You know... i believe in evolution, but you aren't helping the cause here...

this arguement is basically the posterchild arguement someone who doesn't believe in evolution would want to see...

because it's bascially a selfmade strawman that makes evolution look ridiculious.

1) Simple organisms still evolve. 

2) It wouldn't matter how much support there is for a theory if there is one thing that disproves it.  Truth isn't "Majority rules".  (These aren't proof agaisnt it though)

Yep.  It's kinda like suggesting that two Magic The Gathing players didn't start at the same time because one's deck had changed way more then anothers has since they both supposidly started.

If your better at the "meta game" you don't need to change.  Some evolutions are just "broken." 

Things evolve.  Get over it.  It is a fact that things do evolve over time.  Do argue otherwise, is absurd.  Well, it is absurd to argue otherwise on a VIDEOGAME site also.

Now, do you want to argue there is limits to the extent things can evolve in an unguided manner, and also whether or not life can come into being unless done by processes that are engineered, that is another issue.  But to say, BLAMMO there is no evolution, is absurd.

Consider the case of adaptive mutations, which has been seen, where environmental pressures will cause a mutation to happen, in response to changes in the environment: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6646.short

Abstract

Upon starvation some Escherichia coli cells undergo a transient, genome-wide hypermutation (called adaptive mutation) that is recombination-dependent and appears to be a response to a stressful environment. Adaptive mutation may reflect an inducible mechanism that generates genetic variability in times of stress. Previously, however, the regulatory components and signal transduction pathways controlling adaptive mutation were unknown. Here we show that adaptive mutation is regulated by the SOS response, a complex, graded response to DNA damage that includes induction of gene products blocking cell division and promoting mutation, recombination, and DNA repair. We find that SOS-induced levels of proteins other than RecA are needed for adaptive mutation. We report a requirement of RecF for efficient adaptive mutation and provide evidence that the role of RecF in mutation is to allow SOS induction. We also report the discovery of an SOS-controlled inhibitor of adaptive mutation, PsiB. These results indicate that adaptive mutation is a tightly regulated response, controlled both positively and negatively by the SOS system.

I would suggest people who want to go into what I wrote above, look into the book, "Darwin in the Genome", which shows how the mechanics of evolution are more weird, wild, and unexpected than one would initially think, that speaks of species developing strategies for evolution, to adapt:

http://ncse.com/rncse/27/3-4/review-darwin-genome

1) I mean some simple organims my mistake

2) evolution is not a law, as in you cannot predict the result of evolution by looking at past experience or data, finding one or several species that didn't evolve because they didn't need to doesn't disprove the fact that undread of thousands of species did evolve. to disprove evolution you would need to show that not a single organism did evolve trough history but that something else happenned

yes exactly, you would have to show that something else happened instead. And yes, laws only exist for specifically measureable theories, like gravity or the speed of light. Because we cannot adequately quantify the value of some change in environment, we cannot mathematically figure it out. But, it is possible that one day there will be enough evidence to quantify those  effects, but would require an enourmous amount of variables.

Haahahaha, please, go actually read whats the topic about, at least the first 10 sentences, and than come back and ''enlighten us''

Evolution is a fact. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

1) They all evolve though.

2)  Re-read the OP.  The thread is about evolution as the single source of life for all creatures on earth.  Aside from which, if you accepted the fact that some organisms didn't evolve, you would have to question evolution as a whole since morphologic evolution is based wholey on conjecture.  We've never recorded it happen and we only have fossils that suggest it has happened.  Fossil evidence and very similar birds with very few differences  Fossil evidence has been misread before, like many dinosaur breeds that never really existed. 

It's possible, though not very plausable that said fossil "proof" could of just been stitched together by the people studying it as a logical progression, like Dinosaur bones that were stichted together that were really from two/three differnet dinosaurs.  If there were living beings who weren't evolving it would very much call into question evolution.

At the very least, finding non evolving creatures on earth would completely throw up in the air what species did and didn't evovle.

trashleg said: I thought evolution was explained as simply certain alleles being passed on, which meant the alternate allele of that gene (responsible for a phenotypic trait) eventually died out. Basic example: In those situations where being tall is more beneficial than being short, the tall people survive better and therefore have better birth rates, until eventually all the shorties die off. Imagine all the potential traits that have shown through as the better ones in the history of biology, and evolution makes sense. The organisms which haven't changed in 50 million years may just have much the same gene pool now as they did then, thus the changes that occurred generation to generation were never permanent. So to simply say "they didn't need to evolve" could well answer the question, but hopefully my explanation makes it seem more realistic? And the reason some modern organisms (ie apes and humans) exist at the same time? - could be explained possibly by the idea that as some of the population became more discriminate over their sexual partners, the rest of the population were still procreating with each other. Thus you get branching of the family tree, which has led to modern day differences. Science is ever-evolving, don't be so quick to rule something out just because it doesn't make sense

height and weight are also influenced by factors such as nutrition  and the ready availability of meat etc. especially in the 20th century has had a profoundly influenced mankind's physical growth , your man/ape existing together today being explained by sexual discreetness isn't needed because mankind didn't evolve from apes directly but both likely originated from a shrew like ancestor.

Exactly.

Humans evolved so much because they had to survive. They adapted to their constantly changing environment.