Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Just thinking about the comments you sometimes see -- "Scientists once thought the Sun revolves around the Earth." "Scientists once thought we think with our hearts." "Scientists once though leeches could cure you of illnesses."

No, no and no. None of the people who thought those things were scientists in the modern sense of the word; none of them used the scientific method to reach their conclusions.

In fact, most "science" before the mid-1800s was quite haphazard and prone to guessing and overall shoddy work. Leonardo DaVinci was the rare exception before the advent of modern science who put it quite poetically:

"Many think that they can with reason blame me, alleging that my proofs are contrary to the authority of certain men held in great reverence by their inexperienced judgments, not considering that my works are the issue of simple and plain experience which is the true mistress.

These rules enable you to know the true from the false – and this induces men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation – and they forbid you to use a cloak of ignorance, which will bring about that you attain to no result and despair abandon yourself to melancholy."

I think it would be fair to say that comparing the "scientists" who came before the widespread use of the scientific method to today's scientists would be like comparing witch doctors to modern physicians.

... um, discuss.

PLUS
Even up until Newton many of the 'scientists' were trying to prove the divine work. Many only get re-labelled scientists when there work happens to disagree with the church.

Those corruptions are the work of Religion, and the influence it held (often on threat of torture and death) over the intellectual community at the time. It was a time when most people actually believed all knowledge was in the bible and the primary educator of the populace was the Church.

Modern Science Cannot exist with out the Scientific Methodology, to suggest so is like saying Christians followed Christs teachings before Christ existed.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just thinking about the comments you sometimes see -- "Scientists once thought the Sun revolves around the Earth." "Scientists once thought we think with our hearts." "Scientists once though leeches could cure you of illnesses."

No, no and no. None of the people who thought those things were scientists in the modern sense of the word; none of them used the scientific method to reach their conclusions.

In fact, most "science" before the mid-1800s was quite haphazard and prone to guessing and overall shoddy work. Leonardo DaVinci was the rare exception before the advent of modern science who put it quite poetically:

"Many think that they can with reason blame me, alleging that my proofs are contrary to the authority of certain men held in great reverence by their inexperienced judgments, not considering that my works are the issue of simple and plain experience which is the true mistress.

These rules enable you to know the true from the false – and this induces men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation – and they forbid you to use a cloak of ignorance, which will bring about that you attain to no result and despair abandon yourself to melancholy."

I think it would be fair to say that comparing the "scientists" who came before the widespread use of the scientific method to today's scientists would be like comparing witch doctors to modern physicians.

... um, discuss.

Good afternoon Ben.

Please forgive me for being ever so gently cynical,but is this your surreptitious way of saying that climate change is man made?

true science hasn't changed, it's still only a fact until proven wrong..lol

Shady wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just thinking about the comments you sometimes see -- "Scientists once thought the Sun revolves around the Earth." "Scientists once thought we think with our hearts." "Scientists once though leeches could cure you of illnesses."

No, no and no. None of the people who thought those things were scientists in the modern sense of the word; none of them used the scientific method to reach their conclusions.

In fact, most "science" before the mid-1800s was quite haphazard and prone to guessing and overall shoddy work. Leonardo DaVinci was the rare exception before the advent of modern science who put it quite poetically:

"Many think that they can with reason blame me, alleging that my proofs are contrary to the authority of certain men held in great reverence by their inexperienced judgments, not considering that my works are the issue of simple and plain experience which is the true mistress.

These rules enable you to know the true from the false – and this induces men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation – and they forbid you to use a cloak of ignorance, which will bring about that you attain to no result and despair abandon yourself to melancholy."

I think it would be fair to say that comparing the "scientists" who came before the widespread use of the scientific method to today's scientists would be like comparing witch doctors to modern physicians.

... um, discuss.

Good afternoon Ben.

Please forgive me for being ever so gently cynical,but is this your surreptitious way of saying that climate change is man made?

Though I do accept the evidence that says it is, that's not why I posted this. I actually stumbled across something yesterday that was titled "10 Big Things Scientists Got Wrong" and it inspired this thread -- it had things like "surgeons never used to think hand-washing was necessary." Well, that was before their field was revolutionized by the scientific method; it's not fair to compare one guy who had a hunch about why something worked the way it did to someone else who conducted a rigorous investigation, gathered evidence and tested his/her ideas.

heavenly father wrote:true science hasn't changed, it's still only a fact until proven wrong..lol

Not true at all -- science never declares itself right:

Science never claims to be infallible. There would be no need for more research if scientists believed they had all the answers, and all of them right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/science-is-not-religion_b_3870282.html

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:true science hasn't changed, it's still only a fact until proven wrong..lol

Not true at all -- science never declares itself right:

Science never claims to be infallible. There would be no need for more research if scientists believed they had all the answers, and all of them right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/science-is-not-religion_b_3870282.html

good so we can say evolution is not a proven fact then... :D

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:true science hasn't changed, it's still only a fact until proven wrong..lol

Not true at all -- science never declares itself right:

Science never claims to be infallible. There would be no need for more research if scientists believed they had all the answers, and all of them right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/science-is-not-religion_b_3870282.html

good so we can say evolution is not a proven fact then... :D

No, we only say it is well-established, supported by an abundance of evidence and has been replicated in a laboratory experiment.

More established than some already debunked loony belief that everything was done in 6 days

PhilDidge wrote:More established than some already debunked loony belief that everything was done in 6 days

True, and evolution's pretty obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence. But who/what created the first spark of life to enable it to evolve?

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:More established than some already debunked loony belief that everything was done in 6 days

True, and evolution's pretty obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence.  But who/what created the first spark of life to enable it to evolve?

That is the 60 million dollar question Tess, one I have no answer to!
Maybe one day we will know, as am sure someone will discover why

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:More established than some already debunked loony belief that everything was done in 6 days

True, and evolution's pretty obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence.  But who/what created the first spark of life to enable it to evolve?

Did it have to be created in the first place? That would imply that the creator would have had to have been created as well. But if you just mean in the sense of "how did life originate," scientists are still investigating how that could have come about, in the field of abiogenesis.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:true science hasn't changed, it's still only a fact until proven wrong..lol

Not true at all -- science never declares itself right:

Science never claims to be infallible. There would be no need for more research if scientists believed they had all the answers, and all of them right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/science-is-not-religion_b_3870282.html

Hang on Ben.Many of the pro climate change scientists claim to be right & that their findings are irrefutable.No I don't have a link to evidence that but it's something that is abundantly obvious in articles etc & one of the reasons why many people are so sceptical of their findings.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tess. wrote:
True, and evolution's pretty obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence.  But who/what created the first spark of life to enable it to evolve?

Did it have to be created in the first place? That would imply that the creator would have had to have been created as well. But if you just mean in the sense of "how did life originate," scientists are still investigating how that could have come about, in the field of abiogenesis.

Well everything's created, it can't just "be" - chicken and egg - mind-boggling! Even the idea of an infinite universe scrambles my brain cells when I try to envisage it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

good so we can say evolution is not a proven fact then... :D

No, we only say it is well-established, supported by an abundance of evidence and has been replicated in a laboratory experiment.

well established meaning people have been told it so many times they now accept it...

really how dd they replicate it in labs?

:D   IT was always various religious leaders, seers and prophets, philosophers and "wise men" who made such stupidly arrogant statements. And then killed anyone who dared to disagree with them..

There were NO actual "scientists" as such back in those olden days...  (The much ballyhooed "alchemists" weren't genuine scientists either, but fraudulent and largely superstitious charlatans..).

EVEN when creationists try to attack Darwinism, they only manage to trip themselves up further as the so-called "scientist" that they most often mis-quote as stating that "Mr. Darwin says that we were descended from apes and monkeys!" was in fact an ANGLICAN BISHOP who was abusing and attempting to ridicule Darwin !   

AND SO ON to the "climate denialists" of today, as they carry out  the dirty work of the mining, oil and energy sectors ~ again they have only a handful of actual "scientists"among their ranks, amid hundreds of spin-doctors and lobbyists, accountants and lawyers, politicians and former journalists (viz. Fake-Lord Chris "LardArse" Monckton..), happily funded through their various branches by the miners, the Koch_Bros. and the likes of Ruppert Murdoch..  

"Scientists", indeed...

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

good so we can say evolution is not a proven fact then... :D

No, we only say it is well-established, supported by an abundance of evidence and has been replicated in a laboratory experiment.

well established meaning people have been told it so many times they now accept it...

really how dd they replicate it in labs?

Richard Lenski's been running an experiment on E. Coli bacteria for decades now, isolating individual colonies and including things in their environment that are known to be used as food by E. Coli and things that had been known to never be used as food by E. Coli.

About seven years ago, one of the colonies began to devour a chemical that had killed off previous generations -- it would be like if we evolved the ability to thrive on eating cyanide.

Of course, more informally, evolution is demonstrated every time pests evolve resistances to pesticides or infections evolve resistances to antibiotics, as well.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

well established meaning people have been told it so many times they now accept it...

really how dd they replicate it in labs?

Richard Lenski's been running an experiment on E. Coli bacteria for decades now, isolating individual colonies and including things in their environment that are known to be used as food by E. Coli and things that had been known to never be used as food by E. Coli.

About seven years ago, one of the colonies began to devour a chemical that had killed off previous generations -- it would be like if we evolved the ability to thrive on eating cyanide.

Of course, more informally, evolution is demonstrated every time pests evolve resistances to pesticides or infections evolve resistances to antibiotics, as well.

that sounds lie intelligent design, they are interfering with the ecoli, thats not evolving through natural means is it.

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

No, we only say it is well-established, supported by an abundance of evidence and has been replicated in a laboratory experiment.

well established meaning people have been told it so many times they now accept it...

really how dd they replicate it in labs?

  

ARE you really that far "in ignorant denial", or simply a good actor, Mr. Father ???

  

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Richard Lenski's been running an experiment on E. Coli bacteria for decades now, isolating individual colonies and including things in their environment that are known to be used as food by E. Coli and things that had been known to never be used as food by E. Coli.

About seven years ago, one of the colonies began to devour a chemical that had killed off previous generations -- it would be like if we evolved the ability to thrive on eating cyanide.

Of course, more informally, evolution is demonstrated every time pests evolve resistances to pesticides or infections evolve resistances to antibiotics, as well.

that sounds lie intelligent design, they are interfering with the ecoli, thats not evolving through natural means is it.

  

Rubbish !

Obviously you have ZERO knowledge of the subject, Mr. Father..   

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

well established meaning people have been told it so many times they now accept it...

really how dd they replicate it in labs?

Richard Lenski's been running an experiment on E. Coli bacteria for decades now, isolating individual colonies and including things in their environment that are known to be used as food by E. Coli and things that had been known to never be used as food by E. Coli.

About seven years ago, one of the colonies began to devour a chemical that had killed off previous generations -- it would be like if we evolved the ability to thrive on eating cyanide.

Of course, more informally, evolution is demonstrated every time pests evolve resistances to pesticides or infections evolve resistances to antibiotics, as well.

that sounds lie intelligent design, they are interfering with the ecoli, thats not evolving through natural means is it.

They didn't tamper with its DNA -- that's what would have been required for any kind of design. They simply let it live around things that could be used for food and things that couldn't be used for food; eventually a strain evolved that could use something that had been a poison for food, through natural selection.

Beekeeper wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

well established meaning people have been told it so many times they now accept it...

really how dd they replicate it in labs?

  


ARE you really that far "in ignorant denial", or simply a good actor, Mr. Father  ???  

  

none of the above... :D 

Beekeeper wrote:

heavenly father wrote:
that sounds lie intelligent design, they are interfering with the ecoli, thats not evolving through natural means is it.

  

Rubbish !

Obviously you have ZERO knowledge of the subject, Mr. Father..     

Bee he is an advocate of creationism, a Born again Christian, they do not do reason!

PhilDidge wrote:

Beekeeper wrote:

heavenly father wrote:
that sounds lie intelligent design, they are interfering with the ecoli, thats not evolving through natural means is it.

  

Rubbish !

Obviously you have ZERO knowledge of the subject, Mr. Father..     

Bee he is an advocate of creationism, a Born again Christian, they do not do reason!

Ah, then we're arguing with someone who refuses to allow himself to be convinced? What a great use of our time ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Bee he is an advocate of creationism, a Born again Christian, they do not do reason!

Ah, then we're arguing with someone who refuses to allow himself to be convinced? What a great use of our time ...

Indeed Ben, hence the warning!

Catch you later

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

that sounds lie intelligent design, they are interfering with the ecoli, thats not evolving through natural means is it.

They didn't tamper with its DNA -- that's what would have been required for any kind of design. They simply let it live around things that could be used for food and things that couldn't be used for food; eventually a strain evolved that could use something that had been a poison for food, through natural selection.

No it wouldn't if they have altered it on purpose by introducing something it wouldn't come to contact with, that's intelligent design, besides it started as ecoli it finished as ecoli, what did it actually evolve in to.

Of course it could have come into contact with the stuff it couldn't eat in nature -- how else would scientists know the bacteria couldn't eat it? That's not intelligent design at all; that's no more intelligent design than if you put a bowl of rocks in front of your pet to see if the pet would eat it or not.

PhilDidge wrote:

Beekeeper wrote:
  

Rubbish !

Obviously you have ZERO knowledge of the subject, Mr. Father..     

Bee he is an advocate of creationism, a Born again Christian, they do not do reason!

is this an off topic attack on another poster, where's admin when you want them!!

It evolved into a strand of E. coli that could consume citrate, unlike any other strand of E. coli on Earth.

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Beekeeper wrote:
  

Rubbish !

Obviously you have ZERO knowledge of the subject, Mr. Father..     

Bee he is an advocate of creationism, a Born again Christian, they do not do reason!

is this an off topic attack on another poster, where's admin when you want them!!

Advising another member whether their argument is going to make any difference is hardly off-topic. But I'm sorry you're insulted by being called a Christian; Beekeeper, keep your nasty insults to yourself!  ::roglol:: ::roglol:: ::roglol:: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:Of course it could have come into contact with the stuff it couldn't eat in nature -- how else would scientists know the bacteria couldn't eat it? That's not intelligent design at all; that's no more intelligent design than if you put a bowl of rocks in front of your pet to see if the pet would eat it or not.

if you purposely add chemicals to it to see what it does you are trying to transform it, you know what you are adding you know what reaction you expect, you are attempting to create the result you require is that not intelligent design.

is it still e coli?

Tess. wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Did it have to be created in the first place? That would imply that the creator would have had to have been created as well. But if you just mean in the sense of "how did life originate," scientists are still investigating how that could have come about, in the field of abiogenesis.

Well everything's created, it can't just "be" - chicken and egg - mind-boggling!  Even the idea of an infinite universe scrambles my brain cells when I try to envisage it.

  

"Well everything's created, ..."

THAT silly little statement alone exposes the total lack of science in your education, more than anything else !

  

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Of course it could have come into contact with the stuff it couldn't eat in nature -- how else would scientists know the bacteria couldn't eat it? That's not intelligent design at all; that's no more intelligent design than if you put a bowl of rocks in front of your pet to see if the pet would eat it or not.

if you purposely add chemicals to it to see what it does you are trying to transform it, you know what you are adding you know what reaction you expect, you are attempting to create the result you require is that not intelligent design.

is it still   e coli?

Chemicals weren't added to it, they were added to its environment the same way, as I said before, you might add a bowl of rocks to your dog's environment. It evolved a strain of E. coli that could consume citrate, unlike all other E. coli.

Maybe you should read up on the experiment before you ask any other really uninformed questions about it. Here, I'll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Tess. wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tess. wrote:
True, and evolution's pretty obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence.  But who/what created the first spark of life to enable it to evolve?

Did it have to be created in the first place? That would imply that the creator would have had to have been created as well. But if you just mean in the sense of "how did life originate," scientists are still investigating how that could have come about, in the field of abiogenesis.

Well everything's created, it can't just "be" - chicken and egg - mind-boggling!  Even the idea of an infinite universe scrambles my brain cells when I try to envisage it.

If everything's "created" then the creator would have to be created too, and you're right back with the egg boggling your chicken.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

if you purposely add chemicals to it to see what it does you are trying to transform it, you know what you are adding you know what reaction you expect, you are attempting to create the result you require is that not intelligent design.

is it still   e coli?

Chemicals weren't added to it, they were added to its environment the same way, as I said before, you might add a bowl of rocks to your dog's environment. It evolved a strain of E. coli that could consume citrate, unlike all other E. coli.

Maybe you should read up on the experiment before you ask any other really uninformed questions about it. Here, I'll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

where the chemicals put in its environment to affect it in the way they expected it too...

is it still e coli??

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

if you purposely add chemicals to it to see what it does you are trying to transform it, you know what you are adding you know what reaction you expect, you are attempting to create the result you require is that not intelligent design.

is it still   e coli?

Chemicals weren't added to it, they were added to its environment the same way, as I said before, you might add a bowl of rocks to your dog's environment. It evolved a strain of E. coli that could consume citrate, unlike all other E. coli.

Maybe you should read up on the experiment before you ask any other really uninformed questions about it. Here, I'll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

where the chemicals put in its environment to affect it in the way they expected it too...

is it still e coli??

It is still E. coli, but like a dog that could live on rocks.

They had no idea whether any E. coli would evolve any new abilities in the experiment -- that's why they ran it -- please read the article before you ask any other rubbish questions!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

where the chemicals put in its environment to affect it in the way they expected it too...

is it still e coli??

It is still E. coli, but like a dog that could live on rocks.

They had no idea whether any E. coli would evolve any new abilities in the experiment -- that's why they ran it -- please read the article before you ask any other rubbish questions!

if it's still e coli it did not evolve, it still what it was, it has not changed species an therefore does not help the argument that we evolved from another species.

funny how you said earlier science does no claim to be absolutely right but here's everyone calling me stupid for not believing what is simply sciences best guess so far and likely to change..and lets face it evolution theory itself has evolved to save it self from extinction...

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

where the chemicals put in its environment to affect it in the way they expected it too...

is it still e coli??

It is still E. coli, but like a dog that could live on rocks.

They had no idea whether any E. coli would evolve any new abilities in the experiment -- that's why they ran it -- please read the article before you ask any other rubbish questions!

if it's still e coli it did not evolve, it still what it was, it has not changed species an therefore does not help the argument that we evolved from another species.

funny how you said earlier science does no claim to be absolutely right but here's everyone calling me stupid for not believing what is simply sciences best guess so far and likely to change..and lets face it evolution theory itself has evolved to save it self from extinction...

That's how science goes; answers get refined by new and better evidence. It's not a guess if you've tested it and shown that it holds up in an experiment.

No, the Lenski experiment did not evolve a new species, but it did show something quite astonishing. Like I said before, it would be like a breed of dog evolving the ability to live on rocks.

I notice you didn't take me up on antibiotics and pesticides -- those poisons put selective pressure (on antibodies and insects respectively) to evolve immunities. There is no other explanation for why, for example, antibiotic-resistant infections and mosquitoes that can't be killed by DDT exist.

There is plenty of other evidence for evolution from one species into others -- transitional fossils are actually the least of it, but they're the most striking evidence.

One more thing -- a guess would be if I didn't know anything about you and said you were stubborn.

An experiment would be if I had a discussion with you like this one, and then said you were stubborn. See, now I have evidence

they didn't evolve immunities, they were made to become immune, the only outside influence was by someone who decided how t best do it, which is design..

I would like to see any evidence of change from one species to another, transitional fossils are quite lacking in number to show evolution over a slow period that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented to fill the gaping holes that the fossil record should have shown.

Ben_Reilly wrote:One more thing -- a guess would be if I didn't know anything about you and said you were stubborn.

An experiment would be if I had a discussion with you like this one, and then said you were stubborn. See, now I have evidence

I'm not stubborn i'm just not convinced that evolution is true, it might be man's best guess so far but it has too many holes.

heavenly father wrote:they didn't evolve immunities, they were made to become immune, the only outside influence was by someone who decided how t best do it, which is design..

I would like to see any evidence of change from one species to another, transitional fossils are quite lacking in number to show evolution over a slow period that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented to fill the gaping holes that the fossil record should have shown.

Wow, you have no idea how natural or artificial selection work, do you? I'm speechless. I feel like I'm arguing with someone who insists that a peanut butter sandwich is not very fast for a speedboat ...

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:One more thing -- a guess would be if I didn't know anything about you and said you were stubborn.

An experiment would be if I had a discussion with you like this one, and then said you were stubborn. See, now I have evidence

I'm not stubborn i'm just not convinced that evolution is true, it might be man's best guess so far but it has too many holes.

OK, let's try this -- what holes?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:they didn't evolve immunities, they were made to become immune, the only outside influence was by someone who decided how t best do it, which is design..

I would like to see any evidence of change from one species to another, transitional fossils are quite lacking in number to show evolution over a slow period that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented to fill the gaping holes that the fossil record should have shown.

Wow, you have no idea how natural or artificial selection work, do you? I'm speechless. I feel like I'm arguing with someone who insists that a peanut butter sandwich is not very fast for a speedboat ...

you see that's another point, natural selection was nothing to do with evolution, now it seems to have blended, because natural selection works but it does not make new species.

You go on like evolution is a science fact, yet you said earlier science does not claim to be an infallible fact, what has changed.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

I'm not stubborn i'm just not convinced that evolution is true, it might be man's best guess so far but it has too many holes.

OK, let's try this -- what holes?

fossil gaps, no changes in species, mutations, they are always neutral or negative, what mutations could ever change a species from one to another, how did opposite sexes evolve at the same time, what mutation caused the different sexes, any mechanism for evolution..any of those are a start..

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:they didn't evolve immunities, they were made to become immune, the only outside influence was by someone who decided how t best do it, which is design..

I would like to see any evidence of change from one species to another, transitional fossils are quite lacking in number to show evolution over a slow period that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented to fill the gaping holes that the fossil record should have shown.

Wow, you have no idea how natural or artificial selection work, do you? I'm speechless. I feel like I'm arguing with someone who insists that a peanut butter sandwich is not very fast for a speedboat ...

you see that's another point, natural selection was nothing to do with evolution, now it seems to have blended, because natural selection works but it does not make new species.

You go on like evolution is a science fact, yet you said earlier science does not claim to be an infallible fact, what has changed.

Natural selection is the engine that drives evolution -- if you don't know that, you're starting from square one.

I'm not saying it's "fact" so much as I'm saying that mountains of evidence support the theory. It's the most acceptable explanation we've come up with thus far.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

you see that's another point, natural selection was nothing to do with evolution, now it seems to have blended, because natural selection works but it does not make new species.

You go on like evolution is a science fact, yet you said earlier science does not claim to be an infallible fact, what has changed.

Natural selection is the engine that drives evolution -- if you don't know that, you're starting from square one.

I'm not saying it's "fact" so much as I'm saying that mountains of evidence support the theory. It's the most acceptable explanation we've come up with thus far.

has natural selection ever created a completely new species?

OK, not my job to teach you about evolution. I can, however, introduce you to a few things that you can read or watch that may, if you're open to persuasion by logic, help:



http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution1.htm

http://seattletimes.com/html/health/2003501111_carnalknowledge31.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IICgaps.shtml

http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_54_29.html

Great lecture here by Richard Dawkins here on evolution (though I doubt the Father will watch it....).

Some key points:

Why gaps? Well first of all not EVERY human corpse will fossilize or remain in any form to be found- by sheer fortune we have those we do and there will be more. However without any such remains evolution would still be true. And to show how ludicrous the gaps argument is- Dawkins points out that say we have evolved humanoid A and a slightly more evolved humanoid B. The creationist says, there is a gap between A and B, evolution is BS!

Then we find humanoid AB, fitting perfectly between the previous 2 evolved humanoids. Evidence enough? No, no says the creationist. Now you just have 2 gaps. What came between A and AB? and what followed AB before becoming B? It's an infinite succession of gaps for the creationist...

Another point; if evolution was wrong; then we'd have fossils of animals existent today, Dawkins takes a rabbit for example, from million of years ago if they didn't 'evolve' as we know they did. However, we have no modern wild life remains from prehistoric eras- why? Because those species alive today have evolved from animals roaming the earth millions of years ago.

The link is well worth a watch, especially the first hour which is the lecture itself prior to questions. Dawkins may rile people with his strident atheism but on evolution he is flawless and takes care of every deluded (or ignorant) naysayer's arguments piece by piece.

The 'theory' of evolution is as much a fact as the 'theory' of gravity. Theory in this case meaning the explanation of a process which is proven, and undisputed due to solid evidence by anyone with a functioning brain  

they are still rabbits a million years later..lol what has evolved..

still would like to know the mutations that cause species to change to another, or a different sex even.