Why do people take evolution in faith? It is a scientific theory hence should be put under the scientific principle of observation, hypothesis, experiment, verification then theory. Evolution has not got past the experiment stage hence should not be concidered a theory.
I think it should be pointed out that I agree with the ID argument no more that the Evolution theory. There must be a better explanation than these two foolish theorys.
Evoloution a foolish theory????
Is that a joke? I don't want to sound arrogant here but your supposition that evoloution has not passed an "experimental" (by which i assume you mean a practical experiment) phase and is therefore not a theory is laughable.
Every piece of empirical evidence available supports Darwinian Evoloution Theory, we can demonstrate through the fossil record the evoloution of various species i.e. The Graptolites & Ammonites further to this Darwin's theory explains and accounts for the diversity of the modern eco-system.
While it is true that this is still a "theory", in that it hasn't been definitively proven, It is a theory without a single piece of contradictory evidence or idea to counter it. The fact that you lump it together with ID theory is at the least utterly moronic and at most intelectually offensive.
I think you might benefit from reading more on evoloution and the evidence presented in it's favour (if you have already forgive my presumption) maybe you'll find it as enlightening as i did
Experiment? Tell me please. The Scientific method states a theory must go through the experiment stage to be called a theory-this is Francis Bacon saying this, not me.
The fossil record is incomplete and inconclusive. There are no intermideatry fossils and while we can see a change in some records between two species on a branch the lack of intermidiatry fossils means the fossil record can not be used as the singular proof of evoulution, at most it can be used as back up to indicate that evolution could be real but on there own they are next to worthless.
While classical science (by which i mean the science of Bacon and his contemporates) does say an experiment is needed to validate a thoery it is not definitive aside from that modern theorys i.e. string theory and quantum theory were widely accepted and widely recognised long before any practical experiments where employed.
While you are correct that the fossil record is incomplete in places it is much more usefull than many people expect, many groups of fossils such as the previously mentioned graptolites allow us to trace thier evoloutionary path very accuratley.
Actully the string 'theory' has been carefully regestered as a proposition by Hawking because it is almost impossible to prove.
Some parts of evolution are difficult if not impossible to prove. Superbugs are proof for some of it, other things I was shown at school, there was a computer program that played a cat and mouse game. Gradually they learnt how to outsmart each other but that's a computer not an animal.
Experiments have been done on Evolution for thousands of years, ever since humans took the common wolf, domesticated it and now we have a load of breeds of dog, right from Great Dane to Chihuahuas. We have been breeding flowers for years to the same effect. This is still Evolution, just not by natural selection. Technically speaking you can only observe natural selection since it is by definition "natural". However, natural selection isn't the theory, Evolution is.
Out of curiosity I typed in "Evolution Experiments" into wikipedia and found they used the exact same examples I did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
As for fossils, there are no "intermediary" fossils simply because they don't exist. Evolution doesn't work like that. You don't get a half human half ape hybrid. You get gradual changes which HAS been documented across the entire fossil record. Other than that, we have the genome that we can use. We have mapped both the human and chimpanzee genome, and found that two of the chimpanzee's chromosomes (they have 24 pairs) fused and became a single pair, which explains why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
This video goes into more detail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Thanks for the link, interesting stuff. So Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, a theist who is against I.D. but is an Evolutionary scientist? Errrm, some contradictions there...
This is entirly my fault. I've been lazy again! What I am arguing is that there is no proof of macro-evolution. Micro-evolution among species happens regularly.
Also, the mutations in experiments, while trying to induce a new species, to the best of my knowledge, have never arose with benificial mutations.