The chicken. Period
Now for those of you who say that Evolution made the egg that hatched into a chicken, can you please explain to me which version of evolution you believe in? Mutation or Natural Selection? Or something else if you can think of one. Really, I don't see how either of those work.
Evolution is the net result of generational mutations and the process of natural selection. It is a gradual process. Or better put, it is all a matter of statistics. It is unlikely that any dramatic change would occur within one, or even 10 generations, but over time certain traits (such as being slightly larger) lend one mutation a statistical advantage over it's peers. The rest is a matter of time and circumstance. The environment plays a huge role in the development of species.
It's not called "Natural Seletion", it's called genetics. Even though the physical traits of the animals change over time, it doesn't change them into another species. Dogs are a great example of this. We've had dogs for ages and they've changed, but we still have dogs. There hasn't been one documented change of one species to another. The fossil record doesn't support this either. Darwin himself wrote: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
Now, what your saying here is the survival of the fittest. But if the animals that are weaker are always dying out quickly, how do they have millions of years to evolve into something that will survive?
And for the common ancestor idea:
The presence of homologous structures can actually be interpreted as evidence for a common designer. Contrary to the oversimplified claim in this figure, the forelimbs of vertebrates do not form in the same way. Specifically, in frogs the phalanges form as buds that grow outward and in humans they form from a ridge that develops furrows inward. The fact that the bones can be correlated does not mean that they are evidence of a single common ancestor.
The way we classify species, taxonomy, is based upon a matter agreed upon by the various professionals involved. It isn't as if one day a wolf suddenly became a dog, we simply see the after effects...we see two animals which we perceive as distinctly different and give them classifications. At some point in the past there would have been two very close variations of a wolf which took different paths.
The transition of one species adapting to form a new one takes a significant amount of time. The amount of time depends on the circumstances in which the species lives and the length of time between generations. I shall repeat, it isn't an instant change and the classification of one species over an another is something to be decided on. Each breed of dog could be could be considered a separate species and the results of "mixing" two or more can invariably be seen in "mutts". Force breeding, used on many animals such as dogs, horses and cattle, is a useful example as well.
Natural selection relies on certain traits giving a member(s) of a species a statistical advantage over another, this does not imply that all the others just die off before they reproduce, invariably most manage to reproduce and this slows down the process, but over time those animals (say the larger variants) generally have a greater number of offspring and will generally pass on this trait to their offspring.
The conditions necessary for a fossil to be formed are quite unique. Not every animal that simply lies dead on the ground becomes a fossil. Again, which species do or do not experience the fossilization process is a matter of circumstance. Fortunately, there are enough intermediate "links" for us to form rough lineages of species.
I'm not really sure how you can state that similar bone structures are evidence of a single creator, but not of a common ancestor. Assuming "the lord" was/is as powerful as he is claimed to be, surely he could have used vastly different designs? laziness?
That's not evolution. That's the variation of a species. Thery're both squirls. Not much else happened to change them into anything else. Also, what makes you think that there is millions of years of time involved. Can you tell me one way in which you can prove with evidence that millions of years have happened?
There are two examples that give us a rough estimate as to the age of the earth and life on it. The first being Carbon dating. Now, before you go whipping out your ready-made book of creationist "facts", I'd like you to kindly save your "oh look at this one instance where carbon dating was wrong" for someone who is gullible enough to rely on anecdotal evidence collected by a clearly biased source.
The second piece of evidence to support the current estimate of the age of the earth is the the geographical profile of the crust. Due to shifting in the crust, it is often possible to find locations where entire cliff-faces display the geographical history of the earth. By correlating known data collected from human history (such as deposits left from eruptions that covered the globe) we can form an accurate scale to gauge the age of the earth and even pinpoint certain areas of interests. Even the ice shelves at the poles reveal similar trends.
Ever notice how everything just seems to fall inplace with evolution? I mean geeze, seroiusly "Why are monkeys here today?" "Because there where three different things that evolved" "Why don't we see the other one?" "Because it died" "What mutated them?" Etc. It's just plain nonsense, if you ask one offensive thing about evolution there's a new answer that a scientist just pulled out of his ass.
There are parallels that can be drawn between priests and scientists. The motive is the same, the search for answers, the method is vastly different.
Religion creates simple answers for people to believe in. It is slow to change and invariably tries to disprove any new knowledge acquired. It is largely based on fear; the fear of death, the fear of not having a purpose, the fear of not being the best. It does not actively search out for new answers, it simply creates it's own by loosely tying together a select group of facts and brushing aside the far great questions that are asked of it.
Science searches for answers. It doesn't instantly accept new ideas, but if the proof exists and the finder is persistent, new ideas are accepted. It is based on curiosity. It is about finding the answer, not simply creating the one that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Scientists still feel those same fears, but they do not let them dominate their work, their passion. A scientist chooses the most accurate theory over those most comfortable one. Ideas are judged based on evidence and logical inferences, not whimsical guesses.
There is some faith involved in science, if we knew for certain we wouldn't need to be looking. But to simply create the answers we want to hear is unacceptable for me, and for a significant portion of the human race.
Poll