Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[SkyRock]

Yes and no.  If you mean that a species makes minor changes according to its environment, then yes, that has been replicated throughout history as anyone who has bread a dog knows. 

  Macro evolution is a theory that has never been observed or proven.

First, you just stated that evolution is a fact.  

Second, new species would evolve to fill nitches, that is how it works, right?  

Third, what degree of a  "minor" change would you consider to be a major change?

Last, there are many studies that have shown gene sequences between species that are  only found in those two species*  or what about a fossil of a pre-cursor to bears and dogs such as amphicyonid.  The way I have always concluded my belief in evolution is like a large puzzle, where there are pieces missing but you still see the picture.

* 
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199908/0289.html 

[gwano]

The film has nothing to do with Creationism.  Again, the film is about discrimination against ID scientists.  Conflating creationism with ID is a common tactic of those doing the suppression.

What is the difference between creationism and ID?
I'm not being fecetious, I honestly don't know. I may have erroneously thought that it is just a different name for the same thing.

Gut feeling is Ben Stein doesn't believe in evolution and is expressing his feelings this way, which looks better expressed in this manner than saying "DARWINISM IS BULLS#&T".

 

 

[iWalrus]

The Urey-Miller experiment of which you speak has been discredited for some time.  The couple of amino acids that resulted were far simpler than the basic building blocks of life, and used a precursor "chemical soup" that has since been determined to be completely unrepresentative of the condition on earth at the time life is posited to have begun.  That is why the OOL question is still completely open, and why virtually no hypothosis currently put forth has gained any traction or proved to be fruitful in guiding further research.  Each such hypothesis results in more questions than it answers, intractable questions that continue to stymy progress in OOL research.  Even if scientists managed to produce simple amino acids with the chemical compositions actually available in pre-biotic earth, this is still so far from true life that it is naive in the extreme to assume that would lead inevitably to DNA-based life.  Life cannot exist without the DNA code of life, yet DNA would not exist in the absense of the basic components of cellular life.  The simplest cell possible is so vastly complex and specified that the odds of it happening by chance exceed the probablistic resources of the entire universe since the moment of the Big-Bang.  That is a basic tenant of intelligent design theory, not (as those wishing to label it "creationism" would like you to believe) scripture.

Why, might I ask, is it scientific to look at forensic evidence, or rock formations, or EM signals from space and ask, "Is it natural or designed?", but un-scientific to look at the incredible complexity and specificity in a single living cell, or the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants, and ask, "Is this designed?"  Who the designer is may be a question not answerable by science at this time, but detecting the hallmarks of design itself certainly is not.

Ooooh!. I love the irreducible complexity argument. Reeks of desperation. It's like that guy the cops are putting the screws to under the heat lamp; he keeps changing his story. First it was, "God made Everything in seven days just like the bible says." Then we have,"Ok. Ok. Seven days could mean any amount of time to The God. He just buried all those fossils and such out there to test our faith while we're surrounded by you blaspheming ape lovers." Now we have, "Just Look at the flagellum! All those little parts don't do anything on their own! They cannot have evolved individually. Jesus put them there. Now let's call it Intelligent Design (Yup, just like that with capitol letters to make it sound all official-like), and maybe we'll fool some folks that are sleeping.

You see, legitimate science is trying to figure out what happened without making any assumptions.  Creationists and intelligent design enthusiasts think they already know what happened, and they are desperately looking for any way to prove it. And ruling out the possibility of a designer is not good science either. There may very well be one. If so, that doesn't change the fact that favorable gene mutations survive ,etc.,etc.

EDIT:

The simplest cell possible is so vastly complex and specified that the odds of it happening by chance exceed the probablistic resources of the entire universe since the moment of the Big-Bang.

I just read this part again, and WOW! Not only do you creationist types claim to know the odds of the first bacterium forming, you also are privy to the total potential of the entire universe! Powerful knowledge, indeed! Too bad for evolutionary proponents that this isn't being hashed out in a court of law. That info would be the first thing requested in pre-trial discovery!

[SkyRock]

Fossils of what? 

blue-green algea

 

Of the ancestors of modern day animals? 

blue-green algea(Cyanobacteria) still exists today

Is there a fossil record that "documents" the changes?

There is a fossil record for many of the changes, but also, no telling how many animals and plants existed that we don't have fossils for.

[ChickenHawk]

First, you just stated that evolution is a fact.

Yes I did, but there are two kinds of evolution. 

Second, new species would evolve to fill nitches, that is how it works, right?

How does the DNA from a hair get the code for feathers?  Where does that information come from?  There is no evidence of how a "nitche" would form at the basic cellular level.

Third, what degree of a  "minor" change would you consider to be a major change?

A minor change is called Micro Evolution.  The existing DNA is manipulated and the code produces a minor change.  But the descendants of the animal are still the same species.

A major change is called Macro Evolution, one species becoming another.  For that to happen, the DNA in a cell would have to have material added to or subtracted from it.  There has never been a scientific observation of this phenomenon happening and science has no explanation for how it might actually occur.

[SirLoin]

Often enough, they don't understand philosophy of religion either. 

Religion was our first attempt at philosophy,geography,astronomy etc...We thought we lived on a disc,didn't know germs existed,or that we lived on a cooling planet with techtonic plates that shift.We didn't know there were marcupials(or that Austrailia even existed)...All the evidence points to religion being man-made.

And as they say about making an attempt at something.."The first is the worst".

[Donzo]

blue-green algea

 blue-green algea(Cyanobacteria) still exists today
There is a fossil record for many of the changes, but also, no telling how many animals and plants existed that we don't have fossils for.

Blue-green algea?  Why are there no fossils of the things that show up in the cambrian period before the cambrian period?

[SkyRock]

How does the DNA from a hair get the code for feathers?  Where does that information come from?  There is no evidence of how a "nitche" would form at the basic cellular level.

 

There has never been a scientific observation of this phenomenon happening and science has no explanation for how it might actually occur.

I am aware of both, I was trying to get a clearer picture of your thoughts on the matter.  

First, you have it backwards, feathers came first(hee hee).  The "information" comes from mutations some deleterious and some beneficial.  These mutations can be caused by a multitude of situations.


Second, let me say that it would be impossible to observe macroevolution, as it takes a great amount of time for enough mutation to take place as to arrive at a "new" species, and we haven't been around "that" long!

[SkyRock]

  Why are there no fossils of the things that show up in the cambrian period before the cambrian period?

Well, it is not known.  We can only keep searching.  There might be many causes, the earth was one helluva a place back then I would imagine!

[ChickenHawk]

The "information" comes from mutations some deleterious and some beneficial.  These mutations can be caused by a multitude of situations.

None of which have ever actually been observed.

Second, let me say that it would be impossible to observe macroevolution, as it takes a great amount of time for enough mutation to take place as to arrive at a "new" species.

Hence the reason it will never be proven by the scientific method, and the reason I take issue with anyone saying species evolution is a scientific fact.  There is not a single scientist that can claim it is and be honest about it.

Most people today tend to forget that it's still in the theory part of the scientific process.

[Donzo]

Well, it is not known.  We can only keep searching.  There might be many causes, the earth was one helluva a place back then I would imagine!

So a complete fossil record does not exist.  Therefore there is no concrete "proof" that things have evolved from pre-Cambrian period to the Cambrian period. 
Then what is the belief in evolution based on?  Faith that these missing fossils will be found and complete the record? Darwin himself had a problem with the fossil record as it stood back then and it (the fossil record) has not changed significantly since his time.

[Donzo]

Ooooh!. I love the irreducible complexity argument. Reeks of desperation. It's like that guy the cops are putting the screws to under the heat lamp; he keeps changing his story. First it was, "God made Everything in seven days just like the bible says." Then we have,"Ok. Ok. Seven days could mean any amount of time to The God. He just buried all those fossils and such out there to test our faith while we're surrounded by you blaspheming ape lovers." Now we have, "Just Look at the flagellum! All those little parts don't do anything on their own! They cannot have evolved individually. Jesus put them there. Now let's call it Intelligent Design (Yup, just like that with capitol letters to make it sound all official-like), and maybe we'll fool some folks that are sleeping.

You see, legitimate science is trying to figure out what happened without making any assumptions.  Creationists and intelligent design enthusiasts think they already know what happened, and they are desperately looking for any way to prove it. And ruling out the possibility of a designer is not good science either. There may very well be one. If so, that doesn't change the fact that favorable gene mutations survive ,etc.,etc.

EDIT:

I just read this part again, and WOW! Not only do you creationist types claim to know the odds of the first bacterium forming, you also are privy to the total potential of the entire universe! Powerful knowledge, indeed! Too bad for evolutionary proponents that this isn't being hashed out in a court of law. That info would be the first thing requested in pre-trial discovery!

So, what is your rebuttal to the irreducible complexity argument?  Do you even understand the argument?  Or are you more comfortable just poking fun at it?

[iWalrus]

If I may, Skyrock and Donzo, there have been several observed instances of evolution (as defined as the formation of new species) in the insecta class through hybridization, both natural and human influenced. That's right: Whole new species have been formed after branching off from their ancestors. After only 150 or 200 years of observation, we have seen these new species form, and we have recorded proof of it. A few of our generations can be tens of thousands of generations for an insect species. And, yes, they are a whole new species...they can only produce fertile offspring with their own kind, and not with their closely related progenitors. 

Edit:  Meant chickenhawk. I believe he was the one referring to new species evolution.

[storch]

If I may, Skyrock and Donzo, there have been several observed instances of evolution (as defined as the formation of new species) in the insecta class through hybridization, both natural and human influenced. That's right: Whole new species have been formed after branching off from their ancestors. After only 150 or 200 years of observation, we have seen these new species form, and we have recorded proof of it. A few of our generations can be tens of thousands of generations for an insect species. And, yes, they are a whole new species...they can only produce fertile offspring with their own kind, and not with their closely related progenitors. 

Edit:  Meant chickenhawk. I believe he was the one referring to new species evolution.

would you please name them for us?

[AKIron]

and vice-versa

no matter how much scientific evidence is provided, the faithful will never let go. they just don't have it in them. but thats OK!

Never is a long time. Will only take the average person 70 years or so. I'll promise that if there is not creator or life after death I will let go of my faith in 20 years or so.