church will be better able to expand her work insofar as we understand the essential aspects of these new developments. Thus, following her specific mission, the Church will be able to offer the criteria by which we may discern the moral behavior to which all men are called, in view of their integral salvation.
3. Before offering a few more specific reflections on the theme of the origin of life and evolution, I would remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made some pronouncements on these matters, within her own proper sphere of competence. I will cite two such interventions here.
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.
For my part, when I received the participants in the plenary assembly of your Academy on October 31, 1992, I used the occasion—and the example of Gallileo—to draw attention to the necessity of using a rigorous hermeneutical approach in seeking a concrete interpretation of the inspired texts. It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.
4. Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
What is the significance of a theory such as this one? To open this question is to enter into the field of epistemology. A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.
Moreover, the elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obedient to the need for consistency with the observed data, must also involve importing some ideas from the philosophy of nature.
And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.
5. The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought. The Council recalled that "man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake." In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself. St. Thomas observed that man's resemblance to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God's relationship with his creation. (Summa Theologica I-II, q 3, a 5, ad 1) But even beyond that, man is called to enter into a loving relationship with God himself, a relationship which will find its full expression at the end of time, in eternity. Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us. (Gaudium et Spes, 22) It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet". (Humani Generis)
As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.
6. With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs.
7. In closing, I would like to call to mind the Gospel truth which can shed a greater light on your researches into the origins and the development of living matter. The Bible, in fact, bears an extraordinary message about life. It shows us life, as it characterizes the highest forms of existence, with a vision of wisdom. That vision guided me in writing the encyclical which I have consecrated to the respect for human life and which I have entitled precisely The Gospel of Life.
It is significant that in the Gospel of St. John, life refers to that divine light which Christ brings to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, which is to say the eternity of divine beatitude.
To set us on guard against the grave temptations which face us, our Lord cites the great words of Deuteronomy: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Deut 8:3; Mt 4:4)
Even more, life is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible gives to God; he is the living God.
With a full heart, I invoke upon all of you, and all to whom you are close, an abundance of divine blessings.
From the Vatican, October 22, 1996, John Paul II

EWTN Note on translation:
The English edition at first translated the French original as: "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution." The L'Osservatore Romano English Edition subsequently amended the text to that given in the body of the message above, citing the translation of the other language editions as its reason. It should be noted that an hypothesis is the preliminary stage of the scientific method and the Pope's statement suggests nothing more than that science has progressed beyond that stage. This is certainly true with respect to cosmological evolution (the physical universe), whose science both Pius XII and John Paul II have praised, but not true in biology, about which the popes have generally issued cautions (as above and Humani Generis). [CBD] Return

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

HOME-EWTNews-FAITH-TELEVISION-RADIO-LIBRARY-GALLERY-CATALOGUE-GENERAL
ESPAÑOL

Some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis to the mechanisms of evolution, but not to the fact of evolution. Evolutionary concepts are used to treat cancer, but all biblical concept have not been applied to any practical use. So there's no point to them. Speak of facts, never mind the rhetoric.

chrisd:

Some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis to the mechanisms of evolution, but not to the fact of evolution. Evolutionary concepts are used to treat cancer, but all biblical concept have not been applied to any practical use. So there's no point to them. Speak of facts, never mind the rhetoric.

The only level at which the modern sysnthesis is challenged today is the level at which gradulaism works (e.g. through the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria) and the mechanisms by which genetic information influences development and thus whether or not gradulualism needs to be taken to the extreme, more precisely the role of regulatory genes in development that could have a bigger impact that extreme gradualism would suggest (not all genes are equal, small differences in genotype may have a big effect in the phenotype)

And that would certainly not be solved by some biblical scholar.

Whew!!!
Hottest thread on NL, i'm feeling like something

MY CASE FOR EVOLUTION - THE NAVEL

When I think about it, there's no way I can explain the presence of a navel on Adam. The navel is that little "belly-button" - a cut stub from the umblical cord that a kid uses to feed from when in the belly of his/her mother during pregnancy." So let's look at it: Adam did not have a navel. He could not have had it - for obvious reasons - he was not conceived, so he was not fed with the umblical cord. He could not have had an umblical cord. The same for Eve.

Now what of Cain? He probably had one, because he was conceived.

But he he, there's the tricky question? Would an offspring have a body part not on his parents? Christian creationists will say yes, surely. "God works miraculously." Or maybe God created the navel on both Adam and Eve so as to confound people like us in times like this! I don't think so.

This leads me to evolution, which, as many scientific(ally proven) evidences have shown, remains the only most plausible explanation to this and many more now useless body parts: the tail bone in man, the tonsil(?), the appendix, etc etc. We are still evolving.

Heck, even a Nairalander now generates electric charge!

Geez! 6years old debate! Nferyn&Layi, u guys rock.

I with all the tribalised and abusive people on this forum would learn from these lead guys and other people that contributed to this thread. I sat down for about 2 hours and savoured the entire aguements, I can't remenber encountering any hate or abusive word. This is highly intelectual, informing and gentlemanly.

nferyn: Seun, evolutionary theory [b]does not deal [/b]with the origin of the universe. Have you read this thread? That's a typical creationist distortion for which I've gone through great lengths to debunk. Evolutionary theory deals with life, starting from the first replicators. It illuminates the process by which all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor.
It explains that there is absolutely no need for a designer/creator to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth. As for the complexity of the universe, compared to life, it is not complex at all. If there is no need for a designer to explain the complexity of life, why would there be a need for a designer to explain the less complex non-life?

And even if the universe were horribly complex, a designer of that universe would necessarily need to be even more complex, as he would need to conceive that complexity. How then do you explain the designer. Inserting a designer in the process solves absolutely nothing, it only makes thing less intelligible.

You have no inkling of how the first replicators looked like or how they were formed. You presume the origin of like by positing the first lifeforms as replicators and you claim that evolution has nothing to do with life's origins.

demmy: Evolution as a THEORY makes more sense than the biblical creationism. Simple. Besides hasn't the recent DNA decoding makes that apparent?

Point of correction, makes less sense. Given that, at least, we know from experience that intelligence is needed to build complex, information-rich machines. And we know that Nature cannot do this since Nature is a concept which refers to a group of objects.

Typical case of empty barrels making the loudest noise. It's pitiable people fall for the flawed logic of evolution. For example, natural selection is a non-starter as a mechanism for evolution since it doesn't create the new cells, tissues and organs, mutations supposedly do that. Two, there is no well-defined law (based on actual empirical observations)that acccounts for what kinds of mutations could successfully be carried on. In fact, nferyn overlooks the fact that his scenario for evolution of the eye is a conjecture that lacks basis in observations. He presents these conjectures as if they actually happened. Now to address his points.

nferyn:
It's quite obvious your lecturer did not know the first thing about the Theory of Evolution. A pathologist is not, unless I understand it wrongly, a biologist. Could you explain the context in which he made that statement,, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.
Anyway, this is the classical mix up of the colloquial meaning of the word theory and the scientific meaning of the word theory.

Okay. However, note the possibility of him actually meaning that the theory is tentative. Especially, since it deals with things that happened in the past.

nferyn:
On top of that, by using the words of creation and how life arose, your lecturer makes it abundantly clear that he has [b]no [/b]understanding of the Theory of Evolution, as that theory:
[list]
[li]does not deal with life's origins[/li]
[li]has nothing to do with creation[/li]
[/list]
I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely not [/b]be in biology.

It does have everything to do with life's origin especially given its claims about the first lifeforms and the fact that evolutionary mechanisms are posited as responsible for their change into present life.

nferyn:
There are mountains of evidence in favor of the Scientific Theory of Evolution and not a shred of evidence in favor of creationism (just look at this for a mere glimpse of the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Layi, you are as much a free thinker as your religion allows. You dare not step outside the boundaries of your religious dogma. Once more, proof is for mathematics and logic and has no place in real natural science. You can only study the evidence and there is [b]plenty [/b]for evolution and [b]none whatsoever for creationism.
I'm happy you dare to call a cat a cat. Intelligent Design is indeed nothing more than [i]Creationism [/i]in disguise. You show your lack of understanding about evolution by refering to chance as the main driver of evolution. Chance only plays a role in the random mutations that form the basis on which the evolutionary processes can work. Natural selection and sexual selection, which drive evolutionary change in organisms, are anything but chance processes.

Go to sites like Evolution News & Views or ARN.org that offer counter-arguments. Your talk of ID is unsupported by the simple fact that ID is different from creationism in some aspects. Since you say chance plays a role in the mutation. Mutations are what (by your theory) make the new structures which give survival advantage. Natural selection does not drive any change, chance mutations do. In fact natural selection is very much chance since mutated organism can fail to pass on its traits.

nferyn:
Well in view of the source of your material, I wouldn't have expected anything else. Did you ever read any material by even one relevant scientist (I mean a working research biologist)?

Okay.

nferyn:
Why do you keep on hammering that [i]chance [/i]bit? Where does that obsession with [i]chance [/i]come from? Evolution is not driven by chance or random processes. Natural selection is very directive, as only those organisms that are succesful in a specific environment can reproduce and spread their genes.
Read this as an antidote for your misconception of chance in evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

But the successful spread of genes is natural selection. Note, natural selection doesn't drive the successful spread of genes IT IS the successful spread of genes. Mutations are the ones that drive the evolutionery process since they confer the advantage. Natural selection is a baggage term.