Evolution, humanity and enlightenment

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Firstly there is no supporting evidence regarding the nature of 'consciousness' that gives any real clarity as to what it is.

I wasn't aware that we were discussing consciousness, I thought we were discussing how 'Eastern' religions relate to the theory of evolution.

Secondly there is no supporting evidence for the idea of 'evolution of the species', so

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence that supports the theory that species evolve. In fact, speciation has been observed and thus is simply a fact.

i fail to see how it contradicts observed facts

Well, for instance, one will note that in the geologic record the oldest life forms are the simplest (bacteria, algae) and that as we move forwards in time the life forms become increasingly complex. Why is it that if life is devolving do we not find billion year old humanoids and only find microbes more recently?

~Raithere

 

[thefountainhed]

Call it purity if it satisfies you...

 

[Flores]

Raithere

No, I was making a simple observation that humanoids tend to need sustenance and satisfy this need by consuming other life forms. The model Jan provided did not offer any alternatives so I asked.

And what does humanoids have anything to do with a GOD, Universal order, or the theory for everything, as Einstein and all scientists are madly questing to achieve. Islam have never claimed god to be a humanoid, actually, it has opposed the idea that god is remotely related to humans or any other creature. God is always being described as an entity above all and devoid of all wants and needs.

Are you addressing the part or the whole? You appear to be mixing the two arenas here. While I might argue that efficiency is a relative assessment the observations you have made here really only apply completely to matter and energy from a Universal perspective. Certainly particular forms can be made and destroyed. And while nature strives towards efficiency certainly all courses are not equally or optimally efficient.

Raithere, for future reference, whenever I speak of religion, I address the whole. There is not part for discussion without the whole, and the whole can be described anytime without all it's parts.


It depends upon what you interpret the message as being. Primarily, I would say that the 'Western' philosophies have a strong tendency towards doctrinal assertion and literal interpretation. They also tend to rely upon the authority of specific revelations. Certainly there are exceptions but these are rather prevalent in 'Western' traditions while being almost absent in 'Eastern' traditions.

Again, you say Western??? What is so western about Islam? Most muslims happen to be living in the eastern side of the hemisphere. And are you claiming that eastern philosophies have no authority? Please Raithere....they do have an authority, a fat bold one with diapers.

We might take a look at the following, which is attributed to Buddha, and ask ourselves how well this statement might fit into Christianity or Islam:

"Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held in honor for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything because many people speak of it; do not believe on the strength of sagas of old times; do not believe that which you have yourself imagined, thinking a god has inspired you. Believe nothing which depends only on the authority of your masters or of priests. After investigation, believe that which you yourself have tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of others."

I could say the same thing and better and I never heard of Florism like the renouned Buhdism. Mere repitition of Buhda's quotes is a belief in an old tradition, the same thing that Buhda was preaching againest.

Buhda was dead wrong in his advise. He say that we should only believe in that which we have tested and found reasonable. Well, I have never tried alcohol, gambling, prostitution, murder, cheating on my husband, hitting my mom, ect....Does Buhda recommend that I venue down these roads to figure out myself my life in a trial and error mode based on field testing and reason. Should I hit my mom first to figure out that it's not the reasonable thing to do. Should I become an alcoholic to figure out that it's not reasonable, should I eat like a pig just to start my diet 600 pounds later.

Where Buhda fails is in the fact that he's lost with no datum or base of normality. He thinks he's alone in this universe with no creator or law to govern his behavior. He starved himself and tied himself to a tree to test his strength...do you know why? because he's an idiot. Idiocity, randomness, and loss is indeed not an attribute of christianity or Islam, at least the christianity and Islam that I know.

 

[Raithere]

Flores and the Buddha

Originally posted by Flores
And what does humanoids have anything to do with a GOD, Universal order, or the theory for everything, as Einstein and all scientists are madly questing to achieve.

I don't know, it wasn't my assertion. Ask Jan. He is the one who asserted that all life on Earth devolved from "a super intellignt humanoid".

Raithere, for future reference, whenever I speak of religion, I address the whole.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I was asking whether you were referring to the part or the whole of the Universe.

Again, you say Western??? What is so western about Islam? Most muslims happen to be living in the eastern side of the hemisphere.

Most of them are still west of most Buddhists though, aren't they.
Please Flores, I already explained my use of Eastern and Western within this context; do you find Oriental and Occidental more comfortable?

And are you claiming that eastern philosophies have no authority?

Neither Buddhism nor Taoism rely upon the authority of Siddhartha. He is respected as a teacher but he is not intrinsic to the religion. Buddhism and Taoism are not about divine authority or law; they are about subjective experience and development.

Mere repitition of Buhda's quotes is a belief in an old tradition, the same thing that Buhda was preaching againest.

If you find it to be false or problematic, reject it as the teaching states. It doesn't get much neater than that.

Does Buhda recommend that I venue down these roads to figure out myself my life in a trial and error mode based on field testing and reason.

Not necessarily, no. Do you have to jump from a 5th story window to understand that it wouldn't be good for you or have you retained the ability to make your own observations and 'test it for yourself' conceptually?

Where Buhda fails is in the fact that he's lost with no datum or base of normality.

Do we not have eyes to see with, ears to hear with, and a mind to think with? Who is it exactly that has no data to work with or is incapable of perception? More to the point, is this 'base of normality' from your perspective applicable to everyone in all cases?

He starved himself and tied himself to a tree to test his strength...do you know why? because he's an idiot.

No. Siddhartha wound up rejecting asceticism which is the practice of extreme self-denial based upon the belief that one can strengthen the spirit by weakening the body.

The point of the teaching is that you have to make up your own mind, Flores. No one can give it to you. Have you not found that this is true in your own life? Did you not search for yourself to discover that Islam is what worked for you? Did you 'test' the concepts that Muhammad taught or did you simply accept them all at once based upon his 'authority'? This is what Siddhartha was saying.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
I wasn't aware that we were discussing consciousness, I thought we were discussing how 'Eastern' religions relate to the theory of evolution.

Which is why we are discussing consciousness.

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence that supports the theory that species evolve. In fact, speciation has been observed and thus is simply a fact.

Speciation may have been observed, but when talking about the evolution of species we are not concerned with mating preferance, but with bodily form. If two breeding-species are physically indistinguishable, they still belong to the same evolutionary species. Therefore the appearance of new breeding species provides no evidence for "evolution of species".

Well, for instance, one will note that in the geologic record the oldest life forms are the simplest (bacteria, algae)

This statement implies that we definately evolved from simple life forms to complex, but at no point on this supposed evolutionary pathway is there any scientific evidence that evolution of the species takes place. It is all supposition.

and that as we move forwards in time the life forms become increasingly complex.

We've been here before, first i mention "wrong-order' fossil sequence, then you bring up the "punctuated equilibrium" model, then i say; "Even though the P.E. model is ingenious, it is not scientific in that it cannot be stated in terms of direct experience."

Why is it that if life is devolving do we not find billion year old humanoids and only find microbes more recently?

There could be many reasons. Perhaps it has always been a custom to crimate the dead, or due to cataclysms on Earth they simply vanish, or that maybe we have found such humanoids, but due to some paleantologists faulty ego's, have decided to keep it quiet so as to keep their own theories alive and kicking.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Flores]

To Raithere

With all due respsect, I strongly object to the use of the word devolving universe when describing the Theistic belief. Theistic believes have never claimed a devolving universe, but an orderly created one. A devolving universe is one that is contracting and approaching nothingness. The Quran speaks of an expanding universe created by the power of god.

Us western religions believe in the big bang very clearly, sometimes I wonder if the big bang theory was inspired by the Quran.

"Do not the unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth (matter) were joined together (as one unit of creation) and we ripped them apart?" The Quran, 21:30

We believe the universe in its very early stages was in the form of hot gases which is mentioned in the Quran in the following verse:

"Then He took hold of the sky when it was smoke." 41:11

Note that the verse did not say clouds or gas, but smoke, which is a very accurate description as smoke is hot gas, whilst clouds are cold.

"…as if it were a brilliant star……..whose oil (fuel) is well lit, even no fire touches it." 24:35

The verse mentions a star, it's fuel, and a reaction which is not combustion (fire). Short of saying 'nuclear reactions' the verse is a very accurate description of what goes on inside a star.


God told us in the Quran that planets like the moon and the earth do not emit any light of their own, but only reflect light. This differentiation between natural light and reflected light is pointed out with the words:

"It is He who made the sun to light up (the sky) and the moon that is lit." 10:5

On the other hand, planets do not emit any light of their own, but only reflect light. This differentiation between natural light and reflected light is pointed out with the words:

Again all things are travelling in orbits as described by the general theory of relativity.

"and the sun and the moon, all travelling in orbits." 21:33


The Quran is telling us clearly that the universe was created from a great power that is ever expanding, supporting the big bang theory.
"and the heavens we created with might (power) and we are expanding it." 51:47

Even the earth is being described as slowly expanding, which is true, as things cool, they expand.

[79.30] And the earth, He expanded it after that.

Then they all say, the religious scriptures describe a very young universe, well, that's not correct. and please examine this

Take a look at these two verses:

1) "the angels and the spirit ascend unto Him in a day, the measure of which was fifty thousand years." 70:4

This verse refers to the ascent of angels and the spirit (meant to be Gabriel) back to heaven after settling all matters of life in the universe.

The verse clearly said a day that "was" and not a day that 'is', which clearly indicates that that day was in the past (50,000 years ago).

2) "…a day relative to your God is equivalent to a thousand years of your count." 22:47

With a few simple equations:

If 1 day (for God) = 1000 years (for man)

1 year = 1000 x 365 (for man)

= 365,000 years

50,000 years (for God) = 365,000 x 50,000 (for man)

= 18.25 billion!

Christianity and Islam (They are one religion anyways) claims an 18.25 billion old universe.

Any comments.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Which is why we are discussing consciousness.

Sorry, but I still don't see where consciousness logically entered the discussion. You seem to have brought it in as an analogy but I don't find that it fits very well.

Speciation may have been observed, but when talking about the evolution of species we are not concerned with mating preferance, but with bodily form.

No, when we're talking about observed speciation we're taking about genetic compatibility. Speciation occurs when a single genetic line diverges to a point where the descendant lines are genetically incompatible. That is, if the lines are crossbred again their offspring are either inviable or sterile.

We've been here before, first i mention "wrong-order' fossil sequence

When we're speaking of evolutionary history we are necessarily speaking in generalities rather than specifics. Indeed, specific exceptions can be found in the correlation between age and complexity but the overwhelming abundance of data demonstrates a direct correlation between age and complexity. However, without exception, the earliest simple organisms pre-date the earliest more complex organisms. While correlation does not imply causation, we find the causative link between the two factors within the field of genetics. The discoveries across disparate fields come together as a fairly congruent whole supporting evolutionary history. One would be hard pressed to find an alternative theory that explains the facts as well.

BTW, you never did explain what those "super intelligent humanoids" ate.

~Raithere

 

[SnakeLord]

God is always being described as an entity above all and devoid of all wants and needs.

Except for billions of people to bow down and suck his dick.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Sorry, but I still don't see where consciousness logically entered the discussion. You seem to have brought it in as an analogy but I don't find that it fits very well.

All living beings are conscious and all dead beings are not conscious, so consciousness has to play a role in any aspect of evolution.

No, when we're talking about observed speciation we're taking about genetic compatibility. Speciation occurs when a single genetic line diverges to a point where the descendant lines are genetically incompatible. That is, if the lines are crossbred again their offspring are either inviable or sterile.

But it is just a variation within a said species, it is not "evolution of the species"

Indeed, specific exceptions can be found in the correlation between age and complexity but the overwhelming abundance of data demonstrates a direct correlation between age and complexity.

What data?
There are formations of fossils of "recently evolved" organisms below strata containing fossils of "more recent" organisms. This is a fact.

However, without exception, the earliest simple organisms pre-date the earliest more complex organisms.

"Evolutionists cannot explain the origin of single-celled living creatures." (Gould, 1980)

"Fossils of many-celled animals appear before remains of single-celled animals in the fossil record." (Moore, 1964)

One would be hard pressed to find an alternative theory that explains the facts as well.

There are no facts that support evolution of the species;

"......The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERANCE, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
(Steven Gould)

BTW, you never did explain what those "super intelligent humanoids" ate.

I mentioned one super-intelligent humanoid, Lord Brahma.
There is no mention (to my knowledge) of foodstuffs regarding Brahma.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Except for billions of people to bow down and suck his dick.

Excuse me, but I don't relate to your logic. Perhaps all the sucking you are doing is making you dillusional in thinking that there is a giant dick in space, please seek help....You are indeed alone.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Except for billions of people to bow down and suck his dick.

This is the God of Laser Eyes.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
All living beings are conscious and all dead beings are not conscious, so consciousness has to play a role in any aspect of evolution.

What role would that be?

But it is just a variation within a said species, it is not "evolution of the species"

No, it's the evolution of a single species into two separate species.

Species - Biology. - A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. - (AHD) emphasis mine

Therefore it is the development of two distinct species not variation within one species.

There are formations of fossils of "recently evolved" organisms below strata containing fossils of "more recent" organisms. This is a fact.

I don't even understand what you said there. But I was not speaking of the Geologic column, which is prone to disturbance.

"Evolutionists cannot explain the origin of single-celled living creatures." (Gould, 1980)

This quote is 23 years old. Abiogenesis has matured somewhat since then. Regardless, Evolution is not dependant upon Abiogenesis.

"Fossils of many-celled animals appear before remains of single-celled animals in the fossil record." (Moore, 1964)

Now a quote that's almost 40 years old, next you'll be quoting Socrates on how many teeth women have. Sorry, Jan but this quotation is simply wrong. Here is a modern reference:

"The oldest fossils are 3.5 and 3.4 billion year old single-cell, photosynthetic, prokaryotic, filamentous cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) found in Western Australia and South Africa."
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/precambr_life.htm

There are no facts that support evolution of the species;

"......The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERANCE, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Steven Gould)

There is more evidence for evolution than merely fossil evidence. You're also misunderstanding Gould.

I mentioned one super-intelligent humanoid, Lord Brahma.
There is no mention (to my knowledge) of foodstuffs regarding Brahma.

There's a solid theory.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
What role would that be?

Coming into being, growing, produce effects, little stuff like that.

No, it's the evolution of a single species into two separate species.

No, it is a variation within the species, a genetic mutation.

Therefore it is the development of two distinct species not variation within one species.

So, a single cell spontaneosly divided itself into a multi-celled creature then bred with itself to make...(tada!!) a vertebrate. Then somehow or other it breeds with other vertebrates and becomes a fish and so on...How does it do this?

the Geologic column, which is prone to disturbance.

And prone to not being disturbed as well.

This quote is 23 years old.

How old is Darwins idea?

Sorry, Jan but this quotation is simply wrong.

Because it doesn't fit within the absurd idea of evolution of the species.

There is more evidence for evolution than merely fossil evidence.

The only evidence of any real worth would be to bring a dead person back to life, or to produce the intermediate fossil species, otherwise it is just talk.

You're also misunderstanding Gould.

Fraid not.

There's a solid theory.

No there isn't, its just an answer to an insignificant question.
If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, then ask some relevant questions.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Coming into being, growing, produce effects, little stuff like that.

I would imagine that consciousness has some effect upon survival but I don't see where it's more important than other survival traits.

No, it is a variation within the species, a genetic mutation.

No, once they can no longer interbreed they are no longer considered the same species.

How does it do this?

A very complex subject there, here are some references:
http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/metasys/metasys.html
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/index.htm

How old is Darwins idea?

About 140 years. Of course evolutionary theory today bears only a superficial resemblance to his initial discovery. Evolution today is described primarily in terms of genetics which Darwin's theories predicted but which he did not know about. In fact the discovery of DNA is one of the most significant successes in evolution's history.

Because it doesn't fit within the absurd idea of evolution of the species.

No, because it is factually incorrect. The oldest known fossils are single celled creatures and are about 3.4 billion years old while the oldest known multicellular fossils are only about 600 million years old.

The only evidence of any real worth would be to bring a dead person back to life, or to produce the intermediate fossil species, otherwise it is just talk.

I don't see how bringing a dead person back to life would help at all. Regarding transitional fossils, there are many. There are even some living creatures that clearly show transition, lungfish for instance:

Fraid not.

'Fraid so. The quotation is from "The Panda's Thumb" and the particular article "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change". The title alone should help you understand that he is discussing his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium not stating that the entire field of Evolution is without factual support.

If you still doubt I recommend "The Panda's Thumb", unfortunately it is not online for me to reference. But here is another article by Gould that should demonstrate his position regarding the facts of evolution quite nicely:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Here are a couple of relevant excerpts:

" Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand."

"Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory.
...
The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology."

No there isn't, its just an answer to an insignificant question.
If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, then ask some relevant questions.

My question in observation that the order of evolution you propose is fundamentally flawed is hardly irrelevant. But if you wish to supply additional data that you consider relevant please do so.

~Raithere

 

[James R]

Jan:

<i>So, a single cell spontaneosly divided itself into a multi-celled creature then bred with itself to make...(tada!!) a vertebrate. Then somehow or other it breeds with other vertebrates and becomes a fish and so on...How does it do this?</i>

Over a very long time, within which very small changes accumulate in the genome. Lots and lots of small changes can add up to big changes over time. It's not that difficult to comprehend.

Regarding the fossil record: perhaps you could cite specific examples of where you think fossils are in the "wrong" order, Jan. Please make sure you cite your sources when you do this.

<i>The only evidence of any real worth would be to bring a dead person back to life, or to produce the intermediate fossil species, otherwise it is just talk.</i>

Listen to yourself. Are you seriously saying that the <b>only</b> evidence which would convince you that evolution happens would be if the dead came back to life? If so, then you're definitely living in a fairy land. You're a lost cause.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by James R
Jan:

<i>So, a single cell spontaneosly divided itself into a multi-celled creature then bred with itself to make...(tada!!) a vertebrate. Then somehow or other it breeds with other vertebrates and becomes a fish and so on...How does it do this?</i>

Over a very long time, within which very small changes accumulate in the genome. Lots and lots of small changes can add up to big changes over time. It's not that difficult to comprehend.

Regarding the fossil record: perhaps you could cite specific examples of where you think fossils are in the "wrong" order, Jan. Please make sure you cite your sources when you do this.

<i>The only evidence of any real worth would be to bring a dead person back to life, or to produce the intermediate fossil species, otherwise it is just talk.</i>

Listen to yourself. Are you seriously saying that the <b>only</b> evidence which would convince you that evolution happens would be if the dead came back to life? If so, then you're definitely living in a fairy land. You're a lost cause.
----------
M*W: The age of fossils are relative to the time they were meant for. Fossils fill a void of truth. They dare to be found. Fossils mean reality, and fossils mean death. Trust in fossils. They are the only reality. Fossils disprove xianity over and over again.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
I would imagine that consciousness has some effect upon survival but I don't see where it's more important than other survival traits.

The fact that you 'imagine' is due to you being conscious. I would say it has more than just "some effect."

No, once they can no longer interbreed they are no longer considered the same species.

"....Hence this example of "new species" has nothing ro do with wvolution, because 'evolution species' must necessarily have quite distinct bodily forms."
(Newell, 1982)

A very complex subject there, here are some references:
http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/metasys/metasys.html

Thank you for the link, but it does not necesserily explain how one form gives rise to the other in any real terms. There seems to be alot of inferance. I would prefer if you yourself explained it.

Evolution today is described primarily in terms of genetics which Darwin's theories predicted but which he did not know about.

It doesn't matter, the basic tenants are the same, evolution of the species. It still cannot be observed and therefore is non scientific at its core.

In fact the discovery of DNA is one of the most significant successes in evolution's history.

How so?

The oldest known fossils are single celled creatures and are about 3.4 billion years old while the oldest known multicellular fossils are only about 600 million years old.

How then can you explain fossil sequence which appear in the wrong order?

I don't see how bringing a dead person back to life would help at all.

I think it would. It would put an end to all argument. I for one would be forced to believe in the idea of evolution of the species and i'm sure every theist would be so inclined.

Regarding transitional fossils, there are many.

Where?

'Fraid so. The quotation is from "The Panda's Thumb" and the particular article "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change". The title alone should help you understand that he is discussing his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium not stating that the entire field of Evolution is without factual support.

But it is without factual support (theory of evolution), it is basically and idea which has grown.

My question in observation that the order of evolution you propose is fundamentally flawed is hardly irrelevant.

LOL!!!! How can you possibly know that that order of evolution is fundamentally flawed because i don't know what Lord Brahma had for breakfast, dinner and tea?
It is obvious you have no idea where i'm coming from, other than what you percieve as 'religion' and as such try to refute the point from ignorance.

you wish to supply additional data that you consider relevant please do so.

I wouldn't worry about it Raithere, best to wait and see if someone else has interest in that subject matter, and then sit back and learn what it is all about before placing an argument.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by James R
Lots and lots of small changes can add up to big changes over time. It's not that difficult to comprehend.

Nothing is difficult to comprehend if you so desire, but it doesn't make it true.

Regarding the fossil record: perhaps you could cite specific examples of where you think fossils are in the "wrong" order, Jan.

Are you saying that there are no fossils in the wrong order according to evolutionary time?

then you're definitely living in a fairy land. You're a lost cause.

If everything is product of matter, the body and all its functions also material, then the mind and body is just an elaborate machine. Right? So to bring a dead body back to life should be nothing more than fixing your car. If a dead body could be brought back to life then the argument for evolution of the species will win hands down.
It shouldn't be that hard, should it?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
They are the only reality. Fossils disprove xianity over and over again. [/B]

My dear Lady, what is your obsession with Christianity and how can fossils disprove the teaching of Jesus Christ?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The fact that you 'imagine' is due to you being conscious.

Perhaps.

I would say it has more than just "some effect."

It's hard to say. Certainly consciousness has less affect upon survival than our ability to survive in an oxygen rich atmosphere, for instance.

"....Hence this example of "new species" has nothing ro do with wvolution, because 'evolution species' must necessarily have quite distinct bodily forms."
(Newell, 1982)

Again, I suggest you read entire works and not just snippets that work to your advantage; the quotation you provide does not include what example he is discussing nor does it define what he means by "new species" or "evolution species". Understanding what is meant is dependant upon these things. Assuming this quotation is from Norman Newell, it is likely an argument towards the theory of punctuated equilibrium not against evolution as Newell worked with Gould on the development of the theory. Both Gould and Newell discussed many times the paucity of the fossil record in development of the P.E. explanation of this paucity.

It doesn't matter, the basic tenants are the same, evolution of the species. It still cannot be observed and therefore is non scientific at its core.

A great deal of very exacting science relies entirely upon inference. No one has ever observed an electron directly.

Darwin described a theory to explain the evidence at hand. At that time the evidence did not include genetics. The basic definitions within evolution have changed entirely and are now described by genetics and not morphology.

How so?

Evolution required a mechanism by which it would function; it predicted that such a mechanism must necessarily exist. This mechanism was unknown until DNA was discovered. Genes provide the mechanism by which evolution is possible. Thus the prediction was confirmed independantly.

How then can you explain fossil sequence which appear in the wrong order?

Generally quite easily. Misunderstanding of the primary concepts of evolution is common. Disruption of the geologic strata is often found to be the case. Misinterpretation, generally deliberate, of the finding is also common. Radiometric dating typically clarifies and eliminates the discrepancy. Thus far, there are no exceptions that cannot be eliminated though proper scrutiny.

I think it would. It would put an end to all argument. I for one would be forced to believe in the idea of evolution of the species and i'm sure every theist would be so inclined.

Perhaps you can be more specific. Seeing as evolution generally occurs on a timescale that is greater than the lifetime of any single individual I don't see where it would help.

Where?

One might look at cetacean evolution for instance. Most interesting and supportive of evolutionary theory, IMO, is how recent findings have reconciled paleontological theory with micro-biological theory.
http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/fob1.asp

The largest problem that all alternative theories have is the explanation of how the findings of disparate areas of science constantly reinforce each other in regards to evolution. This is a problem that no alternative theory has been able to address, it is simply ignored. To put it another way; if evolution is incorrect, how does one explain the congruencies? They won't simply go away because one remains in doubt of evolution.

Evolution is congruent with micro-biology is congruent with paleontology is congruent with geology is congruent with radiometrics (physics). These findings are disparate and independent of each other. Calling one into question necessarily calls for an explanation of these confirmations. Explanations that are entirely lacking in any alternative theories.

But it is without factual support (theory of evolution), it is basically and idea which has grown.

Not at all, P.E. and more conventional theories fit all available facts. There is only a difference in interpretation, in what is not supported by facts. This does not mean that they are wholly unsupported merely that there remain areas of speculation.

How can you possibly know that that order of evolution is fundamentally flawed because i don't know what Lord Brahma had for breakfast, dinner and tea?

Because it's a crucial question. All life needs sustenance. All life is either able to manufacture its sustenance by capturing and converting available energy (i.e. photosynthesis) or by consuming energy stored in another life form. Thus far, you have not provided an explanation; you have only claimed that none is needed. In that claim you are wrong.

It is obvious you have no idea where i'm coming from, other than what you percieve as 'religion' and as such try to refute the point from ignorance.

Religion has nothing to do with it at this point. We are talking about science.

I wouldn't worry about it Raithere, best to wait and see if someone else has interest in that subject matter, and then sit back and learn what it is all about before placing an argument.

Interesting dodge there. Why is my interest not enough to warrant an explanation? You posited a hypothesis, either support it or admit that it is without factual support. Otherwise your claim is meaningless.

~Raithere