Post by BoomPost by Rich AndersonOh, let's not start that thread again.
Oh, why not? It's fun to argue about stuff that doesn't matter.
Post by Rich AndersonThe reason why we've never SEEN speciation happen is that it takes very,
very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, VERY long periods of time,
and we haven't quite figured out temporal mechanics yet. However,
we do know that speciation is the result of many small changes over a very
long period of time. Guess what scientists have observed? SMALL CHANGES!
The cumulative effect of which is very likely... NEW SPECIES!
You think? So what makes that very likely? Hell, I've made a few
small changes my own self during my life. Doesn't mean I'm evolving
into something else, except an old guy.
Sorry, doesn't work that way. The changes have to be in your offspring.
Let's say your prospective spawn has an increased ability to metabolize
protein, allowing it to use energy more efficiently and run faster. This
would enhance its survival against predators, assuming there are human
predators at this point.
You are not going to spontaneously become a new species of life form. Your
offspring might be slightly different. Your offspring's offspring might be
slightly different, and so on until enough differences add up and suddenly
we have a creature on our hands that might not necessarily be able to be
termed /homo sapiens sapiens/ anymore. That, however, will take a good
couple millions years, at least.
Post by BoomPost by Rich AndersonAlso, Evolution does not specify where life came from, only what happens
to life. It may have came from a god, from self-replicating molecules,
alien intelligence, or out of "Bob"'s asshole. It doesn't matter to the
theory.
Evolution can't specify anything because it's all conjecture.
Scientists would love to think that it's real but they can no more
explain it than they can the beginning of the universe.
Buddy, do you know what else is "conjecture"? Gravity, particle physics,
magnetism, and electricity. Those theories work well enough that I'm able
to type this pointless message and send it across wires to be stored on
some remote hard drive.
You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between the
scientific idea of a Theory and a Scientific Law. A theory is a hypothesis
(which is just an idea based on observation) that has been validated
through research and experimentation. A theory can hold up under intense
scrutiny, hold true in all experiments - yet can be proven wrong by just
one verified experiment. Meanwhile, a Scientific Law is usually a
mathematical conjecture that has been proven true repeatedly, and over and
over again to the point where it has been tested true in all theoretical
conditions. Unsurprisingly, there are very, very, very, very, very few
proper Scientific Laws. Newton's Laws of Motion come to mind, as do some
Gas Laws from my Chemistry 110 class.
(And don't try pulling the Second Law of Thermodynamics out here. It
doesn't work that way.)
As for the creation of the universe, well, there's several compelling
theories, each with their own supporting evidence. The "Big Bang" theory
is the most commonly accepted, but even that has some questions. What
leads up to the "Big Bang" we have little idea of (but plenty of theories)
as well. I'm sure we'll figure it out eventually. Science doesn't claim to
have all the answers. I'd rather know that we don't know (yet) than fill
in the blank with some sort of higher power that raises more questions
than it answers. ("Bob" asks no questions, he just wants your $30.)
Post by BoomPost by Rich AndersonRead "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It explains the basics of
evolutionary theory quite beautifully.
Sounds like a good book of fiction ;)
Actually, it's a very solidly written and researched book explaining how
gradual change over long periods of time CAN create speciation. Don't
scoff until you read it.