There is so much proof that the scientific comunity accept it as fact. There are fossils/bones from all over the world that show a slow and steady evolution of man from an ape like species. If you really want proof, google "evolution proof" and read the 1000's of results you get there, or go out and buy a science mag with an evolution front page!

well considering the genttic make up difference between humans and apes is only 98%.....

There is an enormous amount of evidence ("proof" is for mathematics) that, from approximately 2.4 million years ago, progressively larger-brained, more upright species of ape roamed about until approximately 200,000 years ago, when one particular species (Homo Erectus) begain dominating wherever it went. It is very easy to see that we are directly descended from Homo Erectus. It is blindingly obvious that there was a development from earlier, more primitive species. So yeah - enough evidence now that no scientists working in the evolution-related fields questions that it happened. Discussions on exactly how and when and where things happened continues. Part of good science.

Comments not working here. Hi Saved. If you're interested, the first place to look is www.talkorigins.org. It contains a wealth of information regarding evolution, biology, archeology, geology, paleontology and so on. It has hundreds of links to further information as well. You may find it a little confronting as the site was specifically created to deal with many of the fallacies creationism pushes - but the articles are written predominantly by experts in their particular fields and are valuable as such. Just followed a link you gave someone to the Big Daddy cartoon. In all seriousness, that tract is old - and even if written yesterday if literally a lie after a lie after a lie after a lie. Jack Chick cannot, in all honesty, be trusted on the science front. 1. There are NOT multiple fundamentals of evolution involving the cosmos, big bang etc. Evolution is concerned ONLY with explaining the current diversity of life and how life changes/adapts etc. once it exists. Abiogenesis is a separate field of study involving how life came about in the first place. Cosmology and physics deal with the birth/growth of the universe etc. etc. His "Evolution of man" poster features "New Guinea Man" - this tract is the ONLY place a NGM is mentioned as an ancestor - no other place! Piltdown man was a fraud, yes - it was exposed as a fraud by SCIENTISTS and was suspect from the time it was first "discovered". Go to this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html for an article written by a lecturer at the university of michigan (ie: an expert in the field, not a cartoon-drawing evangelist with no formal qualifications whatsoever...). Happy searching - but if you read this information and still choose Big Daddy over University Professors, there'll be no point in continuing...

i WENT TO EVOLUTION PROOF. iT SAYS THERE IS NO PROOF. tHE ARGUMENT FOR CREATION SEEMS STRONGER. THEY HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE FOSSIL THAT SHOWS TRANSITION OF AN ORGANISM. MANY SCIENTISTS BEGAN TO BELIEVE IN A CREATOR. MANY MORE FELT EVELUTION SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

Micro-evolution (variations within a species) Yes. Macro-evolution (one species evolving into another) NO. There is no fossil evidence showing a gradual change where the remains look a little less like the original species and a little more like the new species, over and over again. This would take millions of "fossil finds" showing the gradual change. There are no such finds and never will be. Evolution and has become a religion of disbelief in God. It takes much more faith to believe in this unproven theory than a belief in a Creator. The Evolutionists are putting all their belief in it because they don't want to think that one day they are going to have to answer to God and give an account for all of the bad things they have done (sin). Those that have accepted Christ will not be judged guilty like the unbelievers.

No, you're wrong. Can you name one species that has been proven to have evolved into another? Also, why have the simple one celled organisms that have been around from the time of creation not evolved? They remain unchanged to this day. Supposedly they are what all animal life have evolved from. Don't believe the junk science of Macro-evolution.

Fossil evidence shows that there have been several kinds of hominids that are now extinct. Whether these contributed to an evolution of man or not is impossible to prove, because all we have are fossils frozen in time. Fossils cannot say how these creatures lived their life: Were they half-man, half animal? Were they completely animalistic? Would they have been able to have a complex philosophical discussion with us? We cannot say with confidence. What we can say is that from the earliest time we that find evidence of man, whether it be artistic drawings preserved on a cave wall, or the vast empires of Egypt and Babylon, man has been a unique creature totally different from all other animals. The dog did not draw well, and the chimp better, and humans better still! Our ability to communicate abstract thought, create art, and ponder our own existence sets us on another plane of life from the animals. Some people say this is because God made us that way. There are not "overwhelming" amounts of transitional creatures. There are only a few dozen or so which appear as though they might be transitional creatures even among all the animals. But a commonality in form, such a a cat and a tiger, or an ape and a chimp does not "prove" evolution. Creationists claim that God made the world using many of the same building blocks, and this explains commonality. Man shares about 95% of his genome with chimps. But we also share 75% of our genome with tapeworms! Mutations generally lead to horrible travesties and distortions. We don't ever witness large-scale mutations that are beneficial. Evolution demands we believe that the biological world is a result of billions of mutations. The universe as a whole is an exceedingly fine-tuned place. Check out this article by Discover magazine: http://discovermagazine.com/2000/nov/cover/# The rise of life from non-life continues to confound biologists. It appears to be completely impossible. Whether you believe in evolution or special creation, do not make the obtuse claim that we are simply here as the result of blind chance. The universe and life, and the uniqueness of man, demand more than a naturalistic explanation. The universe appears to have been designed as a place hospitable for life, life has emerged when it is naturalistically 'impossible', and man stands at the pinnacle of all creation asking a very odd question: "Why am I here?" May God bless you all as you seek the answer.