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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evolution is basically common sense once you put down your bible and get out of the church. All evolution is is adaptation over a long period of time. For instance: All human life began in Africa. The tribes spread all over the world and adapted to their climate. That is why we have so many different groups of people.

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,it has been proved

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

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.

"Prove" it, my good fellow,

Don't "proven" it,

By the way

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Read the whole comment that he makes first

Yes, you are right, it is impossible to call it a certainity, but for this reason:

All evidence for evolution is proven. The EVIDENCE is fact. The problem is it is impossible to say "This evidence means X, X exactly, and X only."

It bothers me when people say "it is only a theory" to disprove it, for they are confusing the word "theory" with "idea."

Here's a tip: don't use the Big Bang Theory as an example as another theory, for it is widely disputed. Use the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Anyone to not believe in that is a lunatic.