I think he means you have observed the effects. Namely, you have experienced having a cold or influenza more than once. Just like looking at the pretty glowing water is away to observe a nuclear reaction without sticking my head in the core.
In science many observations are indirect.
Cheers Little Nemo; nicely explained.
Well… if you could point to an example of this happening – having a clear and indisputable biological adaption ahead of the need, particularly an adaption that until that need appears is sub-optimal for the current biological niche – well, that might actually be useful as evidence in an argument for ID.
It would have to be a clear adaption though… otherwise it would just be another example of selection and adaption over time. ID wouldn’t be demonstrated by having a population of proto-spanner-equipped grass-cutters who move into a loose bolts niche and over the generations select for those with the most spanner-like appendages (over those with the most shear-like; which would have formerly been the most successful).
It also won’t be all that useful if there is archaeological evidence that the environment of the grass-cutters was originally a loose-bolts niche – that would suggest their current poorly adapted grass shears were previously adapted for bolts. It would be like claiming that seals are pre-adapted for the land because they have pseudo-feet; these are vestiges of their ancestry, not evidence for ID.
Perhaps that’s what he means but that’s not what he said.
In any case, I have not observed the effects of mutations and antibodies. I have read about them and I accept that their existence offers the best explanation
Yes, I have.
Would you say that, as a result of viewing photos of “pretty glowing water”, you have observed a nuclear reaction?
Anyway, before this drifts too far away from the thread’s topic, I’ll just point out that practically nobody has “observed” evolution. If evolution was as obvious as some posters in this thread imply, scientific theories of it (genetic drift and natural selection) would have been formulated centuries ago, say around Newton’s time. A reasonable acceptance of it involves knowledge of quite a bit of more modern science.
By your definition, no one has “observed” anything in distant Galaxies, since all we are seeing is light waves, and those are millions of years old anyway. Maybe the Universe doesn’t really exist?
I was thinking about dog breeds earlier and how the OP might have better phrased his question. Let’s imagine that evolution is real, but that it’s somehow discovered that natural selection alone cannot account for the diversity of life on earth. I’m not sure how this could ever be proven, but I can imagine doggie scientists (like in a Far Side cartoon) coming to the realization that natural selection is insufficient to explain how chihuahuas, Afghan hounds, Great Danes, etc., all evolved from wolves.
Some dogs might conclude that a supernatural being was responsible for the many different breeds of dogs in the world…but they’d be wrong. Dog breeding is arguably a form of intelligent design, but it’s intelligent design by humans and not a divine being. If humans somehow discovered that natural selection alone could not explain how we evolved from ancient primates then I’m sure many would say “That proves it, God did it!” It wouldn’t prove any such thing, though. Selective breeding or genetic engineering by some unknown alien species (or hidden/extinct earthly species) would strike me as a far more likely explanation.
[QUOTE=Galileo]
Perhaps that’s what he means but that’s not what he said.
[/QUOTE]
I thought it was pretty much implicit in what I was saying there.
Sure you have. Think of it this way. If you didn’t know anything about gravity, you would still have first hand observational knowledge of it if you fell off a cliff. 
Anyway, I don’t want to get bogged down in a semantics discussion. I was going for light humor there, not for precise definitions. The key point I was making has already been made by numerous posters, namely that evolution is both fact and theory at the same time, and that if this was somehow overturned or proven to be ‘junk science’ then that would mean that at a fundamental level how we observe the universe would be flawed.
-XT
Yes, it didn’t kill you, so baring something else that filters you, you survive to reproduce. You happen to be the decedent of lots of other people who survived colds long enough to begot you and your ancestors. Those that didn’t have a responsive enough immune system to survive long enough didn’t, unless they were lucky, pass their genes on to you.
Remember what killed the Martians in War of the Worlds? That was a story of evolution.
If you infect other people you also observe the cold surviving to reproduce. If the cold failed to be contagious enough then it’s filtered making room for more contagious colds.
Whenever you hear “man there’s something going around” that’s a success story in action.
See post #73. I like cows even better as evidence of intelligent design - they are so badly adapted they can’t even run away from space aliens mutilating them. 
So we could probably find evidence of design if there was any, and then we’d have to figure out who did the designing.
Does any religious holy book posit design over time? Genesis has it all done in one week. While I understand that God’s invisible hand is popular with more moderate religions, is it anything but an attempt to integrate God with reality?
Yes, but not all that modern.
To quote T. H. Huxley:
In 1857 Huxley rebuked himself with: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!”
Over 150 years later there are still numerous people who cannot or will not grasp the concepts involved and look with rational objectivity at the mountain of evidence accumulated in the century and a half since Darwin (and Wallace) proposed natural selection.
(And even then the concept of changing species didn’t originate with Darwin and Wallace and may be traced earlier in the Enlightenment. But, yes, the mechanisms of evolution do require more modern science, and as our science improves we gain more understanding and proof).
Not sure but this looks like a good place to start:
Have fun. A lot of mythology stories are pretty cool. I’m pretty sure they were the comic book stories before comic books.
If abele derer never came back to this thread, would you belive in God?
False Dichotomy
A hypothetical failure of evolution under proper scientific process would shift the focus on an alternate scientifically evaluable process.
Science is a process, not a destination.
No, but it’s a valid counter-argument to a very common statement that goes like “The world is so wonderful that he has to have been created. No random process could result in such marvels” or “Look at the beauty of the world, and you’ll see god’s hand”.
It’s a counter to perfect intelligence but not intelligence in general.
I mean you should have seen of the hack-job, jury rigged, duct tape loving, WD-40 marinated things I’ve done, and I’d like to think I was at least sort of intelligent.
My definition of “observe” includes seeing. Where can I see evolution as clearly as I can see a galaxy?
Science is an interpretation and explanation of observations and not the observations themselves. And science is “true” to the extent that it can adequately explain those observations. Disputes about religion and science are centered on what it means to “adequately explain”, and, ultimately, on what is considered the “best” explanation. For me, there is no explanatory power in postulating a god. Others disagree. I am interested in understanding why they disagree.
Where can you see gravity as clearly? You can’t “see” gravity, only the effects of it. You can’t “see” radio waves, you can only detect their existence. Do you doubt their existence because your senses are inadequate? You can’t “see” a lot of things in science, because your senses are not made to detect them. You can’t “see” evolution because you don’t live long enough.
You will have to use your brain to make up for your pitiful shortcomings. Evolution is clearly seen in the fossil record and can be tested in the laboratory.
You can’t see atoms either, but you still have direct observational evidence that they are there. If you don’t believe me, close your eyes and run head first at a wall and see what happens…
-XT
Well, I personally don’t, because i’m not a believer in intelligent design. Evidence that supports intelligent design is, you’ll probably not be surprised to hear, not acceptable purely on face value.
My point is that these are possibilities, not that these have evidence behind them such that they are likely or reasonable possibilities. As far as i’m concerned, there is by the very nature of the idea that we may not be observing the true purpose of something a lack of evidence, because we aren’t observing it.
[QUOTE=Apollyon]
Well… if you could point to an example of this happening – having a clear and indisputable biological adaption ahead of the need, particularly an adaption that until that need appears is sub-optimal for the current biological niche – well, that might actually be useful as evidence in an argument for ID.
It would have to be a clear adaption though… otherwise it would just be another example of selection and adaption over time. ID wouldn’t be demonstrated by having a population of proto-spanner-equipped grass-cutters who move into a loose bolts niche and over the generations select for those with the most spanner-like appendages (over those with the most shear-like; which would have formerly been the most successful).
It also won’t be all that useful if there is archaeological evidence that the environment of the grass-cutters was originally a loose-bolts niche – that would suggest their current poorly adapted grass shears were previously adapted for bolts. It would be like claiming that seals are pre-adapted for the land because they have pseudo-feet; these are vestiges of their ancestry, not evidence for ID.
[/QUOTE]
There’s also the difficulty that some adaptions might be a matter of needing to be less perfect in some area in order to improve on another. In which case even a later discovered sub-optimal adaption might well end up being optimal in contextual terms.
My understanding of the word “junk”: it’s tasty, not nec·es·sar·i·ly healthy - but people still love it. So count me as Darwinian and pro-Newton kindafellow.
A BigMac (Mmm mm)
Nitpick: With the right equipment (a magnetic trap, a laser and a telescope mirror IIRC), you actually can see atoms - and electrons too. The scientist who first set up that experiment mentioned that he did it in part because he was always told when he was a student that you can’t ever see atoms or electrons - so he built something to let him do just that, and even gave the atoms and electrons pet names.