By their nature, scientific theories can never bee proved, they can only be disproved. The body of evidence for Darwinian Evolution is huge, and no disproof has been found which stands up under even passing scrutiny.

1 People can confidently take a firm position on the earth being roughly spherical not flat and on the moon reflecting light not radiating it because neither has any dissenting voice. However, not everyone can confidently take such a firm position on evolution because there ARE dissenting voices on the issue. The dissenting views expressed below are not mine, nor of any religious clergy or hobby scientists. They are of professional scientists and other recognised experts in the field. . 2 Evolution attempts to explain the development of life forms. The ‘origin’ of life has no explanation other than the one supported by the ‘creation/intelligent design’ argument. . 3 It is claimed that natural selection causes living beings to evolve. But there is no evidence for that. However, it does allow those living things that are more suited to their habitats to prevail and not those that are unfit. For example, the deer that will survive are the ones that can run faster than their predators. But no deer will ever transform into another species through such natural selection no matter how many million years elapse. Natural selection cannot produce new species or new organs. . 4 Creatures, it was also said, evolve by acquiring traits and passing them on to the next generation. For instance, giraffes evolved from antelope-like animals by extending their necks further and further from generation to generation as they tried to reach higher and higher branches for food. However, when the DNA molecule was discovered it became clear that the characteristics of creatures were decided by the genetic information contained in the molecule and not by their behaviour. . 5 Supporters then said that evolution took place through mutations. This became known as ‘Synthetic Evolution Theory’ or ‘Neo-Darwinism’. But it was already known that mutations, or "accidents", that took place in the genes of organisms were always harmful. Neo-Darwinists tried to establish a case for "advantageous mutation" by carrying out thousands of mutation experiments. However, no "advantageous mutation" emerged. . 6 Evolution from one stage to the next, fish to reptile and reptile to bird, was gradual over millions of years, it was claimed. Between the stages there must have been millions, if not billions, of "transitional forms" whose remains should have been present everywhere. However, no such fossils have ever been found anywhere in the world, instead the fossils unearthed show fully-formed species appearing and disappearing abruptly, thus overwhelmingly showing that living organisms did not originate by gradual evolution but appeared suddenly. . 7 To get over the absence of "transitional forms" some evolutionists proposed the "punctuated equilibrium" model. This rejects the idea of gradual evolution in favour of big, discontinuous evolutionary "jumps". It claimed that the first bird came out of a reptile egg, as a "gross mutation", a huge "accident", that took place in the genetic structure of reptiles. Similarly, some land-dwelling animals could have turned into giant whales. However, these claims, contradict the rules of genetics, biophysics, and biochemistry . 8 Also, according to studies clear differences in anatomical features rule out evolution of one species from another. Following detailed anatomical research on Australopithecus fossils, Charles Oxnard said “All these fossils are different from gorillas, chimpanzees and men. Studied as a group, the australopithecine seems more like the orang-utan.” From his studies paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton concluded: ‘a living being can walk either upright or on all fours. A type of in-between stride cannot be sustained for long periods because of the extreme energy consumption. This means that Australopithecus could not have been bipedal and also have a bent walking posture.’ Research anatomist Fred Spoor of the University of Liverpool, England studied the bipedalism of fossilised living beings by investigating the involuntary balance mechanism found in the cochlea of the ear. The findings showed conclusively that Australopithecus could not have been bipedal or human-like. . 9 According to evolutionists, first of the Homo species was Homo erectus. However, he was simply another specimen of the modern human race. Evolutionist paleontologist Richard Leakey compares him and modern man by pointing out differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time Another evidence is the relatively modern fossils found. According to Time magazine, Homo erectus fossils aged only twenty-seven thousand years were found on the island of Java. In the Kow swamp in Australia, some thirteen thousand year-old fossils were found that bore Homo Sapiens-Homo Erectus characteristics. All these fossils demonstrate that Homo erectus continued living up to times very close to our day and were nothing but a human race that has since disappeared. . 10 Fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belong to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. These emerged so suddenly that the event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion". Most of the life forms found in these rocks have complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, a leading evolutionist, said “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And 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.” Realizing that creation is the only way to explain such sudden emergence Dawkins admits by adding, “Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists” Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist also acknowledges this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." Furthermore, the first appearance of mammals such as bats, horses, mice, and whales was also sudden and during the same geological period.

enough to deceive!

Evolution - the changes seen over a number of generations of a species - is a fact. It has been directly witnessed in rapidly breeding species from fruit flies down to bacteria and virus. It's effects have been seen in the fossil record. The evidence is monumental. It has withstood every challenge from opponents. For all intents and purposes, the proof is on the table.

I found it very depressing that borasalama's answer here was rated top answer. His answer, altough not his own view but quoted, is stupid propaganda. He numbered it, so I will here refute every single point of his argument. Look up his answer in a seperate window so you can compare it, since I directly referred to his claims. 1. Flat out lie, this views are biassed to the biggest extent and pure creationism/Intelligent Design propaganda. They are not valid, and no serious scientist would support that. Between 95% ("broad interpretation of scientist) and 99.98% (real scientists) are totally convinced that evolution is a fact. 2. Partially true, evolution does not say how the first cell was formed, HOWEVER, there are other scientific HYPOTHESIS that try to explain the origin of life. This field is called 'abiogenesis'. This is just a hypothesis and is not proven yet. But just because it isn't proven, doesn't mean that creationism is therefore true. Abiogenesis is a more valid 'theory' (not scientific term here) than creationism, because creationism is not even science, it is just the cheap way out of the problem. 3. Wrong, it can produce new species, this has been proven in several ways. One of them would be DNA relation between animals on certain continents. All animals that live in Australia for example are closer related to each other than the animals from Africa. And the animals in Madagascar are closer related to each other than the animals from Africa. Madagascar once was together with Africa and India and formed the supercontinent Gondawa. But then it got isolated, and the forms of mainly lemurs evolved separately. Such kinds of relations can be found everywhere, and it always supports the theory of evolution. And note, I did not use any fossil evidence, even without any fossils, the evidence for this is overwhealming. But there are fossils too that show transitions, so we are lucky to have both. 4. This is what people thought earlier, but already Darwin stated that this was wrong. He pointed out that it is 'by birth' and heredity, altough he didn't know 'DNA'. The discovery of DNA proved his argument. This whole point is unnecessary because evolution never says that 'practising' a muscle/part of the body would make it larger/better. However, there is something called an 'extended phenotype', for example the reason why and how beavers build dams and why and how birds build nests always in the same way. This is inherited (fact), and it has been shown that captivated beavers build "imaginary" dams without material because the procedure is in them. 5. If we hear the word mutation, we think of genetic accidents as in Tschernobyl of Hiroshima after the bombing. Or we think of Spider man. But mutation just means 'small change'. And there have been mutations, for example viruses mutated often. This is why they are so feared, because they adapt through mutation. There are also many different proves of this phenomenon, the claim 'it hasn't been observed' is a lie. 6. Damn Lies! There are dozens of such transition forms. And every species is in a way fully-formed. This is a classical misunderestanding of evlolution. Evolution has no goal, the species are always very well adapted to the environment, but they still keep changing, and the environment changes too. The term 'transition form' is only used with hindsight because we classified the animals as 'reptiles' or 'birds'. But yes, there are many transtion forms in every aspect. But you cannot expect billions of remains everywhere. These people who wrote this don't know shit about science. Fossils are rare, the conditions needed for bones to get fossilized are very specific. But we are lucky to have fossils. As mentioned above, even without fossils, evoution could be considered a fact, but with fossils, it is just plain stupid to deny it. And I can't say it often enough, there are many transition forms. 7. What the f... is that? No serious evolution-supporter ever said that, this just makes me mad. And actually, the common ancestro of hippos and whales went to water and evolved into all the kinds of whales we know now, and another part stayed on land and evolved into hippos and other ungulates. This is surprising, but not unrealistic. The hippo-like ancestor had no enemies in the ocean, and the special conditions of a life in water made it so easy for him to evolve 'faster' than the hippo. However, this still took about 60 million years. 8. False assumptions, many primates nowadays walk on all fourth, but they CAN walk on two legs for short amounts of time. Therefore, they could have started to do this more often and more often until they stopped walkin on all four legs. Australopithecus was probably bipedal, at least to some extent (frequency), but maybe your 'scientist' is right and he wasn't but this would just mean that the later stages, i.e. homo habilis and homo ergaster would make the next step. 9. Wow, this is getting stranger and stranger... Now you partially support evolution by saying 'geographical separation over a long period of time' but then you say they were just a human 'race'. Fist of all, this is racist, and second of all, homo erectus, or also called homo ergaster, was clearly different than homo sapiens. And second, of course there are intermediates, or so called transition forms, because evolution is GRADUAL. It is often hard to classify a new found fossil because it FITS IN BETWEEN two 'known' species. 10. LOL this is just too good. Quoting Richard Dawkins for Creationism LOL, thats like saying "Mother Theresa is the anit Christ". I quote it again here, this is what you wrote: [Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, a leading evolutionist, said “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And 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.” Realizing that creation is the only way to explain such sudden emergence Dawkins admits by adding, “Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists” ] Dawkins used rhetoric to set the stage for his rebattle, this quotation is grossly out of context, and in the very next sentence Dawkins will say why it appeared to look like an 'explosion', and why this is not at all against evolution. Here is it in context: {"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And 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. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative." } The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Totally bashes creationism by the way, very good book. And what the hell is this now again, whales, mices and bats were about a HUNDRED MILLION YEARS LATER. And not sudden at all. This is typical propaganda stuff, lies, lies lies and lies! Okay, this hopefully ends the discussion. And one additional evidence (not that it is needed, there is enough, isn't there?) of evolution would be 'imperfection' and useless parts. Humans still have a tailbone, what the hell would we need it for? The only thing it is good for is that it hurts like hell when you fall on it. This is still there because "New World Monkeys" and their ancestors (our common ancestor 40 million years ago) had tails. There are many of these 'useless' parts, we find them in animals because of their evolutionary history. Why would god created useless things?

Science claims that they have a lot of proof. Others claim that they don't. It's been an on going battle of who is right and who is wrong, for the last 200 years plus. A battle that I'm tired of and will no longer take part in. It's a fruitless endeavor unless you live for this sort of thing.

More evidence for evolution than there is for god.