Revolutionary new food item! :D

[Zephyr]

There are several reasons. The most obvious one is that it's psychologically satisfying to do it. Other reasons why it would be in our interest, as opposed to just "fun", is that it keeps the ecosystem better able to withstand disturbances if it has a higher biodiversity and that every species has potentially valuable genetic information that we may one day find a use for. Right now, worms are drastically reducing the biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems in North America.

But if evolution is driving for change, wouldn't the fittest survive? Let's say due to the worm's expansion, hence environmental changes, only garter snakes survive. They're the fittest of the fit; everything else failed. That would be evolution. But due to the lack of diversity, evolution wouldn't be able to happen. Evolution isn't a drive for change: It's a drive for finding the best and keeping it that way. Hence the reason why it doesn't work.

If that ever happened, I'd have to stop believing that the theory of evolution is a viable option. It simply doesn't work that way.

Well, apparently ichthyostega just sorta crawled out of the ocean and became the first amphibian. The fossil record doesn't show a gradual change; the evidence it has suggests a very rapid change. So what if you have sinoropteryx and archaeopteryx, and you say one "evolved" into another? Where's every little step in between, the specimen that is a little different than archaeopteryx, then a teeny bit more, then a little more, that evolution would require? The data shows a rapid change; not a slow one.

And by entirely different, you mean of course from a cat to a dog, not through gradual changes over a long period of time until the existing species is entirely different from the one it started out as. And you are of course incorrect, it has been observed and recorded several times.

Then let's take a look at Canis lupus familiaris. Over the past 1000 years, a relatively short window in the "history" of the earth, humans have spawned the many breeds we see today. In just that little time, we took a "wolf" and made it a "dog." Even so, we still see fertile dog x wolf crosses, of two animals that don't even have the same temperament, hunting techniques, or most anything else. You could barely even classify the dog as a subspecies of the wolf, more or less a variety. The selection and production of the dog by man shows that even within a comparatively short series of time, one thing can change its appearance but not what it is.
Same with goldfish; You can take a crucian carp and convert it to a pudgy, bubble-nosed aquarium pet, but no amount of even human selection could change it into anything near an amphibian. You can only work with what you have: In horses, 64 chromosomes, in donkeys, 62. If you so much as subtract one chromosome, you get a sterile animal. So how on earth do you expect me to believe that evolution defied known science and flopped the count of a few original chromosome sets and made man, more or less even a fertile animal! It's also known that it's easier for things to fall apart than stay together, like when an untended garden becomes overrun with weeds. The same is true with genetics; you can only subtract to get a desired outcome. Using this information, evolution wouldn't be adding genetic information, but rather deleting it. One bacteria isn't immune to an antibiotic; the immunity isn't added but rather the information in the bacteria's genetic structure deletes the weakness to the antibiotic, therefore making it immune. Therefore, to change any feature, you have to delete genetic material that says you can't have it. So, we're looking at the first organism being the most genetically complex organism to exist on Earth . Which coincidently, was formed entirely by accident. You can simulate early Earth conditions in a lab, but no matter how much help you give your materials, you'll never make life. The chances of a whole bunch of proteins and other structures snapping together to make a living organism defies the odds itself!

The evidence. Who's to say that it isn't?

This could go back and forth. But until some one travels back in time, snaps a photo, and brings it back with written observations of how everything occurred, I won't be entirely convinced.

[Stefan-A]

But if evolution is driving for change, wouldn't the fittest survive? Let's say due to the worm's expansion, hence environmental changes, only garter snakes survive. They're the fittest of the fit; everything else failed. That would be evolution. But due to the lack of diversity, evolution wouldn't be able to happen. Evolution isn't a drive for change: It's a drive for finding the best and keeping it that way. Hence the reason why it doesn't work.

Evolution isn't a drive for anything and neither is natural selection/survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest isn't an ideology, or a goal. It's a process.

In the garters' case, the introduction of the worms may provide one new food source, but it's one that does in fact cause habitat loss, which may very well harm the garters directly, especially in the long run. And if the conditions changed in a way that would knock out the worms, then those species dependent on the worms would also be knocked out. Even if the worms do fine, then the empoverished ecosystem has little or no resilience when something like climate change, or a natural disaster for example, occurs.

Well, apparently ichthyostega just sorta crawled out of the ocean and became the first amphibian. The fossil record doesn't show a gradual change; the evidence it has suggests a very rapid change. So what if you have sinoropteryx and archaeopteryx, and you say one "evolved" into another? Where's every little step in between, the specimen that is a little different than archaeopteryx, then a teeny bit more, then a little more, that evolution would require? The data shows a rapid change; not a slow one.

You do realize that the "rapid" means rapid to geological terms, i.e. millions of years, not a few hundred or a few thousand?

According to what I've just read in the past 5 minutes, Sinosauropteryx and Archaeopteryx weren't even closely related. But even if one was a direct descendant of the other, it's an unrealistic expectation to find a fossil of every single animal in the whole chain between them. It's a completely ludicrous requirement to have a representative of every single mutation.

Then let's take a look at Canis lupus familiaris. Over the past 1000 years,

The evidence suggests it's more like 15 000 years.

a relatively short window in the "history" of the earth, humans have spawned the many breeds we see today. In just that little time, we took a "wolf" and made it a "dog." Even so, we still see fertile dog x wolf crosses,

We see fertile crosses, because they have been separated merely for a few thousand years. You probably already know this, but reproduction between dogs and wolves has become more difficult, partially because of the size difference between many dog breeds and the wolves, because of differences in behavior and because wolves are often having trouble identifying dogs as members of their own species. Most wolves don't treat a dog as another wolf, they treat it as prey. Speciation is already occurring, because the reproductive separation is already well established, albeit relatively new.

Same with goldfish; You can take a crucian carp and convert it to a pudgy, bubble-nosed aquarium pet, but no amount of even human selection could change it into anything near an amphibian.

Again, they don't jump from one limb of the phylogenetic tree to another, and thus far, we have been unable to do more than to select. When we breed, we do not create the mutations, we just work with the ones that have occurred naturally and more importantly, mutations that we can detect. Provided that we had an infinite amount of time and thus an infinite amount and kind of mutations to choose from, we could get the correct random mutations that would make it possible for us to breed an amphibian-like animal that descends from goldfish. There is no natural law that could prevent it, if you ignore the simple fact that we do not have an infinite amount of time and cannot therefore choose the mutations that will turn a goldfish into a salamander.

You can only work with what you have: In horses, 64 chromosomes, in donkeys, 62. If you so much as subtract one chromosome, you get a sterile animal. So how on earth do you expect me to believe that evolution defied known science and flopped the count of a few original chromosome sets and made man, more or less even a fertile animal!

It's very simple. Chromosomes fuse and split to form new chromosomes and they still retain the information we need to determine a common ancestor. Remember, we're talking about gradual changes, not a horse giving birth to a freak with two less chromosomes. I haven't bothered checking the counts, they're irrelevant to the discussion.

So how would I expect you to believe? Well, there are no competing scientific theories to the theory of evolution and every new discovery fills in another gap in our understanding of it.

It's also known that it's easier for things to fall apart than stay together, like when an untended garden becomes overrun with weeds.

Ah, the good old entropy argument. You have no idea how many times it has been torn apart.

The same is true with genetics; you can only subtract to get a desired outcome. Using this information, evolution wouldn't be adding genetic information, but rather deleting it.

Now that's simply untrue. "Copying errors" and mutations constantly add information to the genetic code, it's not something that is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics.

One bacteria isn't immune to an antibiotic; the immunity isn't added but rather the information in the bacteria's genetic structure deletes the weakness to the antibiotic, therefore making it immune.

Incorrect. It can be a question of deleting information or adding information, but the end result is that the antibiotic doesn't have an effect on the bacteria. It's a matter of changing bacteria, which doesn't mean that information has to be deleted.

Therefore, to change any feature, you have to delete genetic material that says you can't have it.

Not at all.

So, we're looking at the first organism being the most genetically complex organism to exist on Earth.

Complete nonsense, considering that the molecule can gain material and does so.

Which coincidently, was formed entirely by accident.

It's called chemistry, there's not much that's accidental about it.

You can simulate early Earth conditions in a lab, but no matter how much help you give your materials, you'll never make life.

And why not?

You're not talking about evolution anymore, you're talking about abiogenesis and there are a number of possible ways that we know of, that could have started it all.

The chances of a whole bunch of proteins and other structures snapping together to make a living organism defies the odds itself!

Nonsense. We're talking about chemistry here, it follows strict rules, some of which makes it easier and much more probable for molecules to "snap together" in a certain way. Talking about odds is pointless, too. The often quoted probabilities are completely irrelevant.

This could go back and forth. But until some one travels back in time, snaps a photo, and brings it back with written observations of how everything occurred, I won't be entirely convinced.

The photo could be fake, the person could be lying or may just have misunderstood what he saw. That's also something that could happen if you had the opportunity to go back and see for yourself. Without applying the scientific method, you wouldn't know what you're looking at.