When will science prove evolution?
916572
the problem is that history can not be proven. science deals with the now. right now we have fossils and bones. what does this mean? that somthing lived and died not that they evolved over millions of years. if the biologists knew anything about astronomy they would realize that the earth is slowing down (hence the leap second) and if somthing is slowing down that means it used to be going faster. and if you do the math on this billions of years ago the earth was going so fast that day and night were one and nothing could stand on its surface.\n\nlets think for ourselves and not let the government or our textbooks tell us what to beleive \ngalleleo along with almost every other inventor would have never made there discoverys had it not been for there mistrust of textbooks.
615396
creation or evolution?
797870
Any creationist who believes things do not evolve are intellectually dishonest.  However, it is reasonable to expect that creationists would have a more limited definition of what 'evolving' encompasses.
269598
you are right.  evolution is a statistical imposibility\n\nthe odds of even one species evolving like the bat for instance.  with allits specialized functions and abilities....   its like a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747.  and thats just one species.  also i like it when you confront athiests and agnostics with hard fact PROOVING evolution CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED.  like this.\n\nthe earths rotation is slowing.  this is a measured, proven, scientific, fact.  If you were to rewind time adding as you go back the ammount of speed lost. you would find that as little as 1 mil years ago. the earth would be spinning so fast that the centripital force would cause everything to be flung off into space.  \n\nthats just one way and there are many other ways to disprove evolution.  oddly enough whenever you tell these things to an evolutionist and or athiest/agnostic.  they just kind of stand there with a not so bright look on thier face...
1153218
You are Right, Evolution is true.\n\nThose who dont just happen to take references from their Holy Books to seriously. We must all understand that these Holy Books are a matter of faith and should not be involved in the studies of Science. \nScience on the other hand is hard cold truth. The truth in Science is always backed by facts and numbers.
283955
Proof.  I just read through the above answers, and sorry, but no amount of religious zeal or "because I said so, and I believe, therefore I'm right" is going to convince anyone.  quoting scripture, or saying that because you believe Darwin to be wrong, and have some piece of spam to back you up.  The one sentence that would convince me?\n"This is God, you have some explaining to do!"
1122825
nope you cant prove it either way.\n\ni was watching a show on evolution yesterday though and i had an interesting thought.\n\nyou remember hearing that if earths history was an encylopedia that the history of man would only be on like that last half of the last paragraph of the last book?\n\nwell then why didnt intelligent life evolve during that whole time? \n\njust a thought.
550523
Just remember, evolution is an untested, unproven theory.  In fact, it cannot be tested or proven.  If one looks at the scientific method and what constitutes a theory, evolution barely qualifies, if at all.
483482
Science will eventually disprove religion
671450
Evolution is a proven fact! There are more scientific evidence about Evolution and NONE about the Hebrew myth of creation! \nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past! \nBy the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
1062864
Yes it's a theory. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nNearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the "Cambrian Explosion.\n\nScientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today.\n\nMany of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.\n\nTwo places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China.\n\nIn Stephen J. Gould's popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include "a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world's oceans.\n\nFurther, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods*** that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But "one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs." Today there are about 38 phyla in existence, but the Canadian, Chinese and other Cambrian sites reveal over fifty phyla.\n\nThere has been a decrease in diversity (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the reverse of what evolutionary theory predicts.\n\nBesides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to "the last filament of a trilobite's gill," or the last meal in a worm's gut.\n\nThe Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable.\n\nResearchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects.\n\nThe conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.\n\nUntil recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian pe
987774
It's the best scientifically tested explaination that we have.  Believe me, scientists aren't so eager to fall into line as you might think.  If someone could get recognition by scientifically disproving the theory of evolution to any great extent, it will be done.
330878
No, I don't belive in it, but we are all Intitled to our own opinions.. If you compair the words of the bible to what modern scientists are coming up then the bible's right and there is no proof of scientests being right.. but yeah.. if your opinion is that evolution is true. .then I'm not trying to push anything at you...
1043983
The theory is still the same- altho every thing has been prooven wrong along time ago! There has never been any scientific proof for evolution!  Dr. Kent Hovind is offering a quarter of a million dollars to whoever can proove the evolution theory! Nobody has yet! As it staes the evolution theory is still a THEORY!
400596
I've been debating creationists for the better part of a decade and I have still never heard a single piece of evidence against evolution (really, common descent, almsot all creationists accept evolution, though they hate the word and refuse to use the correct definitions).\n\nIf they had anything, we'd have heard of it by now.  Instead we just get, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" and such nonsense.  (Hint: that question has been asked on Answers.Yahoo at least ten times since I started coming here three days ago, and it has been answered for over 100 years, GET UP TO DATE CREATIONISTS!)\n\nCreationists have no evidence against evolution.  If they did, it still wouldn't make creationism a reasonable proposition.  They need explanations for the evidence that contradicts creationism, such as the sorting of the fossil record (how did all those mangroves make it to the top?).
260278
There is physical evidence supporting evolution.  There is no physical evidence supporting creationism.
1137300
And babies prove evolution is a fact since they evolve out of plants, water, animals and rocks.\n\nGiven all the evidence proving God does not exist (and if he does, he's useless), it's a wonder any intelligent person makes the claim that he does exist.\n\nThe opium of the masses, Marx said, and is apparently true.