[Doc Savage]

Look genius, take the structure of a bird's feather. In order to "evolve" such a complex structure via "the evolutionary process" you would have to start at event A. Each of the countless additional genetic steps required to arrive at the completed structure requires a genetic mutation, the vast majority of which are lethal to the host. Further, the deletion, translocation, etc., to move from A to B (The end point being Z) must, according to your Darwinian Bible, occur at random, and these mutational changes must being successfully passed on to the next generation.

The odds of a "correct" mutational change occurring in the correct sequencing in random are so overwhelming that the odds of such a rachis and barb structure evolving are nil.

Irreducible complexity sides with Intelligent Design to a much greater degree than it does with Darwinian theory.

These are theories, not proven facts. If scientists had overwhelming proof that "evolution" has occurred, they would have long, long ago called a World Symposium and changed the name to the Law of Evolution. But they don't have that proof. Now it remains to be seen if they ever will, or if any of us will be able to prove differently. After all, we hardly know why we exist, let alone how we came to be as we are!

[narby]

Law of Evolution.

You need to back up and start with the posts on the differences between "theory" and "law".

You've got some reading to do.

[NJ_gent]

"The odds of a "correct" mutational change occurring in the correct sequencing in random are so overwhelming"

Two things; first of all, if the odds weren't overwhelmingly against this happening, then it would happen in 100 years instead of 100 million years. Secondly, evolution is driven by more than just mutation. It's also driven by genetic variation. Ergo, traits which may be pre-existing but dormant can, under the right conditions (and with a huge amount of luck) come to dominate a species. Genetic variation works hand-in-hand with mutations to drive forward the changes necessary for adaptation to occur.

"These are theories, not proven facts."

This is absolutely true, and anyone trying to claim that the theory of Evolution is either perfect or complete is extremely misguided. It is, however, probably the best scientific theory we have thus far which explains how species have adapted over time to changing environments.

[VadeRetro]

Bad model. No parallelism, selection only mentioned as a killer, some kind of assumption of only one correct outcome ...

You can't learn anything making bad models and waving them around. Then, not learning anything was the idea.

[eagle11]

I consider evolution (Darwin's Origin of Species) to be a theory about how the families of species came to be. It is not my religion. The trouble I have with Intel Design, is that - while it proposes that there is an alternative to natural selection and evolution to explain this mystery, ID doesn't tell us what it is in a way that can be understood by science. The theory of evolution may only be part of the solution, but I'm sure one day we'll know more.

[stremba]

I am still amazed at the level of scientific ignorance despite the attempts of many here to educate people. Once again (it's been written many times in this and other threads, but apparently you haven't read it.) theories do not become laws. Theories are an endpoint of science. They are explanations of observed phenomena. Laws are an expression of an observed regularity. (Example: Law of gravity gives the force between two objects, theory of gravity explains why there is a force and why the force is what it is) Both theories and laws are supported by a variety of observations. While you are correct that theories are unproven, so are laws, hypotheses, and any other statement made in science. Science simply does not deal with proof. Science does deal with statements that make predictions. If these predictions hold true, it lends weight to the theory, law, etc. If the predictions are found to be false, the idea is rejected.