How many here believe in evolution?

[Puke]

a space craft traveling at the speed of light can circumvent the ENTIRE visual/known universe in 56 years ship time

Saurdauker, I may misunderstand you, but you could maybe travel to only a small handfull of stars in 56 Light Years.  But, you can't even get across our own galaxy let alone around the whole universe in 56 Light Years.  (I love learning about space stuff.)

This image is amazing and boggles my mind about just how vast and old this universe is.  I think the image had to be taken with a 10-day shutter speed.  Each dot, no matter how faint, is a galaxy.  And there is only one star that is in the image, which should give a hint at just how small a portion of the sky you are looking at/through.
Hubble Deep Space Field:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000709.html

[senna]

Grieger I had fun debating with you on string theory.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Somewhere along the line, you collect enough data and the idea transitions from hypothesis to theory. Evolution is well past all of that. It is fact.

Rubbish. Stop treating evolution like it's some sort of religion.

Evolution is and always will be a theory. It fits the observable data quite well. But then so did Newton's theory of gravity... until Einstein turned up with a more universal take on it. The day it or any other theory becomes fact is the day science becomes a new religion, and progress of knowledge will be set back by decades or even centuries. Science must always have an open channel - room for change or improvement. Only religions have "facts" set in stone.

[funkedup]

Yep and most people who believe in Evolution haven't personally seen even a small part of the evidence supporting the theory.  They have faith in the scientists who espouse the theory.  Blind faith for the most part.  Not much different from the Bible-thumpers when you get right down to it.

[Puke]

Cajun, some Big Bang Theory stuff:

This theorises that at about 20,000,000,000 years ago all the matter and space that make up the Universe were concentrated into a very small volume. The theory states that the Universe came into being as an extremely small volume full of energy which gave the Universe a very high temperature. As the Universe expanded so the fundamental atomic particles were formed as a mixture dominated by hydrogen with some helium and almost nothing else.

The expansion of the Universe from the Big Bang is strongly dependent on the mass of the Universe. There is one critical value which would mean that the Universe will expand for a long time, gradually slowing down and then reach a steady state. A mass less than this value will mean that the Universe will go on expanding for ever while a greater value will mean that the Universe will expand to a maximum size and then will start to contract -- eventually returning to a very small volume. Astronomers think that the mass of the Universe is equal to this critical value but can only `see' one tenth of the matter necessary to reach this value. The same discrepancy is seen in the gravitational pull of individual galaxies and in clusters of galaxies. The mass appears to be there but we can not identify it. This is called the `missing mass problem'.

One of the hardest concepts to accept is that the Universe is everything that is. Not only the matter and energy but all the dimensions as well. There is no `outside' to the Universe and it has no `edge', at least not in the usual sense that we think of these concepts.

When we think of the Big Bang we instinctively think of the small Universe expanding like a sphere into an empty void. Unfortunately this is incorrect. The dimensions that we commonly use, three spatial and one time, are all mixed up when the early Universe is concerned and our normal concepts of space and time are not valid.

The only way that it can be partly understood is to consider the two-dimensional analogue of the surface of a balloon which is being inflated. The surface is everywhere continuous, has no edge and yet is expanding. The three-dimensional analogue (whose understanding defeats the writer!) will represent the Universe.

http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/guidry/violence/cosmology.html

[Puke]

Scientific Theory can be tested, and is by many in society.  You cannot test that I am or am not god...or that god spoke to me and said you are all worshipping the earliest known version of a campfire comic book.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by cajun
Now how do you suppose it allways works that way, I mean only the taller monkeys survived? and then only the taller of the tall monkeys survived and on and on and on with every single species?
Lets figure out the chances of that.
there is a 50/50 chance of a tallmonkey and a short monkey surviving, lets say the tall monkey wins the first round, whats the chances of him winning again? since its 50/50 chance u half it, he now has 25% chance of wining, now lets say he was lucky enough to win AGAIN, now he has a 12.5% If he magically wins that round then he now has a 6.25% chance of winning and on and on and on!
Now do the same thing with the chances of each species winding up like this and u got pretty slim odds.

If you look at it that way, the chance of any event whatsoever happening is extremely slim.
Here's what Richard Feynman has to say about the uselessness calculating probabilities after the fact in his book "The Meaning of it All":

I now turn to another kind of principle or idea, and that is that there is no sense in calculating the probability or the chance that something happens after it happens. A lot of scientists don't even appreciate this. In fact, the first time I got into an argument over this was when I was a graduate student at Princeton, and there was a guy in the psychology department who was running rat races. I mean, he has a T-shaped thing, and the rats go, and they go to the right, and the left, and so on. And it's a general principle of psychologists that in these tests they arrange so that the odds that the things that happen happen by chance is small, in fact, less than one in twenty. That means that one in twenty of their laws is probably wrong. But the statistical ways of calculating the odds, like coin flipping if the rats were to go randomly right and left, are easy to work out. This man had designed an experiment which would show something, which I do not remember, if the rats always went to the right, let's say. I can't remember exactly. He had to do a great number of tests, because, of course, they could go to the right accidentally, so to get it down to one in twenty by odds, he had to do a number of them. And it's hard to do, and he did his number. Then he found that it didn't work. They went to the right, and they went to the left, and so on. And then he noticed, most remarkably, that they alternated, first right, then left, then right, then left. And then he ran to me, and he said, "Calculate the probability for me that they should alternate, so that I can see if it is less than one in twenty." I said, "It probably is less than one in twenty, but it doesn't count." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because it doesn't make any sense to calculate after the event. You see, you found the peculiarity, and so you selected the peculiar case."
For example, I had the most remarkable experience this evening. While coming in here, I saw license plate ANZ 912. Calculate for me, please, the odds that of all the license plates in the state of Washington I should happen to see ANZ 912. Well, it's a ridiculous thing. And, in the same way, what he must do is this: The fact that the rat directions alternate suggests the possibility that rats alternate. If he wants to test this hypothesis, one in twenty, he cannot do it from the same data that gave him the clue. He must do another experiment all over again and then see if they alternate. He did, and it didn't work.

In short, if an event has already happened then the probabilty of of that event happening is 100%, no matter how unlikely it might have been before it happened.

Furthermore these probability calculations assume that evolution has a design goal - it doesn't. There are lots of mutations that confer no observable "survival" advantage or disadvantage. Finally some mutations can get bred in due to other factors than immediate "survival" factors. In the monkey example - what if female monkeys think tall males are sexier? - this would make the odds much more in favour of tall monkeys over short monkeys.

[Naso]

I dont understand why all of you continue to mix Science with Religion.

Apple and Orange.

[Hortlund]

1. Evolution has never been observed.

2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics

3. There are no transitional fossils

1)
It is important to understand the difference between micro events and macro evolution.
This is the fist hurdle for the evolutionists to overcome. And apparently it is a difficult one. For example, Samm's talk about how every living thing is a mutant or how every living creature has mutated characteristics would be examples of micro events. Gatsos example on the human jawbone would be another example.

A micro event is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code.

A macro event on the other hand is the emergence of entirely new and more advanced features through innumerable completely new genetically defined traits.

Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both �evolution,� and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.

Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits �appear� and �vanish� in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population�s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon �micro-evolution,� the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither �new� traits, nor qualitative �changes� in the gene pool (as required for �macro-evolution�); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population�s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

It is, simply stated, wrong to assume that because a population�s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also �evolve� into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content.

That is macro evolution, and that has never been observed.

2)
In thermodynamics the term �entropy� is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution with regard to heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.

Or in other words:
All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

Evolution requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.  Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

3)
See attached image over the fossil record.

First, lets answer the question, what is a transitional fossil?
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it�s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage.

Make no misstake about it. NO such fossil has ever been found.

�The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and �fully formed.�� [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

If you want I can provide dozens of paleontology-sources that all say the same thing. No transitional fossils have been discovered.

So how do the evolutionists explain this? Simple, they make stuff up. Or "interpret" various findings. Thus a single tooth (yes, one tooth) was for a while held up as the final evidence of the missing link between humans and apes, then it turned out the tooth was from a pig, and that theory was dropped. Or Pakicetus, "the oldest fossil whale known". From the Pakicetus fossils, a wide variety of conclusions were drawn... such as it was a whale but it still had its nostrils at the front of head, yet it was amphibious. What the scientists fails to include in their description of �the oldest fossil whale� is the fact that the fossil material from which Pakicetus was conjured up consisted of nothing more than: the back of a mammal skull, two jaw fragments and some teeth. Conspicuously enough these fossils were found amidst an array of land mammal fossils. There is no significant evidence to lead one to assume these remains belonged to an �old whale� any more than to an �old land mammal.� Yet the discoverers chose to �interpret� their findings as a whale, and evolutionary proponents cheered for now they had more support for their whale-evolution theory.  Do you want me to present more such interpretations? The "human fossil" record is filled with them. Entire new species has been constructed using nothing more than a fossilized leg bone.

[-ammo-]

OK prove it then. List the facts for me. I would like to see this hard evidence.  Or am I just supposed to accept this is true based on what you say.  

vulcan, you can keep yopur extra hyperbole to yourself.  It is not needed to make a point.  Just list the meaningfull facts.

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by Naso
I dont understand why all of you continue to mix Science with Religion.

Apple and Orange.

Read Genesis one, heck, read all of the Bible.   You will see why there is either apples or oranges is this case.

[Kieran]

"Enlightened and educated ppl must belive in Evolution."

"Enlightened" and "educated" people accept the possibility (if not the likelihood) of both.

[Wotan]

Friedrich Nietzsche
The Gay Science (Die fr�hliche Wissenschaft, 1882)

125.

The madman.[/b]� Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"� As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?� Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried. "I will tell you. We have killed him�you and I! All of us are his murderers! But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? And backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?�Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives,�who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed,�and whoever is born after us, for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto!"� Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners: they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering�it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars�and yet they have done it themselves!"� It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?" �

[Naso]

Originally posted by -ammo-
Read Genesis one, heck, read all of the Bible.   You will see why there is either apples or oranges is this case.

I will explain better:

Science it's a try to explain what you see around you, by extrapolating rules, schemes, serching for a theory that can explain the phenomenon you observe, usually by repeating the phenomenon in a controlled environment, and having the same results as previded.

Theese theoryes usually have to resist very aggressive attacks from others scientists, generally by using experiments.
If a succesfull experiment contraddict the theory, and can be repeated by different workgroups, the theory it's either discarded, or modified to adapt to the exception.

This process go on and on, changing the science and adapting it to the more deep knowledge we acquire of the world that it's around us.

On the edge of this system there is the speculating science, using basically the mathematic as instrument, since we fail to have instruments to "experiment it", an example of this is the "unified field theory" (dunno the name you angophone called it, using a direct translation), for witch we need to use large colliders to disintegrate the matter at high energies, still on study (large hadron collider, for example), and check if the results comply with the theory (and in that case it's the theory that's wrong, not the facts ).

Religion it's a completely different matter, it's the believing in a supernatural power that can communicate with elected men, or even be present in the world, for the religions evolved from the judaic, it's based on a book that has been written by men guided by the divinity.

The basic difference is simple.

Science it's the way the human being ask himself questions and try to find answers.
Nothing in science is completely truth, science cannot hold "the definitive" answer, since by definition it's always adapting to the world around.
Religion it's the mean that humans use to try to interpreter the God mistery, some religion usually adapt to the moment, to the social local and momentary situation (the christian for example), but anyway tend to have a common ground of basic rules of respect for the others, and for life.
Generally religions come with dogmas, some that no need explanation, "is as it's written", no changes, no speculation.

Putting up a discussion between a scientific theory and a Religiuos dogma, it's almost impossible, since one can say (religion) "I am right because God said that", the other can say (Science) "I guess this is a good explanation, but i can be easy wrong".

BUT, and it's the case of this discussion, alike the other (E. vs C.) it's a mess when someone want to discuss the science as it is a religion, and a religion as it is a science.

And this become flamewar.

Oh.. and Ammo, dont you think you have been a little aggressive?

[myelo]

Originally posted by Hortlund
1. Evolution has never been observed.

Then you don�t understand biologic evolution. It is the change in inherited traits in a population over time. Specifically, it is the change in frequency of alleles (gene variations) from one generation to the next.

Observed examples of evolution include the development of corn with high sugar content, the development of a chihuahua from a wolf, and the development of bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics. In each case, the changes are due to the change in frequency of genes within the population. This is, by definition, evolution.

Evolution is a theory and a fact. Just like gravity is a theory and a fact. There have been several theories debated over the years to explain how gravity works. But this debate doesn�t change the fact that if you jump off a cliff, you gonna hit the ground. And the debate over specific theories to explain the process of evolution doesn�t change the fact that evolution occurs.