If you see all that I've posted as "boring text", links, and much evidence posts I'm done with you. Gotta love Dawkins :D I've watched a lot of his debates and looking forward to reading one of his books (probably "The god delusion" first). An amazing scientist and speaker.

What evidence would that be? Faith as in belief without evidence? Despite the evidence that has been clearly presented even in this forum thread?

An example of what? If it's about "missing links" it's a very bad one. Since you can observe your example in your own house.

...what? That's the transition from a tadpole (I think that's what it's called, again my lack of English knowledge) to a frog. And you can take a few put them in your house and see how they grow into a frog, it's completely observable. And it's not evolution, I really recommend you to take a class about evolution or at least watch the video GoldRock linked.

We don't have few bones, we have a large library of fossils showing we and other animals have evolved. Again bones aren't the only evidence there is. Native Americans are humans, their bones would be dated as to young to be any ancestor of a modern human. Guess work? DNA evidence, 2 ape chromosomes fusing into one is shown. There is simply no dispute we are related to other animal forms. No, it does not mean there should be 4,540 evolutionary forms. Not all species evolve in the same way and same time period. The transitional forms in my example would happen in those 1 million years. The transitional form as I said is hard to find since the small changes need to accumulate into those 1 million years (in my example). Right now there's about 8 million known species I think, and there's still a massive amount of ones we haven't discovered. We have many reliable fossils and links. I think I posted a link to the list in my first post. The Cambrian explosion has happened about 540 million years ago and the process was about 60 millions years long. Now in that time more complex and multicellular started to appear. I don't know what scientific cause there was, and if you would like better information that what I can give I recommend you to maybe visit a biologist in an university. What I think happened is after the cells colonized it was shown that it's much more beneficial, and then cells started to form the multicellular organism to find that it's even more beneficial for survival. _______________ I think this topic should be expanded a bit. We have discussed evolution so far, but I would like to see the thoughts of the opposing side, and their solutions based on the evidence presented. Does anyone else share this idea? I think it would be interesting hearing a bit more views other than just talking about my own.

No... the reason we don't see animals coming from other animals is because the process takes millions of years and we can't see it in out lifetime. DNA evidence, anatomical evidence, embryological evidence, fossilized evidence... No, just because we're humans doesn't mean we are all other animals should evolve into us. Adaptability and survival is the goal, not becoming a human (and we ourselves are not completely evolved). The Earth is a lot colder than it used to be, and when it cooled down it was probably billions of years ago. DNA can be changed. I have shown evidence in each of my posts showing change and adaptability true natural selection. What Darwin's views on religion were does not reduce the credibility of his theory. We have gained a huge amount of information compared to him. If you want more evidence about adaptability and change through natural selection here's a nice example of it-- The Indonesian salamanders once started to live in a cave, they were in the dark without sunlight. Interesting thing is that, as time passed, they lost their eyes. Reason was the eyes were unneeded and could get infected, a needless risk.

This right here is the best car, this thing has an amazing drift and handling:

This is the Large Hadron Collider.

The problem with linking all the transitional forms is that evolution has only small changes throughout generations and it's hard to find fossilized animals. For an example, a homo-erectus does not simply give birth to a homo-sapiens. It gradually changes until we see a new species appear. The process takes many generations (about 50 000 generations or millions of years) to fully see the changes to a modern creature. Multiple animals with similar features (these features does not imply on "look alike"-s, it means that it's shown in the DNA itself, shown into the shape of bones and the is the most logical conclusion is we are related) shows that animals are related, and from that we can see their ancestors. As we have notably changed from our ancestors it shows we are evolving (changing). And our understanding of the links is pretty nice, we have a enough of fossils to form species models of almost all animals (I don't have exact statistics now) and we have an idea of how other missing links, if there are any, would look like. The Earth is about 4.54 billions of years old.

Gold box screenshot: http://prntscr.com/28i54g

Who is talking about the Big Bang? This is the topic about evolution... I have already addressed that site, and they don't even know what evolution is. That source only tries to defend creation "science" by offering false teachings of evolution.

I am not here to prove abiogenesis, I am here defending the case for evolution. What purpose could a limb that can't be moved possibly have? It is unusable at this point and it has no purpose to be there. Both can be traced to a specific ancestor where the use of the limb is shown, but as evolution progresses the use is lost. Both micro and macro evolution are the same thing, just on different time scales, and if we can't see something directly doesn't mean we can't show it using other means such as genetic data, fossil records, anatomical similarities. Science gives us the best possible explanation on what is happening in reality, it might be wrong, but all evidence points otherwise. You'll have to excuse my lack of English knowledge on the last question, as it is not my main language. I will have to assume that your question is whether I think evolution is a slow or sudden process? If that is the question, I believe it is a slow process.

I was not the one who asked where life came from, it was already.dead I believe (you'll notice I didn't put a question mark on my last sentence). And what I've said is that evolution is NOT relevant to the creation of the world or the first life, but the change of living organisms. Abiogenesis has currently given us proof that life can come from non life, of course if that's what has happened on Earth is disputable. We have come close to understanding it however and further results will appear. But that would be going off topic. Science has so far given us a decent capability to make predictable models of reality. It has a track record of being the best way of distinguishing fact from fiction and has served to give us all we have now. So far I have shown evidence of change over time in living beings, proving evolution to be true. GoldRock has also put up a very nice video explaining exactly what evolution is. I assume you will make a case for intelligent design? Some more evidence if you wish me to present is this-- If you look at a dogs paw for example (it can be found on other animals) you will see the dewclaw. This "thumb" is an unneeded part as it never touches the ground and it cannot be moved by the animals muscles. And also, you'll notice the heel on the animal doesn't touch the ground either. This is connected to the ancestor of these animals. So, this shows evolution rather than intelligent design, for a designer would not put not needed stuff into the design (specially an all powerful and perfect one) Next you can see the emu. It's "wing" has only one finger and in the end a claw. This limb cannot be moved because the muscles cannot do it, other than movement while breathing. And you can see manatees that have nails at the end of their fins. Whales have a similar bone pattern in their fins.

Um... The caterpillar thing- that is not evolution. That is metamorphosis. Just a correction there. I agree that there are examples of adding genetic information and that the other side could present proof for their creation hypothesis.

Was this question not answered three times already?

Aaron, the website you have given me I have seen multiple times. It's full of propaganda and bad arguments about evolution. They at the start address abiogenesis, something that is not evolution. Their next claim is that evolutionary process cannot add information to the genes. This is false, for we have found that information can be added with duplication and fusion of certain genes/proteins/enzymes. Here's an article to that point as well: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html Their next claim I find funny. They say that evolution is only drawings and there is no evidence for it. So far I have given evidence. Then they go on about how we're not apes but humans... So should we just ignore the fusion of the chromosomes to shape our genetic code? Should we ignore anatomical similarities? And all other things I have presented in my first post. So their main argument is that life can't come from non life (proven false by abiogenesis) and the second is that information cannot be added to the genes. I will ignore the part of the website that treats me like an illiterate person not knowing what Christmas is just because I'm an atheist. Either way, the site is full of propaganda that I do not find to be persuasive at all. Evolution is not an excuse for anything, it shows the change of life throughout the ages and explains our being. Humans are animals, if you really think we are some kind of species above others and cannot be put in the same group with apes (not monkeys, we are apes or primates) you are wrong. Which god? And the creation of the world is irrelevant to evolution. American nation under god, huh... I'm not American but I've checked the American constitution. There is no mentioning of god. It is written that the state will not invoke religion into it's politics. The people who wrote it were deists too. Why can't I post a link to the source more informed than myself? Again, where did life come from is not evolution.

Abiogenesis most likely. This is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution for evolution deals with change and adaption of the living organisms. Here's some sources you can visit to learn more, but let's stick to the evolution topic on this one (or if you have evidence to the contrary of evolution): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ It's so far the best explanation we have that has been tested and observed and is still being addressed.

Well by providing evidence of course. If reasonable evidence is provided I will always consider it, if it's valid accept it. It is indeed worth anything needed that people know the truth in reality, it is what brought all of which we have. I am providing evidence for my claims not just saying "believe it". This is a question of our very nature (well abiogenesis can be considered a factor here too, but I won't get into that). I will protect what is supported by evidence as truth and will try and show it to others. (again, same as they, and I completely invite them to it)

Because they are now dead. The common ancestor has evolved into another species, likely splitting into several sides. In our case the ape-like ancestor has evolved into the modern ape, and into the homo-sapiens we are now. We still have genetic and fossil evidence of this. I am arguing for the case of evolution and I present my evidence for it. I do this because I do not want people having a false view of the world (it might be me, but I have provided evidence to the contrary and am yet to be countered). False beliefs lead to bad results or at the very least, don't you want to know what is true? Here in this particular topic there are 58% people who disagree with my case, and I will do my best to show that it is true. And I let them to do the same.

I really hope you're just trolling...

Evolution did not stop. It's still happening. Of course as the process takes millions of years it cannot be seen in such a direct way in our own lifetime. Science is a method, not a person so it can't really contradict itself, only results from the method. Can you show me some? And again, evidence for the specific god you're talking about.

How does that make any sense? When you die you decompose (cells die due to lack of oxygen, chemicals in your body then cause certain reaction etc. You can google the exact process), and there are worms and organisms who would basically eat you. You don't simply turn to dust by magic and it certainly does not prove any god. And humans did not come from dust, modern humans come after an intercourse of their biological parents. If you wish to argue how the "first" human(s) came to this planet please present evidence for it.

It doesn't increase health of your tank. It reduces damage of a specific weapon by some %.

Very well. I will try to present you as much evidence as I can: Genetic evidence: http://biologos.org/questions/genetic-evidence Anatomical evidence: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_anatomical_evidence_for_the_evolution_theory#slide1 List of transitional fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Questions about transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html More info: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01 These are some of the sources I've found about evolution. I've noticed some people see evolution only as a theory implying that it's nothing but a guess. This is not the case for a scientific theory is made by observing evidence, testing it, sharing a conclusion with other scientist who will test it for the same conclusion. After it is concluded it becomes a theory. There is proof of biodiversity that is shown in the number of species that exist. It is shown that they come from a common ancestor either through genetic, anatomical or fossil evidence. Natural selection for adaption of species is happening, it has been observed and it still can be observed. Evolution does not have perfect adaptation through natural selection (see the appendix, wisdom teeth etc.) but it provides adaptation as much as possible. This shows that there is no intelligent force such as a deity controlling it. Evolution is one of the strongest theories of science at this time and has been reinforced after Darwin published his findings. Our knowledge of facts increases and with it science will change it's theories, but so far there is no solid evidence that evolution doesn't happen. And I would like anyone who has evidence that claims otherwise is to show it.

Lad? Since vILLage=>sick=>ill. gLADstone=>son=>lad (a word for boy, son)