Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I accept the experiment for what it is.
I accept the results of the experiment for what they are. No argument with facts.
I don't accept the theory that is "seems" to validate as necessarily true.
This particular species adapted the same way multiple times during controlled experiments.
No problem. May be by design.
Scientists called this adaptation a "new species" or inter-species evolution.
It is not known that this adaptation was within the predetermined survival range of the species or not before the experiment, i.e. this adaptation may just as easily have been by design, or by plan of the organism to adapt to certain environmental conditions.
The concept of "new species" or inter-species evolution suggests that there is no design, nor plan for the way in which changes take place when biological organisms are subjected to different environmental conditions that they must adapt to in order to survive. There is no evidence that this is the case that there is no plan for these changes to take place, by design.
Speaking of biology.....
I challenge any biological scientist to find one single biological species that lives forever.
One would think that with all this random chance stuff (think monkeys banging out Shakespeare) that at least one species would have evolved to the point where it would no longer die of natural causes.
Yet every single living biological species we know of had a birth, and we have near 100% certainty that they will all die.
Hard to imagine all this "evolution" for millions if not billions of years...and not one has "evolved" or lucked into eternal life.
I would speculate that some very powerful, very consistent "unknown" force wants biological organisms to be born, live, and then die.
Your comment "may be by design" is theoretical. The experiment is a fact. You can teach the result of the experiment, but according to your stated position, you cannot teach the theoretical "may be by design," until some demonstrable experiment is produced.
The proffered experiment was published in 1992. It has been 13 years since, and no detractor has falsified the experiment. This, by itself, strongly suggests that the detractors cannot do so, because if they could, they would be all over the experiment demonstrating the hoax perpetrated on/by the scientific community.
Negative arguments, like "may be by design" are entirely theoretical. Prove it, and you can publish it. But, no one has provided an experiment that demonstrates design, because those who seek to promote the theory, attribute the design to a supernatural creator whose actions, if they are real, are undetectable using the scientific method.
If the detractors were to postulate a "natural" designer, and then attempt to prove that, then they would have no supernatural stumbling block. But, they do not, because they do not want the source of our existence to be some passer-by alien farmer. They want God, and nothing less will suffice.
As for your challenge re evolution not producing creatures that are immortal, well, even though I don't agree with your view of what evolution should or should not do, nevertheless it is a scientific fact that ALL biological organisms that reproduce by cell division are immortal, because although they can be extinguished by accidental death, their cell division causes identical replications of the original, thus there is no death, as part of the life cycle of asexual creatures.
Only biological organisms that reproduce sexually, die as part of their life cycle. That, in fact, is the evolutionary basis of death. Sexual reproduction and death apparently co-evolved, because the two traits are only found together.
So, you're gonna need a better challenge.
In any event, this argument has been had multiple times, and in the end, you will fall back on your "evolution is just a theory not a fact," proclamation, which is "designed" especially to "inflame" those who don't recognize that your actions are deliberately designed to generate hits to the ET website.
However, I have a life, and before my life cycle ends, I need to go live some more of it. So, I'm outta here, but before I go, I just want to leave you and the rest of the creationist crew, with my own little challenge:
Explain how it is possible that other primates and humans all have the same retroviral insertions in the exact same locations of their genome sequences (see attached .gif file). The scientific explanation, is that the insertions, which according to the scientists who mapped them, occurred millions of years ago, in the genome of the same creature, who eventually evolved into the various primates that occupy our planet today.
What are the odds of this happening by accident?
Lay out the gene sequences of the various referred to creatures on rolls of toilet paper, each gene separated by one millimeter each, and you would have rolls of paper stretched about 32,000 football fields in length. Then go up in the air in a plane and drop a handful of darts. If they all land in the same place on each roll of toilet paper, then you will have demonstrated that this factual event could have happened by accident.
I'll be there to watch, and I'll be betting against you.
