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.

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.

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

Aha! Exactly! And we now know that pluto is a PLANETOID! Not a planet.

Percival Lowell and Clyde Tombaugh were blind fools! - to think they discovered a planet! Now, thankfully from the perspective of 20/20 hindsight we can arrogantly scoff at the error of their ways, for we now know that pluto is a PLANETOID, and that Percival Lowell and Clyde Tombaugh's contributions were actually counterproductive to the advancement of what we today call science...Thanks to the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) decision Pluto is a dwarf planet! Modern reality is defined not by the insane direct observation of physical reality by individuals peering into a tube, but decided upon through CONSENSUS of the GROUP. Certainly the individual mind has no value in todays society, and only the GROUP MIND can come to any real conclusion in the modern sense. And if you disagree and look up at the stars and think you see an object, that is just your personal opinion.

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?

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?

If man evolved from apes, then why is there still apes? To evolve is to change and the ape didn't. Evolution only an atheist's delusion.

It's all a theory. Scientist don't have a clue when there trying to figure out how life actually got started. Another debunked remember Ida it was supposed to be the missing link and they gave it a huge media plug telling the whole world this is it. Well today they went back on it and said that it's not even close it was some kind of cat. Just like on National Geographic 30 years ago when they showed an ape like skull on the from cover only to find out later that it was a hoax, and it was sold that this is it. It has to make you wonder if there is a agenda behind it.

Why is it more reasonable to conclude common descent rather than common design from the similarity we see among species. I would argue that common design is far more reasonable. Here is why. This is a quote from the article and the full article can be found at the link below.

Conclusion

The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption and view that they are not willing to jettison is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. This shows that evolutionists treat common descent in an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and ideological, fashion.

Meanwhile, as far as the data is concerned, the New Scientist article admits, “Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth,” but because “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” the notion of a tree of life is now quickly becoming a vision of the past — as the article stated, it’s being “annihilated.” Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. For those open-minded enough to consider it, common design is a viable alternative to common descent.

Although I firmly believe in evolution, it is only a theory, and even though theories have evidence and are backed up with facts, they are not 100% true and can probably never really be proven, like the Big Bang Theory. But just because something is a theory does not mean people cannot believe in it; I personally believe in both evolution and the Big Bang.

evolution has never been proven and will never be proven because it never happened. on that note you also can't prove creationism ever took place because it just happened. there is nothing intelligent about the thought you evolved from hydrogen gas or any other non living thing.

Fact shmakt.

That is just your opinion.

Not everyone evolves. Look at Neanderthals. What happened to them? Did they die out on their own? Or was it MURDER?!!!

And if its true that humans killed off the Neanderthals, can we really say it was natural selection; or is it necessarily artificial selection, having been done at the hands of humankind?

*

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

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

Well personally, my second cousin by marriage on my mothers side descends from the Archea branch, but my bosses boss is an arachnid. To my knowledge they are not related.

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

Consider yourself Disputed.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.