[Sabertooth]

It seems to me that non-scientists (e.g., creationists) are trying to nail science for doing what it does not purport to do and is, thus, creating a false dichotomy: evolution vs creation.

Ahh... no. While Creationists do this plenty, there are many evolutionists who do the same. Gould is forever spamming quack theologies. Others will show up on this very thread.

But tell me.. where has a single scientist ever observed "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

Simple question.

[Rudder]

Stephen Jay Gould? --- He's just sensationalizing for his own self-aggrandizement.

"random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

Few scientists have observed speciation, let alone random spontaneous mutagenic speciation. The answer is "no".

[Torie]

Some birds that are phsyically able to procreate with each other do not, because their bird calls have become differentiated. They are on their way to becoming separate species. But I am not the scientist or expert here. Others who engage in this debate are. I will leave the heavy lifting to them.

[equus]

Creation is another word for "I don't know how it happened, so God did it." Science doesn't know and neither does religion. Religion has stories about it and so does science. Neither can be proven. Science works hard to prove what it can and it is getting closer all the time. If "life" can arise from "nonlife" and they can make it in the lab then maybe we should redefine life. Where does life begin anyway? What's a virus? What's a prion? Does it start at bacteria? And who gets to have a soul? Only humans? What about your pets? All these questions and their answers are simply viewpoints. Science has tended to strip religion of some of its previous beliefs--Copernicus did that and Darwin did that. Creationists like the image of Michael Behe's "black box"--the things Darwinism can't explain, and Richard Dawkins says, "Try harder." Just because we can't explain it now doesn't mean it can't be explained.

[panaxanax]

I am not a scientist, but i do know there are no more sabertooth tigers. What happened to them?

[very_right_in_kc]

Where has a single scientist ever observed "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

And just as easily asked, Where has a Creationist ever observed the act of Creation?

"Not only is the universe more strange than we imagine, it is more strange than we can imagine." - Albert Einstein (I think...)

[KeepUSfree]

The first problem is to define "species". As an entomologist, we have LONG discussions over the concept of "What is a species?". In the past, species differentiation was accomplished by studying the physical and behavioral traits of an organism and and classifying them based upon those traits. Species get "raised" (to a species level) and "lowered" (lumped into a same species) all of the time. With new DNA testing and verification, this may change in the future. Now, "observing" this specieation is as likely as "watching fossils form". It takes too long and our short little lives and tiny brains can't concieve the length of time involved. However, if one looks to the NE of the USA, there is an entire group of butterflies that are extremely similar - but are considered separate species. Each is totally geographically isolated by high mountains - which they cannot fly over. So, yes, if you want to be honest with yourself, take a look at the genus Oensis which are found in Vermont, NH. You will see similar - but different species that formed as the glaciers receded and the butterflies settled into thier respective mountain valleys. Each valley has a slightly different ecosystem. And, each butterfly has evolved sympatrically within that system.

As for "life is always found where there was life before". I have no problem with the possibility that a "seed" of life came here on a meterite. Or, even that another species visited and either purposefully, or accidentally left "life" behind.

But, evolution exists. Look at the people around you. Look at photographs from the 1800's. We've changed - so has the world around us.