live4speed
Evolution is just a theory, it's not been proven, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory.
Saying that is like saying that Pythagoras' Theorem is only a theory. Evolution is a fact, as solid a fact as any scientific law, from the laws of thermodynamics to gravity. 'Evolution Theory' is the continuing development of a myraid of concepts that explain the facts of evolution. And for the record, evolution has been proven, many many times over. The fact that the proof has been contested (albeit totally unsuccessfully) by a fervent religious minority doesn't amke the proof any less solid. The proof lies in the fossil record, and more recently, in the genome of every living thing...
There's evidence to support either side's of the argument, but both rely on a level of faith to accept.
In the context of the debate about evolution, I totally disagree with both these statements. There is no evidence to support creationism, and there is abundant evidence to support evolution. And it doesn't require any level of faith to accept that evidence, just a sound background in basic science.
Why is there a common gene among women that suggests all women are related, suggesting a single parent?
Because all humans descented from a common ancestor? This is not only 'a theory', the human genome proves that it is a fact. The theory of common descent is the only rational explanation for the genetic similarities in all humans. What is more surprising is that we share the same genes as other creatures as well - suggesting (indeed proving) that all living things are descended from common ancestry at some point. (see the 'Tree Of Life' link in my 'evoltuon weblinks' in my sig...)
The idea of evolution require's an immense belife in chance
As danoff already said, this is not quite right. You surely accept that genetic mutations can and do happen, right? (the evidence for this is clear, from genetic illness to mutations that occur due to exposure to radiation etc.) This may indeed require a "belief in chance", but it is a well-founded 'belief', because 'chance mutations' can and do happen. Genetic variation brought about by random mutation is the driving force for evolution, but the process by which random mutations are either kept or discarded (natural selection) is completely
non-random. A mutation that confers an advantage to an animal by it's very nature has a higher likelihood of survival than a mutation that either makes no difference (as the vast majority do) or confers a disadvantage. Only by grasping this fundamental concept does it become clear how evolution/natural selection does not require a reliance or belief in 'random chance'.
Swift
The challenge with evidence of evolution as the origin of man is that it's not complete. No scientist on earth would say it is either.
Quite right, but then again, it never will be 'complete' - but you have to give good science credit sooner or later...
Here is an analogy that I think sums up the situation with the 'incompleteness ' of the evidence supporting evolution, specifically the fossil record (but it also applies to genetics and other supporting evidences for evolution.)
In the beginning, when the first fossils were found, they only provided us with a tiny snapshot of what lifeforms looked like in prehistoric times. This is analogous to the images on the left of the diagram below... as more fossil evidence came to light, we start to build a slightly better picture - just like adding more pixels to an image, the more information allows us to build a clearer picture of what extinct species looked like and how they are/were related.
In recent years, a mountain of genetic evidence has helped to 'fill the gaps', until we now have such a clear picture of how the Theory of Common Descent works, that we hardly need any more evidence to see the reality. Indeed, the image on the extreme right no longer needs many more pixels for it to be clear, but technically it is 'not complete' either. Now you could argue about which stage we are at - just how clear is the evidence for evolution? Therein lies the challenge to the evo-skeptics... do you dare to actually look at the evidence?
The fact remains, that evidence will only continue to sharpen the image/improve our understanding of evolution - indeed every fossil or piece of amber containing an extinct insect or every analysis of genomic DNA will serve to fill in these gaps. There comes a time when a scientist has to say, 'how much clearer do you need the image to be?' Opinion and 'beliefs' aside, I'd argue that the weight of evidence behind evolution paints a clear as day picture that the Theory of Common Descent is not only a valid theory, but indeed the only plausible explanation for the origin of species. The wonder of it, however, is that it is so simple and logical... far from being complex or hard to understand, nature has a tendency to find the 'path of least resistance'.
Brilliant... (that joke must have taken you all knight... 👍)
... I think I'd have to be really strong (I'm sure there is a cleverer adjective than this) in the brain like that professor guy from X-Men (the one in the wheelchair:tup: ) or else I'd collapse from information overload. There are only so many porn images of the DB9 I can handle - and believe me - its a lot!
