I think there is more proof that species evolve than there is that they were created.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that evolution is a scientific fact, with so much observational evidence to support it that the only reason someone would deny it is either because they didn't understand it, or it went against their specific religious views.

I think the only real thing that could be up for debate is the mechanism through which evolution occurs (natural selection), although even this is pretty much scientific fact.

So I would say yes; evolution has been scientifically and observationally proven.

What are you talking about? Evolution has been both observed and recreated. You need to read up on the Peppered Moth:

"Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees."

Evolution is an observed, documented scientific fact. Facts are observations, theories are the mechanisms used to explain the observations. As I said, evolution is an observed fact; it's the mechanism by which it works (natural selection) which is the theory (although, a pretty sound one at that).

It is the best theory we have as of yet, It has been proven to take place, and it has be accepted by the scientific community. So i would say yes.

I think the problem we're going to have here is how to define what is fact and what is theory. Fact is observational. Theory is how to explain your observations. In this sense, evolution is proven (observed, documented and a fact) and natural selection is the theory (how we explain our observations of evolution).

In Biology a theory is the highest title you can give to a scientific study. There is more than enough evidence to substantiate that evolution has occurred, does occur, and will continue. Evolution will never obtain the title of Law as that is reserved for mathematical formulas. There is a law of gravity, but there is a theory of gravitation. Because in science gravity and gravitation are slightly different.

Uhm, why? Because we're "special?"

Evolution and speciation as a result of natural selection has been proven and observed many times. The only thing really up for debate is the origin of all known current species from one common ancestor.

1. Wrong. Scientific review of evolution is still ongoing. New evidence has been introduced continuously for the past 150 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

2. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Learn that evolution is not astronomy. The human eye is perfect example of evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1xd2qbYiZo

This is a simple example but there are plenty more.

This one page on this site brings forth more than 5 scientific references.

Sorry, but the origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution.

Look to the big bang theory and others for that.

The origin of new species by evolution has been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). Also, please find the link for a very inclusive and detailed list of observed evolution.

Evolution has indeed been scientifically proven. The trick here is to ask ourselves what the constraints of the scientific method is and how that affects our understanding of evolution.

I trust the science that proves evolution, what I don't trust is the derivative opinions on why and how it happens. The how is still a very uncertain subject (due to its complexities) and the why (being a philosophical question, requiring value judgments rather than scientific deduction) is outside of the realm of the scientific method.

That being said, science has a fundamental assumption that influences its outcomes. It is the assumption that it is humanly possible to fully explain nature through analytical study. Whether it can or cannot be done is an entire debate in its own right, but that core assumption is reflected in the conviction that evolution entirely explains the process of life. Which of course it doesn't.

So, the fact that evolution has been scientifically defined, tested and found to be so has very little effect on what we believe the reason and purpose of evolution is. It may be a proven theory, but it is still a very incomplete theory.

I often write articles, and as I reread them I fix my mistakes, edit some paragraphs and then, before publishing it, I have an editor look it through. He changes it again until the article reflects it true purpose.

As such the article evolved, yet it was created.

The point is that evolution is not necessarily evidence against the possibility of a creator. It may in fact be proof of one.

Evolution is a fact as defined. Technically speaking, proofs only exist in mathematics. I suspect the questioner is confusing the theory of evolution by natural selection with evolution as a concept.

Increase the timeline by 10 million years and, Viola, evolution.

Evolution is proven every year in fact. The influenza virus, it evolves every year and needs new vaccines, people aren't given the same flu vaccine every year, it's needed re-tailoring to fit the existing virus.

Same goes with all anti-bacterial medicine, all bacteria is constantly evolving on the lower level, why wouldn't it happen on the higher up level? It just takes longer, it's been seen that evolution existed because different animals are evolved to work better in their environment. Human remains have been found and body structures have changed over the time periods in which they existed.

I agree that generations apply to the species. I've been reading some of your examples from earlier posts.

I'm not enough of a scientist to be able to discern the subtleties pointed out in plants for instance. Is it truly a new species if it's a hybrid?

The thing I do know is that there is still enough disagreement amongst scientist that the smoking gun hasn't been found.

It could be a matter of promotion/ignorance but if the smoking gun had been found Nat. Geo. would have had blazing headlines. The Smithsonian, Scientific American any number of mainstream publications would be clamoring for definitive proof.

Think about it. Big headlines for life on Mars. Lucy. Hype sells and evolution is one of the biggest mysteries in science.

The article, from you, "Observed Instances of Speciation" doesn't come right out and say evolution has been proved. The scientist, Joseph Boxhorn, who wrote the article begins with all kinds of caveats.

Insofar as any natural phenomenon can be studied, processed, explained and supported through and by the scientific method, evolution has been "proved".

A more appropriate description of evolution-as-literature would be to present an article you have written that is selectively transformed into a book or an article that diverges over time into multiple variations of itself to communicate with a new audience, each variation existing independent of the other forms and without replacing these variations.

Ever heard of fossils?

The fact that this argument nearly has the dissenting side winning is a great testament to how far this site has to go before it becomes a credible place to argue intellectually.

Riles wasn't referring to the origin of life; he was referring to common descent in the current population of species.

Charles Darwin and other naturalists have been observing new species emerge for a long time. New species emerge every day and the process can be replicated in lab.

You got that right cyber.

why doe the flu evolve every year?

There is currently a problem with the site's algorithm where favouring or opposing an argument doesn't neccessarilly give your "points" to correct side of the debate. The "no it hasn't" side is far more heated, and as such when people use the favour and oppose buttons to reply, they are inadvertently giving their vote to the wrong side.

I've bought this issue up with CreateDebate and it is being fixed.

After variation and mutation, however, they are still viruses, and in the same family (as far as I know). Do the current viruses we see exhibit characteristics that would put them in a different family when compared with the earliest recorded viruses?

It seems that the variation of a virus is observational proof of variation within a species/family, but doesn't necessarily demonstrate the traversal from one to another.

Yes, the fossil record provides more than enough evidence. Religious fanatics like to ignore evidence, and repeat nonsense statements such as "It doesn't explain where everything came from in the first place" when evolution is not even an attempt to explain where everything came from. It's the Catholic church and round earth theory all over again...

Indeed, but it doesn't make the argument invalid.

Evolution is a scientific fact. The change in organisms is absolutely undisputed, and the genetic evidence is even more convincing than the fossil record (as stated by the head of the Human Genome Project, a Christian).

The THEORY of evolution, how this change occurs (e.g., by natural selection), is what is unproven. But evolution itself is an established fact.

You are calling into question the very nature of certainty. The question asks whether it has been "scientifically" proven, not whether it is "absolutely without a doubt flawlessly claimable."

The fact that nearly half people think evolution has not been scientifically proven is a proof in itself of how poorly people understand what science is all about. I am inclined to believe that 85% of those who are in favor of evolution know little more than the average high school biology about it. I include myself in that category. As a scientist, I've studied physics not biology. Yet, that little we know make much more sense than any religious alternative. Think about the judeochristian God creating the earth in a seven day creationist marathon or about Brahma starting from a lotus flower or a about the wish list of a native American earth-maker. They are all equal in being legend and myths. Yet, there must be something that people who doubt evolution don't understand and my only answer must be that they simply approach evolution with a close mind, only trying to disproof it. It is too beautiful and simple for the simplest mind not to grasp. So my argument is that if you have not made an honest effort to understand evolution putting aside your religious bias, you cannot have an opinion against it. The mere fact that evolution is taken for granted as truth by every biologists should convince you that science has proven it. Here is a video that give you the basic scientific argument for evolution against creationism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k. I stand for that argument.

For instance, in the Do you believe in God debate, someone said I haven't seen an audio or video file, so there's no proof. Well, if that's the standard, show me the audio/video file of a human evolving from whatever its ancestor was (which I don't know what it is, does anyone?). Unless we have different standards based on our need?

"Evolution will never obtain the title of Law as that is reserved for mathematical formulas."

There's a few, Mendel's come to mind. But it's hard to break down something as statistically based as evolution into something with nice algebraic terms.

The theory of evolution has been proven both scientifically and logically. On a scientific level, evolution has been observed within species by scientists since Darwin's own observation in the Galapagos Islands, where birds' beaks had mutated to help them utilize different souces of food. Even today, signs of the trend in "survival of the fittest" are all around us. African Americans, whose ancestors in the United States were the strongest from Africa, brought to the US as slaves, now dominate the sports industry. The children of the best and brightest Asians who were able to immigrate to the US during the 70s-80s now happen to be many of the most brilliant in schools and universities. Its not a coincidence.

Just thinking about it for a moment, evolution does, at least at first thought, make sense. Being a programmer, I have seen evolution logically proven as I and others use "code evolution" to evolve our programs. This happens by making copies of the programs and altering some just like creatures mutate, and then combining them two by two to symbolize mating. In the end, we usually end up with about a thousand crap programs and a few super-good programs.

Evolution does logically work out, and thus nothing is stopping it from happening in our society. On another note, I would like to clearly point out that just because evolution is a possible process does not mean that life as we know is a result of it. In fact, the Darwinian theory of evolution, which theorizes that life is the result of evolution, is weak because it fails to explain how life originated, instead addressing only how it developed. I believe that to connect the process of evolution with the question of "how we got here" was a huge leap in logic, and, personally, I'm not a Darwinist.

You most certainly are a Darwinist.

"..which theorizes that life is the result of evolution,"

Evolution underpins the diversity of life.

"because it fails to explain how life originated,"

That's because Darwin's theory is that of natural selection which requires life to work.

How life originated in the first place isn't exactly a stretch when you have the facts of evolution in hand. Most probably, it was the increasing probability of randomly sloshing molecules in a 'primordial soup' when the Earth had cooled enough. It may 'simply' be a calculation of how many collisions/conformations of various molecules and time is required to chance upon a self-replicating system. Millions of years+ no doubt.

It not only has been utterly, and incontestably proven, but it is logically sound. In case you don't understand what is meant by biological evolution, here's the definition: "The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.". You only have to run through the thought experiment of two tribes interbreeding over generations to convince yourself that it happens.

Correct. Evolution is a fact and natural selection is a theory put forward by Charles Darwin. Not only is natural selection screamingly obvious, but it has an ocean of evidence supporting it so much so in fact, that most new discoveries in biology only make sense in its light.

That is actually not true. The term theory is the same term used to describe many other scientific ideas that are widely accepted. For example, atomic theory; any scientist who said that they disagreed with this would be laughed out of any reputable institution. Also, to give you a more common example, the "theory" of gravity. It is a theory because almost nothing in science is proven beyond completely resonable doubt. As for the statement that it can't be proven, this too is inaccurate because people have conducted experiments in which they have witnessed microevolution of simple organisms. There has also been domcumentation of the speciazation of numerous animals in recent history. If you would like to know more or doubt what I am saying go to youtube and search the user "thunderf00t." He has made an entire video series called "why people laugh at creationists." (I apologize about the spelling)

It has been proved as much as such a theory CAN be proved, there is enough evidence going for it that all we are missing is actual observation, which is nigh impossible given the topic.

There's pretty much no way evolution is not true. It's been very well proven and is not just a "theory." Believe what you will, but there's no denying that there is a LOT of evidence towards evolution.

Creationism includes both the beginning of the universe, and the origin of species on Earth. Evolution addresses the latter. (Cosmology addresses the former.)

If creationism only said "the universe began when God created it but then who knows where us and the animals came from?" then it would not be in conflict with evolutionary theory.

The reason that you find your girlfriend so attractive is because of evolution. Only those species who found the opposite sex attractive would mate with each other. According to you reptiles and monkeys mate with each other despite the fact that they are ugly. In reality it's because they look beautiful to each other. To them your girlfriend probably is hideous. Ever heard the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?"

You seem to think that evolution happened very rapidly when in fact it took place over billions of years. Your questions show your ignorance on the topic, but, if you don't mind, I will do my best to answer them. Your first question was why are there two sexes when we started out with one. Single cell organisms reproduce by mitosis in which the chromosomes in the nucleus of the organism split apart eventually resulting in two separate cells. This method of reproduction actually is used by cells in the human body to reproduce. Unfortunately, mitosis only works for individual cells. More complex organisms must come up with different ways to procreate. In the case of most modern animals, this is through sexual reproduction. I hope that you know what sex is so I'm not going to go through the details, but in short the offspring created in this process share the genes of the mother "and" the father. As opposed to mitosis in which the DNA will be an exact replica (except for mutations) for both organisms. This combination helps to protect the offspring from certain harmful mutations and thus gives it a better chance to survive and create its own offspring. This is why there is a male and a female.

Now if your expecting an answer to your second question I'm not going to give it. "Because there is no answer?" you ask. "Because you've pointed out the one flaw that scientists have overlooked for years." Well before you pack your bag to go receive your Nobel Prize, let me just tell you. No. I'm not answering your question because I am a high school junior who has take one year of human biology. Just because I cannot answer this question does not mean there is no answer. Did u try asking an actual scientist before you posted? I doubt it. Trust me, if you were to talk to an evolutionary biologist you would definitely get an answer. So please next time you have an opinion, let it go.

While a lot of things in science can't necessarily be "proven", evolution and other theories have a lot of strong evidence to support them. A scientific theory is not like other theories. Gravity is considered a theory. It can't be proven to be 100% true, but there is clearly enough evidence that support it for it to be taken as truth.

Evolution is in the same boat. There are some undeniable evidence of evolution that exists. We have seen species adapt to the environment and change over time. You can't deny that part of evolution. I wish people would stop assuming that a scientific theory means that its a way that someone thinks and has no real evidence.

Yeah, next time you drop a brick and it floats, call me.

I think you'll find it's the law of gravity; and next time you drop a brick and it floats, call me.

What point exactly were you trying to make?

But evolution has been proven. Remember, evolution is simply the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. It's an observed fact. It has been scientifically proven.

What is up for debate is the process by which it occurs, which is natural selection. Although, there is more than enough evidence and observation in favour of natural selection for it to be beyond doubt.

This is a common misunderstanding of DNA. No new 'information' is created in the way that I think you're asking. DNA is made up of sugar, phosphate and a mixture of four bases, which are adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. Information within the DNA is represented by the mixture of these four bases. Changing the order of these bases within the DNA incodes new information; which is exactly what happens when there is a mutation within the DNA.

The order of the bases change, and the information contained within the DNA is different to the original. Viola.

"every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the big-bang was the reaction, what was the action that caused it??"

You're confusing causality with mechanical force. Newton's third law has nothing to do with causality because it states those two opposing forces occur simultaneously.

"Why would we evolve into two sexes??"

To protect against disease and other "enemy" organisms. The reason we can fight off infection is because when we have a cold, all of the bacteria in our bodies are exact clones. Once our immune system can fight off one, it can fight them all off.

The same thing is true in the larger world. Sexual reproduction makes a collection of organisms more diverse, which equips them to survive a changing environment.

Besides, not all organisms reproduce sexually.

"If evolution were true, which evolved first, the acids in your stomach, or the liner to keep the acids from eating through."

The liner. Do a little reading.

"stellar evolution"

Not related to the theory of evolution.

"macroevolution"

To posit a difference between micro and macro evolution, you'll first need definitions of both, and then an explanation of why there would be a line between the two, and then finally evidence in nature for the mechanism that causes that line.

"Therefore, because science must be observable and repeatable, those definitions of evolution have not been scientifically proven."

You're confusing empirical and historical sciences. The emprical sciences such as chemistry and phyics are indeed founded on repeatable experiment. Historical sciences such as geology and archaelogy are based on "natural experiments".

Evolution is both empirical (look up the many speciation experiments) and historical. Darwin's original theory of evolution posed a large number of hypotheses for natural experiments. For example, according to evolution, we would expect to find species with certain body shapes in certain strata of the earth. Later paleontologists consistently found the predicted forms.

In a space ship orbiting earth it will float

If it is dropped into a bath of mercury, it will float.

what are 'kinds'?

Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Well we had to ocme form somewhere not juut out of the blue and DNA don't lie when it says our DNA is 98% the same as a slug. That is a shocker I bet. We are more related to slugs then primates if you go by that. And to say a living thing won't change if it's enviorment does is kinda silly since then it could not surivie an we would not be around or life for that matter,life is always adapting and changing,over tme of course.

What evidence is there that universal evolution doesn't exist? The universe constantly changes. Creationism is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the creation of the ever expanding universe. One must realize that the books of Genesis were not testimonies by God, and therefore were not revelations to us. A revelation is only a revelation to the individual who received the information directly from God himself. As soon as the person tells someone else that something was revealed to him by God, it can only be hearsay and nothing else.

Whether or not something is scientifically proven or a theory are simply human conventions that we try to apply to the unexplanable. There are too many natural occurences that we as humans will try to explain and simply fail to explain, which is how I believe creationsim was brought about in the first place. People tried to explain the incomprehensible.

Science doesn't do "proof". It identifies the theories which best support all available evidence. Then tries it's damnedest to prove those new theories wrong.

Since the theory of evolution manages to be compatible with every scientific observation ever made, not to mention the fact that its principles are used to design vaccines, it has come as close to proof as any scientific theory can. The day evolution is proven wrong is the day I'll go back and check on gravity and atomic theory, too. They're all on equal footing at this point.

Evolution really is true but as we all know the main reason of how we evolve is because of God our lord. We really doesn't know if what is the specific date God created then World. is it day of the earth? or day of the heaven

No, that's incorrect.

We've proven that genetic mutations happen, it's logical that the species that are best suited to their environment will survive, ergo we can assume that Evolution through Natural Selection happens.

Not only that, but we've witnessed species such as Mayflies undergo evolutionary changes (small changes, yes, but changes none the less)

Saying that it can't be proven in such a small time period is like saying that we can't prove that Pluto will orbit the sun all the way. We haven't known about it long enough to watch it go all the way around, but we can assume that it will simply because we know the mechanics behind it, just like we know the mechanics behind evolution.

Just like Pluto orbiting the sun completely and gravity! They're theories, but in the scientific way of using the word

If what you say is true, then nothing at all is scientific fact. If even one person doubts, unreasonably or not, even the most fundamental laws of physics are only theories.

Again, we hit walls of diction, but it's a great debate and I'm on your side (evolutionists). I want to see the blood and guts of what constitutes "proof", however, and I find that blind faith goes in multiple directions. In other words: I've seen evangelists of science as blinded as their christian counterparts. Loops/fractals in math, nature, logic, and many other scientific methods give me the idea that 2 opposing viewpoints can be equally true, just as a segment of light can be seen as a particle or a wave, depending on the method. Quirky? yes. Contradictory? yes. Tell me what 0/infinity could mean, and my answer is: Both. Thinkaboutit.

It doesn't need to be proven as there is no underlying math, (in physics there is).

It is widely acknowledged as "what happened" and that is proof enough, it should be taught in schools therefore.

Us evolving from chimpanzees (yes, it is chimps that we share the most DNA with, not apes, and not monkeys), is merely an idea just because their DNA is so similar to ours. It doesn't make the theory of evolution what-so-ever. Evolution is just the process of change or growth through genetics, mutations, and natural selection. Which has been proven. When a scientist genetically modifies the DNA of a fly successfully, it has evolved. (No, really, I recall reading about a study of them inserting a different wing color into the flys DNA and evolving the fly successfully with the new wing color). It's pretty dang simple. It has nothing to do with the creation of humans. There is absolutely not enough evidence going anywhere to lead to a decent idea of where we came from. And you learn about the history of homosapiens through archaeological anthropology, which I suggest everyone should study because most of you seem to pulling crap out of your butts.

I agreed with you up until "reasonable doubt." The social sciences, which incorporate the confounding input of statistical variability, have something called Statistical Significance. This means when something acts in a predicted way a certain percentage of times, given the sample is large enough, it can be considered reliable enough to base other research on. In other words, when something is accepted by the scientific community at large (which evolution IS, don't let the media deceive you), there is no reasonable doubt about it.

Speaking of science reliable enough to base work on, consider the company Monsanto, and others like it. They specialize in breeding (EVOLVING) plants and patenting their genotypes. Pure fucking evil, but obviously based on sound science. Major international corporations base their entire business model on evolution. They have no reason to do this if they are not completely convinced of the reliability of that basis.

I've studied a lot of Biology and to me evolution has indeed been proved.

The way science uses the word "theory" is not the same as the way its used by the general public.

The general public uses the word "theory" to describe an assumption, something that may or may not be true, something not proved.

Science however, uses it in quite a different context. "Theory" for science is the explanation of how something works. Not an assumption of how it may work, but a thorough and well examined explanation of how it works. Nothing is given the status of a "theory" in science unless it has been tested over and over and over again and proved by other sciences and observation.

Take gravity for example. There is the Law of Gravity, which says that things tend to fall downward. Then there is the Theory of Gravity, which explains what Gravity is, what causes it, and how it works. Its not an "assumption" of how it works. Its a proved explanation of it.

I have come across many religious people that see evolution as a threat to what they believe. They say it contradicts the theory that God created man. But at no point has the theory of evolution ever claimed to know WHO created the building blocks or the why. In my opinion, there is a way to accept both.

If you believe that God created man then evolution is the way by which he went about doing it. What's wrong with that?

Maths is the only branch of science that offers 100% proof of its arguments. Evolution while backed up by a massive amount of evidence could never be proved beyond all doubt as there is always the chance that evidence has been misinterpreted. People used to believe that the world was flat and look what happened to that idea!

Ok so science has come a long way since then but we still have huge bias in the fossil record and gaps in our knowledge that will probably never be filled. We will never be completely sure.

That is where you are wrong.

The old argument that layers of sediment were deposited by the biblical flood are unsubstantial.

Just because i found fish bones in my trash can does that mean they were deposited there by the flood too?

The creationists need to re-examine the scriptures for where it talks about Darwin's book:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection."-Darwin

If anything the battles between races in the bible would support Darwin's theory.

And gravity is due to cosmic evolution, which operates at a cosmological time scale, not a geological one; So space-time while continuing to expand, has not been known to contract from our four dimensional perspective. Although antimater has been annihilated with Lithium in collider experiments under laboratory conditions to release pure energy. But this is generally known.

Therefore your usurpation of supposed assumption of stated opinion cannot be proven or supported by evidence, but is not substantial enough to answer the question specifically.

No.

no no no no no no no

No.

I disagree.

Thank you for arguing.

Contra the "Evolutionary Theory", which is the selection of the fittest,

*

is the "Antievolutionary Theory", which is the antiselection of the unfittest. While this theory may be logically equivalent, it is still not accepted by the scientific community, but rather has been a victim of its own theory and been antiselected.

"Prove" it, my good fellow,

Don't "proven" it,

By the way

For (Macro-)Evolution Theory to be valid, laws of nature that are generally accepted as true and standard must be repeatedly denied. The typical outcome of a dramatic mutation is that it: (1) does not reproduce in the mutated form to a successful degree, (2) is often sterile, and (3) has low survivability rates. (Macro-)Evolution Theory supposes that these natural limitations to mutation were repeatedly set aside over innumerable generations in an ever-succeeding pattern that defies the standards known to exist - and, further, that this denial continued successfully over millions of years.

1st: Evolution does not require dramatic mutation. Most evolution occurs through small incremental mutations over many many generations. (If it helps, imagine how people age. From day to day there are no obvious differences, but over long periods of time, people can look completely different then they did when they were younger.)

2nd: We have seen significant mutations occur that do not affect the viability of the organisms offspring.

3rd: We have actually seen evolution occur, even to the point of speciation.

4th: You're dumb to think that you know more than every biologist on earth.

In short, you're wrong because you are distinguishing between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is the same thing as micro evolution, just on a larger time scale.

yes,it has been proved

we live in a SCIENCE-FI world and if we don't believe in SCIENCE it is foolishness

Evolution has not "ceased" in any animal. I think you are a little delusional on the subject. Let me clear this up for you:

The transition of "ape" to homo sapiens is not a process that occurs through one generation.

"why aren't we evolving to some strange terrestrial body"

For the same reason, the whole transition to a "new species" is not a transition that occurs on one generation. And what do you mean by some "strange terrestrial body"? You mean something different than what we are at this stage? For the same reason, it is not a one-generation process. Why would you not cause us a strange terrestial body today?

and "why aren't there half monkey half men who have just entered the middle cycle of evolution"

Evolution has no scripture that is followed. There is no one path that all species must mutate with, which is the reason why chimpanzees still exist to this date.

And by half monkey half man I might interpret that as a neanderthal, and those coexisted with homo sapiens for some time. Also if you want to see a half human half monkey today, you're gonna have to have sex with a monkey (although i am unsure if that would work out).

Yes, everyone evolves, as everyone endures mutations.

What you are saying implies that there is a set path planned for the evolution of certain species, which there is not.

Mutations are accidents. They can sometimes benefit.

Also Neanderthals died out on their own because it was an injurious variation.

and what bothers me is that you said "that is just your opinion," because that usually infers that you are saying that person is wrong and you are factual. You are not factual. Saying "that is just your opinion" does not make it wrong!

The most obvious argument is that it cannot be proved scientifically because we can't observe or recreate it.

The peppered moth is an example of survival of the fittest, NOT evolution. Both types of moths were present at all times; one just flourished over the other for a while. No new species was created.

I think what you're showing here is a complete lack of understanding for what evolution is and what natural selection is. Natural selection (survival of the fittest, if you will) is purely a mechanism used to explain how evolution works. The peppered moth is a prime example of observational evolution.

Actually jade is correct in saying that the peppered moth does not indicate actual evolution in the sense that one species gave rise to another. It does indicate that natural selection does occur, and there is much more supporting evidence outside of this observation to support evolution. However I do not know of any definitive proof of evolution. The facts are strongly on evolution's side.

In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven. There is a wealth of evidence to support it but this evidence is not sufficient to be a proof. In a strict sense no scientific idea can be proven. All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable.

It has been proven in the sense that there is no other competing scientific theory that has any scientific merit. The evidence points to evolution being the reason for the diversity of life on Earth.

I disagree, and the reason probably boils down to what we define evolution as. Taking this from Wikipedia:

"Evolution is defined as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool",[3] an occurrence that causes a population's genetically inherited traits to change over successive generations. Evolution in the wild is chiefly caused by two mechanisms: natural selection, the process by which individual organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, and genetic drift, the statistical drift over time of allele frequencies in a population from random sampling effects in the formation of successive generations."

Using this definition, we can clearly see that what happened with the Peppered Moth is observational proof of genetic drift.

Is this about if humans came from evolution? or jsut evoltuion in general, cause if its about Us coming from evolution...im going to jsut die!!!!!

NEXT!

If we're talking science-speak, it is called the "Theory" of evolution still, not the "Law", so NO, it hasn't been proven. There are a huge number of theories that everyone pretty much agrees are true, but in the rules of science haven't (or can't) be proven.

Show me the document, approved by more than 5 scientific boards that there is proof. I'm sorry Wikipedia is NOT a source to be referenced. Only by amateurs is Wiki ever used as a source for information. Please allow this to be an intelligent conversation and lay the facts on the table.

1. It takes several Boards of Science at Worldwide universities to agree of any new' facts' This has not been done with this so called Theory of Evolution.

2. Darwin says "'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'

--later he writes and is unsure of 'absurdity' and claims evolutionism as his primary origin of life theory. Though if he understood the Human Eye in detail (Google : darwin eye) then he would be convinced that evolution is not possible.

If those choose to believe we stem from primates and Spineless bacterium thats alright. I just cannot see that as being nearly a fact. It is simply fear mongering from the early 1920's where scientist strongly opposing Christian beliefs took into their own hands the idea of a big bang 'creation' of the Universe. Thats all, they had to have something to believe in to further justify their existence, so they "discovered" it through creativity and assumptions, not fact.

I wonder how excited they were when someone suggested 'We come from apes, who came from Birds, Who came from Lizards, who came from fish, who came from plants and bacteria growing on a rock" OK. Thanks.

This is not evolutions..thats called extinction. One species died, correct? Peppered Moths dead and melanic moth lived???? That sounds like extinction, or strongest survive. The pepper is gone...it did not evolve.

And more importantly, predictions have been made, based on the theory of evolution that have been verified, e.g. intermediate species that scientists predicted, have actually been found.

Exactly - survival of the fittest is part of the theory of evolution

Here is the same link again, it has those details.

How can evolution be "observationally proven" when nature has only been observed and recorded for a couple of hundred years and the theory of evolution requires millions of years for organism state transition?

That's wrong. You can only give the title "proof" to a mathmatical formula. A theory is the highest scientific title that something can be given. Don't try to use semantics to prove your argument; evolution is fact.

A lot has happened since Darwin noticed evolution occuring, and to claim that the theory of evolution is in any way lessened by Darwin not completely understanding the evolution of the eye of quite frankly nonsense. We're well aware how the eye evolved.

The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye. In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Also, I'd like to point towards a study that recently found what I would consider absolute proof that we evolved from primates. In the video link, Dr. Ken Miller talks about the relationship between Homo sapiens and the other primates. He discusses a recent finding of the Human Genome Project which identifies the exact point of fusion of two primate chromosomes that resulted in human chromosome #2.

That's wrong. You can only give the title "proof" to a mathmatical formula.

I just looked up proof in "The Merriam-Webster Dictionary" ©1997 and it didn't say anything about a 'mathematical formula'.

I believe in evolution but it is impossible to ever prove it now. Eventually we will be able to document the evolutionary processes of current species but until then it's a theory.

The key phrase in the theory of evolution is, "...over many generations..." it's barely been many generations since it was even proposed.

As an example...Einstein said light could bend. The majority of physicist in the world showed calculation after calculation explaining exactly why light could, would and should bend but until the proper instruments were invented and the proper situation occured it couldn't be proven. We now know it's a fact.

All the lab work, DNA results and field studies mean nothing until the process, taking 'many generations' is documented.

Indeed, although what we find is often the result of what we look for. In other words, we often define evidence according to what we expect it to be. As such our evidence is therefore often a result of our expectation rather than objective scientific study.

The problem with this question is what is the definition of "evolution" and "proven"?

Ignore this one; I meant to oppose, not favour.

You're right. I actually meant law, but by the time I'd realised my mistake I couldn't edit it.

And in regards to your "over many generations" argument. It's over the generations of the thing evolving; not our generations. Some organisms can evolve thousands and thousands of times in the space of a day, so that argument is wrong.

It's been observed and documented over the many generations of the organisms for which it has occured.

I do agree with you on this point.

Peppered Moth is observational proof of genetic drift.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right.

I read the article and I don't see evolution taking place but I'm not a scientist. I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too.

It goes back to the smoking gun post I left earlier. None of the mainstream science is touting this...wikipedia puh-lease.

No, that's the theory of natural selection - put forward to explain the fact of biological evolution.

Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted. You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true.

I'll say it again. Evolution is fact. The process by which it takes place (natural selection) is what may be up for debate.

"I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too."

Wrong. Find a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution AND isn't affected by his decision due to his religious convictions. You won't find a single one.

Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted. You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true.

Whoa...this is so wrong on so many levels.

You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true

Einstein’s “Blunder” is Right, After All; Journal of Young Scientist © 2007 Falishia Sloan, Science Journalist

We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits.

Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted

Are you serious? Look at the debate here. Mainstream science can make a lot of money on this subject and has made a lot of money on this subject. You don't think they would make a big deal about a definitive evolution 'smoking gun'?

Just look at how much attention is paid to the numerous specimens vying for 'missing link' status since Lucy's discovery. I may not be the most science savvy guy but I do know what makes money and this subject is one of the few, in science, that captures the passion of the layman. This is a 'crossover' over subject if there ever was one.

I'll say it again. Evolution is fact. The process by which it takes place (natural selection) is what may be up for debate.

You have it backwards. Natural selection is a fact...your pepper moth article proves that. Hell the current size of an NFL lineman probably proves that. The theory of Evolution is not a fact.

"I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too."

Wrong. Find a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution AND isn't affected by his decision due to his religious convictions. You won't find a single one.

Xaeon...don't mess with what I was saying...that's not nice. I stated earlier in this debate I believe in evolution.

I was referring to the pepper moth article. The article itself said scientist don't agree on a lot of the points the author was making in that article.

"Einstein’s “Blunder” is Right, After All; Journal of Young Scientist © 2007 Falishia Sloan, Science Journalist"

A recent article explaining how something that Einstien changed in his original theory of relativity (because he thought the original calculation he made couldn't be true) turned out to be true. This is relevant now. Nothing new has occured with the fact of evolution. It's still a fact and has been for a long time now.

"We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits."

So what? I entered "evolution is right" and got 144,000,000 hits.

"Mainstream science can make a lot of money on this subject and has made a lot of money on this subject. You don't think they would make a big deal about a definitive evolution 'smoking gun'?"

What money is there to be made by evolution being a fact? The money is understanding HOW evolution works and being able to take advantage of this (which, by the way, we already do with the domestication of animals).

"Just look at how much attention is paid to the numerous specimens vying for 'missing link' status since Lucy's discovery."

There are many many transitional fossils:

Dinosaurs to Birds: Yixianosaurus -> Pedopenna -> Archaeopteryx -> Confuciusornis -> Ichthyornis

Apes to Humans: Pierolapithecus catalaunicus -> Ardipithecus -> Australopithecus -> Homo rudolfensis -> Homo habilis -> Homo habilis

Amphibians to Reptiles: Proterogyrinus -> Limnoscelis -> Tseajaia -> Solenodonsaurus -> Hylonomus -> Paleothyris

"You have it backwards. Natural selection is a fact...your pepper moth article proves that. Hell the current size of an NFL lineman probably proves that. The theory of Evolution is not a fact."

It is this sentence here that shows your misunderstandings the best. Evolution is what happens. Natural selection is HOW it happens. Evolution, as I've said so many times, is an observed fact. Science isn't in some kind of struggle with this as you are making out. Science knows this is a fact and that is that:

"Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution." - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms." - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution." - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

I'm afraid, rocknwow, that It's most definately you who has it backwards.

"Xaeon...don't mess with what I was saying...that's not nice. I stated earlier in this debate I believe in evolution."

I'm well aware that you did. I wasn't implying that your religious views are clouding your judgement. I believe that to be simply that you haven't researched it enough. What I'm saying is that you will have a very very hard time trying to find a biological scientist (who doesn't believe in a religion that opposes the scientific view - although, even the roman catholic church has pretty much accepted that evolution exists, but that it was started by God; though, let's not get into that argument) who doesn't believe that evolution is a fact. Remember, once again, I'm talking about evolution here, not natural selection. You will find many who may refute natural selection, but NOT evolution.

Xaeon

You have a wiley habit of taking my quotes out of context. Please stop doing that.

My first two quotes in your rebuttal refer to your statement...

You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up

You see lot's of them. You're wrong

"We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits."

So what? I entered "evolution is right" and got 144,000,000 hits.

So what...reference above. This is an example of you taking my quote out of context and replying to something I never said.

The point is not, who has the most quotes, the point is that you made a statement that is wrong. That statement is...

You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up

You do.

In the next two quotes of mine you do the exact same thing again. Please read my post.

Xaeon says

What money is there to be made by evolution being a fact? The money is understanding HOW evolution works and being able to take advantage of this (which, by the way, we already do with the domestication of animals).

Please tell my you're not serious? The more discoveries you make the more funding you get. It's not a difficult concept.

But once again you take a quote of mine out of context. We were refering to Nat. Geo., Smithsonian and other mainstream "publications" you switched my wording to "science" and for some reason I went with that. Maybe I was trying to communicate with you on your level?

It is this sentence here that shows your misunderstandings the best. Evolution is what happens. Natural selection is HOW it happens. Evolution, as I've said so many times, is an observed fact. Science isn't in some kind of struggle with this as you are making out. Science knows this is a fact and that is that:

Believe it or not I agree.

The problem for me is that I assumed fact meant absolute certainty. It doesn't. The whole time I should have said evolution is not an absolute cerntainty.

You misunderstood my Einstien remark. I was simply stating that we all know relativity happens, and no one makes a big deal out of it anymore. There may be an article or two pop up now and again about a very very specific feature of special relativity, but it's pretty much fact, and therefore no "big deal" is made out of it. We all know the guy was pretty much spot on. And my remark about the huge amount of hits was simply to try and highlight how you'd taken what I had said completely out of context and replied in a "Reductio ad absurdum"-esque manner. This is the same for evolution, and I'm sorry if the point I was trying to make was lost. There's no "smoking gun" type articles out there about evolution because it's simply a known fact. We don't need to constantly verify and trumpet it. So, anyway, we were both taking each other out of context and trying to be a bit smug about it, so let's leave that bit behind.

Now in regards to your comment about money:

"Please tell my you're not serious? The more discoveries you make the more funding you get. It's not a difficult concept."

I wasn't taking it out of context at all. It was simply a false statement that I called you on. I'm sorry, but you can't discover evolution. It's been done. It's a fact. There's no money in trying to prove evolution. There is however, as I stated, money in proving natural selection as it has real world uses (many of which, such a domestication of animals, cross breeding of plants, etc, we already do). And as I've already stated, this is still theory and we are still investigating and experimenting (although, in my eyes, the findings in regards to human chromosome #2 are astounding... I would recommend you read about this for your "smoking gun" article on evolution. It pretty much proves a common ancestry between great apes and humans).

"Maybe I was trying to communicate with you on your level?"

Let's leave that talk for the playground, eh? Esepcially as you admit further down that I was infact correct in this matter.

"Believe it or not I agree."

I'm glad, as this is the point I've been trying to make all along. There is absolutly no viable alternative, no alternate theory (apart from religious ones) to evolution. It's been observed, It's been documented, it's a scientific fact. We know it happens; we have for years.

Evolution has been observationally proven because we've witnessed it in scientific studies. Scientists have actually witnessed speciation happen in rapidly reproducing species such as mayflies

By way of the scientific method, it cannot be proven in this day of age. It is still a theory.

Is it not absolutely without a doubt flawlessly claimable, therefore, to be truly proven, absence of doubt must be the case.

My girlfriend is so beautiful that there is no way evolution could have produced such a magnificent being.

Just looking at her it is impossible to imagine that she could have been a descendant of some animal such as a reptile or a monkey.

Her beauty is real evidence of the work of a superior being, GOD!

I'm sorry but your beautiful girlfriends great great great great great great great ancestors had much more hair than she does now.

It is still a theory because it can not be proven in such a small time period. However it is almost absolutely likely to be correct.

True.

The wording of the question betrays an underlying misunderstanding of science. ...which seems to be the reason people think evolution is legitimately doubtable in the first place.

Or maybe it was an honest mistake.

But I thought evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe? How can it compare against creationism?

What about new kinds?

You're a little mixed up in your terminology here.

"In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven."

Incorrect. Hypotheses in science are proven when the scientific body as a whole reaches consensus. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that evolution is proven. There is no stricter sense than that in science. Wide consensus + much other subsequent science based on it = proof.

"All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable."

You're confusing math with science here. Mathematical theorems are based on axioms. Science is based on repeated observations of the real world, experiment, consensus, etc.

Can you provided a definition of "kind" that isn't a tautology?

No, it hasn't been proven. Until you can take me back in time, there is no way to prove it, just like the theory of gravity.

Exactly what I think

No, of course it has not been proven scientifically. Many things have not been proven though that we know for sure to be true. Universal Gravitation has not been proven, but no one would deny that it exists. Similarly, micro evolution, organisms adapting to the environment, definitely exists.

Macro evolution, the evolution of one species to another, and the idea of a common ancestor, is not quite as widely accepted. However, there is a very strong case for it.

Note that evolution does not explain the creation of earth or life, simply the changes of life over enormous amounts of time.

The very first thing they teach you in science class . . every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the big-bang was the reaction, what was the action that caused it??

If evolution were true, there would not be male and female. Why would we evolve into two sexes??

If evolution were true, which evolved first, the acids in your stomach, or the liner to keep the acids from eating through. One wouldn't have been around without the other.

nope, just how gravity wasn't.

it's still just a theory.

i guess you don't get the point i was making...

that just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean it isn't true. this is done with things like evolution and gravity. we use common sense...

Actually, I would add the debate is also whether the observance of changes in traits leads us to the conclusion that information is created through some natural mechanism. We know all traits are just code on our DNA. The debate is, where does new information come from? Have we observed nature to create new DNA code?

This debate needs to be redefined. There are so many different types of evolution, including, but not limited to microevolution, macroevolution, stellar evolution, species evolution, and much more.

Microevolution (according to the Pearson Biology AP textbook) is the change in frequency of an allele in a population's gene pool. This has been clearly observed as in the Peppered Moth evolution, where the allele of melanism was favored by the environment and predation and thus increased in frequency, shifting the general color of the peppered moths into the darker direction. Species evolution has also been observed, and is even caused by the artificial breeding of different types of animals. These definitions of evolution have indeed been scientifically been proven.

However, stellar evolution and macroevolution have never been observed or repeated. We did not see nothing blow up to make something, and we cannot find a "common ancestor" between the rat and the squid. Therefore, because science must be observable and repeatable, those definitions of evolution have not been scientifically proven.

Therefore, in a way, the debate question is phrased in such a way as to cause confusion. Some people are talking about the Big Bang theory while other are citing Peppered Moths. They may be right or wrong in their views of evidence, but we can't really debate on terms like these.

If evolution was true, then i pose one question to all of those who agree with the Darwhin(sp?) theory. You look at every other type of evolution, teradactyls to birds or something like that. when the teradactyls evolved, they themselves went extinct. If we came from monkeys, and we have been around for thousands of years, then logically wouldn't the monkeys be extinct? When they supposedly evolved into us then wouldnt they themselves died out? But obviously they did not because their population only started to go down when we started to poach them. I challenge anyone to posed a better argument on the fact that we did come from monkeys

I have not seen any animal turning into another recently to be honest...

And I'd rather prefer not to think of myself as coming from an ape. Not too regal you see.

Read the whole comment that he makes first

Actually, I'm not sure it's been proven. I do think that human evolution is what scientists say it is, in that we evolved from primates, but it hasn't been proven.

Heck -- his girlfriend HAS more hair than she has now, even as we speak.

Have you ever seen an unshaved man or unshaved woman nude in their early fourties?

THAT ALONE is evidence that we're all apes.

No, evolution has yet to proven. Evolution consists of an organism who progressed into a more complex collection like animals, then into homosapiens,then into what we are today. If this were true, why has the evolution process ceased, why arent there half monkey,half men walking around who have just entered the middle cycle of evolution, why aren't we evolving to some strange terrestrial body? These questions obviously can't be proven. So no, evolution has not yet been proven.

This isn't the debate about which makes more sense over a seven day creation or evolution, it is one of belief in evolution. Most people on here, dont deny it due to their religion, they do it based on factual information or lack thereof. Just because you believe in this doesnt make it easy to understand. We can all take the concept of, oh, we evolved from organisms and animals, but you have to be able to prove how that happens, which no one can.

This is not a debate on whether you can disprove it or not, this is a debate on if in your mind it's been proved.

No. That's why it is called "Evolutionary Theory," not "The Law of Evolution."

Therefore, evolution has not been scientifically proven. It has been heavily supported by evidence, but this evidence is not substantial enough to "prove" this theory. The question is specifically "Has evolution been scientifically prove[n]?" and the response, even here, is "No." There is no mathematical formula, there is no absolute evidence in its favor. There is reasonable doubt, no matter how little.

By the way, my good fellow, the word is "proven", not "proved"

The process of evolution is fact. We have provably observed the processes that encompass this term, do not confuse this with theory of a common ancestor. Evolution simply explains the morphing from one genetic makeup to the next.

The theory of a common ancestor, and the term theory doesn't imply uncertainty as quantum theory is yet to be disproved and the theory of gravitation obviously stands, seems right to me. There are plenty of fossil records to show this process and we've mapped enough genes to see the remnants of these transformations. Even if not 100%, it's a fairly clear pointer, wouldn't you think?

The processes of evolution have been observed. This does not necessarily encompass the theory of a common ancestor, but rather the processes involved to make such a reality.

We've documented this. Evolution, strictly speaking, is fact.

It has not been proven and i don't think it can be...think about it this way they say humans evolved from apes or whatever right? yet have you ever seen an ape evolve into a human yourself? alot of people debate that what i cannot see i do not believe but i'm almost sure no one has seen an ape evolve into a human we my have similar looks but it doesn't mean we have evolved from apes...yes i believe in god.. and i have never seen him but god makes more sense to me then evolution ever will. show me! a documentary or something when an ape has evolved into a human

As I prepare to answer this question, I realize I have essentially no knowledge about the theory of evolution, besides Darwinism and the title. But the title itself is enough for me to know that it hasn't been scientifically proven: it is the THEORY of evolution. Much like the Big Bang THEORY. While it is probable that these events happened, it is not certain. And while I believe that they have happened, it is not certain.

Maths is the only branch of science that offers 100% proof of its arguments. Evolution while backed up by a massive amount of evidence could never be proved beyond all doubt as there is always the chance that evidence has been misinterpreted. People used to believe that the world was flat and look what happened to that idea!

Ok so science has come a long way since then but we still have huge bias in the fossil record and gaps in our knowledge that will probably never be filled. We will never be completely sure.

Science involves observations, theory, design, testing and predictable outcomes. How does one design test and observe evolution? If the latter is as ubiquitous as Darwin suggested, we should have many transitional species that can be observed in the immediate past not just "long ago and far away". Where for example, are the remains of "mutated" apes that have failed to propagate? All we have is some dubious fossils, the false claim about peppered moths and where bones found far apart, are assumed to be from the one individual (e.g pitdown man).

For macro evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires—mutations. Even then we have two competing theories one of gradual changes over time and SJ Gould's punctuated equilibrium, the sudden appearance of unexplained species. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic (DNA) information (the coded set of instructions which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blueprint’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next.

An analogy: new computer programs do not arise from old computer programs by copying errors. Instead, the resulting program usually jams. However, some evolutionists believe that occasionally, a ‘good’ mutation will occur which will be favoured by selection and will allow that creature to progress along its evolutionary pathway to something completely different.

Evolution therefore is certainly not a given and certainly not "childishly simple" as Dawkins would have us believe.

To say that evolution has been scientifically proved would require that it be first studied then determined scientifically. To do so would require that the question be analyzed for its scientific qualities; those true and those false. Any falsehood would constitute a rejection of the theory as a whole, and the proponents would have to start again from a different hypothesis. This does not in any way speak to any objective measure of the absolute truth or falsehood of the theory itself, but rather the wording and logic behind the theory, as any theory can only be judged on the basis of its wording to be judged objectively, and not subjectively which would only be a matter of opinion. Therefore the rejection of the scientific method is complete in the sense that it cannot be disproven on the basis of absolute knowledge outside the tools of argument available; namely words, which are the basis for any theory or hypothesis being argued, defended, or subjected to tests to find weaknesses in order to reject that theory. Such a theory cannot be truly known or even truly unknown, for to be truly unknown one must first truly know what is not to be known, and surely that itself cannot be known, truly. Really in reality it is difficult to prove with absolute certainty or absolute uncertainty the absolute absurdity or surdity of what is known or what is to be unknown, even at a future date in time. Space. Space, the final frontier, you are already here, but knowing exactly where you are with respect to where you were is certainly uncertain for even a population of sodium atoms at or near absolute zero can not be known in terms of absolute position or velocity, for as the velocity approaches absolute zero, we become more and more certain of that velocity, but must necessarily also become more and more uncertain of its position, each atoms wave function spreading out until it overlaps with its neighbors until it is totally indistinguishable from its neighbors forming a singular blob of matter. But this is only verified by experiment, which is the only and best test to be used by the scientific method, which can only truly be used to reject a hypothesis. That said, a hypothesis may be accepted, but not scientifically, but for all intents and purposes may be treated as absolute truth, baring any contrary evidence; as occums razor would point out the simplest hypothesis which explains the phenomenon is the most likely, again baring any contrary evidence. But when that evidence cannot be explored by conventional methods of observation ie: through the senses directly or indirectly relating to the physical and tangible world, then such a theory cannot be honestly and objectively analyzed or compared to the princeps of our understanding of the world and its phenomenon; it is detached from them. Surely such a word is a word apart from other words in the world of words such a word is subject to suspicion and castigation for being as it is a word not of the other words but another word of that which cannot be known by what other words are known knowingly it is known that what cannot be known cannot be be said while being said to be known for that which is known to be known was already said, or implied, the implication being that the knowledge of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as it was written by the word in words and communicated thusly; by words, cannot be known by the same token, for the token has two sides, each side opposite the other, and each side opposing the direction of the other, without either side facing the other, but rather facing away, as it is when two sides face away from one another but do not look at each other directly. So it is that the argument, whether by proof of evidence or scientific method or any other method, that the theory cannot directly oppose its opposite argument, but can only be described from an outside observer who does not stand and look outwards only from one side or argument. One that holds the token cannot stand upon it. For one cannot at the same time support one side of an argument, and also observe objectively between arguments. Neither can the word be subdivided or separated without losing the intended meaning of the whole. But without deductive reasoning we are lost. But without inductive reasoning we cannot make general statements about the world. But without particulars the general cannot be described. But without apriori knowledge of the general, we cannot be sure of its particulars. And so the scientific method, while a tool used to disprove but said to prove cannot prove but only disprove and then only if the subject is implicitly accepted, and the method of test also being accepted in its general power to come to particular conclusions of what is known to be not true. That the evolution of the scientific method has developed is proof enough that such a theory cannot be disproven. Or has it?

That is your opinion.

The truth of the examples given, and those not given, these being: bacteria, viruses, prions, whether disease causing as in flesh eating bacteria or whether innocuous does not change the fact that what is being observed can only be described after the fact. That live virus forms are engineered and released onto the unsuspecting human population is no consolation to those viruses that never got a chance to get started. Live viruses only protect against one clad, are unstable, and vaccines generally contain co-contaminants that are a result of the production process. Another Case in point: pig farms. Overuse of antibiotics breeds new forms of superbug. What is really happening is that the bugs are already there. Those more successful, or less inhibited, become more prevalent in their environment. Does this mean that man causes all disease to begin with? Hardly.

In the end Darwin said it best in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life:

Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly said that the, whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

No, that is also incorrect.

When a genetic mutation occurs in the brain it causes cancer...somtimes. Also sometimes not. But that said what is being argued ergo the question at hand, that is: Has evolution been scientifically proved, has not here been fully addressed. Or has it?

What is observed in mayflies living within the environment (but never outside of one) can only be the only basis of the only possible conclusion which is - uncertain. But that is known; we haven't assumed enough of the mechanics behind the mechanics behind evolutionary action.

while evolution may take our life,

it will never take (pause) our FREDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, but i do call into question the nature of your uncertainty.

Consider yourself Disputed.