I have yet to meet a scientist who did not believe in evolution. But when I do, yes, I will tell him.

Go to the public library and look up evolution.

When you find something in the fossil record to prove it, you'll certainly win the Noble Prize. Good luck.

There's a difference between microevolution (evolution within species) and macroevolution (Darwinian). Plenty of evidence exists to support microevolution, obviously.


Let's get our terms qualified, people.

What proof do want, and since you are so convinced, please share your proof that is does not exist.

You said proof of evolution is a virus mutating. It isn't.

Like I said, evolution biologists themselves say that the fossil record has no proof of evolution and that specific things in the record, they have no explanation for.....like the Cambrian period when all life seems to have just sprung from nowhere with no transisitory fossils before it or after it. Their models of the evolution of the horse has been thrown out so many times, it's absurd.

There is no other theory that is so guarded by people that has no proof other than, "it's true."

It is called reading comprehension. Nowhere did I mention the word virus.

Oh, so again, it's true because "it's true." I love "science" in which no real proof is used as proof that evolution is fact.

Never compare the theory of relativity to the theory of evolution again. One can be proven, the other cannot.

Again, I never said one word about creationism. I don't care what they teach. But to teach evolution as fact is a fallacy.

Quotes from scientists who say the same thing.....and mind you, say nothign about teaching creationism or some higher being.

1. Biologists
   • Pierre-P. Grasse
     • "The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of `Darwinism'" "The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of `Darwinism.' Its purpose is `to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon,' and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known. Now, one can disagree with Grasse hut not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie,' author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic, and his book is replete with interesting facts that any biologist would profit by knowing." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," ["Evolution of Living Organisms"], Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378) [top]
   • Lynn Margulis
     • Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes "IT IS TOTALLY WRONG. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution.... Margulis was now denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. Disagreeing with Darwin resembles creationism to the uninformed; therefore the stigma that any taint of creationism can bring to a scientific reputation, coupled with the intimidating genius of Darwin, have kept all but the boldest iconoclasts from doubting Darwinian theory in public. What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes. A number of microbiologists, geneticists, theoretical biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are saying there is more to life than Darwinism. They do not reject Darwin's contribution; they simply want to move beyond it. I call them the `postdarwinians.'" (Kelly K., "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, pp470-471. Emphasis in original) [top]
   • W.R. Thompson*
     • "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial." "I admire, as all biologists must, the immense scientific labours of Charles Darwin and his lifelong, single-hearted devotion to his theory of evolution. I agree that although, as he himself readily admitted, he did not invent the doctrine of organic evolution, or even the idea of natural selection, his arguments, and especially the arguments in The Origin of Species, convinced the world that he had discovered the true explanation of biological diversity, and had shown how the intricate adaptations of living things develop by a simple, inevitable process which even the most simple minded and unlearned can understand. But I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial." (Kelly K.Thompson W.R.*, "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1967, reprint, pp.vii-viii). [top]
2. Molecular biologists
   • Sir Ernst Chain
     • "He also felt that [Darwin's theory of] evolution wasnot really a part of science, since it was ... not amenable to experimentation" "There were at least three factors in Chain's dismissal of Darwin's theory of evolution. One was his general dislike of theories which could not be experimentally tested ... There is no doubt that he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection - he disliked theories in general, and more especially when they assumed the form of dogma. He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation - and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view. ...Scepticism was reinforced by his view that a belief in natural selection like, he felt, too great a reliance on molecular biology - would make men feel that they understood everything." (Clark R.W., "The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1985, pp.146-148) [top]
     • "I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" "So, too, with Darwin's theory that evolution was the result of, among other processes, the survival of the fittest, a belief qualified rather than destroyed by the development of genetics and biochemistry. 'Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life, the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution,' he said as late as 1972, 'and a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.' And after dealing with certain evolutionary examples he added, with a vigour that would do credit to a modern Creationist rather than an accomplished scientist. 'I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.'" (Clark R.W., "The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1985, p.147) [top]
3. Paleontologists
   • Colin Patterson
     • "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true?" "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, `I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'" (Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, November 5, 1981, p.1). [top]
4. Physicists
   • H.S. Lipson
     • "Darwin's book-On the Origin of Species-I find quite unsatisfactory" "Darwin's book-On the Origin of Species-I find quite unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very tentatively; with a special chapter on "Difficulties on theory"; and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record. Darwin, I think, has been ill-served by the strength of his supporters." (Lipson H.S., "Origin of species," in "Letters," New Scientist, 14 May 1981, p.452. Emphasis in original.). [top]
5. Cosmologists
   • David W. Hogg
     • That "evolution proceeds through the process of survival and reproduction of the fittest" "remains barely tested" "The point of my letter (Science's Compass, 30 July, p. 663), which perhaps was not well articulated, is that there is one hypothesis, central to evolution, that remains barely tested-that evolution proceeds through the process of survival and reproduction of the fittest." (Hogg D.W., Science, Vol. 286, 26 November 1999, p.167). [top]