Evolution

[Not G. Ivingname]

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the environment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop itself being food?

Well, most likely it would simply die out. Their are many, many dead end branches in evolution when an animal was unable to adapt quickly enough to a new enviroment. That is why the dinosaurs died off while mammals lived on. Mammals were all small and rat like due to all larger land life was dominated by dinosaurs, and being small meant it was easier to avoid being eaten. When the meteor and/or the giant volcano eruption killed off the dinosaurs came about, the sun was blocked out and most plant life died off. Without enough food to feed their massive bodies, herbivour dinosaurs died off, with the carnivour dinosaurs following soon after. Mammals, being so small, was able to get by on much, much smaller amounts of food, and that is why you are here right now.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Here you go

That's a really good video, thanks for putting it here.
If anyone's interested in what the Theory of Evolution is really about, or just wants to brush up on it, this video is for you. It's only ~10 minutes.

I'm not sure why it took 4 different comments on the video in a row to make me finally click it, but yours happened to be the one to do it. You win grabbing my attention.
Good video, btw.

Haha, glad I could be that guy.
And, yea. I hadn't seen it before this thread, but it's probably going to be my go-to video for any future topics about Evolution from now on.

I actually recommend watching more than just that video, he has a whole series about stuff that fit into this thread.

 

[AngloDoom]

When viruses/bacteria 'mutate' to attack different organisms or to have a resistance to antibiotics or similar then they have 'evolved'.

When dogs are bred into certain ways to have certain traits, it's a very man-made but still valid form of evolution.

When two sets of lemurs living in reasonably close continents can mate and produce offspring, often they evolved from each other.

Evolution is not a 'theory', it is the subject of human evolution that people still want to argue about.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Spoiler: Yopaz

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete and of badly put across in modern society. Although the general idea of it does exist we can't really say we can from apes. I am sure we have a similar ancestor going back millions of years but then again if you go back far enough we all came from space dust.

The thing is that the word theory means that it's almost 100% confirmed to be true. The problem is that most mix up the word hypothesis with theory.

I might not be 100% right here, but the scientific process goes like this:
Idea, someone thinks of something based on observation, hunches or something like that. Then he considers the idea and how it may be worked into tests.
Hypothesis, here the idea is presented and this idea is backed up by facts, calculations and possible ways to prove that it is correct. In this process the tests are designed to prove it wrong.
Theory, this is presented when they can't prove the idea to be wrong, and the theory is valid as fact until someone manages to prove it wrong.

Evolution isn't a theory because no-one can prove it. It's a theory because no-one can prove it wrong. Please, stop abusing the word theory and imagine you know what it means. It proves the arrogance of those who oppose it as that is the most common argument against.

Did you even bother to read past the first page or do you just jump on something without even bother to read the thread? I have already answered this already. I never disputed evolution and said it was wrong which what you seem to be thinking. I said it was only a theory and not a truth like some people think which it is. In fact Relativity is just a theory and not a complete one at that. The great thing about Science is there is always something else to add always one more step to take. Being happy with one theory is stupid.

We can't in any possible way have more than one theory. If you got more than one theory you don't understand the word theory! If you got 2 theories (this is a hypothetical situation as it is impossible) those two would have to have been experimented and tested, if both reached the stage of theory, one of them, or even both would be invalid, because there can only be one theory! You think of hypothesis. Gravity is a theory, and that is a pretty strong one. It's not a fact, it's a theory, do you want to claim there might be a possibility gravity doesn't exist? If you can prove that theory wrong, you will win the Nobel prize in physics for sure. There's is nothing stronger in science than a theory, and saying that we need to improve the evolution theory... Yeah, do you know that we improve our facts EVERY day? Every year new discoveries are made, every book on evolution is outdated the moment it is published because the theory improves as we speak. The phylogeny is changed every month, if not every week or day. You clearly know a little, but not nearly enough to actually make a serious statement. I don't know close to what I need to make one. Science is complicated, but science is constantly trying to improve itself, it's what drives us. We may work entire lives to get an answer, and when we get the answer, we try to improve it.

It goes conjecture or hypothesis(depending on what it is) then theory or theorem and possibly absolute fact or a law although this depends on what it is. A theory is not valid as fact. It is fact when it is generally accepted by the general scientific community but since most if not all theories are that definition of fact is a moot point. No Gravity is an observable force. What is theory about it is what causes it. There is a difference and I know that. What you don't seem to be getting is that I know all theories and scientific facts improve every day. This is why we should be open to change. People are just as rigid, sore and zealotical about things like Evolution. People treat it is a divine truth and I don't agree with that. This is what I have been trying to point out.

I know I am repeating here a little but what I am trying to say is that it is subject to change and should never be taken as solid and written in stone like people do. This is what I am really to say.

Spoiler: Loop Striken

I am not saying it is not a scientific fact. I never said that. I said it was only a theory and thus incomplete which is true. I never ever said in my original post it was not a fact. It is incomplete and you can't really dispute that it is complete because it isn't. What I don't agree with is when people take Evolution to be a finished work when it is not.

No science is ever complete, we'll never know everything, everything's just a theory so fuck it I'm going to live in a cave and lick slime off rocks.

Wow really missing the point. Evolution is no where near complete that is all I am saying so don't take it as a complete truth like you seem to do. I know what a scientific fact is. Evolution is a scientific fact but it is not a true fact in the way my glasses lens is a concave lens. It cannot be anything other than a concave lens(else it would be pointless for me). As I have already said I do think the theory of evolution is the best guess we have and probably ever will have or at least in my time.

Spoiler: chowderface

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise)

Theory in science is the most solid you can get

Edit: *ninja'd*

The phrase "evolution is only a theory" is a fundamentally smug one. No matter how humble you try to sound when you say it, you're still saying, "You hoped I wouldn't notice that you haven't confirmed evolution, but I'm too clever for you." At the same time, given the semantics of the situation, it's also a fantastic way to make yourself look ignorant.

Did you even bother read what I have said. I have no problem with accepting evolution(as I do) but it is not the be all and end all. It is not this complete truth people build it up to be. If it was absolute fact things about it wouldn't change. I have nothing against Evolution as theory and a scientific fact I have already said this countless time and I wish people would read past the first page.

Also I am not saying that "You hoped I wouldn't know you haven't confirmed evolution". I was saying stop taking Evolution as a solid unchangeable truth like so many people do. Theories are subject to change and improvement this is how science works and I understand that and as I have said before I am not trying to refute evolution as an answer. In fact as I have already said I think Evolution is possibly the right answer.

I am confused as to why saying that and being open to a different answer and not taking or wanting people to take evolution as absolute truth is being smug. It is not more smug to rip on Christians/any religion calling their religion wrong because of it? This is why I said what I said. I don't agree with this attitude and it is Science Abuse. Not the good kind.

Spoiler: GBlair88

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete and of badly put across in modern society. Although the general idea of it does exist we can't really say we can from apes. I am sure we have a similar ancestor going back millions of years but then again if you go back far enough we all came from space dust.

Take your pick.

Edit: After glancing through some more of this thread I now know you understand the difference between theory and scientific theory, so these videos aren't directed at you.

I will look at them anyway as this kind of stuff interests me.

Spoiler: Danzaivar

We can't really evolve from apes when we are apes. That is a bad statement to make. To say we evolved from apes is more to say we evolved to monkeys ie have tails. I do see what you are but it is badly put across.

Also I would like to say that thinking something is fine just because it is fact by science is not a good idea. We should always strive to improve on theories like Evoultion so we can build a more complete model of what it is. Building on previous theories is necessary. Without it we wouldn't have relativity or the idea that light is a photon.

I hope I made what I was trying to say a lot clearer.

We evolved from what apes evolved from. Evolution isn't change, it's specialisation.

Ye but that still isn't evolving from apes. Evolution is change eventually. In some cases like the banana. Yes it is more specialised things like say the artic fox and the red fox in places like Ireland.

"Evolution is change eventually"

No. It isn't. You thinking that means you don't understand evolutionary theory.

It's like branches off of a massive tree, with branches coming from those branches. It doesn't matter how many 'branches down' you go, you're still part of that branch. You can specialise to the point of unrecognisability, but there's still a common point before the branches forked, which we current think is some single cell proto-bacteria that was in primordial goop.

Thinking it's anything more is just overcomplicating the whole process, and is probably why lots of people don't get it.

You aren't really understanding what I mean by change. I don't mean that we will "change" into mermaids/mermen. I mean that will change to say(for example) all have green hair if that was the dominant trait we evolved to have for some reason over time. It is still a change but not what you think I mean. I don't mean that a duck can evolve into an octopus that is not what I am saying. A banana is a change from a plantain. It is colour is completely different. That is a change. This is also what I mean when I say evolution is change.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

It's a theory because no-one can prove it wrong.

No, Gravity is an observable force. What is theory about it is what causes it. There is a difference and I know that.

As I pointed out previously, Evolution IS an observable force. You can see evolution in anti-biotic resistant bacteria, moths, fruit flys, lab rats, and other observable ways. Just like gravity.

The "theory" part is an understanding of how this works.

Did man evolve from apes, which evolved from other, more primitive mammals, etc.? Yes. We can prove that.

Do we understand the exact way evolution works? No. That is the only "theoretical" part of evolution - much like gravity. We KNOW it happens, but we don't understand all of the mechanics as to why.

I don't think anyone here is pretending they fully understand how evolution works. What we're arguing is that it does - because we can see evidence that Evolution exists by observing it.

You said in your post that you don't disbelieve evolution, but you think that we're treating it like a religion. We aren't. We understand that our understanding of evolution will change over time, and that as science progresses we will learn more about it. That said, evolution does exist - we may have the method wrong, but just like gravity I can prove that it happens.

Edit: I'm not doubting natural selection or mutation here either - those are also observable forces in nature.

 

[jawakiller]

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

I agree with this guy 100%. jawakiller, have you looked past what your highschool teacher told you?
If you have a mere 10 minutes, I highly suggest the youtube vid shown on the first page. It explains the Theory of Evolution rather well.

Now, if you want evidence, go look up some of the well known and documented evidence for Evolution. It's not up to anyone else to do that for you.

Finally, watch out about saying No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. because it doesn't really prove anything.
If I were to start going around saying that no one I'd met could explain to me how some other theory works, it doesn't mean that the theory has no evidence. It just means that everyone I'd asked about it so far was uninformed on how that theory went from hypothesis to scientific theory, as well as the fact that they didn't really know about the evidence to back up that particular theory.

So the fact that they are constantly changing it means what? Nothing? And the people I asked aren't a bunch of college drop-outs either, no, most have at least bachelor degrees (some in biology) and a couple have earned their masters. There are way to many gaps in the theory and nobody can explain them all, let alone half.

just for fun http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2105#comic BTW, Jawakiller, seriouslery go on youtube, look at " why people laugh at creationists" Go on Phyrangula.com honestly people are getting tired of explaining this stuff over and over, or heck, read Darwin. That's THREE sources of evidence for you, okay?

Never said I was a creationist but seeing as you brought it up; evolution takes just as much faith to believe. The only difference is evolution doesn't require you to believe there is something better than you. Yeah.

And I watched the video and what did I find? Some random guy stating random facts that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Thanks. And I have read sections of Darwin's Origin of Species and found very little credible information. Not surprising, its an old book so why the fuck do people tell me to read it? Its a pile of old useless bullshit.

And what was all that about Phyrangula.com? A couple of liberal douche bags who know curse words. Wow, thought you'd set me up with something real. Guess I was wrong.

Like I said, I really hate to sound like the hick republican but I think there could be another way. Maybe not a creationist theory but certainly not our current version of evolution.

 

[Ben Hussong]

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

I agree with this guy 100%. jawakiller, have you looked past what your highschool teacher told you?
If you have a mere 10 minutes, I highly suggest the youtube vid shown on the first page. It explains the Theory of Evolution rather well.

Now, if you want evidence, go look up some of the well known and documented evidence for Evolution. It's not up to anyone else to do that for you.

Finally, watch out about saying No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. because it doesn't really prove anything.
If I were to start going around saying that no one I'd met could explain to me how some other theory works, it doesn't mean that the theory has no evidence. It just means that everyone I'd asked about it so far was uninformed on how that theory went from hypothesis to scientific theory, as well as the fact that they didn't really know about the evidence to back up that particular theory.

So the fact that they are constantly changing it means what? Nothing? And the people I asked aren't a bunch of college drop-outs either, no, most have at least bachelor degrees (some in biology) and a couple have earned their masters. There are way to many gaps in the theory and nobody can explain them all, let alone half.

just for fun http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2105#comic BTW, Jawakiller, seriouslery go on youtube, look at " why people laugh at creationists" Go on Phyrangula.com honestly people are getting tired of explaining this stuff over and over, or heck, read Darwin. That's THREE sources of evidence for you, okay?

Never said I was a creationist but seeing as you brought it up; evolution takes just as much faith to believe. The only difference is evolution doesn't require you to believe there is something better than you. Yeah.

And I watched the video and what did I find? Some random guy stating random facts that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Thanks. And I have read sections of Darwin's Origin of Species and found very little credible information. Not surprising, its an old book so why the fuck do people tell me to read it? Its a pile of old useless bullshit.

And what was all that about Phyrangula.com? A couple of liberal douche bags who know curse words. Wow, thought you'd set me up with something real. Guess I was wrong.

Like I said, I really hate to sound like the hick republican but I think there could be another way. Maybe not a creationist theory but certainly not our current version of evolution.

Okay, " Why people laugh at creationists" was more about a presentation of rebuttals to arguments against evolution. And if you actually look at Phyrangula's evolution posts, you can find a lot of great info since a BIOLOGIST writes the site, and yes it has a harsh tone but it's good info. And again i noticed almost NONE of your issues were about fact, but about you wanting to be a big boy troll aside from the fact that you are fairly obviously and not well done * IF you are a troll you may not be, but your behavior leads me to think troll at the moment, *

 

[TheTaco007]

I was just thinking about this topic and was wondering how does it work?

Why when all creatures great and small, crawling out of the primordial ooze, did some animals evolve to be herbivores/carnivores/omnivores?

How did some evolve to have venom that can do all kinds of fucked up shit and others didn't?

How can a bird eating tarantula have the ability to throw it's hairs off it's body to defend itself but a deers only form of defence is it has eyes on the side of it's head and can run pretty quick?

If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the environment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop itself being food?

This sounds like someone that REALLY hasn't grasped the concept of evolution. Nobody is TRYING to evolve. It just happens. Natural selection. The animal most suited to its environment survives longer than the ones that aren't.

 

[Seives-Sliver]

Everything evolves depending on how it lives and interacts with its enviorment basicly. Survival of the fittest and all that...Plus the television didn't fall out of the sky, it was a long time before it was made like it is.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

It's a theory because no-one can prove it wrong.

No, Gravity is an observable force. What is theory about it is what causes it. There is a difference and I know that.

As I pointed out previously, Evolution IS an observable force. You can see evolution in anti-biotic resistant bacteria, moths, fruit flys, lab rats, and other observable ways. Just like gravity.

The "theory" part is an understanding of how this works.

Did man evolve from apes, which evolved from other, more primitive mammals, etc.? Yes. We can prove that.

Do we understand the exact way evolution works? No. That is the only "theoretical" part of evolution - much like gravity. We KNOW it happens, but we don't understand all of the mechanics as to why.

I don't think anyone here is pretending they fully understand how evolution works. What we're arguing is that it does - because we can see evidence that Evolution exists by observing it.

You said in your post that you don't disbelieve evolution, but you think that we're treating it like a religion. We aren't. We understand that our understanding of evolution will change over time, and that as science progresses we will learn more about it. That said, evolution does exist - we may have the method wrong, but just like gravity I can prove that it happens.

Edit: I'm not doubting natural selection or mutation here either - those are also observable forces in nature.

Yet you're are not understanding what I am saying. I have cited examples of evolution I know it is real and there. I have never said it is not there. What I am saying is and people are taking like like this it is not absolute truth. We could always have a major revelation and the theory of it can side step so to speak. To show 2 theories where this has happen just look at our theory of atoms and light. This is what I am talking about. Those 2 theories had more or less complete overhauls and this could happen to evolution which is why it is a theory and subject to change.

I have never been arguing it is not there or unobservable. I have been arguing that it is not a constant unchangeable truth. No theory is.

 

[chowderface]

I get it. Glademaster's problem isn't that he's anti-evolution.

It's that he's politically correct.

Look, man. No one has any obligation whatsoever to teach Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is an issue of faith, and an issue of faith, by definition, cannot be tested, and therefore can neither be confirmed nor denied, by science. The instant it becomes testable it ceases to be an issue of faith, God creates the Babelfish, up becomes down, black becomes white, mankind gets all smug and then gets run over by a zebra driving a Volvo. Either you believe in Intelligent Design, or you don't.

On top of that, Intelligent Design is by no means mutually exclusive to evolution. That's a mistake a lot of people make. If God then not science, if science then not God, welcome to the false dichotomy ladies and gentlemen. Get back to me when you're willing to entertain the notion of God using science, or God just plain not giving a shit one way or the other, or God hitting the on-switch on science and going off to sip mimosas on the beach while he expends no effort in this whole "creating the universe" thing because fuck it, he's God, he can be as lazy as he wants and it'll still get done.

 

[Aurgelmir]

SNIP

Again: You claim there to be gaps in the Theory, and because of that you call bollocs on the whole thing. First I would very much like you to present these holes. Because if you can not present these holes, then you are no different from the rest of the "people I have met can't explain evolution" people you talk down on.

Hell I can't explain the Theory of Relativity very well, but I accept that Einstein was a brilliant man and that his science is miles ahead of mine.

Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it less true.

And another thing, about the holes, yeah there are holes in the Theories, but that doesn't make the facts we know any less true. Besides Science has no problem saying that we lack the information to explain something.

and to end this: No Evolution does NOT require Faith... AT ALL! Faith is believing without seeing. But I have been presented enough facts to believe Evolution to be the most logical way that life occurs and change over time on our planet.

PS: If we exclude evolution and we exclude creationism, what then?

 

[Ben Hussong]

BTW anyone interested in really cool physical adaption over time within a species look at the domestication of the Siberian fox in Russia. It's a pretty cool story. They completely domesticated a species in 80 years and noticed some interesting physical changes.

 

[Aurgelmir]

BTW anyone interested in really cool physical adaption over time within a species look at the domestication of the Siberian fox in Russia. It's a pretty cool story. They completely domesticated a species in 80 years and noticed some interesting physical changes.

That does sound interesting, any links to where I can start? Or is wikipedia my best bet?

 

[aljana]

SNIP

and to end this: No Evolution does NOT require Faith... AT ALL! Faith is believing without seeing. But I have been presented enough facts to believe Evolution to be the most logical way that life occurs and change over time on our planet.

PS: If we exclude evolution and we exclude creationism, what then?

Well I think, THIS is the right point to just start it again.

There is a name for the religion you are belonging to and it is called 'Darwinism'. And yes of cause you need faith in that theory even if it sounds the most reasonable and acceptable one in between the millions of theories which exist about how life on earth developted.


I am neither a biologist, nor am I a fundamental christian or moslem or whatsoever but I have understood, that what we call knowlegde is just a certain accumulation of postulated theories at a certain aera of mankind.
A thousand years from now people believed in a geocentric worldview. They had formulars, and pretty good formulars which worked, to calculate the positions of sun and moon and all the planets everytime of the day. It was good enough that they never needed GPS to navigate their ships over the sea into the right harbour, an no they did not always were close enough to land, to orientate on that.
But then one man said, thats all bullshit, its not good enough, there are certain gaps, which we cannot fill and found proof that it was all wrong. Today is worldwide knowledge that the sun is centre of our solarsystem.

Funny about that is, EVERY scientist accepts, that a theory postulated by him is nothing but a theory and only true untill the moment someone prooves the opposite.

It's fine that you allready accepted, that your intellect is far from Einstein's. But just because something sounds 'intellectuell' it's not automatacally more true than something the silliest of man could say out of a mood, having just a lucky guess.

Great Einstein himself for example always denied the wave-particle dualism of light, but it is till today the only way to describe certain processes and phenomenons occuring when dealing with light. He wordly said ' The old man ist not rolling the dies' (by old man meaning god.) And he was prooved wrong.


Going now again from the concept of a theorie being true untill one can proove the opposite, than tell me a scientific undeniable proof against a creator god.

As I said before I am no creationist, whatever you may think or tell. I have just accepted the fact, that poeple are failible. The rules in which we decribe the world surrounding us, are made by humans and therefore failible as well. We can only try to understand. And I think every intelligent person will notice the more we understand the more complex our world is presenting itself to us and the more there will be this one big question which living humans can never ever answer: Can all this be pure chance?

There is just one hope I can give you : One day everyone of us is going to know, what is behind the curtain.
Allright I need to admit, if those of you, who believe in pure chance, and darwinism are right, and everything on earth developed by itself, than no one will ever know, for there will be just nothing afterwards. Isn't that a wonderful appeasing thought?

 

[Aurgelmir]

SNIP

and to end this: No Evolution does NOT require Faith... AT ALL! Faith is believing without seeing. But I have been presented enough facts to believe Evolution to be the most logical way that life occurs and change over time on our planet.

PS: If we exclude evolution and we exclude creationism, what then?

Well I think, THIS is the right point to just start it again.

There is a name for the religion you are belonging to and it is called 'Darwinism'. And yes of cause you need faith in that theory even if it sounds the most reasonable and acceptable one in between the millions of theories which exist about how life on earth developted.


I am neither a biologist, nor am I a fundamental christian or moslem or whatsoever but I have understood, that what we call knowlegde is just a certain accumulation of postulated theories at a certain aera of mankind.
A thausand years from now people believed in a geocentric worldview. They had formulars, and pretty good formulars which worked, to calculate the positions of sun and moon and all the planets everytime of the day. It was good enough that they never needed GPS to navigate their ships over the sea into the right harbour, an no they did not always were close enough to land, to orientate on that.
But then one man said, thats all bullshit, its not good enough, there are certain gaps, which we cannot fill and found proff that it was all wrong. Today is worldwide knowledge that the sun is centre of our solarsystem.

Funny about that is, EVERY scientist accepts, that a theory postulated by him is nothing but a theory and only true untill the moment someone prooves the opposite.

It's fine that you allready accepted, that your intellect is far from Einstein's. But just because something sounds 'intellectuell' it's not automatacally more true than something the silliest of man could say out of a mood having just a lucky guess.

Great Einstein himself for example always denied the wave-particle dualism of light, but it is till today the only way to describe certain processes and phenomenons occuring when dealing with light. He wordly said ' The old man ist not rolling the dies' (by old man meaning god.) And he was prooved wrong.


Going now again from the concept of a theorie being true untill one can proove the opposite, than tell me a scientific undeniable proof against a creator god.

As I said before I am no creationist, whatever you may think or tell. I have just accepted the fact, that poeple are failible. The rules in which we decribe the world surrounding us, are made by humans and therefore failible as well. We can only try to understand. And I think every intelligent person will notice the more we understand the more complex our world is presenting itself to us and the more there will be this one big question which living humans can never ever answer: Can all this be pure chance?

There is just one hope I can give you : One day everyone of us is going to know, what is behind the courtain.
Allright I need to admit, if those of you, who believe in pure chance, and darwinism are right, and everything on earth developed by itself, than no one will ever no, for there will be just nothing afterwards. Isn't that a wonderful appeasing thought?

Lets just nip this one in the bud. Faith is belief without evidence. There is evidence. We might be wrong, but faith != belief.

Thank you, besides Darwenism isn't a religion anyways. You might try and call it a religion, but it is based of measurable data and not faith at all.
And no I don't need to have faith in a Theory, a theory is based on logic, facts, finds and data, and if it turns out those things do not support the theory then well we will figure out why and adjust the theory.

You claim I can't disprove god. Well I do not have to because there isn't any logical evidence that he ever existed in the first place. You see a Theory NEEDS logical evidence to be considered such, but it only FAILS when it is disproved. God has no proof other than the belief of people, so how can he then be real?
Sure there might be evidence of Jesus having walked this earth, but his physical presence on earth does not equal him to be gods son.

So I might not be as smart as Einstein, but I still base my trust in the logical evidence rather than wishful thinking.

Again I ask: If Creationism is Wrong (Due to no evidence AT ALL), and Evolution is wrong (Since some of you claim it is) What is the alternative?
We have two "Hypothesis'":
One is disproved by the lack of factual evidence.
The other might not give all the answers yet, but it has an endless supply of facts pointing in its direction.

So why is evolution so hard to accept, when all scientific evidence point in that direction, and no alternatives exist?

 

[Ben Hussong]

BTW anyone interested in really cool physical adaption over time within a species look at the domestication of the Siberian fox in Russia. It's a pretty cool story. They completely domesticated a species in 80 years and noticed some interesting physical changes.

That does sound interesting, any links to where I can start? Or is wikipedia my best bet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
http://www.sibfox.com/history/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts