Interesting new theory on the origin of life:

[SeattleGriz]

By the way, the fossil record has been torn asunder many times over.

Well right..
because everybody knows the world is only 6 thousand years old - Jeeze

No, the fact that Paleontologists really cannot trace a lineage from start to finish, especially the more complex an organism is. They can't seem to get over the Cambrian explosion and sudden appearance of the huge amount of life and how that life remained stable until it died off.

I get this opinion reading the statements of Paleontologists and other well informed scientists themselves. Plenty of sites out there that collect these quotes.

[SeattleGriz]

Anything that is unprovable or unknowable could be possible. So in that vein, ID could be real, but it requires blind faith.

The ID field is working pretty hard in the bioinformatics field to try and show some intelligence. They know they need research to gain a foothold. Some good papers have been peer reviewed and published. Granted, none of them have been Earth shattering or you would have heard of them by now, but they are progressing.

Right now I would say they are still in a mode where they point out the errors in evolutionary research, or how new information shows how off base an evolutionary belief was from the start.

Some in the field are straight up Creationists, but many others believe in Evolution and are looking for the hand of God somewhere in the equation.

[Chizzang]

Well right..
because everybody knows the world is only 6 thousand years old - Jeeze

No, the fact that Paleontologists really cannot trace a lineage from start to finish, especially the more complex an organism is. They can't seem to get over the Cambrian explosion and sudden appearance of the huge amount of life and how that life remained stable until it died off.

I get this opinion reading the statements of Paleontologists and other well informed scientists themselves. Plenty of sites out there that collect these quotes.

we can't explain atomic mass either (we can only measure it)
But based on the data we can make some pretty decent assumptions about mass

Nobody's ever seen an electron
But based on the collection of data we can reasonably assume its existence

The fossil record isn't exactly up for debate any more than the nature of electrons is up for debate
both have "holes" but also overwhelming piles (and piles) of data

you're desperate
and it shows

[SeattleGriz]

No, the fact that Paleontologists really cannot trace a lineage from start to finish, especially the more complex an organism is. They can't seem to get over the Cambrian explosion and sudden appearance of the huge amount of life and how that life remained stable until it died off.

I get this opinion reading the statements of Paleontologists and other well informed scientists themselves. Plenty of sites out there that collect these quotes.

we can't explain atomic mass either (we can only measure it)
But based on the data we can make some pretty decent assumptions about mass

Nobody's ever seen an electron
But based on the collection of data we can reasonably assume its existence

The fossil record isn't exactly up for debate any more than the nature of electrons is up for debate
both have "holes" but also overwhelming piles (and piles) of data

you're desperate
and it shows

Then apparently Stephen J Gould was desperate as well.

As for your piles and piles of fossil record data, what exactly are all the piles? Piles showing that in the large majority of cases, an organism arrives without a predecessor, remains stable throughout it's lifespan and then dies off without a successor that can be linked. The lack of intermediates is stunning.

Phylogeny via Paleontology is weak at best.

[YoUDeeMan]

A force... yes.

An INTELLIGENT force? Not seeing where you're getting that at all.

By intelligent, I am saying the process has direction, as opposed to the current theory of evolution that is just random happenings.

While you won't hear it from many of the talking head atheists, there are quite a few scientists out there who have expressed that random mutation + natural selection is not powerful enough to have given us all our biodiversity from a single progenitor. There has to be more to the theory of evolution, much like the scientist in your article is saying.

This shouldn't be Earth shattering news and in no way takes away from evolution.

Who said all life came from one single mutated life form?

[Chizzang]

we can't explain atomic mass either (we can only measure it)
But based on the data we can make some pretty decent assumptions about mass

Nobody's ever seen an electron
But based on the collection of data we can reasonably assume its existence

The fossil record isn't exactly up for debate any more than the nature of electrons is up for debate
both have "holes" but also overwhelming piles (and piles) of data

you're desperate
and it shows

Then apparently Stephen J Gould was desperate as well.

As for your piles and piles of fossil record data, what exactly are all the piles? Piles showing that in the large majority of cases, an organism arrives without a predecessor, remains stable throughout it's lifespan and then dies off without a successor that can be linked. The lack of intermediates is stunning.

Phylogeny via Paleontology is weak at best.

Well that solves it then... GOD did it

Never mind Galapagos Finches
and the actual hundreds and hundreds of examples that support the case
lets go with ID where no evidence against it trumps all the evidence for something else

The ID argument in one sentence:
You can't prove ID doesn't exist = so there you have it (done, debate over)

Meanwhile real work is being done - not trying to prove or disprove anything
but simply observe and put the pieces together - settling on what is the most logical

ID equals = Preconceived conclusion = work to prove it right = dismiss all previous evidence

Yeah... that's science right there

[SeattleGriz]

By intelligent, I am saying the process has direction, as opposed to the current theory of evolution that is just random happenings.

While you won't hear it from many of the talking head atheists, there are quite a few scientists out there who have expressed that random mutation + natural selection is not powerful enough to have given us all our biodiversity from a single progenitor. There has to be more to the theory of evolution, much like the scientist in your article is saying.

This shouldn't be Earth shattering news and in no way takes away from evolution.

Who said all life came from one single mutated life form?

You are correct in that the theory of evolution doesn't focus on the origin of life. I was taught the old Urey-Miller experiment is how life started. Shows how wrong that was!

As much as I hate Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]

[SeattleGriz]

Then apparently Stephen J Gould was desperate as well.

As for your piles and piles of fossil record data, what exactly are all the piles? Piles showing that in the large majority of cases, an organism arrives without a predecessor, remains stable throughout it's lifespan and then dies off without a successor that can be linked. The lack of intermediates is stunning.

Phylogeny via Paleontology is weak at best.

Well that solves it then... GOD did it

Never mind Galapagos Finches
and the actual hundreds and hundreds of examples that support the case
lets go with ID where no evidence against it trumps all the evidence for something else

The ID argument in one sentence:
You can't prove ID doesn't exist = so there you have it (done, debate over)

Meanwhile real work is being done - not trying to prove or disprove anything
but simply observe and put the pieces together - settling on what is the most logical

ID equals = Preconceived conclusion = work to prove it right = dismiss all previous evidence

Yeah... that's science right there

Galpagos finches has what to do with Paleontology? I never said that evolution was incorrect because phylogeny can't be correctly deduced through Paleontology.

If anything, genetics has replaced Paleontology as far more accurate in correctly predicting the tree of life.

I simply stated that the fossil record has been torn apart as lacking.

Lastly, you been trolled. I know how much you love the fossil record. Why do you think I just randomly tossed it out there?

[Chizzang]

Well that solves it then... GOD did it

Never mind Galapagos Finches
and the actual hundreds and hundreds of examples that support the case
lets go with ID where no evidence against it trumps all the evidence for something else

The ID argument in one sentence:
You can't prove ID doesn't exist = so there you have it (done, debate over)

Meanwhile real work is being done - not trying to prove or disprove anything
but simply observe and put the pieces together - settling on what is the most logical

ID equals = Preconceived conclusion = work to prove it right = dismiss all previous evidence

Yeah... that's science right there

Galpagos finches has what to do with Paleontology? I never said that evolution was incorrect because phylogeny can't be correctly deduced through Paleontology.

If anything, genetics has replaced Paleontology as far more accurate in correctly predicting the tree of life.

I simply stated that the fossil record has been torn apart as lacking.

Lastly, you been trolled. I know how much you love the fossil record. Why do you think I just randomly tossed it out there?

That's a fascinating gap in your knowledge...
Because you see Galapagos Finches are an example of three things working together
Genetics / Paleontology / Macro-evolution

and to say that Genetics somehow replaces Paleontology is like saying:
Now that I know algebra I don't need to know addition & subtraction

Then you say the Fossil record has been torn apart
But in the hundreds and hundreds of examples where it is completely intact it proves out EVERY TIME
To dismiss the fossil record is ID's wet dream

Look we both know ID isn't about "getting it right"
It's about defending the Bible (and that is all)

See: I can believe in God or at least be totally jazzed about the idea of God
and not have to worry about Iron Age dullards definition of the Universe
Because I was not brainwashed into Christianity (or any ancient faith)
I am allowed to view the world with an open mind

You... do not have that luxury You're stuck on defense
In a last desperate goal line stand

[SeattleGriz]

Galpagos finches has what to do with Paleontology? I never said that evolution was incorrect because phylogeny can't be correctly deduced through Paleontology.

If anything, genetics has replaced Paleontology as far more accurate in correctly predicting the tree of life.

I simply stated that the fossil record has been torn apart as lacking.

Lastly, you been trolled. I know how much you love the fossil record. Why do you think I just randomly tossed it out there?

That's a fascinating gap in your knowledge...
Because you see Galapagos Finches are an example of three things working together
Genetics / Paleontology / Macro-evolution

and to say that Genetics somehow replaces Paleontology is like saying:
Now that I know algebra I don't need to know addition & subtraction

Then you say the Fossil record has been torn apart
But in the hundreds and hundreds of examples where it is completely intact it proves out EVERY TIME
To dismiss the fossil record is ID's wet dream

Look we both know ID isn't about "getting it right"
It's about defending the Bible (and that is all)

See: I can believe in God or at least be totally jazzed about the idea of God
and not have to worry about Iron Age dullards definition of the Universe
Because I was not brainwashed into Christianity (or any ancient faith)
I am allowed to view the world with an open mind

You... do not have that luxury You're stuck on defense
In a last desperate goal line stand

So now the Finches were fossilized, because you say Paleontology was involved? Unless there is some long line of Finch fossils I don't know about, Paleontology has nothing to do with the Finches.

As far as your two things working together, it's called natural selection, but I know you know that and were only trying to make your point, although invalid.

Please give me a couple instances in which the fossil record is intact.

As far as IDers dismissing the fossil record, I think you are confusing Creationists with Intelligent Design. In all fairness, ID sprang from Creationists, but the PhD's that are working in the field of ID are hardly hacks. ID believes in evolution, just that an Intelligent Design is also involved. The angle they come from is if you find a watch, you don't think, hmm, amazing how this just formed from the elements lying around this watch, you know it was designed and created. That is what ID is about. The belief that life is too intricate to just have randomly happened, something else had to be involved than just natural selection and random mutation.

For the record, I was never brainwashed into Christianity, I came to it of my own accord in my early 20's.

[CID1990]

Anything that is unprovable or unknowable could be possible. So in that vein, ID could be real, but it requires blind faith.

Hey there Mr. just you simmer down
Don't be taking all the fun out a this one just yet
We've got important stuff yet to parcel out one giblet at a time - to keep this going

You don't play this game by just dropping the nuclear option on post one

you'll chase away all the faux-scientists and super logical fundamentalists

See? The nuclear option hardly is a thread ender on CS

[SeattleGriz]

Hey there Mr. just you simmer down
Don't be taking all the fun out a this one just yet
We've got important stuff yet to parcel out one giblet at a time - to keep this going

You don't play this game by just dropping the nuclear option on post one

you'll chase away all the faux-scientists and super logical fundamentalists

See? The nuclear option hardly is a thread ender on CS

Because your nuclear option couldn't punch it's way out of a wet paper bag.

You tore down evolution with your whole, "unknowable and unprovable" line.

Give me one example of where we have recreated Evolution or documented it's action in real time. By evolution, I mean one species has become so different from the original species, that they cannot reproduce. You can't, and that is the rub.

While I can admit it has a consensus of support behind it, and I adhere to it's tenets, it has NEVER been PROVEN.

Here is a little dose of reality.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

50,000 generations of E Coli subjected to (EDIT replaced mutagens with strain) strain and still E Coli. Why have we not seen a new species yet?

Next time you try to backhand slap someone, bring your A game.

[kalm]

See? The nuclear option hardly is a thread ender on CS

Because your nuclear option couldn't punch it's way out of a wet paper bag.

You tore down evolution with your whole, "unknowable and unprovable" line.

Give me one example of where we have recreated Evolution or documented it's action in real time. By evolution, I mean one species has become so different from the original species, that they cannot reproduce. You can't, and that is the rub.

While I can admit it has a consensus of support behind it, and I adhere to it's tenets, it has NEVER been PROVEN.

Here is a little dose of reality.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

50,000 generations of E Coli subjected to mutagens and still E Coli. Why have we not seen a new species yet?

Next time you try to backhand slap someone, bring your A game.

My neighbor across the street was born without wisdom teeth and has so far been unable to reproduce with other humans...

[SeattleGriz]

Because your nuclear option couldn't punch it's way out of a wet paper bag.

You tore down evolution with your whole, "unknowable and unprovable" line.

Give me one example of where we have recreated Evolution or documented it's action in real time. By evolution, I mean one species has become so different from the original species, that they cannot reproduce. You can't, and that is the rub.

While I can admit it has a consensus of support behind it, and I adhere to it's tenets, it has NEVER been PROVEN.

Here is a little dose of reality.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

50,000 generations of E Coli subjected to mutagens and still E Coli. Why have we not seen a new species yet?

Next time you try to backhand slap someone, bring your A game.

My neighbor across the street was born without wisdom teeth and has so far been unable to reproduce with other humans...

Okay. Another example.

[Chizzang]

So now the Finches were fossilized, because you say Paleontology was involved? Unless there is some long line of Finch fossils I don't know about, Paleontology has nothing to do with the Finches.

As far as your two things working together, it's called natural selection, but I know you know that and were only trying to make your point, although invalid.

Please give me a couple instances in which the fossil record is intact.

As far as IDers dismissing the fossil record, I think you are confusing Creationists with Intelligent Design. In all fairness, ID sprang from Creationists, but the PhD's that are working in the field of ID are hardly hacks. ID believes in evolution, just that an Intelligent Design is also involved. The angle they come from is if you find a watch, you don't think, hmm, amazing how this just formed from the elements lying around this watch, you know it was designed and created. That is what ID is about. The belief that life is too intricate to just have randomly happened, something else had to be involved than just natural selection and random mutation.

For the record, I was never brainwashed into Christianity, I came to it of my own accord in my early 20's.

Definition: Paleontology
The Study of Ancient Life / developing a general theory about the causes of various types of change
and applying those theories to the specific available facts

So...Yeah
Paleontologists study the Galapagos Finch bones / That's what Paleontologists do

Yes those three things working together = Natural Selection
And Natural selection is how the Watch got made
and here is our cousin