Here you go skeptigirl.
Tell us
1) how life arose in the primordial soup
2) what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated
3) what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo
4) what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds
5) how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures.
Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.Please forgive me if I don’t post to often on this thread, I’m a little busy annoying evolutionists on another thread with the mathematics of mutation and selection, but I will look in to see how you fill these minor gaps in your theory.
(Post reorganized for clarity.)
You are going to have to revise this Kleinman before I waste too much of my time here because some of these "gaps" as you call them have been filled in by genetic science. So I'm not going to bite your bait. The point of this thread wasn't for ID and Creation believers to repeat their imaginary beliefs about gaps in evolution theory. We have thread after thread with that nonsense. The OP asks you to state what would satisfy you the theory of evolution was correct.
In your case and in the specific issues you claim are gaps in the theory, you will have to start with the scientific evidence we do have and be more specific about what in that evidence would make it sufficient to support the conclusion.
#1 above, while a critical piece in the entire picture of life on Earth, is not required to support the theory of evolution. There has been substantial work in this area with some good ideas but the specific processes are still under investigation.
#2 isn't clear to me what you are asking. If you are asking what the primordial soup consisted of and how did it come to be, that is part of #1. And regarding that question,
from wiki we have
In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.
Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but nonliving molecules.
In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen.
#s 3 & 4, selection pressures, the development of genes de-novo, and the evolution of birds, are not a "gaps" in evolution theory. We have a thorough and complete understanding of these processes through genetic science research. Those are false claims just as the claim micro-evolution can occur but that doesn't prove macro-evolution.
Genetic analysis traces the evolution of any species from the first organisms to the last. The idea we don't have evidence of genes arising de-novo is preposterous. You just need to look at the DNA to find the trail.
The Tree of Life Web Project contains the organization of that DNA trail. It is fairly well established but a lot of analysis is yet to go so modifications are expected. But there are more than enough genomes decoded to put your silly objections to evolution theory to rest. For the relationship between dinosaurs, reptiles and birds,
start here. Regarding selection pressures, any attempt to list those would take months and pages and pages. To think it is unknown how birds evolved via selection pressures is ludicrous. Just because
you don't understand the science doesn't mean the science doesn't exist.
Regarding the specific issues you site in the thread, if they are stopping you from accepting the theory of evolution, then you are simply in denial and/or uninformed.
You don't have a thorough understanding of genetic science yet you claim to know it lacks specific explanations in evolution theory. Experts who do have a thorough understanding of genetic science tell you those explanations are well understood. Once again, just because
you don't understand the science, doesn't mean the science is deficient.
Of course if you weren't in denial you might notice how much of the theory of evolution has actually resulted in scientific breakthroughs of enormous importance. By tracing the evolution of the human species, we have traced the migration route of humans out of Africa and around the world. We modify our food crops. We are developing cancer treatments. We identified SARS and where is came from. We developed recombinant vaccines. The whole list would fill books.
But this does bring up another point worth noting. The marketers of the false claim evolution theory isn't thoroughly established by the evidence or isn't complete take advantage of the poorly educated. By making false claims of missing science or supposed math that 'proves' evolution could not account for the diversity of life, these marketers are easily able to convince the kleinmans of the world who don't want to believe the evidence.
Trying to convince people like kleinman by trying to fill his knowledge deficit is, as we all know, a waste of time. Hopefully other people reading the replies to kleinman will recognize the bill of goods they are being sold by agencies like the Discovery Institute who are marketing the supposed evidence which counters evolution theory.
So kleinman, the thread is not asking you to make the same tired parroted claims evolution deniers tout as missing evidence. The thread asks you to state what would convince you. And you have to be specific enough that if someone provides the evidence, you can't weasel out of accepting it.
