My comment of "may be by design" is of course theoretical, just as "may be by random chance ignorant lifeless undirected evolutionary processes" is theoretical.
I take no issue with scientific observation, facts speak for themselves.
It is the guess as to what is
really going on that I don't believe is known, nor should this mystery be taught in public schools as something that is "known" by scientists.
I gave you a request for the experiment to be run to lead me to a more open mind. You may have assumed that I was not aware of this experiment and its repetition. Did you wonder why I set down my own criteria for the experiment, rather than go with your suggestion?
The experiment on its own proves nothing but a certain species adapted in specific manner, and it is unknown that the change would not reverse itself if once again the environment and subgroups were returned to their initial condition and allowed to "regress" back to the normative condition.
It is also unknown that these changes would necessarily occur in other species, or if the changes would be permanent.
That biological organisms have a certain degree of elasticity in attempt to overcome environmental obstacles to survive is their nature, we see it in every biological organism, this impulse to survive.
So observation of change is only this:
OBSERVATION OF CHANGE.
What is the cause of the change, if the change is a permanent and "new" condition, or a predetermined variable within the planning or range of that organism is unknown.
The theory comes in when a scientists attempts to "fit the observations" into a package to satisfy a guess.
So it becomes simple:
Teach in public schools what we know, what we observe, but do not promote theories that are not known to be factual, and don't make sweeping generalizations as to what one species does as some platform to what other species have done, or may do.
Experiments to prove design are not needed.
Everyone can see that every single biological organism has a birth, a life of some duration (not exceeding the norm of that species by any great or abnormal amount) and eventual death by normal decay and expiration (if not killed by another organism or environmental stress).
This regularity, this certainty of process of creation of live by birth, age of life, and then death has never ever changed, and the proof of that is that we have not one single example to prove this axiomatic truth false.
It is a statistical improbability that not a single freak "random biological unplanned event" did not produce at least one instance of life extending at least 5 times the norm for a human being.
The programming in the nature of biological organisms to have this cycle of birth, life, then death is so strong as to resist any an all attempts to "evolve or mutate" into every increasing lifespan, even though each and every organism shows an inherent drive to survive, and not die.
It is so obvious......it is not by accident.
The theory is simple:
Biological organisms are designed to be born, live, then die....and we have proof 100% before us that this has never been shown otherwise.
A single example....show birds living 20 times normal lifespan, dogs living to be hundreds of years old, amoebas living beyond a normative, trees thousands and thousands of years old....they all eventually are
programmed to die.
Get it? PROGRAMMED TO DIE.....
Where there is any programming so strong, so consistent, so ever present, there is a program behind it....this is not a random thing at all.
Design? Again, it is so obvious...and it is coming for each and everyone single biological organism, and this march to death, something that all biological organism fight against instinctively.....is set from birth.
All this unbroken programming....and all the uncountable opportunities to "evolve out of it" and nothing but failure to escape the design of biological organism.
Facts are facts, theory is not a fact, no matter how much someone want to believe it is a fact.
It may become a fact....when the knowledge of the source of the programming of biological organisms is found.
So my theory:
You are going to die, along with every other biological organism, according to the plan and design of biological organisms.
Every single day the data keeps rolling in to support this theory....and not a single piece of evidence to prove the theory of this design false..........
The cylcle of life, by design, is birth, death, birth, death, birth death....unending as long as the environment supports life....
Quote from kjkent1:
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.
