The scientific case for a common ancestor of humans and monkeys

[jallman]

1. I have read books on genetics and I know a geneticist..he agress with me. And it's still not sinking in. I'll say it once more. THE EXACT SAME traits ARE NOT passed through generations..they may be SIMILAR but they will NEVER be EXACTLY the SAME. I'll even give you an example.. after Chernoble some pigeons developed mutations.. one grew an extra leg etc.. but NONE of the mutations were found to be EXACTLY the SAME in the species. One of the primary rules in science is not to declare any conclusions derived from an unstable and unproven theory.

You cannot compare chernobyl to evolution by natural selection. The laws of natural selection put forth that a species over time will make adaptations to aid in its biological directives. Chernobyl was a cataclysmic event that affected the genetics of the species around it in random ways, having nothing to do with aiding in survival.

2. You totally missed it..HOW did evolution occur..what was it's cause/catalyst if you argue mutation then I'll ask what caused such dramatic mutations and WHY would life need to evolve.

I can only answer this with my belief of why, and since you have such a hard time understanding, I will just put it inanely...Because God said so, amen and amen.

Oh, and in the theory of evolution, the changes arent really that dramatic considering they happen over millions of years in tiny steps.

3. That makes no sense..you cannot apply that to the first cause argument...it has nothing to do with it. The first argument cause simply states that there must be a being independant of cause which began the cause and effect chain.
It means that your argument is unlikely. Evolutionists ignore the law that something cannot come from nothing and that organic material isn't derived from non-organic material.

Actually, biologists and evolutionists make the immediate assumption that living matter cannot come from inorganic matter. Its called abiogenesis and they make the immediate case against it from the onset. It applies against creationism more because creationists contend that God simply synthesized the earth, all living creatures, and a false fossil record to go with it. Now I am not the most devout Catholic, and correct me if I am wrong...God is the ultimate being of truth...so I find it hard to believe he would create a false fossil record...seems too much like lying to me.

They fail to provide enough evidence..period. All they have are a few skulls with fabricated chunks attached to the missing pieces so they can try to prove their theory. When I look at those skulls I see a dozen other possiblities. 1 imparticular..the one with the blue. Perhaps that is simply a cavity in the skull that was always naturally there..perhaps it's the skull of another animal. Just because it looks humanoid doesn't mean it is. Evolution is astromically improbable period. The different things must have been placed on earth independantly, plants, animals, bacteria etc because as I said nothing would survive early earth but bacteria and bacteria doesn't become an animal or a plant. If live derives from evolution then why isn't it found anywhere else in the solar system?? Bacteria forms in very hot and very cold conditions yet there is none..we're the only living planet in the solar system.

Now lets stop debating about this cause neither of us are going to budge. Agree to disagree.

I dont even know how to speak to this one. except maybe to say refer to my previous point.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I think he prob thought you were talking about mutations of the whole body. Mutations in sex cells are what get passed down. That is irrefutable, I know many geneticists and biologists as well, including a nobel prize winner. Technically, sexual reproduction is mutation. You're mixing genetic material to create a new being. This is the carrying process. A drastic mutation occurs in the cell. This can show a dominant trait. If it is dominant, and natural selection forces allow it, the trait is easily passed down through sexual reproduction. This can lead to big changes over time. You see it in coakroaches when they are grow immune to certain drugs. You see it in new strains of bacterial diseases or fungii. There was a kind of banana that went extinct a couple decades ago because of a new strain of fungus. Did god suddenly make this new fungus?

A new strain of fungus..it's still a genus from the first fungus. Didn't come from anything else. Didn't evolve..it adapted. Do you have any idea what would be required to create such drastic mutation that would make a species into another species? No one knows and thats the problem.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

If a mutation occurs in a germline cell, that mutation will be passed on to any resulting offspring. By what reasoning do you assume that this is not the case?

An example of a clear case of a mutation being passed on is the Devon Rex breed of cats.

It is know that one cat from a litter of non-Devon Rex cats was found to look remarkably different from the rest. A genetic mutation had caused the cat to have crinkled fur and crinkled whiskers as well as larger eyes and ears. These characters have since been passed down from generation to generation.

You can read more about Devon Rex here: http://www.cfainc.org/breeds/profiles/devon.html

Yes in a single family. A single family could not scientifically populate the world with millions of the same creatures with the same mutation on it's own. It would require devine influence. Yes, mutations can be passed down sexually but it would vary from family to family and you would never achieve the same result. And every religious text with any evidence sudgesting that God created everything seperatley. And theres no reason why a devine being would do it any other way.

 

[nkgupta80]

Yes in a single family. A single family could not scientifically populate the world with millions of the same creatures with the same mutation on it's own. It would require devine influence. Yes, mutations can be passed down sexually but it would vary from family to family and you would never achieve the same result. And every religious text with any evidence sudgesting that God created everything seperatley. And theres no reason why a devine being would do it any other way.

You're constricting yourself to biological taxonomy. That is jsut a guideline for classifying animals. Its not something that constricts evolution. Once the worlds life was but a single family. It populated and changed into millions of different families. Makes sense right? We've created a breeds of dogs in a mere few thousand years. Think about in a million years what changes there could be to these creatures.

THe traits of the mutations wouldn't change everytime if the trait were dominant, and
the trait was favorable by natural selection forces...

 

[nkgupta80]

A new strain of fungus..it's still a genus from the first fungus. Didn't come from anything else. Didn't evolve..it adapted. Do you have any idea what would be required to create such drastic mutation that would make a species into another species? No one knows and thats the problem.

you know we've seen this drastic kind of stuff happen....in humans too. The extreme disabilities as we call them or deformities in humans. We've seen them. The man with giganticism, the dwarves, the albinos, people born with deformed growth, curved spines, etc. I could go on. HOwever in our environment, those extremeties are a disadvantage. Thus through sexual reproduction, such mutations are not expressed. But imagine such an environment where having such a deformity could be an advantage. Those people would eventually survive while others die off, and thus through reproduction these people would end up characterizing more of their deformities. And we're not talking about thousands or tens of thousands of years. WE're talkin milllions upon millions of years...

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

You're constricting yourself to biological taxonomy. That is jsut a guideline for classifying animals. Its not something that constricts evolution. Once the worlds life was but a single family. It populated and changed into millions of different families. Makes sense right? We've created a breeds of dogs in a mere few thousand years. Think about in a million years what changes there could be to these creatures.

THe traits of the mutations wouldn't change everytime if the trait were dominant, and
the trait was favorable by natural selection forces...

Uh no. One family cannot populate an entire planet because they would have to inbreed which would make their children deformed and infertile. Doesn't work. The thing you need to ask yourself is if those genetic changes would have taken place in the natural world. I do not believe in selective evolution which is precisely what natural selection is..why? Because we have total extinctions. Animals and genetics just don't decide "hmmm well theres going to be an enviormental change 3 millenia from now so I'd better have a mutation ready."

 

[nkgupta80]

Uh no. One family cannot populate an entire planet because they would have to inbreed which would make their children deformed and infertile.

Tell me... how does inbreeding in various species lead to deformed children and infertility. You are saying that God created all the animals.. adam and eve.. and then you say that inbreeding creates deformities.... Obviously adam and eve's families had to inbreed to make us.... we're not deformed and infertile are we? Again the argument you gave doesn't explain how dogs have been bred into different species, how bacteria and fungi are mutating into new species before our eyes...Its not even an argument, because the statement is just wrong...

 

[nkgupta80]

I do not believe in selective evolution which is precisely what natural selection is..why? Because we have total extinctions. Animals and genetics just don't decide "hmmm well theres going to be an enviormental change 3 millenia from now so I'd better have a mutation ready."

Of course you can have selective extinctions with evolution...Every time a new species is gradually formed, it is better adapted in that same environment to survive, thus it takes over the other species. the old species goes extinct. of course the other case is that the new species takes control of one part of the environment, while the old species is pushed into its own niche in the ecosystem...

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Tell me... how does inbreeding in various species lead to deformed children and infertility. You are saying that God created all the animals.. adam and eve.. and then you say that inbreeding creates deformities.... Obviously adam and eve's families had to inbreed to make us.... we're not deformed and infertile are we? Again the argument you gave doesn't explain how dogs have been bred into different species, how bacteria and fungi are mutating into new species before our eyes...Its not even an argument, because the statement is just wrong...

No, it's not wrong..look it up. Inbreeding ultimatley makes the offspring infertile. Inbreeding in humans can and has led to the offspring having downsyndrome. Look it up. Fungi and bacteria don't breed. Dogs are bred with other genus' of dogs..there aren't different spieces of dogs only different genus'. And you know as well as I do that this type of breeding has resulted in the offspring having MANY health problems. As I said in a previous post. God created the universe therefore created the laws associated with it. He makes the laws and can break them.

 

[nkgupta80]

yes, inbreeding can lead to this, but only if the genetic pool isn't changing enough. inbreeding is a major problem with larger animals. That is actually one possible theory of dinosaur's extinction. But, everytime there is genetic variance, inbreeding is cured. Inbreeding can be also good, if the final trait shown is good for the species. But inbreeding isn't an argument against evolution. Rather, inbreeding can quicken evolution since it takes a newly dominant trait and makes it prominent in later generations. If the trait is allowed through natural selection, voila we got a new species. If it isn't, well that offshoot of creatures will go extinct...

 

[nkgupta80]

btw u still didn't explain how creationism helps explain inbreeding...rather inbreeding seems like a better argument against creationism than against evolution.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

yes, inbreeding can lead to this, but only if the genetic pool isn't changing enough. inbreeding is a major problem with larger animals. That is actually one possible theory of dinosaur's extinction. But, everytime there is genetic variance, inbreeding is cured. Inbreeding can be also good, if the final trait shown is good for the species. But inbreeding isn't an argument against evolution. Rather, inbreeding can quicken evolution since it takes a newly dominant trait and makes it prominent in later generations. If the trait is allowed through natural selection, voila we got a new species. If it isn't, well that offshoot of creatures will go extinct...

You're assuming that genetic variance will occur..but for there to be variance another family must be introduced to the pool. Lots of ifs. I think I did a good job of how it doesn't invalidate creationism. God created the universe and scientific and genetic laws. He's a being of infininate power..he created the laws so he could bend them to his will if he so chooses. Inbreeding with such results as we've seen require divine influence to reach this level.

 

[nkgupta80]

no all you need is mutations in the the genetic pool. Start with those creatures who reproduce asexually. by your argument, no genetic variance should ever occur in those species. Yet it happens, and it happens often.

God created the universe and scientific and genetic laws. He's a being of infininate power..he created the laws so he could bend them to his will if he so chooses. Inbreeding with such results as we've seen require divine influence to reach this level.

it clearly says in the bible that god created adam and eve. They had to have inbred inorder to create the human population. Are you telling me that god kept adam and eve's family from feeling the detrimental effects of inbreeding? Seriosuly two people repopulate the whole earth...and no inbreeding. You didn't do a good job explaining this at all. HOwever, at the same time you use this argument to disprove evolution.
What makes more sense? He created the laws with his infinite power and he chose to create life through a system that adheres to those laws? Or he used creationism to create life by bending those laws.....

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

no all you need is mutations in the the genetic pool. Start with those creatures who reproduce asexually. by your argument, no genetic variance should ever occur in those species. Yet it happens, and it happens often.



it clearly says in the bible that god created adam and eve. They had to have inbred inorder to create the human population. Are you telling me that god kept adam and eve's family from feeling the detrimental effects of inbreeding? Seriosuly two people repopulate the whole earth...and no inbreeding. You didn't do a good job explaining this at all. HOwever, at the same time you use this argument to disprove evolution.
What makes more sense? He created the laws with his infinite power and he chose to create life through a system that adheres to those laws? Or he used creationism to create life by bending those laws.....

I didn't say they didn't inbreed. I said that God prevented any adverse side-effects until the world was sufficiently populated. About your last comment..since when does a God have to abide by rules?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Again I pose this question. If the Catholic Church can accept evolution, why can't some Prodestant faiths?

Evolution at no point, says that god does not exist. But rather that god created the universe, and let the physical laws of nature that he created, to do the rest.

So to all the creationists; can you please explain how fossil records are incorrect? Don't fall back on the old carbon dating argument. I'm talking about argon/potassium dating methods.

No if you critise these dating methods, then really we shouldn't have nuclear power, or the atom bomb. Because nuclear chemists and physists really got the decay of radioactive material incorrect.

So can anyone please explain why the dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible? Why would argon/potassium dating get the dinosaur dating wrong?

But it all comes down to whether you believe that everything in the bible is literal, or whether the bible is a mixture of historical and metaphorical context.

But if we are talking about creationism, why not creationism from the Koran? Why not Aboriginal dreamtime creationism?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Again I pose this question. If the Catholic Church can accept evolution, why can't some Prodestant faiths?

Evolution at no point, says that god does not exist. But rather that god created the universe, and let the physical laws of nature that he created, to do the rest.

So to all the creationists; can you please explain how fossil records are incorrect? Don't fall back on the old carbon dating argument. I'm talking about argon/potassium dating methods.

No if you critise these dating methods, then really we shouldn't have nuclear power, or the atom bomb. Because nuclear chemists and physists really got the decay of radioactive material incorrect.

So can anyone please explain why the dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible? Why would argon/potassium dating get the dinosaur dating wrong?

But it all comes down to whether you believe that everything in the bible is literal, or whether the bible is a mixture of historical and metaphorical context.

But if we are talking about creationism, why not creationism from the Koran? Why not Aboriginal dreamtime creationism?

I believe the bible to be literal. Why wouldn't it be? Because some things are unimaginable? He's a God! I'll say it again..why should his actions be less than incredible?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Fair enough.

But why can't it be argued that God created a universe that has wonderfuly elogent physical laws, that allow the generation of self-aware and spiritual beings after millions of years, from mere simple atoms? Isn't that a miracle?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Fair enough.

But why can't it be argued that God created a universe that has wonderfuly elogent physical laws, that allow the generation of self-aware and spiritual beings after millions of years, from mere simple atoms? Isn't that a miracle?

Sure..but thats not what most religious texts say. The Christian bible for instance does contain actually historical events and people who existed so I tend to believe it. Besides, If God could just created things as they are now it would have been far more productive :lol: and why would he leave something unfinished?

 

[nkgupta80]

I didn't say they didn't inbreed. I said that God prevented any adverse side-effects until the world was sufficiently populated. About your last comment..since when does a God have to abide by rules?

You realize now that science cannot prove that creationism exists, thus you say that god bended the rules of science. Why not just prove everythin in the Bible by sayin God bended the rule. So the devil probably created radio carbon dating didn't he (radio-carbon dating shows fossils that are millions of years old..)? Until we can prove that what you say happened, it won't work in science. You see why creationism isn't held highly in the scientific world? It says that God merely bent the rules when anything goes against the Bible. Every argument against evolution you've given, I've given you an introduction to how evolution supports it (sorry, I am definately not an expert, you can find more detailed explanations on the net, books, or from a scientist, but the explanations are there). Even if some of the explanations are hazy, there are attempts and revisions made to the theory all the time. You can't say the same for creationism. Creationism is deductive logic. Evolution is inductive logic. Inductive seems to have worked much better in solving our world's problems than deductive....

 

[nkgupta80]

as a matter of fact, since an understanding of evolution was needed to come up with the many medical and biological discoveries during our time, I give it much more credibility as a usable theory. Creationism just doesn't give that knowledge.

 

[Dezaad]

It was stated a few pages ago that mutation cannot be passed to offspring. The answer to refute this was correct, but not satisfactory to me. I want to try another tack, though it may be equally unsatisfactory.

It is a proven fact that mutation does happen and is passed to offspring, at least in the sense that Nightingale talks of proof. Let's start with two identical bacteria. A single one of those can be placed in a closed environment, and allowed to reproduce. Once it has reproduced to sufficient numbers, a poison can be introduced which begins to kill the bacteria. The population will quickly decline, but will not completely die out. Then no matter how much poison is introduced, the population will begin to rise again. The poison no longer has any affect. The genes of the original bacteria and one of the poison resistant bacteria are compared. They are different. All of the poison resistant ones are descendants of one bacteria identical to the original bacteria, but they have different genes.

This experiment is repeatable. One can conclude that every time this experiment is performed either that:

A. Mutation occurs naturally and is passed on to offspring.
OR
B. God tweaks the genes of one of the bacteria to make it resistant, and this God induced mutation is passed on to offspring.

Either way Mutation occurs and is passed on to offspring. I accept 'A', however, for other reasons.

This experiment is the best explanation for the fungus mutation mentioned by ngupta80.

This does not by itself, however, prove that speciation occurs naturally. We cannot observe speciation in a laboratory. However, combine this experiment with the genetic discovery I shared in post #7, the plentiful other genetic discoveries mentioned, the obvious play of natural selection in the world around us, and the fossil record. These things together make it perverse to reject speciation, and thus perverse to reject evolution. Specifically, it is bizarre not to accept the evolution of man from a common ancestor with the apes.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

It was stated a few pages ago that mutation cannot be passed to offspring. The answer to refute this was correct, but not satisfactory to me. I want to try another tack, though it may be equally unsatisfactory.

It is a proven fact that mutation does happen and is passed to offspring, at least in the sense that Nightingale talks of proof. Let's start with two identical bacteria. A single one of those can be placed in a closed environment, and allowed to reproduce. Once it has reproduced to sufficient numbers, a poison can be introduced which begins to kill the bacteria. The population will quickly decline, but will not completely die out. Then no matter how much poison is introduced, the population will begin to rise again. The poison no longer has any affect. The genes of the original bacteria and one of the poison resistant bacteria are compared. They are different. All of the poison resistant ones are descendants of one bacteria identical to the original bacteria, but they have different genes.

This experiment is repeatable. One can conclude that every time this experiment is performed either that:

A. Mutation occurs naturally and is passed on to offspring.
OR
B. God tweaks the genes of one of the bacteria to make it resistant, and this God induced mutation is passed on to offspring.

Either way Mutation occurs and is passed on to offspring. I accept 'A', however, for other reasons.

This experiment is the best explanation for the fungus mutation mentioned by ngupta80.

This does not by itself, however, prove that speciation occurs naturally. We cannot observe speciation in a laboratory. However, combine this experiment with the genetic discovery I shared in post #7, the plentiful other genetic discoveries mentioned, the obvious play of natural selection in the world around us, and the fossil record. These things together make it perverse to reject speciation, and thus perverse to reject evolution. Specifically, it is bizarre not to accept the evolution of man from a common ancestor with the apes.

Bacteria do not have reproductive organs. They divide so passing a mutation in bacteria is much different than passing it in larger things. It simply does not occur in the natural world..and no two mutations are exactly the same. The only thing that can be passed down through generations which remains exactly the same is an adaptation..different from a mutation. It is interesting..why couldn't God have created all things seperatley from one another and prevented adverse side effects of inbreeding? There is no answer. God is an infinatley powerful being so in reality he has no restrictions. You yourself believe in God (not referring to you deezad heh) so why do you insist on setting limits to his abilities simply because his method of creation cannot be reproduced by us? Of course it cant..we're not gods!

 

[nkgupta80]

Bacteria do not have reproductive organs. They divide so passing a mutation in bacteria is much different than passing it in larger things. It simply does not occur in the natural world..and no two mutations are exactly the same. The only thing that can be passed down through generations which remains exactly the same is an adaptation..different from a mutation. It is interesting. why couldn't God have created all things seperatley from one another and prevented adverse side effects of inbreeding? There is no answer. God is an infinatley powerful being so in reality he has no restrictions. You yourself believe in God (not referring to you deezad heh) so why do you insist on setting limits to his abilities simply because his method of creation cannot be reproduced by us? Of course it cant..we're not gods!

Do you make his stuff up? Seriously you take concepts and then refine their definitions for your own means.

First of all adaptation is the trait brought on by a mutation which is passed down from eneration to generation. It isn't some physical structure. Secondly, do you know what a reproductive organ does? Its what makes possible the change, and continuation of various mutations and its resulting traits.. saying no won't prove it, any genetic book will tell you taht...

Secondly, bacterial mutations being passed down is a quick way of showing the processes of change. This also happens in larger animals. It isn't as robust as the animals get larger (hence the longer reproduction cycles, and lesser populations). No mutation is the same doesn't matter. One mutation coupled with natural selection forces is enough to cause change in an animal. Scientists have been constantly studying various populations and species to see if this hypothesis is correct, and so far no study has proven it blatantly false.

When you make a claim like this, show me evidence, I can show you tons of research that continues today.

why couldn't God have created all things seperatley from one another and prevented adverse side effects of inbreeding?

Why didn't god create everything seperately to prevent inbreeding? I have no idea, but we have to accept the fact that he didn't from what we see around us. Secondly, science doesn't use God as a possible factor.

You should do soem research in biology, you'll see how important and relevant evolution and its resulting processes are in the medical research of the past and present. It binds all the research (that may help save your life one day) together. Its truly a great theory...Most of the biological/medical discoveries today would not have been possible without an understanding of the relationships between species and the evolutionary heirarchy.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Do you make his stuff up? Seriously you take concepts and then refine their definitions for your own means.

First of all adaptation is the trait brought on by a mutation which is passed down from eneration to generation. It isn't some physical structure. Secondly, do you know what a reproductive organ does? Its what makes possible the change, and continuation of various mutations and its resulting traits.. saying no won't prove it, any genetic book will tell you taht...

Secondly, bacterial mutations being passed down is a quick way of showing the processes of change. This also happens in larger animals. It isn't as robust as the animals get larger (hence the longer reproduction cycles, and lesser populations). No mutation is the same doesn't matter. One mutation coupled with natural selection forces is enough to cause change in an animal. Scientists have been constantly studying various populations and species to see if this hypothesis is correct, and so far no study has proven it blatantly false.

When you make a claim like this, show me evidence, I can show you tons of research that continues today.



Why didn't god create everything seperately to prevent inbreeding? I have no idea, but we have to accept the fact that he didn't from what we see around us. Secondly, science doesn't use God as a possible factor.

You should do soem research in biology, you'll see how important and relevant evolution and its resulting processes are in the medical research of the past and present. It binds all the research (that may help save your life one day) together. Its truly a great theory...Most of the biological/medical discoveries today would not have been possible without an understanding of the relationships between species and the evolutionary heirarchy.

Yes I know what a reproductive organ does!! I was ilustrating that bacteria DO NOT HAVE THEM. The process is different in larger animals..unless of course you divide instead of having sex..bacteria make exact copies of themselves, humans do not. Basic biology will tell you that. You may show me research but you cannot show me anything conclusive and those experiments you speak of are totally flawed because you have added 1 major variable..human intervention. You can prove that it happens if humans tinker with genetics but you can't prove that it would happen in the natural world. The fact remains that all you have to show are a few skulls with fabricated pieces jammed into them so scientists can attempt to validate a THEORY and that is all it is..a THEORY. Why do you think they had to fabricate those pieces? BECAUSE THEY HAVENT FOUND THEM ANYWHERE IN THE NATURAL WORLD. There aren't any speicies evolving into other species anywhere on earth..they always remain in their own genus. And you still have yet to tell me how such advanced creatures evolved from bacteria, pond scum, and single-celled organisms. They're entirely different organisms and they're the only things that would have been present on an early earth! Basically what you're telling me is that some bacteria decided oh I think I'll turn into plant life even though its impossible and even though there is no need to do so since I am thriving. And that one day a single celled organism magically became a multicellular organism and that pond scum decided to become sea and land dwelling creatures. The FACT is that there would be no need for those things to evolve at all..they were thriving. You want to talk about evidence? You haven't provided me with any..all you've provided is a THEORY based on speculation and wild assumption. Leaving God out of science is ridiculous because you are denying a possible factor simply because you don't like it.

 

[nkgupta80]

Yes I know what a reproductive organ does!! I was ilustrating that bacteria DO NOT HAVE THEM. The process is different in larger animals..unless of course you divide instead of having sex..bacteria make exact copies of themselves, humans do not. Basic biology will tell you that.

If you know about sexual reproduction you may have known about mendel's experiment's which characterized traits through alleles etc. etc. Dominant traits can be readily expressed through sexual reproduction. BTW that is how the effects of inbreeding take place, because the traits are continuously passed down without change...

You may show me research but you cannot show me anything conclusive and those experiments you speak of are totally flawed because you have added 1 major variable..human intervention.

You are telling a scientist, the one that used those experiments to discovered the many processes of the body through these methods that his/her experiments are flawed? They try to emulate reality as much as possible

Secondly, the research I was talking about was the ones that observe current populations of species over a time period, and draw conclusions through the demographic behaviours recorded.

And you still have yet to tell me how such advanced creatures evolved from bacteria, pond scum, and single-celled organisms.

And again I come to the point which you didn't undersatnd at first. The group of cells that form inside your body after sexual reproduction are much like pondscum my friend...but those bunch of cells grow into living human beings. You can compare such drastic change to the process of evolution, but while reproduction takes place over a matter of days or months, evolution took place over millions upon millions of years. Makes sense a bit now?

Basically what you're telling me is that some bacteria decided oh I think I'll turn into plant life even though its impossible and even though there is no need to do so since I am thriving.

They are thriving, but there are many factors which can force them to change. Changes in environment. The natural selective forces to choose the lifeform which lives longer. Thus as bacteria slowly mutated, the longer living ones were able to spread more than the shorter living ones. Thus species grew. This statement also brings you back to the fact how did life form. How did atoms come together. There are many theories to this. This is what is hotly contested. Some say it was chance, others say that life is an inevitability due to the laws of nature. This is being researched and if creationism seems liek the most plausible explanation to explain the phenomena it would be considered. However it hardly explains any of the phenomena so it has been disregarded.

The FACT is that there would be no need for those things to evolve at all..they were thriving. You want to talk about evidence? You haven't provided me with any..all you've provided is a THEORY based on speculation and wild assumption.

They were thriving, yes. But, they can only thrive to a limit. After that they must incorporate more of the environment to keep thriving. Natural selection forces couple for that constant need to increase the populations, keeps the species changing. Those who succeed in changing into more viable creatures will be able to make use of more of the environment. That is why right now, humans are the most adaptable of any creature.

You want to talk about evidence? You haven't provided me with any..all you've provided is a THEORY based on speculation and wild assumption.

I'll give you categories of evidence.

1) Fossil evidence/Radio Carbon Dating: Effectively debunks creationism and a young-earth hypothesis.

2) Heirarchical relations between all species, very very interesting, and very suggestive of evolution.

3) Easily seen evolution in fast growing species IN THE WILD, and evolution of species tested in labs. This includes new diseases, new bacteria, fungus, insects and so on.

4) Evolution's ability to help harmonize genetics with biology and physical laws. Creationism certainly doesn't do that. This point has lead to much discovery in the medical fields. You still don't seem to explain it. If evolution was pure speculation and had no validation, it shouldn't have been useful in the last 100 years of biology, medical, and genetic research. But it is very important.

5) No conclusive evidence that completely goes against this theory. There are certain quirks, but the theory has been revised since it has been formed by Darwin.