Ok, to clarify.

I believe that the process of evolution is sufficiently proven to be an accepted theory.

I believe that there is no evidence of any sort pointing to a first cause for creation.

I believe that there is no evidence for a first cause for evolution.

I believe that creation may have occured, but as with evolution, there is no evidence for a first cause.

I know that I exist, I know that I am the *queue Architect's office scene* the result of a series of both genetic responses to environmental factors over a long time of biological evolution as well as a progressive evolution of thinking over a long period of time as well.

That is the closest thing that anyone knows.

Faith is not knowledge, it is acceptance, it does not stand up to empiricism, it cannot do so by definition.

That doesn't make it wrong either. Just unprovable.

I accept that there is the possibility that Xtians are right, but I also assert that they are no more likely to be right than any other religion as they all turn on the same axis, faith.

Yes, but the first self-reproducing organism would be long after the first self-reproducing molecules.

You know, I'm going to write a science textbook that advances the theory that gravity is actually caused by tiny invisible angels holding everything down. I could probably sell 2 million in Texas alone.

Sorta the antithesis of Maxwell's Friction Demons?

Considering that stuff was once upon a time a rather effective posion I hate to think what that's doing to them.

...don't you smoke, jag? :confused:

I agree with the essence of your statement. :) At last! Common ground!

That would be the righteousness of the reformed talking ...

Very rarely cigarettes but the occasional cigar or joint. The nicotine/posion thing had nothing to do with that however.

I'm the result of a bottle of bourbon (Old Grand Dad) and a Steak dinner. :doit:

Only one bottle?

I guess agnostic would best desribe me. I do not claim to even have a scientific mind. However, I do study Philosophy. If Interested there is a book
by James A. Gould called Classical Philosophical Questions. In this book, There are chapters such as The Ontological Argumet,The Cosmological Argument,etc... "Most intellectual people do not believe in God, But they fear him just the same." - William Reich I found that statement thought provoking.

There is always evolution evolving in each and every life process.

the world is funny like that.. hey! why don't we get this mighty braintrust together and take a stab at the religious/scientific/philosophical boogeyman.. THE UNIFIED THEORY!!!

there are so many holes that can be punched in both/all theories, they all involve an element of 'faith'... we don't know.. we will never know.. (not that that's not a reason to keep thinking about it.. somewhere in the middle ground i think there is the truth...) and i've speculated from everything from god(s) to alien intervention.. and I still don't know nor do I ever expect to (well when I die I hope there is atleast a nice information paphmlet available 'the facts, and how to deal with them' or something to that effect.. anyway It's time for sleep perchance to dream

No, they don't. That's the point of scientific discovery - best theory till another one comes along, no faith needed, just study of the evidence. I'm yet to see a hole in evolution as it stands, only missing parts.

I do not think "why" can or will be answered by philosophers, intellectuals, scientist or anyone else. I feel it is the ultimate question; that know matter the dearth of answers that mankind determines will always be completly
undertermined.

Jag, I'm really not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I would like you make sure we're talking about the same thing.

When I say "Theory of Evolution", I mean the idea that millions of years ago and by phenomenal randomness, suddenly, from no life whatsoever came life, and from that life all the species of the planet, including humans "evolved". This is sometimes shortened to "Molecules to Man".

In this sense, "evolution" is NOT the same as "mutation" or "speciation". Mutation is observable fact, and it happens and it's very scientific. I don't have a problem with observable, duplicatable results.

Science, to me, means you can PROVE and DUPLICATE your results. If Scientist A has a theory, they advance their theory, and scientists B C and D take that theory and can DUPLICATE the tests and obtain the very same results, then yes, that is a valid theory. That is science.

The big bang can't be duplicated. A primordial soup with no life in it suddenly having life in it can't be duplicated. There are no transitionary forms in nature. There is no duplicatable evidence for origins, Jag, and therefore origins is not science.

Origins does not effect how the world works. It doesn't effect seismic theory or volcanology or virology, or gravity, or how cells divide or any other real science. Origins is a completely separate field, and it's NOT science, merely speculation.

Origins does not effect how the world works. It doesn't effect seismic theory or volcanology or virology, or gravity, or how cells divide or any other real science. Origins is a completely separate field, and it's NOT science, merely speculation.

Oh, wow. I've been missing out on some serious fun in this thread. Attention, paleontologists and historians specializing in works before 500AD -- your work is no longer needed.

In this sense, "evolution" is NOT the same as "mutation" or "speciation". Mutation is observable fact, and it happens and it's very scientific. I don't have a problem with observable, duplicatable results.

So you're saying that scientists cannot examine the fossil record and draw conclusions based upon their findings? You're saying that we cannot use particle accelerators to understand how energy and matter are interchanged and then use our findings to describe the dark matter and cosmic background radiation that we observe in space? And that we cannot take those generated theories and to generate a computer simulated model of how the universe began, how it will expand, and then how it could possibly contract?

Some things in science cannot be contained or duplicated in a laboratory and are, instead, held to tests in simulations and mathematical descriptions of the event. Nuclear testing is now done this way, high energy experiments are now conducted in this manner, and just because we cannot recreate a blackhole in a chemistry lab or observe one in space does not mean that we cannot postulate what creates them, how they will progress, and how they will end. Its a way of working with things greater than can be handled or reproduced and its been done long before computers ever made complex simulations possible. Oppenheimer may have successfully exploded an atomic bomb, but it wasn't possible without using observations to formulate a theory to do something that no one had ever done before.

They can examine the fossil record all they want. It's the "draw conclusions based upon thier findings" part I have a problem with. All you know based upon the fossil record is that something died. You can't prove that thing reproduced or in most cases, even died at that location. The rest is pure speculation. And speculation isn't science.

Sure we can. That's reproducable, observable science. I have no problem with science.

No. Well, people CAN, and they have, but to me, that is not reproduable, observable science. You can have all the guesses you want, it's not science, regardless of the terms you use. I can guess that the sun won't come up tomorrow, and it's not science. You can guess your great grandparents were apes, but that's not science either.

Postulate all you want. That doesn't make it true, nor does it make it science.

But an atomic bomb is reproducable and observable, isn't it?

The effect of our most powerful nuclear weapons is theoreticlally reproducible and observable, but not practically. They are based purely on theory, prediction, and simulation. Hopefully, there will never be any observable proof of their power.

Actually you CAN prove they reproduced, using fossil DNA.

The plot of Jurassic Park was that scientists were able to clone dinosaurs from the DNA of the blood of ancient mosquitos trapped in amber. That was science fiction... but based on science fact. In fact scientists have extracted DNA from fossils trapped in amber. (Just not in the living condition they'd have to be in, in order to clone.)

The presence of DNA absolutely proves that the same mechanisms for reproduction, and the passing along of genetic material, was happening in these beasts from long ago.

All of the parts, fission/fusion, physics and chemistry, etc ARE reproducable and observable. And at a most basic level, the bomb itself is reproducable and observable. And I 100% agree, it's not something I WANT to reproduce or to observe. But it is science.

You can prove they were capable of reproduction. That does not prove the animal in question reproduced before it died.

Amber, and salt.

Wha -- why would you need to prove that?? You know that its parents did!!

*I* don't need to prove it, but LOTS of scientists speculate lots of things from the fossil record that they shouldn't. Read any article critically, just like you do a political article, and you'll see what I mean.

Interestingly, scientists date the strata by what fossils are contained in that layer, and they date the fossils by which layer they are in. That is a fact.

Also, there has never been a whole "geologic column" found anywhere but a textbook. That is a fact.

Yet they continue to base whole theories upon speculation regarding fossils and geologic strata being millions of years old.

So... you think they haven't considered that? Do they overlook it every single time, or just every other time? Did they overlook it the first time? Are there other principles at work that you can't see because you're not, you know, intimately involved in the process and are just trying to poke holes in it as an outsider with a desperate desire for a certain outcome?

The rest is pure speculation. And speculation isn't science.

Just because an atomic device had not been detonated in 1939 did not make the theories and hard work any less "science" than the research in the field was after 1945. Relativity was not properly tested until just several years ago with the LAGEOS 1 and 2 satellites, but that does not mean the theory should not have been included in texts before 2002. We'll probably never be able to create or touch a black hole, but that doesn't mean we cannot have the math behind it that can describe them to the best of our abilities. You seem to fully expect that something can not be considered "science" until it is duplicated in a laboratory and that is simply not how the field works. Many fields in the sciences deal with energy, matter, and systems well outside of our physical grasp because of size, time, and dangers. That does not make them any less "science".

Generate a sun in a laboratory. Touch the sun with your own hands. You can't. All we know of the sun and the burning hydrogen mass are its after effects, a full eight minutes after they have been occured. We can measure the heat once it strikes our planet, we can measure the residual radio waves, and we can view the spectrum coming off of it. Until relatively recently we had never seen a star die out or one be born, but that never did, nor should it have ever, prevented mankind from predicting and modeling what they thought had happened and would happen. Our universe is much like this -- we didn't see it begin, we won't see it end, but we can measure the energy, content, and how it interacts. Based on what we know from measurements done in a lab with these particles, we can form a theory of how it all came to be and how it might all end. There is nothing wrong with that, there is nothing "un-science" about that. It is just as I can observe changes in the fossil record and hypothesize about how life changes. Just because I will never see it change before my eyes because of my short life span does not make my theory any less "science".

I can guess that the sun won't come up tomorrow, and it's not science.

Pulling a guess out of a, uh, black hole isn't science -- you are correct. But formulating a theory based on research, measurements, and observations is exactly how the entire field works. You seem to imply that you think evolution and the "big bang" theory are founded on nothing more than wild imagination.

People that have issues with theories seem to be unhappy that they cannot get hard, physical evidence that they can see with their own eyes. In truth, science doesn't have a lot of truths, but it does have a lot of theories. We've never seen the electron clouds of an atom and we cannot measure the speed and location of many particles to get an exact model. Currently science seems certain we never will, but we can develop good theories that fit our needs. Theories are not facts, theories can be changed, theories can be modified, theories can be challenged. They are all works in progress, most of them destined to never be completed or accepted as "fact". Yet, none of these aspects remove these studies from the sciences or make them any less important.

If you want an easy answer that you aren't permitted to question, change, or update, please look to your bible. But do not suggest that just because you can't see it with your own eyes it isn't science. If you remove the theories that cannot be directly observed, you're removing a massive amount of important information that is crucial to our current understanding of how our world and how the universe works.

First, I'm not desperate for a different outcome. I am 100% certain that people are not decended from animals. As to other people's level of desperateness, well, I can't speak for them. I'm sure that thousands of people ARE desperate to advance one agenda or another. Like people who advance a theory that has tons of holes in it.

Secondly, why do "scientists" continually advance a theory they SEE has holes in it? I thought that if a hypothesis has big glaring mistakes that scientists were supposed to trash it and start over?

There are LOTS of holes in their theory but they continue to advance it LIKE ITS A FACT. It's NOT a fact. When ANY science programme starts talking about millions of years I cringe. They don't KNOW that. They just assume it is so, and present it like it's so, and people are buying into it like it is truth. It's NOT truth, it's PURE speculation.

I guess I'm more upset that people don't look as critically at the subject of evolution as they do George Bush's policies in the middle east.

OC, what about carbon-dating? The decay rate of carbon is scientifically known and observable, and all tests ever performed on things with known ages have matched up exactly. So if carbon-dating says something is millions of years old, why is that not scientific fact?

Secondly, why do "scientists" continually advance a theory they SEE has holes in it? I thought that if a hypothesis has big glaring mistakes that scientists were supposed to trash it and start over?

Because thats how it works. Theories aren't intended to be perfect, nor will they ever be.

There are LOTS of holes in their theory but they continue to advance it LIKE ITS A FACT.

Stop that! Researchers do not advance them like facts. Every theory is open to peer review and challenges.

When ANY science programme starts talking about millions of years I cringe. They don't KNOW that. They just assume it is so, and present it like it's so, and people are buying into it like it is truth.

Ahhh... the marketing of "science" on your friendly Discovery channel. Warning: what you see and hear on television is not a true representation of the work being done by the research communities. I see the problem you are experiencing, now. To correct this, please return to school. Please read books. Do not pass "go", do not collect $200.

100% certainty is one of the worst errors you can commit.

Yes, that is the way it works.

That is wholly dependant upon what we're talking about. I'm not going to make that broad of stroke.

Yes. We can. These are observable, measurable quantities.

Absolutely right! That's science!

Absolutely right. Forming theories from observed facts is scientific.

Here's where we hit shaky ground. The "fossil record" does not change. It is a bunch of bones lying in layers of dirt. They don't move. They don't change. They also do NOT prove anything except they died. And maybe not even at that spot. Somehow, though, scientists want me to believe that we can prove evolution by bones in the dirt. Sorry. Not buying it.

Sure it does. If you can't OBSERVE it, if you can't MEASURE it, if you can't DUPLICATE it, it's NOT science. Let's check that definition again: science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways.

That's exactly what it's founded on.

But you see, scientists believe evolution is a fact, based on this theory. Remember the post someone made about the different portions of the brain named after different animal types? People all over the world are being told that evolution happened. Period. In fact, scientists can't prove any of it happened. It is JUST as much of a "theory" as the "theory" that a God named Yahweh created the world is 6 literal days. It is equally as good of a theory that we're in the Matrix, all part of a computer program.

Neither side can conclusively prove they are right and the other wrong. Try to teach the bible or Matrix theory in school as "just a theory" alongside evolution and watch the flames. Why is that?

Why is it ok to advance one theory and call it science but advance a different theory with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE and call it religion?? Aren't they BOTH religion? Both are unprovable. Both are simply theories. Right?


Obviously you haven't studied this issue very deeply. The churches around the world take different stances regarding the creation/evolution debate. This debate has more ramifications within the church than it does in the secular world. This has everything to do with the fallibility of God and the bible itself.

I don't suggest it, the definition of science itself does.

You mean how some people THINK it MAY work. Theories are NOT facts, Kitsune. That statement alone shows how much people (including yourself)simply accept some (if not all) of these theories as FACT, and THAT is what I have a problem with.

The main page regarding Radiometric Dating is http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

and here is a series of quotes:

Go to the link, there is TONS of stuff there.

I don't particularly care for your tone, so I'll let it ride for now.

I happen to read alot of books, and go to school. Unfortunetly, I cannot send my children to private school, so am forced to send them to public school, where they are being taught the theory of evolution is a FACT.

If you haven't seen a public school textbook, go look. It is presented as fact. It's not just the way the discovery channel presents it, it's how every single person who believes it presents it. LOOK AROUND YOU. LISTEN to how information is presented. You'll hear "millions of years ago" and "descended from" thrown around AS FACT.

I'm not a scientist. I'm an average schmo and from my reading and my research into both sides of the arguement, that's my personal belief. I never asked anyone to agree with me, I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not saying I'm close minded, I'm not. But everything I have seen leads me to be 100% certain that the "Theory of Evolution" is a bunch of crap.

Fair enough, OC -- I'll agree with most of what you say. I still take issue with this:

scientists believe evolution is a fact, based on this theory

I think they only give the impression of that when you hear them speak or when they use it to generate other theories. The evolutionary theory is still a theory, it is still challenged to this day, it is still revised and updated to this day, and [hopefully] that is something all scientists understand. What a theory is, how they are generated, how they are published, how they are changed, and how they are reviewed is taught in the most basic of classes. Evolutionary theory still isn't fact, just as the theory of gravity isn't a fact just at relativity isn't a fact.

Remember the post someone made about the different portions of the brain named after different animal types? People all over the world are being told that evolution happened. Period.

This is just terminology that people are misreading. If people are accidentally getting that much out of these basic terms for functional parts of the brain, thats their problem. Just as there is no funny "bone", simple reading about it would clear up the issue very quickly.

I'll round up some quotes for you, Kitsune. This is way more pervasive than I think you (and alot of other people) realize.

OC, have you ever - in your life - been "100% certain" about something, only to learn that you were wrong?

I don't particularly care for your tone, so I'll let it ride for now.

Yeah -- please ignore that. I'm being cranky at work, today, and the holidays are crushing me. I appreciate you not holding me to that remark, because you certainly didn't deserve it.

You'll hear "millions of years ago" and "descended from" thrown around AS FACT.

I've always seen things headed under a textbook with "Evolutionary Theory". To me, it never needed to be stated after that -- the word "theory", as in "its only a theory", was enough. I never understood the need for the new warning stickers they've had to add to public school textbooks.

But you do not subscribe to the theory that the Earth is millions of years old? This, I understand, is certainly something that is pretty much accepted these days.

If you haven't seen a public school textbook, go look.

No, thats okay. I was quite unhappy with the state of textbooks when I attended public school. I'm sure I don't want to see them, today.

This is snipped from talkorigins.org, one of the major evolutionist websites. My commentary is in italics.

This is just ONE article I found off the top, kitsune. Yes, people DO think it's a fact, and they are trying to convince everyone else it is a fact.

Is anyone else getting from this ....

That's is okay to be 100% certain about the biblical notion of creation, but totally not okay to accept with a high degree of certainty the theory of evolution?

Well, there's this way to go about it then.

Evidence of evolution: tons and tons

Evidence of humanity created by a Xtian god: a bunch of stories written a long time ago

Check.

This is snipped from talkorigins.org

Talkorigins.org appears to just be an archive of a usenet newsgroup -- it is not a scientific journal or publication and isn't really any different than The Cellar. Their FAQ entry on why they keep referring to the evolutionary theory as a fact is based on the broken logic that because something is so overwhelming with evidence that is must be 100% correct. This isn't the way theories work.

Anyone can be 100% certain of their own beliefs. Who says it's not okay?

Please show me your evidence for evolution, UT.

I agree, Kit. My point in bringing this one up first was that whenever there are debates regarding E/C, the Christians bring up AiG and ICR, and the Evolutionists bring up talkorigins. This illustrates thinking on the topic. It's that kind of reasoning we're dealing with.

Like Wolf's post. NO WHERE did I say it's not ok to believe in Evolution, yet she implies it in her post. What's her belief about the subject? How sure is she? Why did she come to that conclusion? What evidence suggests I'm wrong?

I'd love a dialog without personal or condescending attacks. I really would. I'd love to explore this concept with intellectual people without the sarcasm. Like Clodfobble's post. He/She brought up a point, and I responded with information. That was great! Let's do more of that!!

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to reveal that perhaps the issue isn't so cut and dried as some of the evo's think it is.

I found this:

we must remember that origin-science of whatever flavour is inherently different from operation science (how the universe presently works—gravity, physics, chemistry, etc.) because we can’t directly test or observe stories about the past.

I'd love a dialog without personal or condescending attacks.

And you came to an internet forum? :biggrin:

I'd love a dialog without personal or condescending attacks. I really would. I'd love to explore this concept with intellectual people without the sarcasm.

I think The Cellar is about the closest place you're going to get it. Of course, its all just armchair tactics -- I don't think anyone here is an expert on any of this.

I'll have to return, later, and describe what theory I subscribe to and why I've come to believe it more than the others I've heard. (Note: it is not Darwin's.)

Of course. Most of the people here I think of as extended family. I'm comfortable here. I've opened up here. Why wouldn't I talk to friends about this?
Agreed. But I'm not looking to debate Hawking.

I can't wait :)

Talk about snide pompous assholes, you're quoting one here. Rather than refute with these known cases he browbeats with "This guy obviously not a scientist or he would know that." Wow, that gives him lots of credibility...not. :eyebrow:

The guy is right. Nothing has ever been proven, with the possible exception of "Cogito, ergo sum", though some think that that is just a grammar trick. Everything else could be wrong. Science is only the sum total of the current best explanations. ALL of science has levels of certainty less than 1.0. Not just evolution.

Textbooks for kids treat the latest science as fact in the same sort of shorthand as kids' history textbooks say "the Civil War was about slavery" and "the American Revolution was about tea taxes". If they put every detail about every intricacy of every theory, there wouldn't be room in the kids' backpacks. The chapter on Newton doesn't go into special relativity.

Evolution is not special in that regard just because certain religious groups still view it with the same suspicion Galileo once attracted.

The ACLU is suing the school district that mandated teaching intelligent design.

Interesting how the ACLU will trample free speech in it's quest to see to it's interpretation of the freedom of religion ...

A public school system is not free to teach religion in science class.

You teach the theory of evolution in science class.

You teach intelligent design in a comparative religion class.

It's not terribly complicated.

Intelligent design isn't a theory because it cannot be tested.

You would also have to teach all of the intelligent design "theories", pagan, hindu, xtian, etc, before I would even accept it as a true intelligent design concept.

OK, it's not a unique view, but it's what I think on the subject:
 

I’m not the most eloquent person in the world so bear with me if you please . . .

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn’t it be that God did make people from primordial ooze? Did He carve Adam out of rock or sculpt him from clay? It makes more sense to me that a higher power would have prompted it to grow with a mere thought or will to make it so. Does God have hands? Why would he? ‘In his own form’, so it says . . . but then, his own form would have needed air and food to survive just as we do. If He doesn’t need it, then why do we breathe and eat? Is it ‘in his own form, only not as spiffy?’

It says it is so in the bible, and therefore that’s the way it is. Would it be too much of a stretch that pehaps the bible had been simplified to understandable terms for the mindset of the peoples thousands of years ago? Just like schoolbooks are simplified to make it so that children can grasp the concepts, and then move on to make their own decisions and understand more deeply.<b> School is not the end-all be-all of education, and seeing as the bible is a tool of religious education, isn't there room for your own questions or conclusions? </b>Or do you have to read it and accept it just as it is worded (translated? How many times? To mean how many different things?) and not question?

To be perfectly honest, I find it difficult to believe any one theory. People’s minds and their souls are so very complicated that it is rather difficult to think that it was completely and purely evolutionary, and yet, to have God just decide to and proceed to slap together what is now ‘human’ and make everything just the way it is now, and just plunk them down onto a fertile ground seems kind of hokey to me as well.

The fact that different people view God differently tells me that there’s more than one way to believe and to have faith. The bible is not the only way, and therefore it doesn’t belong in school. The teaching of religion belongs in your house or your church.

Something scares me about teaching creationism in the classroom. It begs children not to question. No? I was taught evolutionism. No one ever brought me to church and told me “this is what you need to think” – or even “This is what we believe”. I was taught that science is just that, ‘science’ – studying, assuming, testing, drawing conclusions and linking things together in a way that makes sense. And yet still I believe in <i>a</i> god. it’s just not necessarily <I>your</I> God. Or, rather, not the <i>same way</i> you think of Him. I think it would be comforting to close you eyes and imagine that God looks familiar.

It seems so much easier to <i>know</i> wholly and completely that your belief is correct.
…

Wow, this got a lot wordier than I had intended. Must be off for now, work to do and all that rot.

Very eloquent, elf. :thumbsup:

Since this got dredged up from the dark, horrible recesses of the Cellar, I feel I must add my opinions. I don't necessarily buy evolution part and parcel, but I see it as a much stronger jumping off point than "God made the world as it is today and it has not changed at all ever". Darwinian competition ("Survival of the Fittest") can be observed in the world today, with the evolution (yes, whether you believe evolution started it all or not, you cannot deny that it is happening today) of such things as antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the commonly cited case of Peppered Moths in Britain. For those of you unfamiliar with the moths, the basic idea is thus: there are moths in England that tend to gather on a tree with white bark. These moths varied in color from almost pure white to pure black. A pure black moth is easy for predators to spot, so the population tended to include very few pure or mostly black moths, with the dominance of color leaning toward the white moths. Around the time of the industrial revolution, however, a shift occurred. Coal smoke from nearby factories blackened the trees, suddenly making white moths very visible and black moths quite well hidden. Thus, obviously, the population swung toward black moths. Now, it has been argued that since no new genetic information was created, that evolution did not occur, and this is true. The moths are simply an example of natural selection, the driving force, the keystone if you will, behind evolution. If an omniscient, omnipotent being created all the creatures of Earth, why do things like this have to change? Creatures needn't adapt, because they were created in perfect balance by a perfect being. One might also note Albert's Squirrel on one side of the Grand Canyon versus the Kaibab Squirrel on the other side. The two are almost perfect genetic matches, with minor physical variations, and cannot interbreed. New genetic material and a new species were both created, theoretically by the Grand Canyon forming and splitting the populations. There we have proof that evolution does happen, though it will be impossible without some interesting manipulations of the fourth dimension to prove that it *did* happen. Never has it been observed that God plopped a new species onto the Earth, though if Creationism is correct in its assumptions, he wouldn't have to. There will also always be gaps in the fossil record, because we must note that it is an extremely rare occurence for an animal to be fossilized after death. Even in extremely successful species with millions in population at one time (and, we must assume, an exponentially greater number of deaths), there are not terribly many preserved fossils, especially those of full bodies of a single organism, which would prove infinitely more useful than single or small groups of bones, which could easily be attributed to the animal before or after the transitional species. Transitional species are just that, transitional. They exist for a short time as one archetype moves toward another. There are not nearly as many of them as there are of successful archetypes, and they do not exist for as long a time (hence, fewer bodies and exponentially fewer fossils).

On another note, one of the more common arguments for intelligent design is what I refer to as the automobile theory, essentially that evolution is just as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a complete, running automobile. The problem with this theory is that it assumes one junkyard, one planet on which life could possibly have evolved. Given that the universe is infinite (space is nothingness, nothingness can extend onward indefinitely, therefore the universe must be infinite in size), and that there are an absolutely mindblowingly large number of planets in the universe (a number large enough that it can be considered, for practical purposes, infinite), what is the likelihood that there is *not* a planet on which life could evolve? Essentially, given 1 junkyard and one tornado, the chances of assembling an automobile are infintessimally small, but given an infinite number of junkyards and an infinite number of tornados blowing through each of them, it is almost a guarantee that, at least once, the parts will come together by chance and form a running automobile. This is the same theory I present to people who don't believe that intelligent life exists off of the planet Earth: given an infinite number of attempts over time, even at infintessimally small odds, Earth cannot be the only place in the universe that fell within that precise range on the bell curve that permits intelligent life to develop. In fact, it is safe to assume that there are a vast multitude of civilzations throughout the universe.

Also, as a sidenote for intelligent design theorists who wish to argue, "your theory is wrong" != "my theory is right". Simply poking holes in evolution does not mean that there is a God. Come up with scientifically backed data that withstands scrutiny and provides mechanisms to explain the changes in organisms that we have observed, and you will begin to actually prove your theory.

Good summary alph! Good work by you!

The junkyard thing is just a dumb analogy; there are plenty of junkyards right here on this planet, given that you have billions upon billions of years to wait and every day is another combination of the primordial soup.

More importantly, it only looks like a tornado because we experience things in such a short burst of time. We experience a split-second in our lifetimes, of all the time that we could be aware of. We have but a moment to make sense of it all. It's like the whole thing was set up all day and we wake up at 11:59:59 PM and only have until midnight to figure out the previous 24 hours.

Agreed -- some very nice takes on various sides in here, recently.

One thing that bugs me about Creationists is that they "cannot believe that we evolved from apes". Even though this is a poor (and incorrect) simplification of a very complex theory, there is one aspect about this that bugs me: many creationists, in argument, indicate that humans are so vastly different from other species in the animal kingdom that we should be effectively removed from the catagory entirely. Why is this? The accomplishments of civilization aside, we really aren't much different when you get down to it. We bleed, we eat, we reproduce, we die.