Slashdot Mirror

Of course, we have proven that the earth is a sphere.

And we have proven many facts (yes, facts) about evolution. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html :

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

(The last sentence seems particularly appropriate to your comment.)

They want us all trapped in their scientific dogma where once a theory takes hold, scientist be damned, can't be questioned.

Which is rubbish; science progresses because theories are questioned.

Even accepting for a moment your descriptions of Creation "Science" (and this pains me), it is essentially all disproved. Consider your two examples 1) that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC and 2) that it wiped out all humans and animals [which] couldn't fit in a really big boat. Both are clearly false. You could cite more examples all day, but it would only serve to illustrate how completely inaccurate your bible is. People and places that never existed, incompatible genealogical lineages, mathematical false statements, and many, many others. Not to mention the countless events described that contradict observable physical laws today.

So current absence in answers in a gap in the theory means that Jesus magic is something reasonable to fill in those gaps? I guess I don't understand your point. Creationists have yet to find any of their empirical evidence.
btw there are some pretty understandable theories about it based on the evidence that has been found about the Cambrian explosion. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html Keep up to date on the subject; there is new stuff being written in accredited science journals all the time about this subject matter.

The higher functioning brain activity doesn't kick in until 6 months. Having circulatory plumbing makes the embryo no different then a chicken fetus. More importantly, there are no "Jesus is magic" effects going on when an egg becomes an embryo. You can argue with your opinions, but the fact is that they are nothing close to human until 6 months. And ironically, 3 months after that, the same pro-life fighters wouldn't give a shit about this newly evolved human, as he or she is sent off to the local orphanage.

It's amazing how a successful procreation goes from number 1 to the last on the compassion list of a pro-lifer. At six weeks, the fetus HAS NO FEATURES of a human, and looks similar to other animals that are similar to humans via genetic makeup. And if you mention Haeckel, then you are a few centuries behind in evidence.

Do creationists believe that the National Academy of Scientists is a scam? I'll never understand why evidence, evidence, and more evidence is never enough to prove evolution, the same way the evidence we have supports the theory of gravitation. I guess they are unhappy with the small blocks in it (that they are filling every month with new found physical, visible evidence). At the same time, creationists aren't finding any evidence. They are just trying to morph evidence and quotes in order to disprove evidence for evolution. Gotta love it. Let me know when you find out via science how a world flood can happen, then i'll pay attention. In the meantime, i'll wait until you correct your debunked claims that are on http://www.talkorigins.org/ and actually come up with decent debunking claims on your own supposed true origins site.

I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.

These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.

There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.

eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.

see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.

species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.

These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.

There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.

eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.

see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.

species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.

These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.

There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.

eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.

see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.

species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.

These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.

There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.

eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.

see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.

species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.

These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.

There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.

eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.

see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.

species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.

These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.

There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.

eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.

see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.

species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.

These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.

There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.

eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.

see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.

species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.

These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.

There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.

eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.

see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.

species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.

These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.

There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.

eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.

see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.

species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Evolution vs. creationism...well, the Bible says God created all of the creatures on the earth, but it doesn't describe the method by which He did it, does it?

The story of Genesis is quite specific in terms of describing a method inconsistent with known scientific facts, as far as I can see?

(And yes, I know that many Christians consider Genesis as a myth, but (a) that's not the same thing as reconciling the Bible with science and pretending that the Bible is still 100% true, and (b) if you reject some parts as untrue, the question is what means do you use to decide which parts of the Bible are God's word, and which are not?)

Having said that, I'm not quite ready to embrace evolution as the origin of species (as opposed to evolution within species, which I do accept), but this discovery is definitely interesting.

Speciation has already been observed.

I think you need to read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

It must be rough for them, because speciation has been observed. Besides, not all Christians reject evolution. Don't equate your Fundie friends for all of Christianity. Biblical Literalism is a very new feature, and damned near any Church that still holds Augustine as any kind of theological figure does not advocate it.

AFAIK, Evolution is still a theory. A very convincing theory, I do not doubt that, but a theory nonetheless.

Did you not read his post? Evolution is a fact and a theory. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html :

"It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. "

These things are facts, and they were never a scientific theory. Scientific theories and facts are different things, they never progress from one to another.

"Still a theory" makes no sense - it's a good thing it's "still" a theory, as the only time it stops being a theory is when it's disproven!

but it is not proven

And what do you mean by "proven"?

Talk Origins

That said, if one does a search for Intelligent Design, as far as I can tell, every article/web page/whatever tries to use one of two arguments about ID: either the Bible is used as an explanation for ID because obviously if it's in the Bible, it must be true or that there must be a an intelligence to why things are the way they are.

In the first case, that argument then puts the ID supporters into the realm of backtracking on their claims that ID is not religious-based. If it's not based on religion, then why bring the Bible into it? In the second case, ID supporters never answer who that designer is or how one tests for it (I'm presuming that a being capable of creating matter from nothing doesn't have a sex). If you can't test or show if such a being exists, how can one claim that such a being did the designing?

Further, Evolutionary theory does make predictions which have been tested, the classic being what I have already mentioned; the fossil tree of horses and humans. Despite your contention that there are gaps, there are none. There is a sufficient number of intermediary fossils to show how earlier life forms evolved into what we have today with more being found on a yearly or every-other year basis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

You know what made me decide? The lack of imperial evidence for a bunch of parts that the pro-flood people use. They think that all animals were herbivores back then. That's why the animals peacefully reproduced. No evidence needed. They simply make these "fit" statements and it's looked at as fact to some people. craziness. That's just one out of the many reasons why it's not believed as much, thanks to science. I don't even understand why christians get in an argument over this stuff, because with a supernatural god, empirical scientific evidence is no longer needed. Am I right with that one?

And out of the blue, here's a link to an organized debate on the richarddawkins.net forum; the creationist using everything that arminw just stated, and shown that it is all old theories, quick assumptions, and unlinkable evidence.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10675
An interesting read to say the least. :)

so, somehow dna enters the picture. explain to me why a protozoa has so many chromosomes if life is a progression toward a higher order?

Life is not a progression toward a "higher order". Your question is founded upon a misconception, and thus it is not valid.

However, I do not feel that it answers the fundamental question of how it all came to be as there is no fossil evidence to support this long term development that supposedly took place.

There exists extensive fossil evidence for vertebrate evolution. Do you wish for additional information?

It also fails to be able to demonstrate how these supposed mutations survived as nature is notoriously cruel to mutation.

Then perhaps you can debunk more than thirty observed instances of speciation documented in multiple peer reviewed studies.

So cutting off debate and declaring the problem solved is not science it is just as much theology as saying harry thunder invented the world.

No one has declared that the "problem is solved". Research continues toward a better understanding of various lineages of descent. No "debate" is being cut off. The problem is that advocates of "intelligent design" are seeking special treatment; they have no facts and no evidence, no mechanism and no predictions, yet they insist that their claims be given the status of "theory" in spite of failing to meet all required criteria for a scientific explanation.

so, somehow dna enters the picture. explain to me why a protozoa has so many chromosomes if life is a progression toward a higher order?

Life is not a progression toward a "higher order". Your question is founded upon a misconception, and thus it is not valid.

However, I do not feel that it answers the fundamental question of how it all came to be as there is no fossil evidence to support this long term development that supposedly took place.

There exists extensive fossil evidence for vertebrate evolution. Do you wish for additional information?

It also fails to be able to demonstrate how these supposed mutations survived as nature is notoriously cruel to mutation.

Then perhaps you can debunk more than thirty observed instances of speciation documented in multiple peer reviewed studies.

So cutting off debate and declaring the problem solved is not science it is just as much theology as saying harry thunder invented the world.

No one has declared that the "problem is solved". Research continues toward a better understanding of various lineages of descent. No "debate" is being cut off. The problem is that advocates of "intelligent design" are seeking special treatment; they have no facts and no evidence, no mechanism and no predictions, yet they insist that their claims be given the status of "theory" in spite of failing to meet all required criteria for a scientific explanation.

It's fascinating that you believe that the bible adds nothing to scientific insight.

Particularly when the bible itself states that the earth "hangs on nothing", that is to say, it floats in space.

If, however, you are only interested in real scientific facts done by real evolutionary scientists - I'd encourage you to check out Dr. Walt Brown's book "In the Beginning". The entire book is based on research done by scientists with an evolutionary viewpoint.

Here is a bit of information from TalkOrigins as well.

So basically, you are being dishonest. The book is not based on "an evolutionary viewpoint". It is a rather poor list of arguments for creationism that hold no scientific merit what so ever, and which is even being disowned by other creationists.

The idea that suspension of physical laws by divine intervention can invalidate any sort of science isn't really groundbreaking. I'd buy into it more if the theories that restrict themselves to natural causes didn't work so amazingly well. For example, the notable lack of evidence for a worldwide flood could be explained by a miraculous erasure of the evidence (including, apparently, a significant portion of the water, even if it did come from underground), or it could be that there was no worldwide flood.

The most obvious example that I can think of is the first graph on this page. It's a beautifully straight line. Why? It could be a miracle, sure, but why would such a miracle have taken place? If we allow ourselves to believe that, why not simply accept last-Thursdayism and call it a day? On what rational basis can we distinguish between hypotheses that defy reason?

A. "Science can not demonstrate that science is important, that we ought to teach it in our schools, or that is better than religion. If you believe any of the aforementioned, please realize that these are your beliefs. And if you fervently, even zealously, endeavor to defend, proselytize or promulgate these beliefs- you are a RELIGIOUS person."

CA610. Evolution Religious "Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares..."

B. "ID is not open for debate in the scientific community...why not debate the ID folks and send them to an early grave"
CI401. The methodology of science rules out even considering design.

C. "the THEORY of Evolution is a theory because it's not been proven. If there was a mountain of evidence, as some idiot put it in his comment, it'd no longer be a theory."
CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
CA202. Evolution has not been proved

D. "Seriously people, Ben Stein is doing a service to the scientific community by encouraging critical thinking and making people challenge the status quo."
CA000--CJ533. Do you know how old and tired these challenges are? How worn out but still repeated, over and over they are? The creationist claims are status quo. The scientists' replies change. 50 years ago the creationists would say "Why, Darwinists say Man is like a Mouse, but look, Man is closer to a Cabbage and so Evolution is wrong," and scientists had to go into an extended lecture about comparing molecules. Now, when creationists claim the same thing, scientists can simply say "Go online. Here is the human genome. Here is the ape genome. Here is the mouse genome. Here is the rice genome. Now, what was that again?"

E. "So far, I have yet to see any convincing arguments that mutation can produce innovative changes."
One of the 'Even a major creationist group says not to use this argument' arguments. Or if you're saying that while the mutations are positive, they don't create something new...
CB101.2 with a list of mutations that caused new features.

And that's just from the last couple of hundred comments.

A. "Science can not demonstrate that science is important, that we ought to teach it in our schools, or that is better than religion. If you believe any of the aforementioned, please realize that these are your beliefs. And if you fervently, even zealously, endeavor to defend, proselytize or promulgate these beliefs- you are a RELIGIOUS person."

CA610. Evolution Religious "Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares..."

B. "ID is not open for debate in the scientific community...why not debate the ID folks and send them to an early grave"
CI401. The methodology of science rules out even considering design.

C. "the THEORY of Evolution is a theory because it's not been proven. If there was a mountain of evidence, as some idiot put it in his comment, it'd no longer be a theory."
CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
CA202. Evolution has not been proved

D. "Seriously people, Ben Stein is doing a service to the scientific community by encouraging critical thinking and making people challenge the status quo."
CA000--CJ533. Do you know how old and tired these challenges are? How worn out but still repeated, over and over they are? The creationist claims are status quo. The scientists' replies change. 50 years ago the creationists would say "Why, Darwinists say Man is like a Mouse, but look, Man is closer to a Cabbage and so Evolution is wrong," and scientists had to go into an extended lecture about comparing molecules. Now, when creationists claim the same thing, scientists can simply say "Go online. Here is the human genome. Here is the ape genome. Here is the mouse genome. Here is the rice genome. Now, what was that again?"

E. "So far, I have yet to see any convincing arguments that mutation can produce innovative changes."
One of the 'Even a major creationist group says not to use this argument' arguments. Or if you're saying that while the mutations are positive, they don't create something new...
CB101.2 with a list of mutations that caused new features.

And that's just from the last couple of hundred comments.

A. "Science can not demonstrate that science is important, that we ought to teach it in our schools, or that is better than religion. If you believe any of the aforementioned, please realize that these are your beliefs. And if you fervently, even zealously, endeavor to defend, proselytize or promulgate these beliefs- you are a RELIGIOUS person."

CA610. Evolution Religious "Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares..."

B. "ID is not open for debate in the scientific community...why not debate the ID folks and send them to an early grave"
CI401. The methodology of science rules out even considering design.

C. "the THEORY of Evolution is a theory because it's not been proven. If there was a mountain of evidence, as some idiot put it in his comment, it'd no longer be a theory."
CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
CA202. Evolution has not been proved

D. "Seriously people, Ben Stein is doing a service to the scientific community by encouraging critical thinking and making people challenge the status quo."
CA000--CJ533. Do you know how old and tired these challenges are? How worn out but still repeated, over and over they are? The creationist claims are status quo. The scientists' replies change. 50 years ago the creationists would say "Why, Darwinists say Man is like a Mouse, but look, Man is closer to a Cabbage and so Evolution is wrong," and scientists had to go into an extended lecture about comparing molecules. Now, when creationists claim the same thing, scientists can simply say "Go online. Here is the human genome. Here is the ape genome. Here is the mouse genome. Here is the rice genome. Now, what was that again?"

E. "So far, I have yet to see any convincing arguments that mutation can produce innovative changes."
One of the 'Even a major creationist group says not to use this argument' arguments. Or if you're saying that while the mutations are positive, they don't create something new...
CB101.2 with a list of mutations that caused new features.

And that's just from the last couple of hundred comments.

A. "Science can not demonstrate that science is important, that we ought to teach it in our schools, or that is better than religion. If you believe any of the aforementioned, please realize that these are your beliefs. And if you fervently, even zealously, endeavor to defend, proselytize or promulgate these beliefs- you are a RELIGIOUS person."

CA610. Evolution Religious "Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares..."

B. "ID is not open for debate in the scientific community...why not debate the ID folks and send them to an early grave"
CI401. The methodology of science rules out even considering design.

C. "the THEORY of Evolution is a theory because it's not been proven. If there was a mountain of evidence, as some idiot put it in his comment, it'd no longer be a theory."
CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
CA202. Evolution has not been proved

D. "Seriously people, Ben Stein is doing a service to the scientific community by encouraging critical thinking and making people challenge the status quo."
CA000--CJ533. Do you know how old and tired these challenges are? How worn out but still repeated, over and over they are? The creationist claims are status quo. The scientists' replies change. 50 years ago the creationists would say "Why, Darwinists say Man is like a Mouse, but look, Man is closer to a Cabbage and so Evolution is wrong," and scientists had to go into an extended lecture about comparing molecules. Now, when creationists claim the same thing, scientists can simply say "Go online. Here is the human genome. Here is the ape genome. Here is the mouse genome. Here is the rice genome. Now, what was that again?"

E. "So far, I have yet to see any convincing arguments that mutation can produce innovative changes."
One of the 'Even a major creationist group says not to use this argument' arguments. Or if you're saying that while the mutations are positive, they don't create something new...
CB101.2 with a list of mutations that caused new features.

And that's just from the last couple of hundred comments.

A. "Science can not demonstrate that science is important, that we ought to teach it in our schools, or that is better than religion. If you believe any of the aforementioned, please realize that these are your beliefs. And if you fervently, even zealously, endeavor to defend, proselytize or promulgate these beliefs- you are a RELIGIOUS person."

CA610. Evolution Religious "Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares..."

B. "ID is not open for debate in the scientific community...why not debate the ID folks and send them to an early grave"
CI401. The methodology of science rules out even considering design.

C. "the THEORY of Evolution is a theory because it's not been proven. If there was a mountain of evidence, as some idiot put it in his comment, it'd no longer be a theory."
CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
CA202. Evolution has not been proved

D. "Seriously people, Ben Stein is doing a service to the scientific community by encouraging critical thinking and making people challenge the status quo."
CA000--CJ533. Do you know how old and tired these challenges are? How worn out but still repeated, over and over they are? The creationist claims are status quo. The scientists' replies change. 50 years ago the creationists would say "Why, Darwinists say Man is like a Mouse, but look, Man is closer to a Cabbage and so Evolution is wrong," and scientists had to go into an extended lecture about comparing molecules. Now, when creationists claim the same thing, scientists can simply say "Go online. Here is the human genome. Here is the ape genome. Here is the mouse genome. Here is the rice genome. Now, what was that again?"

E. "So far, I have yet to see any convincing arguments that mutation can produce innovative changes."
One of the 'Even a major creationist group says not to use this argument' arguments. Or if you're saying that while the mutations are positive, they don't create something new...
CB101.2 with a list of mutations that caused new features.

And that's just from the last couple of hundred comments.

A. "Science can not demonstrate that science is important, that we ought to teach it in our schools, or that is better than religion. If you believe any of the aforementioned, please realize that these are your beliefs. And if you fervently, even zealously, endeavor to defend, proselytize or promulgate these beliefs- you are a RELIGIOUS person."

CA610. Evolution Religious "Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares..."

B. "ID is not open for debate in the scientific community...why not debate the ID folks and send them to an early grave"
CI401. The methodology of science rules out even considering design.

C. "the THEORY of Evolution is a theory because it's not been proven. If there was a mountain of evidence, as some idiot put it in his comment, it'd no longer be a theory."
CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
CA202. Evolution has not been proved

D. "Seriously people, Ben Stein is doing a service to the scientific community by encouraging critical thinking and making people challenge the status quo."
CA000--CJ533. Do you know how old and tired these challenges are? How worn out but still repeated, over and over they are? The creationist claims are status quo. The scientists' replies change. 50 years ago the creationists would say "Why, Darwinists say Man is like a Mouse, but look, Man is closer to a Cabbage and so Evolution is wrong," and scientists had to go into an extended lecture about comparing molecules. Now, when creationists claim the same thing, scientists can simply say "Go online. Here is the human genome. Here is the ape genome. Here is the mouse genome. Here is the rice genome. Now, what was that again?"

E. "So far, I have yet to see any convincing arguments that mutation can produce innovative changes."
One of the 'Even a major creationist group says not to use this argument' arguments. Or if you're saying that while the mutations are positive, they don't create something new...
CB101.2 with a list of mutations that caused new features.

And that's just from the last couple of hundred comments.

Richard Dawkin's " Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda" is relevant.

The creationism / evolution debate has been done many times here on Slashdot. There'll be comments making one or more of the hundreds of old and refuted creationist arguments(1). It's possible that a couple of comments will use arguments even the Answers in Genesis creationist group says not to use(2). Someone will say there's no evidence for Macroevolution and someone else will point out 29 plus evidences for Macroevolution(3).

The point of Expelled is to make people think they've learned about the creation / ID / evolution debate, but to feel that Darwin= Holocaust. Note how they interview scientists of all sorts, but they don't interview academics who cover antisemitism in pre-20th century Europe. Even one hint or reminder that, say, Martin Luther wrote On the Jews and Their Lies in 1543 would ruin the Darwin -->Holocaust propoganda.

----------
(1) "evolution requires faith," "Piltdown," "Midocean magnetic anomalies are not reversals"...
(2) "there are no beneficial mutations," "no new species have ever been produced"...
(3) Even if there were no fossils, how to explain how biochemistry matches phylogeny? It's one thing to claim the designer re-uses code to explain similarity, but why would a designer reuse broken code?

Richard Dawkin's " Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda" is relevant.

The creationism / evolution debate has been done many times here on Slashdot. There'll be comments making one or more of the hundreds of old and refuted creationist arguments(1). It's possible that a couple of comments will use arguments even the Answers in Genesis creationist group says not to use(2). Someone will say there's no evidence for Macroevolution and someone else will point out 29 plus evidences for Macroevolution(3).

The point of Expelled is to make people think they've learned about the creation / ID / evolution debate, but to feel that Darwin= Holocaust. Note how they interview scientists of all sorts, but they don't interview academics who cover antisemitism in pre-20th century Europe. Even one hint or reminder that, say, Martin Luther wrote On the Jews and Their Lies in 1543 would ruin the Darwin -->Holocaust propoganda.

----------
(1) "evolution requires faith," "Piltdown," "Midocean magnetic anomalies are not reversals"...
(2) "there are no beneficial mutations," "no new species have ever been produced"...
(3) Even if there were no fossils, how to explain how biochemistry matches phylogeny? It's one thing to claim the designer re-uses code to explain similarity, but why would a designer reuse broken code?

I also do not think of human beings as animals.

I have several questions, but I would like to hear what you say about fossil chains for certain species increasing and decreasing the number of ribs they have as they evolve. It would seem that the smaller animals would have fewer ribs and gain more as their descendents became larger. It would seem even more plausible that they kept the exact same number of ribs, except that the ribs got larger in size to accommodate the larger size.

The first thing I will say is that by referring to "fossil chains" you are somewhat misinterpreting the use of the fossil record. Fossils are used to show a family tree of branching ancestries and development of a broad range of species, not just the successful one that ended up as today's horse. The evolutionary model of the descent of today's horse differs greatly from the theory to which you refer (Eohippus -> Mesohippus -> Equus), which was developed in the mid-19th century when very few fossils had been found. I refer you here for a more complete discussion of the matter.

Out of curiosity (and I mean this in all honesty) how might one disprove evolution as it is currently theorized? I mean, certain specific aspects are "disproveable" and have changed over time, but how is it possible to falsify the theory that creatures have changed over time to enter their current states?

Out of curiosity (and I mean this in all honesty) how might one disprove evolution as it is currently theorized? I mean, certain specific aspects are "disproveable" and have changed over time, but how is it possible to falsify the theory that creatures have changed over time to enter their current states?

Considering that our ancestors, Australopithecus, and even as late as archaic Homo, had larger canines than us and that the trend in canine size in our evolutionary chain has been reduction, I fail to see how this applies.

Please note that I'm not saying that we don't eat as much meat as we used to. The opposite is true; due to the availability of meat, we eat much more. However, we also don't eat raw meat. We figured out ways to cook or otherwise prepare our food so that we can use molars instead.

Oh, gee, maybe if you do some research in the field of evolutionary biology, you may see that they in fact DO acknowledge their weak points, and they ARE studying them, to solve it. The problem with ID/Creationism, is that it prevents critical thinking. "Tell me, Bob, why are our vegetable fields not reacting right to this fertilizer you invented?" "Oh, God did it. I took some manure, prayed over it, and then when I did tests, I kept only the test that proved my prayed-over manure works better than regular manure!" "Bob, you're fired." ID/Creationism is NOT science. Anything that prevents proper, critical thought, is not science. Besides, your analogy is flawed. The right theory to go with special relativity is Quantum Mechanics, since it explains what happens when Special Relativity does not apply(which is on the micro-scale. Special Rel. applies on the macro scale). String Theory is still just a hypothesis with a bunch of math behind it. Go read http://www.talkorigins.org/ before you talk about something you don't understand.

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?

Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming?

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?

Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming?

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?

Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming?

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?

Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming?

He specifically said that dogs still havn't been seperated so long that they have speciated. He also made a minor reference to real observed speciation, but without any links so here we go.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Took me twenty seconds to find. A boring read, but you wanted real facts.

Have you ever bothered to Google? Try this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Start here. It also includes all the necessary references for going to the primary literature if you think all those evil atheist scum in talkorigins.org are just making it up:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

In fact, I suggest you probably spend some time at that site.

It's interesting, then, that you are at odds with the entire scientific community.

No, I may be at odds with you and your group of friends but the very definition of science allows for the investigation into any claim. You can think of any claim as a hypothesis. You don't shut everything else out once you think you know the answer. Science would be frozen in time and we would learn nothing more if we did that. The entire scientific community does not think science has learn all there is to know about any subject.

Evolution is not one of them, since it has huge amounts of supporting evidence.

You post links to the definition of a theory but you fail to understand them. You also fail to understand the argument in front of you. The theory of evolution contain many theories and hypothesis, facts and observations. The points of contention aren't in the facts but with the explanations of the facts. And to that point, only a very small portion of the more weakly supported observations. Evolution as in the enveloping theory of evolution has a lot of strong evidence backing it. But the individual theories and hypothesis within the theory of evolution don't always have the same strength. Some are more strong and some or weaker. For some reason your saying that an overall theory in evolutionary biology encompasses so much and the support in one area seems to be proof in another. You do understand that the theory of evolution is an envelope pertaining to many different studies each with it's own theories and hypothesis right? Look at what talk origins has to say about it. Make sure your looking at the "Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved." part to see what is meant.

We have huge amounts of evidence, including speciation, observations of new proteins/enzymes forming in the last few decades alone (Nylonase), domestic breeding which causes huge differences in form and functionality (various plants, dogs, etc.), and so on. The only evidence of speciation we have is where the definition of species has been changed or where the definition doesn't quite fit like with singly celled organisms and asexual organisms. 20 years ago, the definition of speciation was that it "couldn't" interbreed (I've seen this definition in common use as recently as a few years ago). Not that it "chooses" not to or is isolated by some land mark. In striking contrast, about every racist who refuses to mate with a different race would now be considered a new species and a sheep dog in Australia which looks different then an English sheep dog would be separate species. Then you have ring species and all that to complicate things even more.

Except they all conveniently support... evolution!

Nobody said they didn't support evolution, I said that the connections speciation could have an alternate explanation. You really, really, really, have to start paying attention. Please let me explain that statement for you. You can use "evolution" to explain everything without "speciation" when looking into that evidence.

No rules need to be bent. Read the information I have provided you with.

Yes, they have been bent. The definitions of speciation have been changed. The rules for speciation have been changed. A definition of species, for sexual creatures anyways, deals with the ability to interbreed. The definition for speciation, for sexual organism/creatures, has went from being able to interbreed to don't willingly or cant because of some geographical separation. In fact, subspecies and race of species now get coined as speciation due to the changes.

Except the speed of light is not a matter of definition, unlike "species". Scientists have heated debates over what to call new discoveries. It is not always clear which species they belong to because of