This house would believe the dominant pardigm is flawed.

Hello again... 1A) On the contrary, this is not far fetched at all - this is the very backbone of evolution, if you don't accept that random genetic mutations occur, you will not be able to accept evolution. As for whether mutations exist, it is both apparent and not controversial (1)(2) and for dictionary definition (3) that these mutations exist and cause evolution! As for whether mutations cause both cancer and the ability of a bird to fly, this is not controversial either. What happens is that an accumulation of mutations that positively effect a bird's (or pre-bird's) disposal to survive and reproduce again occur. I shall foresee your question concerning 'why we don't have intermediate birds then' by replying that we do. We have non flying birds that used to fly and whose wings are adapting to different purposes. Just ask the ostriche, penguin, or chicken. They can't fly, the penguin's wings, in fact, are not good for anything BUT they have been adapted to being flippers, and one could even suppose that in several million years they WILL be flippers. We also have GLIDING creatures that may be able to fly in several million years! As for why we have sexual reproduction from natural selection, there is no reason to suppose that a creature able to sexually reproduce could not occur from natural selection, and in fact if you look at sexual selection, it has many advantages going all the way from less vulnerability to disease to a greater variance in genes available for natural selection. This page explains it better than I can, however (4). As for the discrepancy of terms concerning natural selection and differential reproduction, it really depends how you prefer to interpret it. Is the fact that organisms with more ability to survive reproduce more considered natural selection, or do you become more specific? It is of no consequence to a debate concerning evolution. 2A) There was no reply to most of my previous statement, including that if all arguments are flawed that pro's must be as well. I was referring to "proven" in the literal rather than technical sense of the world. I repeat, if we did not accept some things in our lives as proven to some extent, we could not believe that the earth is round, that the sun is at the center of the solar system. We could not believe that plastic is made up of polymers, we could not believe many things, but we must at some point accept some things to be true, otherwise, I repeat again, we would give up searching for the truth. As for applied and theoretical science, they are interconnected, and must be in order for medicine to work. I'll restate this in terms of theoretical science AND evolution then - what if scientists working on medical research that directly resulted in a cure for a disease failed to accept that the disease had evolved to be resistant to the antibiotics they had previously been using. This on a purely theoretical level, by the way, they are not yet at the applied stages of their cure. They don't believe in evolution, millions of people lose their lives, this is what would happen if we looked at science the way the opposition would have us look at science. 2B) We aren't speaking about the same thing here. I mean disprove in the sense of whilst the experiment is going on. This can lead to things such as 'cherry picking,' when some evidence is taken to be true and some is not. Other corrupt practices, such as exaggerating evidence, may also result from this. 3. I fear that the opposition does not answer many points here, but I shall mention what is answered. First of all, evolution via natural selection HAS been observed. One example of this is a scientific attempt to domesticate foxes in Siberia. Those foxes with traits most wanted by humans were bred, until by the 6th generation those foxes resulting from the breeding (i.e. with genes that were favourable to humans) became the population. Individuals saw this occur, and this was artificial selection, which is basically the same thing as natural selection. I'll give an example specific to natural selection then... And it turns out I'm too lazy to describe it, so I'll direct you here (5) and here (6). And if you choose to say that evolution being observed is unlike a volcanic eruption being observed because on occurs over time and one does not - then you are incorrect, because a volcanic eruption occurs over time as well! In fact, by your reasoning I could say that I don't believe volcanic eruptions exist. That they are flawed! Mathematics is a science, but since there are a million other things I could use as an example in this sense (i.e. that we must accept that forces exist to accept gravity, etc.) I won't press that point. Lastly, your statement that evolution is flawed in the sense that all paradigms are flawed avoids the argument, which is whether it would be advantageous to believe that evolution is flawed. Scientists, once more by that reasoning, could believe that the idea that bacteria exist is a flawed paradigm, but they would be incorrect and it wouldn't get them anywhere, so it is not to their advantage to suggest that it is flawed. However, I am arguing here that to say that evolution is flawed is just as advantageous as to say that 2+2=4 is flawed or, to use a more relevant example, to say that the concept that cells exist is flawed. And interesting debate, I'm still waiting for the opposition to mention the second law of thermodynamics, but otherwise very interesting indeed... The opposition puts up some excellent points, and I await their response. 1. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 2. http://www.nature.com... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4. http://www.nature.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...