Evolution is a fact.

I will start with my Rebuttal "Evolution proves nothing at all unless you can produce the common ancestor"[1] "Since this is the concept of "shared errors" applied to endogenous retroviruses (and since retroviruses are a type of transposon), much of the two preceding responses is applicable. It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species. Evolution does not even predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species. After all, evolutionary theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs. This is but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution"[2] "Not all ERVs are nonfunctional. Some are transcriptionally active, and studies have revealed ERV protein expression in humans. We simply do not know all that ERVs (or other transposons) may be doing in an organism or what roles they may have played in the past."[1] As you can see from my source ERV's without a bridge or link to other species means practically nothing. ERV's are not just infecting new apes they must also have the ability to interact with humans and are not dormant like thought. You decided to bring up mathamatical odds. So I checked your souce and I couldn't find that number anywhere. Plus you stated "So the odds are 1 in 1,805,420,000,000,000,000,000billion that evolution is NOT a fact" so you must be on my side. Ill show some math though: "What are the mathematical odds against one real protein forming by chance? According to the Swiss mathematician, Dr. Charles E. Guye: If we could imagine unlimited material shaking itself together over vast time so that this material fully interacts, the odds against one protein molecule forming would be 100160 (100 multiplied by itself 160 times) to one. That means no chance at all. In fact, to meet those unimaginable odds, there would not be enough material in the whole universe to shake together. We would need more universes of material; and not just 3 or 4 more universes; but sextillion, sextillion, sextillion more universes to provide the material."[3] "Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN. Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that the probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. One out of ten to the 340 millionth power is unimaginable odds. This large figure is a "1" followed by 340,000,000 zeroes. As you can see, Morowitz' odds against even the simplest life evolving were infinitely more than 1*10^50, making them impossible."[4] So if you want to talk about math think about this: "The probability of your existing at all: 1 in 10^2,685,000"[5] Sorry, I used whales as an example without properly doing my research. That is my bad. I will still use a see born mammal though: Whales and Dolphins. "The following is a list of transitions evolutionists have to account for in the dolphin in its evolution from some unknown land dwelling pre-dolphin: The nose would have to move to the back of the head. Feet, claws or tail would be exchanged for fins and flippers. It would have to develop a torpedo shaped body for efficient swimming in the water. It would have to be able to drink sea water and desalinize it. It's entire bone structure and metabolism would have to be rearranged. It would need to develop a sophisticated sonar system to search for food. Could the dolphin acquire these features gradually one at a time over a period of millions of years? What about the transitional stages? Would they have survived with just some of these features? Consider the whale and its enormous size in comparison with the plankton it feeds upon. The whale is a nautical vacuum cleaner, with a baleen filter. While it was "developing" this feature, what did it feed upon before? For me, it takes a great stretch of the imagination to picture the evolution of dolphins and whales." [6] I agree there are fish that have legs, there are fish that can breath air, there are fish that can live on land for an extended period of time and can even dig down and survive a drought. My point is if a fish evolved onto land at some point in time it would have to have the ability to no only live a life on land but it woud also be able to live a life underwater. There are 0 fish than can live a prosperous live on either or. Having 2 processes to distribute oxygen is not a downfall. It would literally require hardly any energy and the point is not energy. If a trait makes it easier for a species to survive and reproduce then it will be passed on. No one can deny that the ability to live on either land or water, aquire food or have a place of refuge on either land or water woud be a trait that would make it easier to survive. Also just saying armadillo's don't sink. They are actually pretty good swimmers. 2)You stated "This law only applies to complex life. Humans have already been able to show how non-living organic material can replicate and eventually evolve into something that has all of life's traits. (this is sourced down below in a different section" That is a false statement. Biogenesis applies to all life by definition. Also life has never been created outside a lab. "Scientists who try to make life from chemicals call what they do 'origin of life research'. Here is one, biochemist David Deamer, who thought what he had made in the lab might work in the real world. In 2005 he poured a concoction of organic chemicals into a pool of hot water. He was just trying to make the walls of a cell, like the plastic case of a phone without the electronics inside. Did it work? Another 'origin of life' researcher wrote about it: "The answer was a resounding no. The clays and metal ions present in the Siberian pool blocked the chemical interactions." "Deamer's demonstration that we cannot translate lab results to natural settings is valuable." "This provocative insight explains why the origin-of-life field has been short on progress over the past half-century"[6] 3)You stated "3)Your first quotation doesn't even include any arguments against evolution all it is, is some guy ranting and throwing attacks, he doesn't even say which part of evolution he disagrees with." You do realise you are talking about Ernst Chain...the inventor of Penicillin. If you think you are smarter than this man and can just dismiss his views then I might as well stop arguing. Also 99% of scientist agreeing with it doesn't mean it is true. 99% of scientist used to believe the Earth was flat and only Gay people got HIV/AIDS 4)So if evolution doesn't contain the origin of life then we are arguing about Creationism and Evolution as one? You stated "meaning humans didn't directly create these proteins they showed how they would be created" If humans didn't create them it is an idea not a fact. Conclusion: Whether Evolution is true doesn't matter. If it can't be proven undoubtedly then it is not a FACT. Evolution is to spotty to be considered a fact...for now. Thanks! I ran out of room! [1]http://egoeimi3.wordpress.com... [2]http://www.trueorigin.org... [3]http://www.salvemariaregina.info... [4]http://www.scribd.com... [5]http://blog.adw.org... [6]http://www.newgeology.us...