Question about the theory of evolution in here

[Dolph]

the data is not the same - intelligent design states that the processess involved in evolution are not possible by chance and that there must be a higher intelligence guiding the process and that it isn't random. all the evidence refutes this concept - if anything the evidence shows that the universe is random and lacks any kind of design, intelligent or otherwise.

Actually, intelligent design states no such thing. Proponants of intelligent design do, however for my opinion of such statements, see here as to why they prove nothing.

a good introduction is here: http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

Actually that would be a very bad place to start, given the clear bias of the site. However you don't actually need to convince me, I don't believe in Intelligent design any more than I believe in random mutation, namely that they are both potential explainations for the data we see. From a purely scientific point of view, you have to accept Random mutation over intelligent design anyway, as ID doesn't fulfill the criteria for a scientific theory for various reasons (most importantly that it's unfalsifiable and untestable).

Where the confusion comes is when people try to say evolution by random mutation has to be true because science says so, and then proceed to dismiss other ideas (with attitude ranging from condescending to insulting) while failing to recognise that they are putting their faith in a man made construction just as much as any of those they are criticising.

of course the scientific method has its flaws, if it was perfect then we would know everything, but it can only be based on observed and reproducable empirical data, something that the religious community and proponents of intelligent design have never used.

Agreed. As I said in the post I've linked to above, if those who support ID ever want to make a convincing case, then they need to start not by trying to disprove random mutation, but by proving their case. You cannot claim (as your example above) that Random mutation doesn't work therefore intelligent design must be true. You haven't proven anything of the sort. At best you may have proven that the Random mutation mechanism is flawed (which no-one has actually managed to do yet otherwise it would have been superceeded), which is not anything approaching the same thing as proving ID.

The sad thing is that those who put absolute faith in science are just as closed minded as those who put absolute faith in a religion. They assume that if a process is followed, they will always reach the truth, and anything not covered by that truth can't be real.

 

[King4aDay]

if you chose to beleive that these random events are guided by a higher being then thats your choice, but that would make the designer pretty incompetent in my book

I don't, I was just pointing out the flaw in what I quoted .

 

[aardvark]

The sad thing is that those who put absolute faith in science are just as closed minded as those who put absolute faith in a religion. They assume that if a process is followed, they will always reach the truth, and anything not covered by that truth can't be real.

definitely agree with you there - being a scientist is about having an open mind - every theory is open to question depending on the available evidence.
some theories have more evidence than others though - in my opinion the evidence for evolution is pretty robust.

 

[Nitefly]

Back on topic, look what I found in my lecture notes

"What properties does an organism need to be asexual or to be sexual?
• Asexual – SOMATIC FISSION
• A good way to answer that question is to ask why if I cut off my finger, why
wouldn’t another one grow back? To put it another way, what is it about the
cells that make up my hand that doesn’t allow me to grow new fingers? The
answer, in the language of developmental biology, is that the cells of my fingers are terminally DIFFERENTIATED – they consist of skin, muscle, nervous and bone cells. These cells have differentiated into different cell types. A consequence of this is that they have lost the ability to form other cell types. Thus, these cells are no longer TOTIPOTENT – these are cells that have ‘all potentials’ another word we can use is PRIMORDIAl cells.

Organisms that can undergo somatic fission have totipotent or primordial cells. Remember in the sponges, there were three cell types. Only the amoebocytes were totipotent. These cells could form a whole new sponge – the other cells couldn’t. Among the invertebrates agametic reproduction occurs in the Porifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophores (comb jellies), Platyhelminthes, annelids, nemertea (ribbon worms)
and Echinodermata (STARFISH!!!! )."

All wording is of his own.

There is more, but thats the jist. Hoorah, OP answered