[Free2BeMe]

"Perhaps you should understand reality instead of believing everything science tells you because science is constantly being proven wrong and having to backtrack.

Reality requires faith? And you find this where? The Koran, Rig Veda, or ??"

Where in that sentence does it say reality requires faith?

And as far as support for evolution, support is not proof, show me the proof.

"Again harping on proof. See the following discussion of scientific terms and note the role of theory."

Instead of arguing about the meaning of words in scientific terms and other semantics how about offering an argument for Evolution?

[JeffAtlanta]

And as far as support for evolution, support is not proof, show me the proof.

You have been told many times that science does not deal in proof. It's not just trivial semantics - it's a very important point.

There is a huge amount of evidence in support of biological evolution. That is why it is accepted as a scientific theory rather than just an hypothesis.

The DNA evidence by itself is overwhelming evidence. Try looking at any of Incheun's posts on retro-viruses.

[Coyoteman]

Instead of arguing about the meaning of words in scientific terms and other semantics how about offering an argument for Evolution?

OK, here is a small sample.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Coyoteman]

how about offering an argument for Evolution?

More? Lots more where this came from.

Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

[Dimensio]

And as far as support for evolution, support is not proof, show me the proof.

You are demanding a standard for evolution to which absolutely no field in science is ever held. Nothing in science is ever "proven", it can only be supported by evidence or confirmed false through contradictory observations.

I'm getting sick of telling this to people who claim that evolution is somehow untenable. If you don't understand this fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry then you certainly are not qualified to speak on perceived weaknesses of any scientific theory.