Dr.Grass said: YOU DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT ARCHEOLOGY DO YOU!!??? If you knew anything at all then you would know that the fossil record is in shambles. There are hardly any ape-men fossils, and MANY experts argue strongly that the fossils are either ape or human and not a cross breed. We're not talking about a fully formed fossil as the ignorant imagine. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE THIGH BONE IN SOME CASES. Evolutionists have proposed whole new species just on a thigh bone to fill in the blanks. COMPELLING EVIDENCE INDEED. AND HERE COMES THE MOST IRONIC THING: There HAVE been many sites with both human and dinosaur fossile side by side. They've just been covered up. Read FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY.

You said that scientists think that the fossils are either ape or human and NOT a cross breed? What does a cross breed have to do with anything? Last time I checked they were finding transitional fossils, not cross breeds. Either way if you think it is either ape or human, what they find is clearly neither, it is an ancestor.
And just thigh bones, does every branch of evolution rely on just one thigh bone? Because last time I checked there are hundreds of evolution chains that have sufficient fossil records to support them. It's not a case of "Here's a single bone fossil we found yesterday", it's more of a case of finding many bones and testing them over a course of years, and doing it with dozens of different species. Of course nobody finds complete fossils, that's ludicrous, but discrediting the nearly-complete fossils based on a few that are just a couple of bones is just damn right bizarre.
I looked up forbidden archaeology, it's just a pathetic conspiracy theory. Do conspiracy theories hold more merit than science now? Because I don't. I mean what would be the motivation for hiding fossils that show humans have been living with dinosaurs, and how would one go about keeping something of such magnitude known by thousands of people "hidden"? I believe you said earlier you studied Physics. Do you believe that the speed of light is slowing down? Because I would rate that conspiracy theory equal to hidden archaeology.
And just a tip for the future, don't type in capitals to assert your argument, it does very little to support your argument, in fact it hinders you if anything.

I will concede one thing: I don't really blame anyone who desn't have specific religious on evolution for giving me so much stick before. Usually you have your uber fanatic guys with some weak ID presentation sucking in hordes of people and (usually) intelligent people rightly see it as a mass brainwash campaign.

There was one B.I.G church at our Uni who put out ads and put up posters for the 'definitive' ID proof. It all came down to the law of entropy and how it can't decrease so then structure can't form out of less structure. Problem is they didn't really understand statistical mechanics at all. In fact, there wasn't a single one of their members in our Physics department. So one 3rd year class mate of mine wrote an article showing them all how stupid they are. What made it worse is that it was obvious that if even a 3rd year can prove that your 'definitive' proof is BS then what about the Phd guys?

The end result was more damaging for the church because now they looked like complete idiots and most smart people said, well hang on, obviously evolution is true if only idiots like that say that it isn't.

So I want to try and end this peacefully. I'm just one of the few people that don't believe in evolution- NOT because of religious conviction,but because of how the model developed and how it works. There are others like me (MOST MATHEMATICIANS btw), but they won't speak out in a 1000 000 years for good reason.

Some reasons I don't accept the model:
- consciousness can't be quantified
- the record of the rocks
- ancient civilizations of Peru, Egypt, India etc that seem to contradict the model
- the famous bacterial flagellum (spelling!?)
- if all life is is a combination of matter, then if I give you matter you should in theory be able to give me life
- I've had at least 20 out of body experiences where I've verified things in other locations with other people ( I don't expect ANYONE to believe me so no negative comments pls) These were NOT drug induced. This was while I stayed at a monastary

I will also concede that my responses were not appropriate, and that no good would ever have come from them. I'm just sick of the: "FUCK GOD! IT'S EVOLUTION BABY" trip that everyone thinks is so cool.

Another thing that should have added. This one I think you should think about:

You get Natural Selection and Artificial Selection. The two are exactly the same except that AS is when a human guides the process. If you look at breeders and what they've been able to do then it's quite amazing that they haven't been able to break through a set of lower and upper barrier for every species. What happens is that the species will either die out if you try to push it beyond that, or they become sterile. Then they always revert back to the original species.

Here's an example: There are brown wild rabbits in Australia now, but they're not native. The white domesticated type was brought there by foreigners. The white rabbits escaped and became identical to the common brown wild rabbits. By random changes the chances of this is ~0 and there are quite a few more implications. For one, There seems to be a revert function encoded in the DNA. The hypothesis for this has been made, but the implications are once again quite severe. How does the point to revert back to get defined? How did the brown rabbit in that environment become the standard for that cluster of DNA to revert to?

This is going to get long, but anyway I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT THEY'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT. I'm saying maybe scientists are over-confident in their model and that there are many reasons to not blindly accept it.

*sigh*

never again I swear

About wings. Why arent there any species on their way to develop wings, but thousands of species with regressed wings (which have some use, but cant be flied with any more)
(some bugs and other insects, bats, penguins, ostriches, kiwi etc)

I need a good explanation for that, because statistically it doesn't make any sense.

Slimebeast said: About wings. Why arent there any species on their way to develop wings, but thousands of species with regressed wings.

Flying Squirrel

Flying Lizard

Flying Fish

These animals dont actually fly, they use traits they alread have (arms, skin, tail, fins) to glide.

 

 

Dr.Grass said: There are brown wild rabbits in Australia now, but they're not native. The white domesticated type was brought there by foreigners. The white rabbits escaped and became identical to the common brown wild rabbits. By random changes the chances of this is ~0 and there are quite a few more implications. For one, There seems to be a revert function encoded in the DNA.

White rabbits still have DNA for brown hair.  If two white rabbits mate, they can have a brown baby.  Obviously, brown rabbits have a huge advantage in the wild so it wont take long for them to be more common than white rabbits.

I dont know why I reply, its obvious that you dont understand genetics and evolution, and nobody here is going to help you along the way.

One problem with creationists is that they haven't evolved from monkeys. If asked, that's what they are going to reply. And by judging how they usually come in screaming into threads like this and start throwing shit around, it's hard to disagree them.

What everyone entering these debates (actually even the "console wars" debates), is Gödel. The Gödelian logic is pretty much the basis for scientific thinking.
Raymond Smullyan is known for popularising Gödel, so his production would be a good place to start. "What is the name of this book?" is easy to grasp with lots of logical examples/puzzles.

For the topic, there seems to be lots of fallacies (as expected) in the thread. Evolution and theory of evolution, are two different things. As all theories, theory of evolution explains the mechanism of a natural phenomenon, in this case, evolution.
Micro- and macroevolution are just rhetorical tricks to argue against evolution. The only evolution that exists, is "microevolution". In a timeframe long enough, evolution causes an isolated population to become a species its own.

Also the question in the title is a bit flawed, since it assumes that evolution is something very complex and it has very simple evidence to back it up, when the case actually is the complete opposite; it's simple that is backed by complex evidence. When simplified, evolution in itself is "change" and everyday life in genetics (which isn't debatable anymore btw.). Theory of evolution is the complex one, with a set of constructs that are results of evolution.

ManusJustus said: Slimebeast said: About wings. Why arent there any species on their way to develop wings, but thousands of species with regressed wings. Flying Squirrel Flying Lizard Flying Fish These animals dont actually fly, they use traits they alread have (arms, skin, tail, fins) to glide.

The squirrel doesnt count because it's a bit of skin between his forearms and legs.
 
Same with the lizard, cause its an extension and no arm with power.

The fish I dont know, he maybe is flying with his arms. That would count.

@Slimebeast: The obvious problem here is, that asked a question, Manus gave you an answer, and then the answer won't do since it doesn't fit your pre set classification.
But Manus did point out that there are species that are developing wings.