Evolution is a fact.

Thanks for the timely reply! Sorry for it being so long! Now that I start thinking about it a little more BOP (burden of proof) is on my shoulders. According to Scientific method in order for a hypothesis to become fact it has to be proved in all the cases by scientific peers. It can not be proved wrong on any occasion. So all Pro really needs to do is refute all my proofs that it can't happen. He can prove that it works 1 million times but if I prove once or twice it is false then it is a Theory not Scientific Fact." The words "except for..." are not in this universal law." [4] (sorry it took me awhile to find this) Rebuttal: Lets speculate that your endogenous retrovirus infected say a monkey 10 million years ago. By your reasoning that monkey had to evolve from something else that was infected by the virus. So we get this loop. What was the first thing infected by it? By your reasoning there is no way for it to start the circle. In order for the circle to start it had to find a weakness in an animal and infect it. We cannot assume it can find a weakness in everything but we also cannot assume it can only find a weakness in one thing. I agree we have similar traits to many things on Earth. We also have to remember that we all grew in the same condition....Earth. If a massive virus spread it is going to infect everything it can. It isn't going to go up to a fish and go "eww... I'm not going to infect you!" so we must speculate that when it started its circle it had the ability to infect anything with a weakness: fish, pigs, human, primates and even flying Norwegian pigs! Counter Argument: 1)This is truly my own idea. There are probably other people who came up with this first. If evolution was true then the best traits would survive. Agreed? Whales do not walk on land nor do they agree to stay on land for a long period of time. How would a water born animal evolve lungs? You would have to conclude that it happened slowly and over time. If a whale developed lungs slowly at some point of time it had to have both gills and lungs to transition between breathing air and water. It would also have to evolve a blow hole at about the same time or it would drown. How would this slowly happen without the animal dying? How would it increase it's likely hood to survive? Lets say it did evolve both lungs and gills to transition. Why don't I enjoy gills. I would enjoy swimming underwater and breathing air as well. This would not only greatly increase my chance at survival because I would have an extra place to run too but also it would aid in my ability to reproduce because I could survive. Why doesn't any fish enjoy the ability to easily transition from breathing air to water and back. Why isn't there any fish with legs that live in the water and will walk to other water sources when they feel it necessary. That fish would dominate. Yet, it doesn't exit. The lungfish is the closest in existence and it doesn't come close to this (it's lungs are not even lungs they are air sacks).[1] Yet, by the definition of evolution there should be thousand of fish walking on land and swimming in water. I agree that there are many fish that can breath air. None can do so efficiently enough to live there nor can they move on land. If this was such a great trait we would all have lungs and we would all have gills. In fact all mammals would have gills because there is no downfall of having both (You might be ugly). One of the first mammals a Glyptodont looks a lot like an armadillo; why don't all mammals have a very hard back. This has no downfall. You can't bite my behind! If my back would always be protected I would be better off for survival. [2] Woolly Mammoths are SUPER hairy. Eskimos are not. Chimpanzees are SUPER hairy. Eskimos are not. Eskimos are in below freezing weather yet they are just as bald as those that live near the equator. This makes no sense. Why would they loose their warm hair. Any trait you can deem reasonably able to increase the chance at survival should be considered a trait that would be carried on. Why have we lost so many great traits but kept useless ones like vestigial organs. 2)The Law of Biogenesis Definition noun (1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material[3] This is not only a stated fact but is still accepted as a Law. Until this law is disproved then evolution is false. 3)Probably the biggest thing alone was Quotes from people we all (should) know.... "Ernst Chain (1906-1979) was awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Chain identified the structure of penicillin, and isolated the active substance. He is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics. Concerning Darwin's theory of evolution, Chain found it to be "a very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that "it can hardly be called a theory."A He saw the reliance on chance mutations as a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts." He wrote:"These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism. He was born in Berlin, Germany, and obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology there. He worked as a research scientist at Cambridge (also studying for a Ph.D. there), at Oxford University until 1948, and then as a professor and researcher at several other universities. In 1938, Chain came across Alexander Fleming's 1929 paper on penicillin, and showed it to his colleague Howard Florey. In their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. --Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. April 2008. [5] "Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, and an evolutionist, wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology:" that "We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equilibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells." "We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution." [5] As humans we seem crazy advanced compared to say a...dog. A dog seems crazy advanced to say a.....blade of grass. A blade of grass seems crazy advanced to say a.... blood cell. So humans are SUPER SUPER SUPER SUPER advanced compared to a blood cell. I mean really can you see red blood cells building a Hoover dam? Well guess what you should be able to. Every cell is made up of proteins. These proteins that make up every microscopic cell are so advanced they "may only be described as transcalculational, a mathematical term for mind boggling." [5] In order for a virus to grow it needs these proteins. These proteins are just way to complicated to explain off by saying they originated from chaos. Conclusion: Evolution is definitely possible but there are way to means holes, bridges and jumps to conclude that it is fact. Whether I want to believe it is fact or not is irrelevant. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. If it can't be proved to be fact in all cases then it isn't fact. Do I care if evolution it a fact or not...no. Is there too many holes for it to be PROVED a fact. Yes. [1]http://animals.howstuffworks.com... [2]http://www.mnh.si.edu... [3]http://www.biology-online.org... [4]http://www.newgeology.us... [5]http://www.newgeology.us...