As I understand the topic, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Merriam-Webster defines evolution as:  2 a : a process of change in a certain direction.

We know that organisms have changed overtime.  There is more than enough fossil and DNA evidence to show this.

The Theory of evolution is what ties all of the facts together.  A theory is science doesn't mean "guess", or "speculaion".

I feel like talkorigins does a better job of explaining it than I do. 

humans born with tails? its not happening on a massive scale

evolution would go from something good, to something better right? (otherwise it would be called de-evolution and if that was true, then the previous theories stated about human origins aren't true) so how would poor "engineering" fit in the category? its not becoming better its becoming worse 

Evolution does not set out goals to acheive.  If you think humans are the epitome of evolutionary progress then try living in the niche of a fish and see who lasts longer underwater.

Humans may not always reveal tails but the human genome contains genes that can code for tails as well as many other characteristics not often seen.  However if you do want a characteristic like tails that is seen on a massive scale then go talk to a dentist and she'll tell you about wisdom teeth. 

Good and better are subjective terms. Evolution doesn't necessarily always provide better survival equipment. Often a mutation is harmful or irrelevant.

That is a very good example. I think the it was just the industrial revolution causing the air pollution but the effect is the same. The environment changes and those best suited to the environment produce more offspring.

I don't understand how they are social changes. I would say that they are primarily technological: medicine and food. People are much less likely to be malnourished (still happens though, sadly) and much less likely to die of a heart attack at age 40ish.

I would argue that the technology is again part of our environment. Since our environment has changed, those issues are not currently survival factors so no "de-evolution" is taking place.

Maybe in thousands of years, we'll all be diabetic but instinctually know how to make insulin. Or maybe we'll become incredibly in tune with our blood sugar and alter our diets.

I think that our technology level and the fact that we are social animals makes our social behavior more and more of a survival factor. I know a number of people who are in good shape, healthy, but just a bit brash and have difficulty meeting potential mates.

-Triften

Evolution is defined in different ways by different people. First, evolution is considered a unifying theory of science in that evolution means change over time, and everything changes over time. Volcanoes change the shape of the earth, and that is terrestrial evolution. But, for the purposes here, we are being specific to biological evolution. In biology, the most commonly accepted definition in the scientific community is “changes in allele frequency across generations.” Essentially, alleles represent genes. So, if the population is growing faster in non-Western nations than in the West, the proportion of the earth with darker skin colors might grow in relation to whites. So, the darker skin genes are being represented more and more over time (across later generations), and the human race is said to be evolving.  Now, that definition is not threatening to any theists. In this sense, evolution is said to be fact. We can prove this change over time. We have seen it and we can experiment with it.  On the other hand, there is another common definition of evolution—the gradual change of some members of a species into an entirely new species. This is also called macro-evolution. And this is where theists sometimes have problems. This type of evolution is theory and not fact. A scientific theory is a possible explanation (that cannot be ruled out) for a set of observations. Evolution tries to explain the fossil record. Evolution fits the observations and therefore is not disproven. That still doesn’t make it true, though In fact, there are some problems with macro-evolution. Scientists have studied genetics for hundreds of years, and have even studied more than 100,000 successive generations of fruit-flies, and no macro-evolution has ever been observed. It used to be believed that evolution was a constant gradual process. But, the evidence is clearly against that now. So, some scientists now claim that evolution occurs in spurts. We just happen to be in a period of stagnation, they say. Creationists, on the other hand, claim they also have a theory that fits the observations. They say creation explains why we can’t find any species evolving into new species. They also ask how evolution explains the complexity of even single-celled creatures. In general, scientists answer with their own faith statement: ‘We don’t know yet, but we’ll figure it out. Is evolution true? I'll admit it's a valid theory, in that it explains observations and has not been disproven; but I'm not convinced it's true. 

This type of evolution is a term made up by creationists because adaptation (what they call "micro-evolution" ) is such an in your face fact. Under one definition of "species", two animals are of the same species if they can produce viable offspring, so if two animals can't produce viable offspring, they are of different species. It doesn't mean a dog gives birth to a cat. That's a strawman argument.

Another problem with the claim of there being no "macro-evolution" is that the definition of species is a bit iffy. With animals, the offspring test seems to work, but in plants, all sorts of strange hybrids can be made (radish/cabbage). Things get even shakier when looking at creatures that reproduce asexually.

Actually, scientists have produced different populations of fruit flies sharing the same ancestors that can no longer produce viable offspring together. Also, they have demonstrated the same phenomenon with plants.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

If you think that that website is biased, feel free to look up their references and delve into the actual studies themselves.

This is called punctuated equilibria (first presented in 1954, 97 years after Darwin's book). If you have small "clans" of creatures and a trait arises in one of them that gives it an advantage, that trait will be quickly spread over the course of a few generations until every living creature in that clan has that trait. Many primates work in small groups where this happens. So a creature may be basically the same for a number of generations, then when a trait gives one of them a massive advantage, things happen "suddenly" (geologically speaking). Then that population of creatures begins exerting pressure on its competition and/or predators and/or prey, forcing them to adapt and so on.

Basically, a population only changes when it "needs" to, when pressure is exerted by its environment (without being downright fatal).

They have a theory that requires the direct intervention of some outside force that either a) has a much higher technology level than our own, or b) is magic/supernatural.

Also, the claim that complexity = design is merely a "proof by personal incredulity".

Has anyone presented a theory like this in any other field?

Evolution is an established fact. "Theory" does not mean that it's not a proven fact; "hypothesis" would mean it's not proven.

That evolution has been the primary cause of the wide diversity of life on Earth is well-established and undeniable by anyone who possesses the capacity for rational thought. That it continues to go on today is also fully established. There are myriad ways in which evolution works and we are still discovering new mechanisms on a regular basis, but that only serves to confirm the strength of the basic theory, it's not an indication of its weakness.

The one place where the hangup occurs is with the question of where it all started. Evolution explains quite well how a single living organism can lead to billions of different types of living organisms, but theorists have not yet fully explained where that first living organism came from.

Doesn't mean they never will. Frankly, I not only expect that they eventually will but that it will be a rather disappointing and anticlimatic finding. For example, it's already well known that crystals reproduce under the right conditions; one crystal will tend to grow more crystals. Once that happens enough times in enough different ways, sooner or later there will be some crystals that prove more durable than others. Some may break loose from their locations and get moved around by winds and water. Eventually some microscopic crystals might find they have the ability to influence the assembly of other sorts of molecules, such as amino acids. And so on, and so forth, and next thing you know you have humans wondering how they got here and making up fantastical stories to explain it.

One thing is absolutely certain today: The entire idea that Adam and Eve were placed fully intact by God on Earth is a farce. If God created life, what he created was a bacterium. Everything else evolved from there without any intervention from any supernatural powers.

-- Kirbert

Scientists sometimes speak of the rate at which evolution proceeds, how long it takes one type of organism to evolve into another type of organism. I have a problem with this thinking. It presumes that the only driver is the mutation rate, which presumably is mathematically predictable. However, the rate at which evolution takes place is mostly a function of the driving forces involved, not the mutation rate.

As an example: If you cut the heads off of every human being over six feet tall this afternoon, the human race would be shorter tomorrow morning. Not just physically, but genetically.

Similarly, one would expect that evolution to proceed at a blinding rate right after one of the cataclysmic events that resulted in a worldwide die-off, such as a meteor impact that killed off the dinosaurs. Yes, many species were wiped out -- but the ones that survived faced an entirely new set of challenges and had to adapt quickly to survive. In fact, in many cases there were probably races to adapt, where the species that successfully adapts first displaces several others and causes their extinction by simply out-competing them for food and other resources. If it were possible to assemble a complete dossier on all the species during such a period and the changes they underwent, it would stagger the mind.

-- Kirbert

Awesome, where is the fossil evidence of our tails? Don't bother answering that question, it was rhetorical.

There is not one reputable physiologist who will agree that our tailbone is a vestigial tail. They all agree that all true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column. Also, all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail. There has never been a single documented case of an animal tail lacking these distinctive features, nor has there been a single case of a human caudal appendage having any of these features.

Furthermore, most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the "inescapable fact" of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.

Fine, I'll battle the appendix theory as well:

The evolutionary claim found in textbooks is that the human appendix is really a vestigial cecum left over from our plant-eating evolutionary ancestors. The cecum is a blind-ending pouch near the beginning of the large intestine which provides additional space for digestion. In some plant-eating animals, such as cows, the cecum contains special bacteria which aid in the digestion of cellulose. The appendix is clearly not a vestigial cecum because almost every mammal has a cecum and many of these also have an appendix! Man, for example, has both a cecum and an appendix -- neither is vestigial or useless. The appendix, like the once "vestigial" tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary "left over," many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice.

K for all those people who do not believe in evolution and or genetic manipulation, here are a few facts.

Fact 1. In the early to mid 1900's when slavery was at it's peek in the U.S. the white slave owners took the strongest and hardest working slaves and bread them to produce like offspring.

Fact 2. Look at today's sports events, mostly black in the U.S. where this genetic manipulation took place.

Fact 3. Look at the other countries and in their sports, where this genetics did not take place, mostly whites and or others indigenous to that particular country.

If this does not prove once and for all that evolution happens and can happen relatively quickly, i don't know what will.

Maybe this will, i read about a scientist that bread a certain type of fly who's average life span was about 3 weeks or so I'm not quite sure how long, however now that particular type of fly is now (with genetic manipulation) living 5 and even 6 time past it's expected life. So proof positive that evolution is not only occurring, people are also making it happen. And it is happening so fast within a couple generations.

Um, no, it has NEVER been empirically proven. Why don't you God haters back your scientific theories up with some actual science. Name the study, the journal, the date, give me something credible. YOU CAN'T.  Even hardcore evolutionists know that it is only a theory of how we came to be. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is the means in which we arrived at our present state as humans, I as a Christian, will renounce my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and I will deny the Holy Spirit. I can say this because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you can't.

No, it is not true. Once again, zero, zip, zilch, nada on the scientific evidence to back up your original irrational claim. The study you're referring to is the genetic altering of fruit flies. 1.) not an animal, but an insect. 2.) At the end, they were still fruit flies. 3.) Creationists, at least this one, have never said evolution wasn't real, it just isn't responsible for the creation of human beings.

Wow, I see now how your misunderstanding of basic scientific principles has led to your misunderstanding of the God that created the universe. 

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems—in fact all systems, without exception.

"No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found—not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the `first law&#39, the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.^"     E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53. April 2000), p. 32.

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists—that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

"Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.^"

Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/ June 2000), p. 274.

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermo-dynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution never occurred in the past, is not occurring at present, and could never happen at all.

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3

Dio

Because that would lower us to the level of the theists. 

--  Kirbert 

First, let me start at the end of your quote. The fruitcakes you refer to, i.e. me as I am a Theist, had evidence the world was not flat thousands of years before scientists knew any different:

"Do you not know? Have you not heard?             Has it not been told you from the beginning?        Have you not understood since the earth was founded?  He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers"   Isaiah 41: 21-22

Furthermore, please provide me the evidence that you speak of when you say, very close-mindedly, that "science has proven evolution".  I'd like the name of the study, the researcher/s that conducted it, the dates in which it was conducted, etc.

The reason scientists don't argue with theists is the opposite of what you say, they are smart enough to know not to argue what cannot be empirically evidenced. Once again, I am not referring to evolution as far as survival of the fittest is concerned, but more along the lines of biogenesis. Scientists still cannot explain the origin of life, nor can they provide evidence of the transitional life forms that would be necessary to evidence evolution from a single cell into multi-celled organisms. 

Your theory has changed by the way to say that evolution occurs in spurts not gradually as was once misunderstood. That would still mean that there should be thousands of transitional fossils to evidence this.

Actually, a dog giving birth to a cat -- without some in vitro help from some meddling scientists -- would be a very good argument in favor of theism!  It clearly couldn't happen if God didn't exist, but if God does exist, why wouldn't he pull a stunt like that every now and then just to mix things up!  It would be much more impressive than a piece of toast that looks sorta like Jesus if you squint real hard.

--  Kirbert 

Quite true, unfortunately. As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that been working out for ya?" More than half of all high school graduates in the US today claim they don't believe in evolution. There are still movements afoot to teach creationism in public school as though it has equal validity with evolution (and obviously to convince school children that it has equal validity with evolution).

It's high time that scientists and other atheists start making their positions known and actively attacking the nonsense being spewed by religion. It's clearly not enough to merely be satisfied with knowing that theists are deluded, it's time to take action and start helping their children see the error of their parents' ways. (I'm presuming, obviously, that the parents are usually a lost cause). It may take a few generations, but eventually we must "free humanity of the mind disorder known as theism".

Sometimes a journey is so long and so forboding that you cannot see how you will ever make it to the end. You can often see where to begin, however. In this case, the place to get started is apparent, and kudos to the RRS for a very promising first step!

-- Kirbert

''I'd like the name of the study, the researcher/s that conducted it, the dates in which it was conducted, etc.''

Errr, like every text on biology since about 1880.

 "The reason scientists don't argue with theists...''

  They're always arguing, and have been since the dawn of science! Unless they're being polite or afraid of being ostracized by fascist 'believers'.

''That would still mean that there should be thousands of transitional fossils to evidence this.''

Which there are.  You've totally misunderstood the process of natural selection and evolution.  Fish didn't grow long tails, then whiskers, then legs and then become a mouse.  Every discreet step on the scale was a functioning, surviving animal that thrived in its environment.  Look at seals, or penguins - what are they if not living transitions - they're clumsy as hell out of water, and graceful in it.  Or most obvious of all the archaeopteryx - almost literally half bird half dinosaur.

Actually, there is at least one exception: when space dust, under the influence of its own gravity, accumulates to form a star or planet, entropy apparently is decreased without any input from outside the collection of dust involved.

--  Kirbert 

The justice system in the US provides for proof of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". IOW, sure, a defendant can claim that a spaceship full of little green men dropped out of the sky, killed the victim, put the knife in the defendant's hands and then disappeared. And you couldn't prove that didn't happen. But it's not reasonable.

The same standard could be applied here. Sure, perhaps you can't prove whether or not some invisible omnipotent character created us and everything around us -- but it's not reasonable to believe so. In fact, believing so should elicit reactions from others similar to the reactions you'd expect if you claimed you saw little green men get out of a spaceship.

Well, obviously he's aware of priests who study Christianity for a living who unanimously reject it. And it's not like either group has a reason to lie.

-- Kirbert

You're full of it. Theists were the ones holding back the viewpoint that the world is round. You're simply attempting to deflect the blame. You fail.

The evidence surrounds you. It has been presented at least a hundred times in this forum alone. I am beyond tired of referencing the same material time and again just because someone else is too lazy to look for themselves. Look it up.

Look it up, or read topics dealing with it.

Wrong. They don't argue because you are crackpots who don't accept reality. And they have better things to do than argue with people with imaginary friends.

Has nothing to do with the facts of evolution. Evolution doesn't have anything to describe how life started, just how it progressed. You are confusing two topics with one.

They don't need to. As mentioned above, evolution doesn't cover life's forming. Just it's progression. Hoping for 3.5 billion year old fossils to jump out of nowhere on a planet as dynamically active as earth, where conditions for fossil forming is rarer than gold, is irrational. Look at the fossil record we DO have for proof of evolution.

You have no idea how fossils form or how often they form in the first place, so you're in no position to assume how many or what types there may or may not be. And evolution can occur either gradually or in spurts. As per it's nature. Every scientific "theory" changes as it's better understood, until the point where every facet about it is known. It's still a fact.

Well, for one, I was going to mention fruit flies. They ended up with two different species of flies. Proof that the animals better fitted to the their environment (natural or "artificial" ) will perform better and thus have more offspring. This has also been observed in the wild. The peppered moth being one of those instances.

Now you are redefining the word animal. Insects are a type of animal. Equivocation is not a valid form of argument.

They key is that they were two different species of fruit fly.

So now you are admitting that evolution occurs? From your previous paragraph, I would have assumed otherwise. Which is it? Do you think evolution occurs or not?

P.S. Many creationists are of the Young Earth variety and do claim that evolution isn't real.

Since when has anyone had "unlimited resources"? Also, are we discussing evolution or abiogenesis? Evolution says nothing about how life began, just how it changes.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and, following chemical properties, have a propensity to assemble into large chains. Some of these chains will interact very strongly with other amino acids to self replicate. A particular simple self-replicator has a 1 in 10^40 chance of appearing given "random" assembly ("random" is in quotes because these interactions are not truely random). However, keep in mind that a kilogram of amino acid contains on the order of 10^24 molecules. Even a small amount allows for many parallel trials of assembly.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that entropy is a measure of useable energy. As useable energy decreases, entropy increase. This energy can be used to build things.

Animals use energy all the time to grow and still entropy increases. Water can freeze and crystalize and entropy increases. (Or are you going to argue that ice crystals aren't orderly?)

What about a mutation arising allowing bacteria to consume nylon? (Prijambada et al 1995) Or mutations in humans to gain resistance to HIV or heart disease?

Please provide evidence of your assertion that no mutations are beneficial.

(As a note: You are admitting that mutations occur.)

Again, please decide where you stand on this issue. So far, you've taken the stance that evolution doesn't occur twice and that it does once. Is this because you are copy and pasting material from the ICR website? You didn't even cite it. That's plagarizing.

-Triften

No, I'm an atheist. but... There is a Kenneth R. Miller.

I only believe in the evolution that has occured in my lifetime. 

Darwin was concerned that his theory was out the window if the 'infinetly numerous transitional links' could not be found.  From chapter 9 (Origin of the Species):

The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.

Over 140 years later, and not even a thousand of these transitional fossils have been found, let alone the millions (infinite) he posited should exist. 

 I think a belief in the theory of evolution is to believe in fantasy. 

I have read Darwin.

According to Darwin, ancient fossils are not that rare (see his quote).

 The strongest theory is nothing when compared to real proofs.  A belief in a theory is therefore not rational.  What is rational is to say the theory could be proven right or wrong at any moment.

140 years has been plenty of time to locate even some of the millions of transitional fossils that Darwin said should exist.  There hasn't been even 100 of these transitional fossils found.  Some people are desparate to find these transitional fossils. Some paleontologists claimed they found a transitional fossil in China - turns out they put together bones from different animals. 

 Some mainstream biologists question the validity of some parts of the theory of evolution.  Google and you shall find.

 Believing a theory is true is dangerous and irrational.

Their information is still wrong. Please, get information from other sources and compare it. www.talkorigins.org is a very good website and, in fact, you can probably look at this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html along side the ICRs and find refutations to all the arguments they are making. The information provided on this website can be cross-referenced any number of places.

The definition of species is man-made. 

We have two definitions of species: if two animals can produce viable offspring, they are of the sames species OR if two animals are taxonomically different enough (again, very man-made and hand wavy subjective).

We have observed new species arising under both these definitions. 

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

Sadly, you've already decided based on incorrect information that I can't convince you.

What does the food chain have to do with anything? If anything, it's an example of natural selection driving evolution. 

What does this have to do with evolution?

Please provide evidence that god exists.

The message has wavered all over the place from "turn the other cheek" to "bring those who would not have me rule them before me and slay them."

We agree there, I'm not sure why this is relevant to the evolution discussion... 

How do you know it was the prayer that helped? Have you tried this any other time?

-Triften