Yes it has been and is being observed a simple Google search will give you many references of observed speciation.
It seems that you have no valid idea of what evolutionary theory even says, but instead you spout the same "straw man" definitions that AIG and CARM have been using (incorrectly I might add) for years.
Evolution: The occurrence of heritable changes in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool of a population over time.
Some Major Mechanisms by which it occurs:
Natural Selection, Gene Flow, Mutations and Genetic Drift
Every animal is a transitional species between what preceded it and what will follow it .. humans included. We can confirm it both morphologically as well as through genetics (something unavailable to Darwin, but which confirms evolution's predictions)
Students should demand evidence, but unlike you, they should recognize it and acknowledge it when it is presented and not simply cling to religious dogma.
Prairie_dog ... hey, you're right..fair is fair .. I say lampoon all the religions of the world....it's time to end superstition once and for all.
Christians want a say in social policy based in part on their beliefs...fine. But when you try to convince others to vote for what you'd like to see...do try to remember that we live in a plural society and that most people are not going to be convinced by the dictates of your religion. If you can't make a reasonable case for a particular position based on secular arguments and logic...then just maybe what you are trying to do is turn us into a theocracy .... no thanks.
Conservative .... I kinda like it. I say he should run it for 6 days, then take a break and rest on the seventh! :)
It was the observable universe I was speaking of at 46 billion light years. However my point was to answer someone else's comment about the probability of life based on the paltry amount of coverage from 40 odd years of sending signals into space.
In regards to waiting for an answer, i completely agree with you.
The 17.8 or sometimes ~15 is based on an incorrect calculation of only using the age of the universe .. it fails to account for the expansion of space-time as well...hence the 46 billion is correct.
Yes, you can safely say that so far, it appears we are alone in the universe. That neither implies a miracle, nor does it preclude us from discovering life in the future.
My point was, since we have "explored" such an infinitely small portion of the known universe, you really can't use that as indicating a likeliness that we are in fact alone.
This is why I reduced it to more understandable proportions...i.e. the United States...no one in their right mind would, after exploring a fraction of a square millimeter of space, proceed to say that this should somehow be seen as indicating a likelihood of not finding anyone anywhere in the US.
Who says there is no life anywhere else? Do you have any idea of the size of even the observable universe? It is roughly 45 billion light years in diameter....and you think there isn't any life out there because we've been broadcasting signals for the last few decades?
A few quick calculations will show how silly this statement is. The observable universe is roughly 45 billion light years in diameter. If we were to reduce that to the approximate size of the United states ~3000 miles. Now let's imagine that we have been sending signals at the speed of light for the last 40 years, then what you are saying is equivalent to saying that since I sent out my carrier pigeon and it has had a chance to travel 0.00168" (0.04 mm) then obviously there is no one else living in the US because no one has responded yet!!!
Need I say more?
Theory and fact are two very different things in biology, and in the sciences in general. Theories do not become facts, and facts are not higher on the certainty ladder than theories. If you must comment on them, at least learn what the words mean.
Dear conservative .... evolutionary theory says absolutely NOTHING about the origin of life...zero, null, nothing.
Please, even if you don't accept evolution, learn what it is before you try critiquing it in a public venue ... unless being ridiculed is your goal.
Yes, there certainly were some hoaxes perpetrated, and guess who uncovered and exposed them...the scientific community did so after examining and testing the data presented....you don't seem to have a problem accepting scientific verification in those cases.
Exactly what "non-foundation" does evolution attempt to build on and what testable theory would you propose as an alternative which can do at least as good a job at explaining all of the data accumulated from archaeology, molecular biology, anthropology and genetics over the years?