Replies

If I took your response and substituted the words “common design mechanism’ for “evolutionary mechanism,” you would have obtained the same experimental results regardless of which theory is correct because they both allow the same outcome within the limits of your experiments. You made use of observed facts and knowledge you had acquired, not the theory of evolution (or intelligent design for that matter) itself.

Apparently, you had to account for micro-evolutionary, or what I prefer to call adaptive biological changes to provide some form of control for your experiment. Were you concerned the species under observation would change to another species? I don't think so. It might mutate, but it would still be a bacteria or whatever it was.

Your experiments prove neither evolution nor intelligent design, not that it was your intent. All I am saying is that your experiement considered known effects and the theoretical cause was not important since it was not your intent to prove that cause.

Things are “discovered” because people make observations or acquire existing knowledge and then ask questions. Without inquisitiveness, scientific discovery comes to a halt. It's one reason I find it objectionable to restrict scientific inquiry based on dogmatic beliefs, whether they are “accepted” or not. Evolutionist want to shut down any inquiry or discussion into the origin of species that does not conform to but one single criterion - there is no Creator, not stated as a theory, but as fact.

Actually, not. The way I phrase the assumptions that go into my hypothesis drastically affect the final formulation of the hypothesis, and the experiments I design to test it. If I were to assume "common design" instead of natural physical processes, the resulting hypothesis would be completely different, and it is doubtful that any experiment I could design to test it would return useful results. GIGO is just as relevant to biology as it is to computer programming.

The term "adaptive" is highly misleading. No species actually adapts, since that implies a consciously guided process. What happens is that random mutations occur (they cannot be avoided), and the random mutants that are better suited to a specific environment have a survival advantage over those that aren't suited to that particular environment. There is no conscious thought involved, it just happens. Furthermore, the only substantive difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is the time scale--"micro" occurs over a "short" time and "macro" over a long time, although exact definitions of either term are seriously lacking.

What I was concerned about in my experiments was that the cell lines I ended my experiments with were sufficiently similar to those I began with to be able to make the claim that I was experimenting on the same cell line throughout the course of the experiment. Even with taking precautions to avoid any kind of selective pressure on the cells, they mutate with every generation. Mutation is a main driving force of evolution and cannot be prevented. Controlling for it is a HUGE concern for anyone doing work with microorganisms or cell lines.

We use the theory of evolution because it works. Were we to try to force science to conform to a dogmatic belief like young earth creationism, scientific advance would indeed grind to a halt. Scientists can't afford to be beholden to any dogmatic belief--the public that places their confidence in our ability to advance the practice of medicine through scientific discovery wouldn't stand for it. And, despite the efforts of young earth creationist charlatans to depict us as being devoted to "proving" the non-existence of God, that really isn't what we're about. We couldn't disprove the existence of God if we wanted to; the scientific method can't do that. Religion is not a scientific exercise; science is not a religious exercise. They are separate and different, and each one has its place.