It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

Three (very simplified) examples of indisputable evidence of Evolution:

1. Comparative Biochemistry. The agreement of the biochemical evidence with the anatomical evidence illustrates an important consideration when evaluating the strength of evolutionary theory: namely that our 20th century ability to compare the biochemical similarities among species provided a test of evolutionary theory which had been mainly based on the evidence from 19th century comparative anatomical studies, biogeography and a limited fossil record. If the same overall pattern of biochemical similarities did not agree with the pattern based on anatomical comparisons, evolutionary theory would have been in serious trouble. But the patterns do agree and evolutionary theory is all the stronger because of that.

2. The Fossil Sequence for hominids is a study of the general pattern present in the overall fossil record. That pattern is that modern species are not found throughout the fossil record from top to bottom - which they should be if all species were formed at one time at the very beginning of life on this planet. Instead, what we discover is less evidence of modern species as we go deeper into the fossil and geological record - a pattern that is precisely predicted by evolutionary theory and is also the only pattern evolutionary theory allows for. The chance of this being a coincidence (especially combined with the other tests) is obscenely small.

3. Fossil Intermediates. This refers to the fact that, regardless of the mode or rate of evolutionary change, there should be evidence of morphological continuity over time in the fossil record if species are evolutionarily linked and related to one another. Is there a better classroom example one can use to illustrate this point than a fossil like Lucy with her mixture of ape-like and humanlike features?

Ref: www.talkorigins.org

Freediver evolution is a principle of nature described through science. Are you really refuting a natural process or trying to discredit science to serve a political agenda? The only conclusion that I can come to for your resons to drag science dowen to the level of superstition where we find ID and creationism is that you are attempting to discredit science. Science is not hocus pocus religion but you neglect to support your assertion. Philosophy is just soft posturing and fantasy pandering , philosophy has nothing to do with evolution. Why not do your cause and agenda service and answer my question rather than paste irrelevant links to avoid answering?

West, Perhaps you might answer how more complex biological species developed without intelligent design innate or selected latent DNA features within the gene? Is the emerging development of species designed by some intelligent influence or is it random accidental occurrences? Where does the additional DNA information come from?

Philo, I'm getting pretty tired of answering your same question again and again.

You don't get 'new DNA' from anywhere. DNA is a code. Like this:

12 pages of this: 14398571249783461345816 might get you the genetic code of a simple organism. Rearrange two of the numbers, and that may result in a mutation. If that mutation happens to provide an advantage in a changing environment, it will be more likely to be passed on, and eventually become a dominant gene.

See? No new information, just rearranging. Of course every time a new organism is born, it gets a code that has never existed before, one of billions of potential combinations of the two parents.

Your question has now been answered, so stop asking it please.

was right.
He had some good points to make West, but not very well researched, but all he was in his time; is what Michael Moore is in ours; feeding the masses what they want to hear and cashing in on it.
Opportunity seekers.

Actually, if you take some points that Daniken mentioned, and research it in depth, the findings are astonishing.

You have to give the E T Hypothesis crowd (Out side of Erik Von Daniken); 100 points; there research is very detailed and accurate, but surprised;
Similar to the biblical recall.

You should write an article on it, the mathematics involved is brilliant and revealing in what some consider The Alien Intervention.
And it is a bit like applying the handbrake whilst traveling on the Free way of Evolutionary Hypothesis.. and then go oooooow interesting.
I did love the sound track to the documentary though , I have a link to it somewhere.