Thanks for clearing that up more politely then some others as well, things get a bit skeptical here though as we come from a common ancestor yet ended up different, if we all evolved to the best possible route why would a common ancestor split into different creatures?

From my understanding the simplest creatures are meant to be the strongest as they're more resilient to drastic change virus', bacteria and so on. Would those fish perhaps fall into this category?

using the word theory as if it is just a guess until we have proof of something else is undermining the term quite a bit.

A theory is a carefully put together explanation of why things happen.

In terms of "speciation", which is what the theory of evolution attempts to explain, it is an explanation why speciation occurs.

Micro-evolution is a proven process. It is testable and repeatable and predictable. However, the main problem that people have with evolution is that scientists extrapolate this micro evolution across species into larger genera. There isn't much evidence to support this because there is simply no way to test it or show it within the short span of time we've been around.

However, the concept of evolution is 100% proven. Nothing will prove it wrong.

There is no, like, graduation from theory to law or fact etc etc, because they all mean different things. A theory in day to day conversation is not scientific theory.

My understanding is that Gravity is a law, but a theory is used to explain WHY it happens.

@mauler
a law is a mathematical or explanation of what happens.
a theory is WHY it happens.
A fact is that it happens.

Gravity exists (fact). It occurs as a result of the interaction between size, distance, and mass of two objects (law). These variables interact because the denser and larger an object is, the more gravitons it absorbs, and thereby expels. When a graviton enters a body, it cause another graviton to be ejected, thereby very slightly moving the body toward the direction that the particle came in. The denser the object, the harder it is to move. If you can imagine gravitons hitting the object at every angle on a gigantic scale (billions per nanometer), then gravitons radiate from the planet in a spherical expulsion. Again, the denser an object, the more particles per nanometer it can emit. When that concentration of gravitons hits another object, it pulls them with a strength equal to the difference between the mass, size and distance of the two objects (theory).
The density determines the particles per inch, the size ratio determines the trajectory of expulsion, and the distance determines the spread of the particle "net".
In numbers, this would reflect the number of particles (1 per inch vs 1trillion), hitting the object obtusely vs acutely (think of earth vs sun, vs, earth vs venus....walls work best as they pull the entire object), and 1billion particles hitting something at a certain angle 1 mile away vs 1 particle hitting something at a certain angle a billion miles away.

Well that was more of fact, law, mathematical law.

The theory is that, particles entering and exiting bodies exert forces upon each other.

Since when is providing/supplying an entire country not mass production? During monument building beer was integral for the workers and was thus "mass" produced.

Where on Earth did you get that from? My understanding is the Egyptians were the most advanced medics of the time. They used honey as an antiseptic (which it is), willow bark to dress wounds (again a natural antiseptic), were clean (washed everyday) and treated chest infections with steam. They also had sophisticated surgery equipment for the time. 

If you want to get philosophical about it then you can never "prove" anything in science or religion. You can only disprove previous work. For some people (namely creationists) they think evolution disproves their interpretation of the bible, thus feel threatened by it and deny it. Some of the minor details of evolution have been disproven and new theories have arisen and improved our understanding, but evolution as a whole has never been disproven. On the contrary, more evidence has arisen to support it. If new evidence actually arise that disproves evolution, then the scientific community will change their views.

As for how life arose, that's not really evolution per-se, rather abiogenesis. It's a huge area of research with numerous theories (too many to cover in a post), but you can google it for more info. There's loads on the topic.

Well it can't be because it is a theorem. It is like saying 2 + 3 = 5 isn't true because it is an equation rather than a number.

Let me put it to you this way, a scientific theory is uses a collection of scientific facts and laws organized in order to explain an observation or process - or another fact or collection of facts. So the theory of evolution is not a scientific fact because of its nature; but I'll put it this way in terms of the word "fact" that you are using as in "something that is proven true" - Evolution is a fact.

Brain... hurting... too much... insanity.

I can't believe that in 2012, people still use the "but it's just a THEORY" argument. Shit, learn what you're arguing, you twits.

This is a really stupid thread. I myself am half Christian (Protestant) and I accept evolution and the Big Bang theory. Happy? This thread would be much more reasonable if it was made 40 years ago.