Evolution itself is an observable fact – artificial selection, microbial mutation causing resistance to antibiotics, the ongoing development of ‘ring’ species such as the herring/lesser black-backed gull complex.

Please use all the available information/evidence to come to a conclusion. I read the bible when I was young and, because of peer pressure, believed for a short while. Then I grew up and realised that there was no evidence to support anything the bible says. I also found out that Santa was a myth too.

Time to grow up people.

Also, evolution is not just “random alterations”. You seem to have forgotten about natural selection. Or were you ignorant of it?
No, I was just being an ass.

Not JUST a theory. TRIUMPHANTLY a theory. Theories are what make science useful!
So just triumphantly a theory — so what? My point still stands scientifically.

No, you are getting it wrong again. The whole REASON science exists is that we don’t know stuff. Science is about figuring it out!

To be a good scientist, you must be able to admit that we don’t know, and be curious enough to try to figure it out instead of resorting to “God did it”.

Yet there are still flawed people who are bad scientists.

You are getting it wrong AGAIN!

When a scientist doesn’t have enough information he DOES admit that! And he keeps looking for information. THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS!

Then why does science sometimes tend to not follow their own rules of positivism? Because sometimes scientists become desperate.

| For all you haters, prove that evolution exists. Show me
| one species that has evolved into another..name me one
| time that an ape has had a human baby, or human that has
| an ape child.

Your understanding of evolution is unfortunately rather poor.

*My knowledge of evolution is much better then yours and this is not a strw man..I see you spew a lot of hot air about nonsense, yet seemingly forget to provide one instance where one animal evolved into another as you evolutionists claim.*

The evidence you ask for is in fact a straw man. Evolutionary theory does not state that one species suddenly gives birth to another existing species. It doesn’t even state that one species suddenly gives birth to a completely new species. Evolution is a slow and gradual process.

*horsesh^t, that statement is a strawman argument. Evolutionists claim that we evolved from sea creatures..a completely different animal, yet you nor they have ever provided proof of the existance of same, and that is what I am asking you to do.*

If you want evidence of evolution (science does not deal with “proof”), pick up a book on the subject and educate yourself. One good example is ERVs, Endogenous Retroviruses. They are located in the exact same place in the genome in several completely different species. This “just happens” to coincide with their relationship in the evolutionary tree. The only possible explanation is that they share a common ancestor.

*you have got to be the dumbest twit I ever had the displeasure to meet. Are you saying that there is no “proof” that if you fall gravity wont pull you down to the ground? That you moron is a scientific PROOF. And you are also wrong about your statement about Endogenous Retroviruses, what you are trying to say is Mitrocondreal DNA. AMA and the CDC as well as Nature magazine has already debunked your claim concerning Endogenous Retroviruses, so you really need to grab a book and educate yourself as you are wrong according to medical science*

| Even Darwin stated that he could not prove that evolution
| existed, that it was a theory as it could not be proved.

Darwin did not state that, but you don’t “prove” scientific theories. You gather data and see if the theory matches all known data. 150 years later, evolution is still supported by all facts and contradicted by none.

*WRONG!! You really should educate yourself you ignorant twit! Quote “As Darwin himself put it, in a letter to the geologist Charles Lyell shortly after publication of Origin, “I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent … if I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish.” Or how about this statement from Darwin himself? “In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man’s selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not.” (Darwin C.R., letter to G. Bentham, May 22 1863, in Darwin F., ed., “The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,” [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, p.210. Parentheses in original)So I guess you are now calling Darwin a liar yet you still believe what he wrote?? sort of blows your statement to he!! and back and makes you look very stupid for calling darwin a liar, yet holding onto a liars life work with the fevor of a fanatic!*

| And just remember, dogs changing is not evolution nor is
| domesticating cows, that is called selective breeding

Actually, domestic selective breeding uses the same concept as natural selection does in nature: Life changes over time. What changes survive is determined by the environment, or the breeder.

*sigh…here we go again with myths. Selective breeding is the INTENTIONAL breeding in or out of traits that the breeder wants. nature has nothing to do with this and to try and sya that it does is yet another straw man argument. Again I ask that you provide ONE animal that proves this..I wont worry about waiting as you CANNOT!*

#87 common sense (October 14th, 2008 | 22:01)

# Piltdown man
# Java man
# Nebraska man

Wait a minute… You are saying that these hoaxes that WERE EXPOSED BY SCIENTISTS are somehow relevant to the discussion?

*No stupid, these hoxes were BY scientists trying to prove the existance of evolution and were debunked by others. In fact the tooth of the wild pig was proven by a hunter when he shot the pig and a Doctor who had just seen this myth saw the pig’s tooth matched the other faked evidence by science and then he used it to debunk this. And the other istem were also debunked much the same way and this can be proven by just reading a book, something you obviously have not done!*

The only thing you prove by posting these is that you are desperate to smear science, and you are not realizing that IT WAS SCIENTISTS WHO EXPOSED THESE HOAXES I THE FIRST PLACE, and of course.

*the only thing I have proved in these posts is that evolution is not a proven anything, and anyone who believes in same is deluding themselves or too stupid to care about, you decide which you are. And as you can read above, it was COMMON MAN that debunked the faked claims of the scientists, not the other way around as you are claiming*

NO SCIENTIST TODAY CLAIM THESE TO BE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION, seeing as they were exposed as hoaxes and all.

*BULLSH%T Scientists hailed these as factual proof of the existance of evolution. All you have to do to see this is fact is read papers and published reports about these fakes at the dates they were presented to see that. Guess you dont do your research very well do you?Piltdown man name given to human remains found during excavations (1908-15) at Piltdown, Sussex, England, by Charles Dawson. The find led to much speculation and argument. Since they were found with remains of mammals of the Lower Pleistocene epoch, they were supposed to belong to a “Piltdown man” who lived 200,000 to 1,000,000 years ago. Many scientists beileved the whole proposition. They were crestfallen when fluorine tests showed in 1950 that the Piltdown fossil was no more than 50,000 years old. X-ray analysis proved that the jaw was from a chimpanzee; further tests demonstrated conclusively that the jaw and tooth were of modern origin. Bibliography: See J. S. Weiner, The Piltdown Forgery (1955); R. W. Millar, The Piltdown Men (1972); F. Spencer, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery (1990). So there are your sources debunking your whole argument you blithering moron!*

# So here is proof that evolution does not exist as fact
# and only as theory

Your “proof” is a bunch of things that were exposed by scientists as hoaxes? Nice one.

*you keep repeating this like a mantra,only I just destroyed your statement above thus showing how much in denial you are when confronted with the facts. And yes my distruction of your argument is a nice one*

As for “only a theory”, read this:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

“In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.”

*Wrong yet AGAIN stupid…the ultimate goal in science is to prove factuality, not theory. If all science was suppose to do is prove theory, which in itself is an oxymoron, then I could state that Witches and fairies exist as my scientific theory and using your logic it would hold just as much weight as any other scientific theory as because YOU stated that this was science’s ultimate goal was to have a theory. A pretty pi$$ poor way of dealing with science isnt it? People believed in a flat earth as a fact until science PROVED the ‘THEORY’ that the earth was round. people believed in the fact that the earth was the center of the universe, until science proved the ‘THEORY’ that it was not. and so on. So why dont you slither back under your rock of ignorance and keep your mouth shut on things you have no idea what your talking about so that people will just thing you are a stupid moron without having to open your mouth and remove all doubt of same.*

They tried implementing ID in my kids school district. I wouldn’t really have a problem teaching ID in public schools, except it belongs in a World Religion or Philosophy class setting and not a science class. Any “science”
that has to rely on a supernatural agent (god) to explain things is by definition NOT a science.

And this silly notion flying around that religion is the solitary source of ethics and morality. That an atheist is somehow less moral than a religious person, total nonsense.
Morality in children has been observed well before any possible understanding of religious dogma.

I think the atheist point of view that religion is hurting the human species as a whole may have merit. Kind of scary to have such a massive population of people living their lives with the total delusion that there is an invisible wizard in the sky.

Oh, BTW, it is arrogant as hell to think that “he/she is smart so they must think my way.” Obviously there is no intelligence involved in the realm of faith and religion.

# Piltdown man
# Java man
# Nebraska man

Wait a minute… You are saying that these hoaxes that WERE EXPOSED BY SCIENTISTS are somehow relevant to the discussion?

The only thing you prove by posting these is that you are desperate to smear science, and you are not realizing that IT WAS SCIENTISTS WHO EXPOSED THESE HOAXES I THE FIRST PLACE, and of course.

NO SCIENTIST TODAY CLAIM THESE TO BE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION, seeing as they were exposed as hoaxes and all.

# So here is proof that evolution does not exist as fact
# and only as theory

Your “proof” is a bunch of things that were exposed by scientists as hoaxes? Nice one.

As for “only a theory”, read this:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

“In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.”

# In California in 1978 they dug a mine in the northern
# part of the state, and at UCLA they have the results.
# They dug down a good mile into the earth and came upon a
# chamber that had HUMAN remains in it. The only problem
# was that the chamber had only one way in and that was the
# way they came through seemless rock and the dating on the
# rocks showed to be over 2 million years old..so who where
# these people?

I don’t know. Do you? I have heard about similar stories from creationists before. In every single case I was able to identify, the creationist (i.e. YOU) was lying.

Scientists had indeed explained the “problem”. The creationist just left that part out.

If you can give me more info on this cave, I can try to look it up for you, in case you are honestly looking to educate yourself.

# why has no animal in recorded history evolved into
# something else.. they just go extinct, they don’t
# miraculously mutate to adapt to changing environments.

I’m afraid you are mistaken. There are many observed examples of speciation. For example, scientists observed a group of moths near a city. As pollution increased, trees became darker. The until then bright moths gradually changed to a darker color because the lighter ones were easier prey for birds.

So yes, they did indeed adapt because of mutation and natural selection (birds picking off lighter moths).

It seems that you need to educate yourself a bit!

# science answers questions about how things work and what
# things are through the assumption-centered hypothesis
# which teaches that an unobservable principle is
# responsible for speciation and order through random
# alterations

This is incorrect. A hypothesis is merely the first step towards becoming a theory (the ultimate goal of science). Evolution is a full-fledged scientific theory based on actual observations:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

“In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.”

Also, evolution is not just “random alterations”. You seem to have forgotten about natural selection. Or were you ignorant of it?

# but in the end, it’ll be just a theory.

Not JUST a theory. TRIUMPHANTLY a theory. Theories are what make science useful!

# We often fail to acknowledge that there are forces at
# work beyond our understanding so to be a good scientist,
# we must have a respectful awe for the laws of nature.

No, you are getting it wrong again. The whole REASON science exists is that we don’t know stuff. Science is about figuring it out!

If we knew everything, science would not exist.

To be a good scientist, you must be able to admit that we don’t know, and be curious enough to try to figure it out instead of resorting to “God did it”.

# Science, like government, has to learn what it’s good at
# and what it’s bad at. When it doesn’t have a good enough
# edge — say, when a scientist doesn’t have nearly enough
# information — it should just admit that it doesn’t have
# a solution and move on.

You are getting it wrong AGAIN!

When a scientist doesn’t have enough information he DOES admit that! And he keeps looking for information. THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS!

# Unless YOU are doing ALL the research, historical data
# points, carbon dating, dig sites, etc. (a truly
# impossible task for any one person), your opinion is
# based on nothing more than faith.

This is not correct.

Science has proven to consistently work. That means that it is entirely rational to accept scientific consensus.

Accepting scientific consensus is not “faith”. Accepting scientific consensus is a good thing to do because so far, scientific consensus has been shown to be very useful indeed.

# wow, such hatred for God, if u are an atheist let it be..
# but if u hate God then u are something else.. admit it.

Someone who doesn’t believe in God can’t hate God.

However, a lot of people hate dishonest propaganda pieces like Expelled, which try to force their religion on other people through lies and deception.