Evolution is a scientific theory. Science is a method. The word “fact” does not appear in any of the steps of the scientific method. There are theories, and there is evidence. The phrase “scientific fact” is a meaningless string of words.

If humans are not decended from a common ancestor as some of the other “higher” order primates, then why would we share 95% of our DNA with them ? As stated above, there is not one single piece of evidence that evolution is not the system that enables life forms to change. It happens every day in hospitals, in an observable form, as bacteria evolve the capacity to “outwit” the available antibiotics.

The creationists often use the eye, or the optical system, as an example of creationist complexity. It has been repeatedly shown that biological systems evolve complex of cells which are sensistive to light in about 40-42 generations. There goes that arguement.

For the religionists I do have a question. If humans and primates share 95%+ of their DNA, and humans and Neanderthals share 98%+ of their DNA, at EXACTLY what percentage, (would that be 99.9% ?) would it be, that humans could be said to possess a soul ? Do hermaphrodites possess souls, or do other genetic anomalies that statistically arise from human reproduction, such an ancephalics or others of the thousands of genetic anomalies that occur and show up in the genetic clinics in every major university in the world today possess souls ? Obviously the entire Medieval paradigm is corrupt.

If evolution is really: “changes in organisms between generations” then clearly there is no debate. I don’t think anyone questions this!

The question I have comes down to macroevolution as a series of microevolutions. I have seen tons of books with pictures of horses/finches/butterflies/dogs showing sometimes quite interesting microevolutions. However, I have not yet seen any macroevolutionary examples. In other words, the entire series is of horses/finches/… Each time I expectantly hope to see something different at the beginning and the end of the chain…

(Don’t get me wrong this is not meant as an argument, but a genuine question based on my scientific ignorance). Thank you.

Evolution is a slow progression. Every individual is distinct, there is no such thing as a ManKey that is the “transition” species between man and monkey.

Man and monkey evolved from the same ancestor, which was neither man nor monkey.

You are right that evolution should not be considered a theory. It is a fact.

Of course it is reproducible ! How do dog breeders work ? They evolve new breeds of dogs by “artificial selection”.

Evolution makes predictions about what will be found in the natural world. If ONE instance of a finding in the natural world was not consistent with evolution then it would be disproven. This has not happened.

One other thing … life has been produced in a laboratory. And it evolved.

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Beatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009

Technically, evolution cannot even be called a scientific theory – it isn’t reproducible – Life has never been observed spontaneously. It created in a laboratory. It isn’t consistent, your fossils really don’t show transitions and it isn’t falsifiable – it isn’t a scientific theory. Sorry.

The following article may challenge some of your assumptions:

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-atheism-new-excuses-and-new-abuses.html

Hence they ask questions like: “If we evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?”

If they need a “mental map” of evolution it is more accurate to view it as a tree with many branches and many twigs. Each related to each other, but not identical.