It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God.

"First, intelligent design does not necessarily mean perfect design. Maybe the design was perfect at the start, but the creature evolved over time."Right, but typically a 0.1% success rate is not deemed intelligent. You would not call a student who gets 0.1% of answers right in a particular area an intelligent student in that area. Obviously the design was not perfect at the start if 99.9% of the original design is now extinct.The human appendix used to serve very important functions (the digesting of grass if I'm not mistaken). However, we know that humans can live healthy lives without their appendix, making its functions less than important. The appendix certainly isn't a bad thing to have in your digestive system, but it's really not too necessary. Some examples of useless vestigial structures in our bodies alone include the third eyelid, wisdom teeth, and our tailbone."I only oppose evolution when it comes to genetic mutation causing the creation entirely new species."The link you've provided is for a Christian blog, I hardly consider that a reliable source on the topic of science. Anyone who posts an article titled "Prophecy Fulfilled – Evidence that Supports the Bible" should probably not be taken seriously.That being said, we have already seen genetic mutation contribute in creating a new species. However, evolution does not rely on genetic mutation or any other singular factor to create every new species. Rather, its a combination of several factors that contribute to the evolutionary process, which is why the theory of evolution can be modified to begin with. In fact, it is genetic variation that plays a larger role in creating new species. Genetic variation depends on mating patterns, migration, genetic drift, and distribution of individuals within a population among other things (http://www.nature.com...).You seem to be missing the point that evolution and emergence of new species is the result of a number of different factors.Chromosome 2 is not a scientific law because scientific laws require usually require some sort of mathematically equation to predict outcomes based on different scenarios. The article I provided was from 2003, which is likely why Chromosome 2 fusion was considered a hypothesis. Either way, the evidence strongly supports the hypothesis. However, using the criteria above regarding scientific theory, we could easily argue that the theory/hypothesis of chromosome 2 could be modified based on the fact that we do not know what caused the fusion. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that chromosome 2 is not a fusion of two chromosomes."Looking at the Smithsonian website you cited, the exhibit does not appear to be in support of human evolution from another species." I did not say evolution from another species. I said evolution of humans. The title of the page I linked is reads "Human Evolution Evidence.""but I don't see any evidence that humans evolved from apes." We did not evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor. Overwhelming evidence for this can be found when you compare human and chimpanzee genomes."Similarities between species is not proof for evolution. An intelligent designer would have, in fact, most likely used similar components of design in different places." No, but it's overwhleming evidence. I'm amazed that you think you know what an intelligent designer would have done."As far as making a perfect tree, all Dawkins is doing is cherrypicking parts of the evidence and using it to prove his claims."He is actually using DNA sequencing and comparing genomes. This is not cherrypicking. "evolution depends on unproven science, and on data that does not yet exist." This is the difference between evolution and ID. ID depends on an unprovable creator. Evolution depends on science that can be proven. Just because it has not happened yet does not mean it won't occur. People used to think the sun revolved around the earth. The "unproven" science of the earth revolving around the sun has since been proven. "You yourself admit this when you say that the theory of evolution has to be modified as new data becomes available."Correct, that's why it is called the theory of evolution. "You are making the assumption that all of this new information will support evolution, which cannot be proven."I don't make this assumption. I say the new information would modify the theory of evolution, which would either further support the theory itself or would result in making evolution less valid. However, considering that all the evidence supports evolution, I am more than confident any future data will support evolution. "Intelligent Design Using the Scientific Method"I believe the term CSI was popularized from the book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology.Before I rebuke your argument, let me just post a coupple reviews of this book: "Jason Rosenhouse, a mathematics professor at James Madison University claim Dembski's book contributes nothing to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design since Dembski's assertions ride on Behe's claim, and that claim is false." (The Design Detectives)"When Dembski says that information cannot be generated naturally, he seems to be voicing yet another muddled version of the common creationist assertion that the second law forbids the generation of order by natural processes. Like his predecessors, he ignores the caveat "closed system" in the formal statement of the second law." (Stenger, Victor (December 2000). "The Emperor's New Designer Clothes". Skeptical Inquirer) Anyway, the whoe idea of CSI really does not make any sense. You say "complex=unlikely." However, nothing about evolution is unlikely. Genetic mutation is random; natural selection is predictable. Of course a successful model of life and survival would appear intelligent, but you're ignoring the 99.9% of species that are long since extinct. If successful, survivng species are a sign of intelligence, unsuccessful, extinct species should be considered a sign of unintelligence. Your observation is invalid; making your scientific method invalid.If intelligent design were true, it would undermine the beauty of nature because nature would not be natural. It would all be designed by some creator. All the imagination and wonder and curiosity surrounding life and how it got to where it is today would be lost."As I have shown above, my claims are scientific, not empty-headed, and are supported by many leading scientists throughout the world."Your claims are not scientific. They are less empty-headed than creation, but require the same degree of denial. Your claims are not supported by any reputable evolutionary biologists. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It requires no faith. Faith is believing in some based on nothing. There are no claims the make evolution invalid.I know that science will provide the world with information that can be used to modify the theory of evolution. It will always remain a theory because the influence of the different factors that contribute to evolution will always vary from species to species.Finally, to everyone: Thanks for following the debate. I encourage you to do your own research, but to realize that evolution, the process by which different living organisms have developed and diversified from their ancestors is a fact. Please do not teach your children or other people's children pseduo-scientific nonsense like creation and intelligent design. They deserve to know what the scientific explanation is for the complexity of the world we live in.Be rational, think logically, and use your head for more than a hatrack.