Angorak wrote:
PROVIDE THE PROOF....show me one instance that inconvertably points to evolution as being positively correct....repeat the experiment in a laboratory and make the results evident to all.
Someone (I think Joph) already did that. The appendix is a perfect example. A component of the human body which has no function. So... Either it's something that did have function at one point, but no longer does, or something that is "developing" function. In either case, while it's presence does provide a minor negative (it can burst and cause death in a small percentage of people), it's negative effect on the organism is not sufficient to preven reproduction.
That is the ultimate failure of the ID "science". It makes a blanket assumption that all the parts of every organism are impossible to generate "naturally". It states as fact that those complex structures could not develop because they rely on too many other functions being in place, so if you remove one, the whole thing fails. But this assumes that the function that complex component fills would make it impossible for the organism to survive if it were missing. And that's absolutely untrue.
There's a web site someone linked many ages ago that did a really good job of explaining the flaws of ID (and most arguments against evolutionary theory). It mentioned some specific examples and showed how it was quite possible for a complex structure like the eye to develop gradually over time without negatively impacting the organism at all. In fact, in the case of the eye, we can find numerous examples of organisms with "eyes" at all stages of eye development, from simple patches of light sensing skin cells all the way to complex eyes like those found in humans. Clearly, each of those organisms is viable *right now* and so clearly an organism could certainly evolve from one type of eye to another without negatively impacting its survival (and in fact likely improving it's survival in the long run).
Most of the "flaws" that ID tries to point out about evolution aren't really scientific flaws, but are just things that can be made to seem to be flaws. It relies heavily on people not really understanding evolution.