That's not true at all. The concrete evidence exists. .
OK, that's good let us discuss this concrete evidence. No straw evidence please :-0
I would guess that there are quite a few areas of science that deal in indirect testing, verification, and/or falsification. <...>The theories of intelligent design and special creation assume intelligent intervention in otherwise immutable natural processes, and it's on this account that they are considered "less scientific" or "pseudoscientific" by the majority of the scientific community.
First, evolution is accepted not because it is scientific, but because the only alternative is creation, i.e. God. In the words of one of the fathers of the "Synthetic Theory" E. Mayr the idea of evolution is accepted by the default of all opposing theories.
Second, can you give an example of indirect testing
? I'll explain, when scientists speak of testing, they imply direct experiment. Causality can only be established via experementation. Any indirect study can only produce correlation. By definition, correlation cannot be used to infer causality - this is the most fundamental premise of the phylosophy of science.
For argument sake, let us look at these two statments: today’s carnivorous whales evolved from plant eaters
(modern biology textbook)the tropic of cancer is inhabitated by crayfish
How can you indirectly (!) test, verify or falsify either of these statements?
And "of course" the underlying assumption about constancy of physical, let alone biological processes is clearly false, right? Even the rate of nuclear decay is not constant.
In general all of the key arguments that would prove evolution valid are based on postulating events that are inherently not observable/verifiable. Such unique, once-in-history events include but are not limited to the very emergence of life (i.e., the formation of the first prokaryotes), emergence of eukaryotes, development of canonical and non-canonical genetic codes, appearance of photosynthesis and mitochondria, origin of vascular plants, beginning of sexual reproduction, appearance of Hox-genes (see below), Cambrian Explosion of phyla, radiation of all major classes and even orders of the animal kingdom. Because of their uniqueness, all these events, their mechanisms and conditions under which they took place by default fall outside of the realm of science. You will like this. In 2005 (I think) there was an attempt to introduce a mere mentioning of the "intelligent design" in a public school in PA. There was a court hearing. The judge justified his verdict of not allowing the ID into school in the following words: Science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific explanation.
Ironically the judge and plaintiffs remained completely blind to the fact that the same definition also puts evolutionism in general and Darwinism in particular outside of the field of scientific explanation. (That's one reason why it's not good to believe in evolution - it blids you, :-0)
 Gallagher J. 2006. Galileo in reverse. Liberty: Magazine of religious freedom. May/June issue: 14-15, 28-29.
On the contrary, there are many DNA sequences in, for example, the human genome that do not appear to have any real function. While it is true that a handful of "pseudogenes" have been discovered to carry out important biological processes, this doesn't necessarily mean that all "pseudogenes" have a function.
Take a look at your computer. The hard-drive "encodes" all the information, there is also a handful of wires, transistors, etc with important functions, but the frame and the box onto which all this stuff is fixed is.... what, without any real function?
A bit of biology here. Most eukaryotic genomes (cells with a nucleus) consist primarily of DNA
that contains no functional genes (up to 97% in humans) - that is genes encoding proteins. So it was suggested that this DNA is but evolutionary junk - randomly-produced sequences
that had lost their coding ability due to genetic damage or partially duplicated genes that were non-functional. It should not exist if DNA was in fact designed by an intelligent agent. Recently a body of research has emerged that clearly demonstrates that non-coding DNA plays numerous critical functions in genomes including chromosome packaging and regulation of gene expression during development . Its functions in many ways are analogous to the functions of cover, binding, pages and bookmarks in a book or internal frame and external case in a computer. The “junk” DNA may also be the key to encoding biological complexity . Upon closer examination this argument is a reenactment of the long-dead contention of existence of vestigial organs (there is none, in fact). It simply presupposed that since we do not know the function(s) of non-coding DNA, then it has no useful functions.
 See http://www.godandsci...on/junkdna.html
for details and references.
 Taft, R.J. and Mattick, J.S. 2003. Increasing biological complexity is positively correlated with the relative genome-wide expansion of non-coding DNA sequences. Genome Biology
There are, however, other theories about evolution's "driving forces" which propose alternatives to the Neo-Darwinist model, but I couldn't tell you what they are or how reasonable they sound. I have a recent (2005) book on "evo-devo" theory, but I haven't read it yet. I've also heard mention of "morphogenetic fields" which communicate learned behaviors to organisms within the same species, but heaven only knows how much validity there is to this notion.
The book is about genes known as the Hox-genes. Hox-genes
are a particular group of genes found in all multicellular organisms that are responsible for patterning the body axis at the early stage of embryonic development. The Hox
-genes do not directly control the nature or shape of structures, but regulate the expression of a complex hierarchy of other genes that do so. By providing the identity of particular body regions, Hox
-genes determine where and other segments will grow in a developing foetus or larva. Although mutations in these genes are often invoked as a possible source of evolutionary novelty, in real terms mutations in Hox
-genes are very harmful - in vertebrates point mutations in Hox
-genes lead to spontaneous abortions of embryos while in arthropods (for example fruit flies) re-arrangements in these genes produce monstrous growth abnormalities.
Suggestions have been made that major evolutionary events such as the Cambrian Explosion are achieved via large scale genomic rearrangements such as duplication of whole genomes or particular genes, especially those regulating development (i.e. the Hox-genes). Well, these suggestions are untenable. First, they do not address the cornerstone issue of how the genes that have been duplicated emerged in the first place. For example, describing the “evolution” of Hox-genes Carroll  simply wrote that their origin was a unique phenomenon (see the first point above!). Second, genome duplication requires pre-existence of sophisticated biochemical pathways, which also have to appear somehow. Third, the pattern of gene (genome) duplication does not match the pattern of morphological radiation. Authors of a recent article on this issue wrote:Many have argued that genome duplication is a dominant factor in the evolution of complexity and diversity. However, a clear correlation between a genome duplication event and increased complexity and diversity is not apparent… A causal link between any specific genome duplication event and increased species diversity remains elusive.
 Carroll R.L. 2000. Towards a new evolutionary synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
, 15: 27-32.
 Crow K.D., Wagner G.P. 2006. What is the role of genome duplication in the evolution of complexity and diversity? Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23: 887-892.
So again, I see no independent evidence in favour of evolution and thus no need at all to raise your question 2.
In the Lord,
Edited by Yuri Zharikov, 30 January 2008 - 02:18 AM.