[Nebullis]

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: Complex eukaryotic cells contain organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria. These organelles have their own DNA. This suggests that bacterial cells may have become established in cells that were ancestral to eukaryotes. These smaller cells existed for a time in a symbiotic relationship within the larger cell. Later, the smaller cell evolved into separate organelles within the eukaryotic ancestors. The separate organelles, chloroplast and mitochondria, within modern eukaryotes stand as evidence of this evolutionary change.

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Laboratory tests have not yet demonstrated that small bacteria (prokaryotic cells) can change into separate organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts within larger bacterial cells. When smaller bacterial cells (prokaryotes) are absorbed by larger bacterial cells, they are usually destroyed by digestion. Although some bacterial cells (prokaryotes) can occasionally live in eukaryotes, scientists have not observed these cells changing into organelles such as mitochondria or chloroplasts.

This is straight out of the creationist handbook. There are basically two creationists "challenges" to evolution: "nobody was there to see it happen" and "we haven't repeated the event in the laboratory".

In science, the theory with the MOST supporting evidence wins. The "challenge" presented here is not a scientific challenge. A scientific challenge would consist of data which clearly supports another hypothesis. As it happens, any science with a historical aspect, such as biology or cosmology, is going to suffer from an inherent absence of data and a near impossibility for laboratory replication.

This is anti-science propaganda, pure and simple.

[cornelis]

In science, the theory with the MOST supporting evidence wins

In a particular sense of the term science, yes. Although winning may imply a bit more of the political, which many have said is not a science.

[js1138]

we haven't repeated the event in the laboratory

Well, we can't very well repeat the event in the laboratory, because laboratory events are designed, aren't they?

;^)

So in the absense of a time machine, we'll just have to concede that evolution is wrong.

[frgoff]

-In science, the theory with the MOST supporting evidence wins.-

This is simply not true. A theory which cannot make valid predictions is ABANDONED (ether as a medium of propagation for light). Another theory does NOT need to be immediately available to take its place.

The lesson describes a valid problem with a theory. The theory makes a PREDICTION that SHOULD be OBSERVABLE or REPRODUCIBLE and ISN'T. This same situation is what discredited cold fusion.

The failure to look at EVIDENCE is a charge constantly leveled at creationists. I find it interesting that supporters of evolution suffer from it, too.

A good experimental scientist never tries to prove a theory right, he tries to prove it wrong. You can prove a theory right a thousand times and all you get is it's probably true. Prove it wrong once, and you've made a major scientific advancement.

Honest evolutionary scientists should be doing everything they can to prove evolution wrong so that they can find the flaws in the theory and tighten it up. The fact that they pretend flaws don't exist and criticize anyone who points them out is very telling.