Evolution

I hope this ends our debate in that other debate's comment section (I think it's at around 100 comments now). Anyways, I will begin with my opening statement. The first thing I'd like to address is that evolution is a theory. We cannot take it as factual. I'd like to just cite it as a theory, "Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. "(1). The reason I did this is because many assume it is a fact. Now, to quickly define how evolution works since my main problem with evolution is how it apparently works, "Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable. [4] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. "(1). So the whole theory of evolution can be summed as such: 1) There are too many beings for them all to survive. 2) Each being has different traits which changes their chance to reproduce or survive. 3) The traits from #2 above are heritable. 4) The beings with the best traits are the ones who survive (natural selection). My entire argument will be based on proving all these things false. If I can prove that one of the steps within evolution are not possible, then evolution itself cannot be possible. 1) There are too many beings for them all to survive. This is the main driving force for evolution. There has to be too many of whatever offspring that not all of them can survive, so they end up competing for food, etc. There are a few questions I have then; If this is true, then why would there be any other species in the first place? If evolution is true and "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. "(1), then why would there be any other species? Basically, evolution states that the ones with the best traits survive. If there is a limited number of food, then wouldn't there be 1 top animal or offspring of some sort that dominated the rest? Basically what I am saying is, if back in the time of the "universal ancestor" there was a limited amount of food, etc. to survive, then wouldn't there be 1 specific offspring that dominated (basically, since there would be only 1 species at the time, and evolution happens, then wouldn't it have consistently created 1 species)? If not, does that mean evolution has an on and off switch? Sometimes when there is not enough food to survive and what not it happens, yet other times it doesn't? How can people in places like Ethiopia, etc. haven't evolved? There is not much food in poor places as those, yet they seem to still be suffering and not developing a special trait that is hereditary that helps survival. Or can you prove that they have been? I'll leave it at those basic arguments for #1 since we can go all over the place with #1. 2) Each being has different traits which changes their chance to reproduce or survive So here's what I don't understand - does evolution have an on and off switch? According to the theory, it does. Evolution only happens, according to the theory, when there is a lack of something like food, etc. So what I want to know is, what are the limits? If there is a lack of sex, will we evolve beyond that? Moreover, there has been studies to prove this does not happen, ". .. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4"(2). 3) The traits from #2 above are heritable. I have a question. If this is true, then how can short people can have tall children? Wouldn't they also be short because of evolution? Their height is a physical feature, right? So how can they have tall children? 4) The beings with the best traits are the ones who survive (natural selection). Here is my problem with this one. Remember, it is the beings with the best traits are the ones who survive. Then explain to me, how can humans have been de-evolving so to speak? According to evolution, the opposite should happen yet it isn't, "'Even our most highly trained athletes pale in comparison to these ancestors of ours,' Dr Colin Shaw told Outside Magazine. 'We're certainly weaker than we used to be. ' The study looked at skeletons dating back to around 5,300 BC with the most recent to 850 AD - a time span of 6,150 years. It then compared the bones to that of Cambridge University students, and found the leg bones of male farmers 5,300 BC were just as good as those of highly-trained cross-country runners. "(3). One more quote in case that wasn't convincing enough, "An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly. Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors. And if that's not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller. The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development. The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years. They blame agriculture, with restricted diets and urbanisation compromising health and leading to the spread of disease. "(3). So my question is, how are we surviving according to evolution? You can't say it's because of our intellect, etc. because not only have our brains shrunken, but that is not a hereditary feature anyways (I mean intellect/knowledge. If it was, we wouldn't have school). I have presented my main argument which his, evolution itself is only a theory. Moreover, it is a theory that has yet to be proven. We can have the theory of gravity and see gravity, when you jump you fall down. However, where is the evidence of evolution being witnessed? You can cite fossils, bones, etc. all you want. If you can not cite one example of evolution being witnessed, then you can't call it science or factual, "In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. "(4). So I ask, if evolution is scientific, when has evolution ever been reliably applied? Resources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://www.icr.org... (3) . http://investmentwatchblog.com... (4) . http://en.wikipedia.org...