Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

There's really a negligible amount of conflicting evidence in evolution science and the lapses in evidence over the entire history of the planet (going back before the dawn of life as geology has always had some influence on evolution) do not disqualify the theory. There's just an abundance of factual evidence that does confirm the theory and the gaps just become something to eventually fill in -- like a jigsaw puzzle one has put together enough to recognize the entire picture but there are pieces that haven't been put in. We haven't explored the entire oceans or the entire rain forests but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Man exists and there is a scientific reason for that existence in evolution. The scientifically ignorant will not give it up -- they mostly read the material, especially online blogs and sites, that are negative towards evolution even if they try to look "scientific."

Holy smoke!! What a load of self flattering fanny that is.

As if LW is scientifically sciolistic. Or doesn't read online blogs, sites and other articles.

He will fill in the gaps at a later date.

spendi, FYI, that's what science does; it fills in the missing links as more information is discovered.

Creationism starts and ends at the same point with nothing in between.

Capitalism, industrialisation and democracy are in between. Science is a tool not a way of life. And it might fill in a few missing links but not them all.

Wow! Someone's found a new word and then misuses it to compliment me.
Again, a good idea to crack open a dictionary. I'm not superficially learned in science and have had the responsibility to use it in professional endeavor.

Complaints about 'gaps' in evolutionary theory inevitably come from those idiots who somehow imagine we have a complete view of the situation.

I've been reviewing this thread, and it's clearly obvious that one side of the argument is being championed by fools who have zero understanding of anything not found in a religious text... or the bottom of a pint glass.

Cycloptichorn

I'm less learned in science, so what I say is from "that" perspective. My statements were addressed to spendi, but you are welcome to spell out what you really mean, because for a "professional" (your claim) I'm having difficulty with your wit.

We're constantly discovering the scientific fact to fill in any "gaps" that might exist. In biology, it's not just concentrated on evolution, but also medicine. If one has no desire to live longer, or to live without pain or without the full use of certain faculties, then medical science should stop filling the "gaps" and let religion take over the responsibility of health. Calling attention to those "gaps" in medical science does not make that science invalid in comparison to healing oneself with prayer. So evolution science with the "gaps" doesn't stand-off in favor of any religious concept and that includes the pseudo science of ID.

This discussion should have been titled "Don't Tell Me There's No Overwhelming Evidence Supporting Evolution," and "Don't Tell Me There's Overwhelming Evidence That the Earth and the Universe Were Designed By Any Intelligent Being."

After all, "2001: A Space Odyssey" (from Arthur C Clarke's "The Sentinel") is a hypothetical/abstracted theme of how life may have come to Earth, and although it admittedly suggests an intelligent designer, it doesn't suggest that the aliens in absentia created the Universe. They're just tinkering with it on a grander scale than the human race is yet capable of.

I do see that if I'm giving rhetorical answers to stupid questions, that can be interpreted as wit. I've only had specific scientific designing and testing in industries involving optics, lighting, coatings, and plastics, but I've also not superficially studied evolution science like some others who can remain nameless on this forum. Thereby hangs the sciolism (a superficial show of learning).

BTW, it's surprising how many people I know have no idea what "2001" means and, therefore, find it boring. Well, unless they intake a lot of pot and sit in anticipation of the last reel.

How do you get to the last reel?

The same way you go to the first reel.

It looks fantastic in the new Blu-Ray restoration -- I never get bored with the film and neither does American Film Institute who place it as the number one sci-fi film. It's the only one applicable to this subject and it's essentially a British film, shot on huge sets at Shepperton. The 2008 Berlin Film Festival included it in screening original 70mm print films from the era.

HAL: I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.

Yeah, right.

Yeah--well--okay-that is quite witty. I would have had a "soon" in between the "will" and the "be" myself.

But you can't compare it to Alphaville, Amarcord, any of the "how the west was won" movies, Twin Peaks and Eraserhead, Titanic, Laurel and Hardy, Roadrunner, anything Margaret Rutherford or Lexington Steele were in, L'Homme qui aimait les femmes, Front Page, Bilko, Brass, the Sick O'clock News and Obama soundbites.

And that Sibelius is crap too.

okay smart one the example of a rat turning into a bat is unethical ,so when the rat was growing his wings his claws got longer ,so he could not run as fast so a hawk or a snake could eat them easily, the rat could not crawl into his hole fast enough so basically evolution contradicts itself its dumb, oh yeah and its also a faith such as creationism witch i believe

"Witch" you believe? There is certainly something dumb here, but it appears to be something other than a theory of evolution.

Apparently we've drawn in a witch hunter. The sentence structure reads that the possessive pronoun "its" is the subject of the sentence, so whatever "it" represents is what jelly-head has faith in.

I will remain silent about the stupidity of assuming that bats are descended from rats.

a rat and a bat are as closely related as a skunk and a groundhog. Very different teeth , eyes, HOX appendages, and several other important things . As it happens, ALL living placental mammals did share a common ancestor that was probably an insectivore or similar to a rodent but , once again, people feel that common ancestry means direct parentage and thats incorrect.

Flying squirrels -- now that's an entirely different story.

Flying Squirrels Are Monophyletic
RICHARD W. THORINGTON JR. 1

1 Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

Seven genera of flying squirrels share five characters of wrist anatomy, which form a functional complex associated with the support of the patagium. In these characters, they differ from all genera of tree and ground squirrels examined. Among mammals, gliding membranes have evolved independently in several other groups. The manner of attachment of the patagium to the forelimb is different in each and demonstrates five morphologies differing from that of flying squirrels. This complex wrist anatomy of flying squirrels provides evidence that gliding evolved only once among squirrels and that the flying squirrels are a monophyletic group.

Apparently the intelligent designer isn't as smart as Givency and placed all the different design versions on Earth in a fit of indecision.

I like to check in on threads like these once in awhile and I must admit to a quiet chuckle at the rat to bat thing... I didn't think that was serious until I scrolled up to the post.... wow.