First, the term is evolution and not 'darwinism'. Evolution explains how small changes in genetics accumulate over generations, and not how how life originated. Darwin himself left this question to the philosophers and clergyman of his time, as do many biologists today. The theory explains changes, not origins. Get your facts right.

It is suggested that the writer take a remedial course in biology to better understand the terminology of science. He must first learn the correct, scientific definition of "theory" and understand how a "hypothesis" becomes a "theory".

This is not to say that the writer should not believe in creationism if that is his choice. He can believe in fairies and flying elephants if he chooses.

However, the concept of a "theory" and the supporting evidence that provided for the establishment of a "theory" is obvious to anyone with an interest in how the world works.

Also, it would be more correct if the writer uses the correct terminology. "Darwinism", as the previous comment indicates, does not specify the observations that led to Darwin's conclusions. This would be like saying "Pasteurism" instead of the germ theory of disease and the beginings of modern microbiology.

It is amazing that so many people are so ignorant of science. It makes one wonder why they choose to be so ill informed.

Please notice that, as with most creationists, the author sets out to disprove evolution instead of proving creationism. Demonstrate that creationism is a better idea than evolution and we will all accepted it. Step forward with some evidence. And, scientific evidence is much more convincing than Biblical references and personal beliefs.

Tolkien said "The wise speak only of what they know."
I'm not claiming wisdom here, but rarely do I see as much wisdom lacking as when people comment on "Darwinism".

Clearly the writer does not understand evolution, and has no desire to understand. Better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

When the evolutionists can show proof that man evolved from a lower species, they will have a case, but until then, evolution is just a theory, and not provable by any means now known to man.

The sassy comments about flying elephants and fairies applies to evolution, as well as the attempt to denigrate creationism.

Call us when you can prove that man came from apes or other simians, for as of this moment, you have no more proof of that, than a creationist can provide for the existence of God.

John,
There is far more evidence that man evolved from a common ancestor with apes than there is for creationism. We have a common genetic code for one and comparisons of this code among apes and other species indicates common ancestry. What would the prediction of creationism be? It has even been shown that our 23 chromosome pairs came from the 24 chromosome pairs common to apes through a fusion resulting in chromosome #2. We also have abundant fossil evidence showing multiple "missing links" between our common ancestor with chimps and modern humans.
What we don't have is a down to the second film of evolution. We don't expect to find one. However, we have abundant evidence in many forms (e.g. evolution of lice that matches the patterns seen in ape mitochondrial and nuclear DNA). That is significantly more evidence than there is for creationism (something is more than nothing). I think the issue here is that you are unaware that science does not prove things. Science rejects some hypotheses and supports others. Evolution, including human evolution from a common ancestor with modern apes, is well supported.

Genetics prove evolution wrong. Genetically, one can't evolve into something else. Genetically one can't grow legs and pass that along to their offspring. Mutations in genetics are never passed along to their children. Cleft pallets, nope. Dwarfism, nope. Failed limbs, nope. Birth defects, nope. Down Syndrome, nope.

The only thing ever passed along to children that aren't part of the regular genetic code of the species is genetical diseases such as hemophilia.

So tell me where is the evidence of evolution? The observations that everything is in harmony and balance in the environment? That species seem to be adapted for the place in which they live? All can be considered proof for creationism as well. So let me ask again, where is the proof?

I should create a theory that can't be proven for another million years as well and be revered as a genius by generations to come. Science is just the new religion. I thought you scientist laughed at people who relied on faith when in actuality they "evolved" into people of faith.

I agree with most of the comments above. It's clear the writer has no real knowledge of Evolution. I never did until I took a class in college a few years back. I learned quite a bit and it dispelled many of the myths that this writer is suggesting.

@John- I don't beleive that Darwin ever explained where Man descended from. Much of that came later from others trying to expand upon his works. Darwin had a great beleif in God, he wasn't about to clash with religion.

It has already been proven that humans evolved from other species. I'm not sure why your ignorant about this.

To Give me a break,
Actually, scientists have shown that a single mutation that can be passed to offspring can result in the duplication of wings in fruit flies, producing 2 pairs. That's pretty much your leg example right there. We also know the genetics of Down Syndrome. There are some infertility issues with Down Syndrome but it is possible to pass this defect along to another generation, however as it arises from non-disjunction and produces notable defects it is not something that is stored within the population as a hidden, recessive allele. As for other birth defects, many are genetic, though most are recessive. We do have some dominant disorders such as Huntington's, but they manifest themselves in adulthood so, because the person has already had and raised children, they are not subject to natural selection. If you want to think about other mutations that are passed on to children think about just about any trait. How about red hair, a mutant form of the "wild-type" brunette.

Evolution has been proved.

There is no such thing as Darwinism.

If God is really the God we think he is, with all the power to create any thing at any time, he could have created the Earth, all the universe and all the living things in it, and even a history of all those things five minutes ago.

Actually he would not really have to create everything he would only have to create a consciousness in you that could imagine all those things.

"I think therefore I am" is actually the only thing in this world that you can prove positivly.

Only someone who can't see the obvious differences between religion and science would say that science is a new religion.

Do you know what a scientific theory is? It appears you do not know.

Sorry John I would have thought all those fossils would have shown you something. I guess not.

Actually, Darwin was an agnostic after years of study. He wasn't about to clash with religion for far different reasons than some supposed belief in God.

Quite the contrary - genetics is now the primary source of evidence proving the reality of evolution. The science of genetics didn't exist when Darwin proposed that life evolves slowly through random mutation and natural selection. He couldn't offer an explanation of _how_ evolution worked, he only knew that he was looking at a world full of evidence that it _did_ work.

The birth of the science of microbiology and the discovery of DNA made it possible to study how evolution works.

Ask any professional biologist or geneticist working today and they'll tell you their science absolutely doesn't work except in the context of biological evolution.

Dead horse.

Actually, Darwin's theories have been proven time and time again.
You should read some literature on the subject before writing a letter.
Darwin's hypothesis' are that species adapt to their environments and species that are most adaptable to changes are more likely to survive.
That is proven, there are no arguments against that.
Perhaps you think Darwin created the notion that humans and apes have a common ancestor, that did not come from Darwin.
Actually, humans and chimps share 98% of their DNA so you tell me what that means.

Oh yes. the evolutionists are out in force today. They have to protect the mantra that Darwin was correct and we all evolved from apes.

I submit, we all didn't evolve from apes. I state that only those who are the Darwin apologist's evolved from apes.

You will know them because they will have venom oozing from their posts and their posts will be incoherent.

Man evolved from apes...funniest thing I've heard today...

To "Anonymous | 8:41 a.m.", if evolution has been proven, why is it still a theory? If it is proven wouldn't it be a law, similar to the Law of Gravity?

Man did not evolve from apes.

Humans and apes evolved from a distant common ancestor.

Charles,
Would you like to refute the idea that man is descended from a common ancestor with modern apes using logic and evidence? It would appear that it is your post that oozes with venom. Others have substance to add to the discussion, do you?

YouGoFirst,
The law of gravity is a theory. It has not been proven. The term law implies simplicity and generally a universal applicability. We think that gravity does not have the latter, but who knows what a unification of the cosmological and the subatomic might bring. Many have suggested that evolution be described as a law. Ultimately that wouldn't change anything. Laws are theories. It is possible that they will be rejected. It is just unlikely given their simplicity and mathematical/logical expression. Kind of reminds you of natural selection, doesn't it?

If,
you have:
Reproduction
Heredity
Variation in a trait/alleles within a population
and Variation in fitness as a result of those traits/alleles
Then,
you will have Natural Selection

Do you know what a scientific theory is? Apparently not.

Please educate yourself about evolution. Read a few books. You might learn something.

Charles.
"You will know them because they will thave venom oozing from their posts and their posts will be incoherent"
Incoherent to you perhaps. Go read something you can understand. Like Bugs Bunny comic books.
You lack any kind of intellect if you are unable to seperate fact from fiction.
I hope you do not have children.

To Dear Charles,
It would actually be technically correct to say either that man evolved from a common ancestor with apes or that man evolved from apes. Man evolved from an ape that was the common ancestor to men and chimps (common and pygmy). If you go back further in time you could say that man evolved from a common ancestor shared by all apes and Old World monkeys as well. If you went even further back you could say that man, and all other tetrapods, evolved from a common ancestor that developed limbs from fins. Ultimately the ape things is just semantics. The problem is that man people don't understand that chimps and gorillas (etc...) didn't exist when humans split off from the lineages that led to these modern apes. These modern apes evolved too. I wonder if they are troubled with their common ancestry with the naked ape.

@Gopherus

Sorry none of those are mutations in the physicality of the species.

@8:53 a.m

Species evolve into similar looking yet slightly different variants. While it is proven for example, that all dogs evolved from wolves primarily due to direct human manipulation, there is no such evidence to suggest that species can evolve different appendages. Likewise there is no evidence that all life evolved from a single celled organism. No evidence that somehow cells joined together in a like symbiotic relationship working together as a single organism.

My beliefs have been founded scientifically through observation and a great deal of thought. While I can't possible describe such things in the limited 200 words in this given comment, I can say that my conclusions are scientifically and logically based.

Evolution as a limited theory is proven, however making the leap to say that all life evolved from single life is absurd. I subsist by saying that the variety of life can be explained with evolution.

The greater theory of evolution is flawed, a limited theory of evolution is concrete. Life is a mix of creation and evolution. Furthermore, life evolves far more rapidly than scientist suggest.

To Gopherus: Huntington Disease is a flaw in the CAG sequence, wherein more than 30 repeats in the sequence can cause Huntingtons, in the female example, the offspring have the same number or approximately of repeats, in the male's offspring the repeat can be random and cause juvenile Huntington, a horrible affliction, with the repeat approaching 100. Huntington's (St. Vitus Dance) was a family secrets, causing marriages and continuation of the disease. Now with more knowledge of the genetic cause, many at risk Huntington people choose to be sterilized or do selective fetilization. I suspect there will never be a cure for this disease, hopefully it's numbers will be kept down by personal choices. As proof of evolution, I can't see the connection.

Oh Mr. Thomas, you really need to learn more about Evolution. In fact, you need to understand how science works.
After you do this, come back and write again.

I have read many books on the subject and none of them ever proved that man evolved from a "common ancestor with apes"...First can you show me where that common ancestor is? I'd like to see it. I know it and you know it, man never did evolve from something else. You can't prove it, nor will you be able to ever prove it.

I believe it was God who said, "Let us go down and make man in our own image". Just as you have to have faith that Darwin's theory is true and makes a huge leap from some knuckledragging something that turned into man, I have faith that God is correct and made us in His image; not some common ancestor.

Isn't it nice to know that you have faith too?

Gopherus: You said it before I could. The law of gavity was called a law before the massive flaws were exposed. The discovery of the flaws of gravity have led to new hypothesis and theory. Particularly dark matter and string theory. I find the impetus behind evolution to be too strong for for a random selection. I find the mathematics of fractuals to be informative to evolution. The evolution of human consciousness is rapid beyond any explanation. See language evolution, musical evolution (sensitivity to sound is ancient, musical is very recent) and colored sight, (we still have atavistic examples of color blindness, showing that colored sight is very recent and not entirely stable in the populace. Therefore I propose that evolution is a forced process.

To "Gopherus | 9:24 a.m." So, the equation F=G*M1*M2/r^2 is not a scientific law that applies to all bodies?

I do know what a theory is, and a theory is just an explanation for some data. A scientific law is something that can be repeated time and time again.

So, again I say, if evolution has been proved, why is it not considered a law.

Anonymous 8:41; you do not understand the scientific method. Theories cannot be proven, only disproven. Evidences can be gathered either for or against the theory but it can never be 'proven'. What if a theory were proven and then further technology comes along which give us a better expanation than what we previously had, what happens to your 'proven' theory then?

One of the last scientific studies that I read in a peer reviewed journal showed evidence which suggested that humans and apes came from a common ancestor. After the split then they re-combined for a few thousand years and then split again.

I don't see that it is any harder to believe in a divine creator than it is to believe the 'evidence' that our common ancestor with the apes divided then mixed again then divided again.

Anonymous, is this part of the proof that you were talking about?

@DEAR DGB: I have read a great deal about Darwin and his scientific studies. I read that he agonized that his scientific studies would be used for an assault on a belief in a Creator. I never read anywhere that he became atheistic. I find it unrealistic that a scientist would be a pure atheist. They are more likely agonostic. Another words, they are smart enough to know what they don't know. I suspect that the story of him becoming an atheist was tacked onto him by an evolution of the proponents of atheism.

Do you accept that theory of evolution as it applies to all animals but humans? Or are you just having a problem with evolution as it applies to humans?

If you don't accept the theory of natural selection based on faith and not reason, then there's really no point explaining to you how evolution works.

My acceptance of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with faith; it's based on thinking. Faith, by definition, excluded thinking as a way of knowing. The evidence fits the theory of evolution, whereas faith, by definition, doesn't care about evidence or reason.

Science has never been perfect, and no scientist worth his or her salt would say such a thing. However, science is the best way to learn how species evolved. If there are missing answers, religion is not the best way to find answers to puzzling questions; science is much, much better at doing this.

You are wrong. A scientific theory is something that can be repeated time and time again with evidence. You obviously don't know the meaning of scientific theory.

@Lionheart 9:59.

In the midst of all the stuff which is either A) contentious gibberish, B) simplistic, or C) re-hash; here you have introduced a line of thought that is cogent and new (at least to me).

I don't always agree with you, but this was constructive input. Thanks.

Of course evolution hasn't been "Proven" as in a mathematical proof, but enough evidence has been observed that it is now a theory that is widely accepted in the scientific community and public in general.

Personally I have no problem with the theory and don't feel it precludes elements of intelegent design.

In my mind... If there is a designer of the Universe he would use the same natural laws of physics, chemestry, biology, mathematics, etc, that we observe to do his work (just on a scale that is hard for us to imagine).

In the world of science, scientists disprove theories based on evidence. It's okay to disprove Einstein based on scientific evidence; however, among the conservative faithful, it's not okay to disprove biblical claims based on evidence.

It's a joke to claim that science has anything to do with faith. When I drive my car over a bridge, I don't have faith that the bridge will hold. I can only say that provided that the science of engineering was sound, the bride will hold. Faith has nothing to do with it.

I find it odd that so many people seem to be so proud of their ignorance concerning science.

Please take a look at general relativity. Newtons formula works well in most instances but was found to have problems. Einstein came up with general relativity to deal with them. Newton didn't even have a picture of what gravity is and therefore saw it as some force (like a tractor beam) but Einstein proposed something very different. Still, general relativity is a theory and may be replaced by something else in the future if it is found to have shortcomings or if a unifying theory can explain what relativity does and more.
Your definition of a theory isn't even quite the definition of a hypothesis. Claiming that you know what a theory is doesn't make it so.

@ DEAR DBG-
Do you even know what agnostic means? Lionheart hit it on the nail. Darwin struggled with this findings and that people would use it against religion. But just because he was agnostic, didn't mean he didn't beleive in God or some creator. He just didn't know the "how".

It also should be pointed out that Darwin focused more on microevolution (small evolutionary changes, natural selection) and not the macro-evolution which others attempted to theorize based upon Darwin. It's important to keep those two aspects of evolution into their proper context. I don't beleive Darwin ever stated anything that man came from ape.

Truth is, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Do you really expect anything different genetically between ape and man?

@ Charles-While the Bible states the Creation story, what is lacking is the details and the HOW God made Man in his image. I wouldn't be so dismissive of evolution if I were you. There are still many blanks to both Creationsim and Evolution but both hand in hand, can shed light to see the complete picture.

to "YouGoFirst": when you say to "Gopherus", " So, the equation F=G*M1*M2/r^2 is not a scientific law that applies to all bodies?", Does this apply to an electron?

Ever heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Princple and quantum mechanics?

Quantum mechanics exists because of the failure of classical mechanics, on which the "law" of gravity is based.

Also, Linoheart: when you say "As proof of evolution, I can't see the connection." Because humans have developed medical intervention rendering us partially immune to natural selection, Huntington's continues to exist. In the natural setting, the young male Huntigton's patients would have limited ability to pass on their genetic material because they would die too soon.

There must be hundreds of diseases like Huntigton's that do not exist today because they rendered the young too flawed to reproduce. That is the essence of natural selection.

The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the difference between a dime and a hundred bucks. If you get enough dimes, guess what they eventually add up to?
Where do you draw the line between micro and macro? If it's at the species level...what happens if we're not sure whether to consider it one species or two? And then how do you deal with a Rassenkreis, where all you have to do to create a new species is kill a bunch of living populations? (If you doubt this is possible, look up Rassenkreis, and then make sure you know what is meant by 'species'.)

But the dimes will always be dimes. Even with 1,000 of them together, they will just be dimes. There is nothing physically you can do to the dimes to make them bucks. They may be functionally similar but dimes will never be bucks. And frogs will never be kangaroos.