Revolutionary new food item! :D

[MoJo]

Just because a majority of people believe something does not make it true. That is a self serving argument.

I trust that you believe that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. You might want to read this excerpt from Wikipedia

"Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."[88]
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.
By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothetically. For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission. "

[Stefan-A]

Might I mention one last thing?
Evolution is just a theory. If it were so true, and the evidence unsurmountable, then everyone would believe it; The universal LAW of gravitation as compared to the THEORY of evolution.

The evidence is indeed insurmountable and we are talking about a scientific theory, not theory in the sense that people use it in everyday speech. I mentioned other scientific theories before, such as the theory of gravity. The difference between "just a theory" and scientific theory, is that a scientific theory is backed up by actual evidence. It's not a guess and it's not just a hunch. It's all about evidence (gotta love that word).

The problem with your theory (in the casual sense, not the scientific), is that some people don't want to believe the truth even when the evidence is clearly pointing in that direction and they'll do anything in order to hold on to their beliefs. The more compelling the scientific evidence becomes, the more these people will try to resist it.

MoJo is right, just because many believe something, doesn't make it true. It's called argumentum ad populum and it's a fallacious argument. As a side note, you might want to google "Project Steve", or just look it up in wikipedia.

[ssssnakeluvr]

It's all about evidence (gotta love that word).

hehehe....love that word myself.....get to work with it on my job.....

[Stefan-A]

(And NO this is not be "giving in".

Duly noted.

[Zephyr]

lol At the giving in bit.
But it's still scientific THEORY. It has yet to be PROVED, no matter how much EVIDENCE we have, it has yet to be PROOVED.
And that's how you sound like a scientist.

[Zephyr]

Also, I think James may $H!7 his pants when he finds out we had a debate and no one's head's rolled. lol

[Stefan-A]

lol At the giving in bit.
But it's still scientific THEORY. It has yet to be PROVED, no matter how much EVIDENCE we have, it has yet to be PROOVED.
And that's how you sound like a scientist.

You don't seem to quite get it. As a SCIENTIFIC theory, it has already been proven, it has been tested and it has been observed inside and outside of the laboratory. That evolution occurs is a fact.

[Zephyr]

You don't seem to quite get it. As a SCIENTIFIC theory, it has already been proven, it has been tested and it has been observed inside and outside of the laboratory. That evolution occurs is a fact.

As stated before, I've yet to see any animal, no matter how much human influence or environmental influence is used upon it, become another. There has yet to be a laboratory, anywhere, that has turned a fish into anything other than a fish. Natural selection and adaptation can exist WITHOUT evolution; Cockroaches can adapt to new environments, humans can adapt to new environments, most any animal can adapt to a new environment. You can have two populations of gliding lizards; one with longer wings and one with shorter wings; and higher winds in their environment naturally select those with shorter wings which are less air resistant. But you can't have one organism become another when there is no data in their genetic material to do so. And as for mutations... How many mutations can you name that are beneficial? Just look at my deformed hybrid albino checkered: Mutation for a kinked neck, obviously no good for maneuvering. No left eye, so if a hawk swoops down from that direction, he's done for. And a shortened and deformed mouth, not strong enough to hold onto prey. Any mutation that isn't bad has neutrality in use; If an animal adapts to a subterranean lifestyle, eyes are unnecessary. However, due to the environment, IE natural selection, the trait of not having eyes is neutral to its lifestyle. Another example; Genetic mutations in fruit flies. In the lab environment, yet again natural selection (And partially human selection) a mutation in eye color, possibly causing loss of sight in the eyes, doesn't matter because there are no predators! It's not beneficial because it obviously doesn't help the fly, but it's not harmful either.

[Zephyr]

Also... There's a big difference between data and evidence. We have evidence of evolution, but we don't have any data. We don't have statistics showing how the early fish gradually grew fins; we have evidence in the fossil record that "suggests" they did. We don't have any data showing that we descended from apes; we have evidence of our supposed ancestry through the fossil registry. However, we don't have any data; no stats saying that the cranial capacity of apes became greater, no stats that the feathers of test subject one's third generation offspring were slightly longer due to so and so influences. No data.

[Stefan-A]

As stated before, I've yet to see any animal, no matter how much human influence or environmental influence is used upon it, become another. There has yet to be a laboratory, anywhere, that has turned a fish into anything other than a fish.

You're still not getting the fact that the changes are gradual.

Natural selection and adaptation can exist WITHOUT evolution; Cockroaches can adapt to new environments, humans can adapt to new environments, most any animal can adapt to a new environment.

Adaptation of behavior has nothing at all to do with natural selection. In fact, the change has to happen within a single generation, or the population is knocked out. What you can't get without evolution, is the ability to adapt. You can change your survival strategy only because evolution has made it possible.

But you can't have one organism become another when there is no data in their genetic material to do so.

New data can be generated and it has been proven to occur. Even our own DNA contains information that's just waiting to be activated.

And as for mutations... How many mutations can you name that are beneficial? Just look at my deformed hybrid albino checkered: Mutation for a kinked neck, obviously no good for maneuvering. No left eye, so if a hawk swoops down from that direction, he's done for. And a shortened and deformed mouth, not strong enough to hold onto prey.

Worst example ever. Occurrences of detrimental mutations do not change the fact that beneficial mutations occur as well.

Any mutation that isn't bad has neutrality in use; If an animal adapts to a subterranean lifestyle, eyes are unnecessary. However, due to the environment, IE natural selection, the trait of not having eyes is neutral to its lifestyle.

Not true. Not having eyes not neutral to its lifestyle, it's beneficial. Eyes are sensitive and easily damaged, and developing and having them requires energy. Eliminating unnecessary and under the conditions detrimental features improves the animal's fitness. That's why there are still vestiges which prove that a species has evolved from something different.

Also... There's a big difference between data and evidence.

Yeah, evidence is data within a specific context.

We have evidence of evolution, but we don't have any data. We don't have statistics showing how the early fish gradually grew fins; we have evidence in the fossil record that "suggests" they did. We don't have any data showing that we descended from apes; we have evidence of our supposed ancestry through the fossil registry.

Actually, we all carry the data that shows our relation to apes, turtles, amphibians, birds, bacteria and garters. The data is there, we're not guessing when we talk about common ancestry.

However, we don't have any data; no stats saying that the cranial capacity of apes became greater, no stats that the feathers of test subject one's third generation offspring were slightly longer due to so and so influences. No data.

No, actually we do have the data that shows for example changes in skull shape and volume. What we don't have, is a sample from every single generation, but that's not something that is needed to prove evolution

So, what's your alternative to evolution?