No its a fact based on an overwhelmingly large body of evidence from multiple interconnected fields of science. It is as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat. Please tell me which books on evolution you have read. My guess is that you have read none at all and yet you feel qualified to express an opinion about it.
Everything in biology can only be understood on the foundation of evolution.
You have utter contempt for the most basic facts. The most compelling arguments against theism often result from theists themselves.
Cofty, I am sorry to say, I only have over 200 GB of stored knowledge. From every aspect of life. Opinions that are derived from every point of view. Atheism has nothing on me. However the discussion is not about one person, it’s about understanding the knowledge we acquire. Questions that theism as you express can only be an identified by theists themselves. However improvable, I have not lost respect for your opinion as you have with mine. The questions below are questions that still surround the science community, even though they have not had the ability to answer with certainty. A study done in the 30’s to put curtain questions to rest were conducted to form life from all the biological ingredients that make up life. The result was they could not. The scientist that conducted the experiment acknowledged there had to be a higher intelligence to have formed life.
Eric Delson - Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory [1999]
Evolution_ The Cutting Edge Gui - Manganiello, Joe
Frederick E. Grine - The First Humans; Origin and Early Evolution of the Genus Homo
Richard G. Bribiescas - Men. Evolutionary and Life History [2008]
Richard Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
The Knowledge Encyclopedia – 2013
HARUN YAHYA- New Research Demolishes Evolution
Works of: Rama Shankar Singh, Ph.D, Charles Robert Darwin, Peter R. Grant, Michael Ghiselin, Alan Turing, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, etc.
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a
hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do
not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation
of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws,
inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a
theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when
scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the
theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations
about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
4. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
5. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
6. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
7. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
8. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
9. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
10. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
